New to this case and new to the forum

[leslievernon]

there is a thing that i tried to confirm but i was never able to do it, maybe someone can help me:

a clip from an interview with insp. gitchell in which he talks about blood samples from the bojangles restaurant. that they were sent to the lab, were tested there, then sent back, having nothing to do with the case.
[during E/B trial, det. ridge said that the blood samples never arrived at the lab, and that he "lost a piece of evidence".]

can anybody confirm that? apparently it is exclusively on HBO Demand, from "Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory" Deleted Scenes, which showed never before seen-footage from PL1.

i never saw it. just heard it.


also, just as a sidenote:
i read about - actually here at WS in the bojangles thread - that so many think that the bojangles guy couldn't do anything cause he had his arm in a cast.
well... was it a real cast?

what did the owner marty king say at the trial:

Q: Wasn't there something about he had a cast or something on his arm?
A: Yes, sir. From, from thinking about it when I saw him sitting in there--he had a velcro cast, you can buy them at Wal-Mart, [unintelligibile] wherever but it was on his left arm.
Q: Is that the arm where the blood was?
A: No, sir.
Q: Okay, go ahead.
A: It was blue in color with the white velcro strips that--that would fasten it on his arm.
Q: Okay. And where was the blood, which...?
A: As he was kneeling in the--with his head in his lap, it would be on his right arm that it was coming off 'cause it was on that side of the toilet.

so a cheap DIY cast, not a proper cast, on the left arm, and most propably shot in the right arm...

 

[Userid]

Yes, it was in one of those movies -- maybe West of Memphis; can't remember which.

People like Carson (i.e. already incarcerated) tend to make up bull s**t stories in order to "get a break" (shorten) on the time they're already serving. Many people have tried that in this case -- just wait until you come across the Guy/Stewart affidavits. Guy/Stewart, in my view, are just as credible as Carson. The only difference is, who they pin the crime on.

Unsure how perjury laws work -- if there is a statue of limitations, etc.

 

[Userid]

Don't recall specifically that scene with Gitchell, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's been a while since I've seen that movie.

I always assumed that Bojangles had the cast on before he got injured. If he didn't, he would have had to have gone to the Walmart near Bojangles, stolen (or purchased?) it -- while already injured -- then gone to Bojangles. Why would he do this, when I'm sure Walmart had a bathroom?

I imagine King is talking about something like this. I remember a family member of mine had to wear one of these after a football injury, and it looked exactly like this (this occurred in the 90's). Believe they're more for sprains. This is an ankle cast, but Walmart probably sells one for wrists/arms as well. https://www.walmart.com/ip/Dmi-Air-Cast-Ankle-Braces-Standard-Rig/36782311

 

[leslievernon]

i first thought he had a sling... so he improvised a sling out of cloth, for the shot arm...
anyway - bleeding, muddy shoes, wet pants - the shot that ryan clarke heard - the single negroid hair that was found... i just don't believe in coincidences like that.

but we'll never know.
i am not saying that the black guy had anything to do with the killing of the boys... but somebody did not want him there. and IMO someone from the searchers shot the bojangles guy.

 

[Userid]

i first thought he had a sling... so he improvised a sling out of cloth, for the shot arm...
anyway - bleeding, muddy shoes, wet pants - the shot that ryan clarke heard - the single negroid hair that was found... i just don't believe in coincidences like that.

but we'll never know.
i am not saying that the black guy had anything to do with the killing of the boys... but somebody did not want him there. and IMO someone from the searchers shot the bojangles guy.

I thought it was someone else who heard the supposed gun shot. JMB, maybe? They weren't sure if it was a gun shot or a car back firing.

Ryan C. heard the 5 splashes (in the Devil's Den area, the night he searched for the boys) I always found it eerie how he and his friends heard 5 splashes, and there were 3 victims and 2 bikes.

 

[leslievernon]

from RCs may 12th statement:

"Ryan found a skateboard about 6 houses from his on the side of the street.
States that he went to the woods --with Brett Smith. E. Q. H. S. at about 9:00 pm. Richiy Masters and Robbie were with them. Went in from the Goodwin dead end -- went @ the end to the bayou by the swing. Heard what sounded like 5 real loud splashes in the water.
States that he heard the grass and brush crackling.
After the first two splashes Ryan yelled--hello--is anyone over there. After the 3rd splash Britt and Ryan got scared and ran back to the dead end. States that he & Britt ran down W.E. Catt until they got to the dead end of McCauley. Ran to the end towards the pipe--found Richey and Robbie and told them what they had heard. When they got to the pipe they heard a gunshot."

did he say at the trial that it could have been a car backfiring...? can't remember.
anyway to think about that the perp got rid of the boys AND the bikes... i mean, that would be extremly brazen, i mean... but with this case, everything's possible.

 

[Userid]

Good find, it slipped my mind they heard the gunshot too. I could have sworn JMB also heard a gunshot, and he dismissed it as a car backfiring, but I could be wrong.

I do find it very possible that the 5 splashes RC heard were by the killer(s) and that the purpose was to scare the searchers away. I think the killer(s) probably used big rocks to scare them. The fact that he heard the "grass and bush crackling" in addition to the five splashes, makes it seem like human activity as opposed to an animal.

 

[leslievernon]

to scare someone away - yes, i think so too. and no, it was no turtles..
but think about it - at that time, the killer must have anticipated that parents, neighbors, were already in the woods... when did the group of parents left dana moores driveway.. ca. 20:30. and they were in the woods easily at 9, yelling....

this is just frigging perplexing. i have to laugh even.

 

[Userid]

to scare someone away - yes, i think so too. and no, it was no turtles..
but think about it - at that time, the killer must have anticipated that parents, neighbors, were already in the woods... when did the group of parents left dana moores driveway.. ca. 20:30. and they were in the woods easily at 9, yelling....

this is just frigging perplexing. i have to laugh even.

Yes. The question is, why would the killer(s) be in the Devil's Den area at this time, though? The Devil's Den (where RC heard these splashes) is far from where the bodies were found (perhaps "far" is the wrong word, but separate -- it's on the other side of the bayou and about 1-2 blocks away from the pipe bridge, going east). This is closer to where the boys were last seen -- where they entered the woods (Goodwin). So, we have two options:

The main crime site was in the Devil's Den (i.e. the murders actually occurred here). The bodies/bikes were moved to the discovery culvert because the killer(s) knew RC was close to eventually finding them and that the bodies would be found if they were kept in the bayou at Devil's Den. The killer(s) were in the process of moving the victims and their bikes (perhaps this took separate trips to and from the discovery culvert), when they heard RC and the searchers.

or

The abduction site was the Devil's Den. Perhaps the killer(s) saw the boys enter here, and followed them, abducted them, brought them to the discovery culvert area (Blue Beacon Woods, part of Robin Hood Hills), and committed the murders there. Then, the killer(s) returned to the abduction site (Devil's Den) while RC was searching. Perhaps the killer(s) returned to make sure they didn't leave anything behind at the abduction site.

Sometimes, I wonder if, instead of being in a manhole initially (which I've never believed personally, but I digress), the bodies were initially in the 10 Mile Bayou by the Devil's Den.

 

[leslievernon]

good thinking...
but that reflects my whole point actually: why... just why would he stay there - devil's den, RHH, doesn't matter - so late (estimating he had roughly 2 hours - 6:30 to 8:30 - where there's only him and the victims), and no more alone.. and not to forget, when was sunset on may 5th 93 - 7:49pm.

you know.. reg. the exact place in those woods, there would be a person who could definitely say where exactly the boys secret hideout was:
george taylor (and that could be the infamous "boy named george", named by MB and TH), a schoolmate, was most probably that george.

reg. searching manholes:
and i am searching for 30 mins here at Press Coverage for that gitchell article and cannot find it... believe me i saw the article and wrote those questions down:
which evidence, if anything, was found in the storm drains at RHH on may 12th 1993?
why did the WMPD wait a week to search them (like it said in newspapers on may 13th)?
the storm drains in the neighborhood were searched already in the morning of may 6th.

damn it, i should have been more precise (like which newspaper wrote it)

ETA: interesting to know that the WMPD dismissed the satanic angle very early on, even before peretti was finished with his report:
"Police have found no evidence that the boys were killed during a cult-like ritual, as some West Memphians have been speculating, he [gitchell] said."

source: Commercial Appeal, May 11th, 1993

still they had to desperately do it at the trials...

 

[Alyssa Edwards]

am i really getting so old or what...-where did michael carson talk into camera that he is sorry he lied blablabla... was it WoM or PL3? i swear he's on camera apologizing to jason. years later.

@Alyssa
yes, that makes you very angry... i don't know if they ever received proper punishment for that.

I remember seeing him apologise too, I think it was wom

 

[leslievernon]

"I remember seeing him apologise too, I think it was wom"
yes, could be... 2011 i think. 2012.

it is not some bandwagon-thing why the parents of the boys changed their opinions...
well, todd moore being an exception, he never changed his mind, i guess. and he has every right to think so.

Alyssa, i know you are doing your own reading, and you should, but here are just some of the open questions, that i wrote down years ago, with the help of others. that is such a reason why the parents got sceptical reg. the investigation. some we already discussed. (TH specific questions not included in the following list although there are some):

1. what did stevie wear after 5pm on may 5th?
[very important since the killer apparently felt the need to switch clothes]
2. how long do green beans need to get fully digested?
[the defense did ask to receive the green vegetable like material (out of stevie's stomach) from the crime lab, but i think they wrote back that it was no more, how do you say, useable.]
3. why did the WMPD expect the crime lab to find a pocketknife in one of the boys' trousers?
[interesting question..]
4. what kind of animal hairs were found on the bodies?
[this is such an important question yet they never made a specific test]
5. was a foreign shoelace used to bind michael moore?
[any kind of DNA, skin cells.. could only come from the killer]
6. did the WMPD make impressions of the naked feet of the victims?
7. what exactly indicates that the ditchbank was the actual crime scene?
8. why was the clothing of the victims never identified by the victim's parents?
[DA ellington still refused pam hobbs to take a look at the evidence, claiming it was an ongoing investigation.. that was nov. 2012, more than a year after the 3 got out.]
9. was michael's wallet found in chris byers' jeans? where was michael's sheriff star found?
10. where was michael's "secret hide-out"?
11. did george taylor meet one of the victims after school on may 5th 93?
12. did stevie or michael (or chris) tell george what they were about to do later on that day?
13. wouldn't it be necessary to recover a considerable amount of documents, redacted by the FBI, in order to start a new investigation?
[now that is interesting... yes, echols wrote a letter to the FBI in sept. 94. asking for help. the links on my old blog are dead, but try this. Braga v. FBI. you have to wade through that.. i did it in 2012 when it came out, only halfway, and noted this:
2 hairs (one on the buttock and one on the neck of a victim) were sent to analysis. i have to look it up myself, but, where are the test results of that? i noted that there are some things written in there that nobody has ever heard in 18 years..there has to be more than there is on callahan]
14. was a black 9mm handgun found at or near the crime scene?
[there was fuzz about the gun back then... but now i think it was more fuzz than fact - everybody who can find a word about it, in a legal document, please post it]
15. were the blood samples from the Bojangles restaurant sent to the state crime lab?
[see our discussion from today reg. deleted scenes from PL3]
16. why was the bojangles incident so recklessly botched?
[did they even phone emergency rooms in that area...? well, if the guy was a criminal then i guess he went to no emergency room.. idk]
17. could stevie enter the house after the others left and before hobbs drove back home?
18. did stevie own red/white shorts? if yes, was it missing after may 5th 93?

 

[Userid]

leslievernon, only PH and JMB are supporters. TM, DM, TH are still believe they're guilty. MB passed away (under strange circumstances, but I digress), but at the time of her death, she also believed the WM3 were guilty.

A lot of these questions are based on speculation -- such as, OB Jr.'s report that the boys were wearing "red shorts." This has never, in the slightest, been substantiated. Same with the supposed "knife" the SB "always carried with him." Again, never substantiated -- this was floated by either PH or one of PH's family members when they were trying to pin the murder on TH, so that isn't exactly a "credible" source, considering all of PH's family (and PH) hated TH at the time. This of course didn't last forever, particularly with PH, who once again became friendly with TH and last I checked, doesn't believe he had anything to do with the murders. Here they are together some time after those films were shot and the WM3 were released, to prove my point: Terry Hobbs: A Day at the Park

So again, many of these questions are impossible to answer because they are based on pure speculation.

 

[dogmatica]

Thanks Dogmatica -- yes, contrary to popular belief, the WM3 are probably the strongest suspects in the case. I know supporters won't like that, but when you look at everything, that is the conclusion. That said, and although they are the strongest suspects (compared to people like TH, etc.), I don't believe they should have been convicted, particularly DE and JB -- since they were tried separately from JM and JM didn't testify in their trial, therefore his confession should have only been factored in his trial. The WM3 might be the strongest suspects in the case, but even so, there isn't a substantial amount of evidence against anybody in this case. Supporters are wrong when they say that there is a mountain of evidence in favor of the WM3's innocence, but nons are also wrong when they say there is a mountain of evidence in favor of their guilt. There is no mountain, period.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the "mountain of evidence"...when I look at the totality of the evidence, everything thing added up against all 3 of them, it's so utterly glaring to me that they are guilty. Perhaps if you take one piece at a time, without the context of the other pieces (save for Misskelley's multiple confessions), you can attempt to explain it away or sweep it under the rug (as supporters do). But adding it all together, and looking at context, as well as the behavior of the Wm3 before, during and after trial...in all the years I've been reading about this case (and remember, I went in thinking I was going to watch a movie about wrongly convicted Metallica fans), not one, not one single thing has led me to believe they are innocent. Every single angle that supporters use to display their innocence has been debunked or totally blown out of the water.

You say you don't think DE and JB should've been convicted (I'm assuming you mean technically) - but so you have an actual opinion as to whether they did it or not? If no, what has been presented that makes you think they didn't commit this crime?

 

[leslievernon]

sure some are speculation... if the WMPD did not care for example about the lace-problems, which is just crucial in my opinion, then we can only speculate...
yes, Userid... i know you don't wanna hear about hobbs being the killer, but they all did not like him, and i know those pics from hobbs homepage (ask yourself why someone felt the need to create a homepage post-2007) that doesn't change a thing.

 

[Userid]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the "mountain of evidence"...when I look at the totality of the evidence, everything thing added up against all 3 of them, it's so utterly glaring to me that they are guilty. Perhaps if you take one piece at a time, without the context of the other pieces (save for Misskelley's multiple confessions), you can attempt to explain it away or sweep it under the rug (as supporters do). But adding it all together, and looking at context, as well as the behavior of the Wm3 before, during and after trial...in all the years I've been reading about this case (and remember, I went in thinking I was going to watch a movie about wrongly convicted Metallica fans), not one, not one single thing has led me to believe they are innocent. Every single angle that supporters use to display their innocence has been debunked or totally blown out of the water.

You say you don't think DE and JB should've been convicted (I'm assuming you mean technically) - but so you have an actual opinion as to whether they did it or not? If no, what has been presented that makes you think they didn't commit this crime?

Yes, agree to disagree -- I don't see a mountain personally. There is evidence against them -- I agree with that; probably more than anybody else -- but much of it is circumstantial.

Yes, technically -- I'd say there is a difference between saying "they shouldn't have been convicted (technically)" and in believing they did it (or leaning that way, etc.). The plain fact of the matter is that, the jury foreman introduced JM's confession in jury deliberations -- that alone was grounds for a mistrial and was incredibly stupid.

 

[Userid]

sure some are speculation... if the WMPD did not care for example about the lace-problems, which is just crucial in my opinion, then we can only speculate...
yes, Userid... i know you don't wanna hear about hobbs being the killer, but they all did not like him, and i know those pics from hobbs homepage (ask yourself why someone felt the need to create a homepage post-2007) that doesn't change a thing.

Well, not really -- it shows that PH does indeed like him now -- and yes, that matters, considering the allegations she hurled against him in the past.

 

[dogmatica]

"They were able to gather a certain percentage of a dna match to at least one of the boys with the pendant."

what certain percentage of a DNA match? .. this feels like pulling teeth. don't you think the state would have waved that in front of the defense's face while all that was going on in 2011, at one point... or any damning results of a re-testing of jessie's t-shirt with actual blood on it...?

You'll dismiss the necklace but a single hair that might be Hobbs' seals the deal for you??

 

[Userid]

what has been presented that makes you think they didn't commit this crime?

This is a good question. As I said, I like to look at each individual. DE and JM, to me, were capable -- but there was really nothing in JB's background that pointed to him ever being capable of murder. DE's mental report (hurting animals, etc.) and JM's napoleon complex (beating kids up regularly, etc.) were definitely red flags, but to me, JB didn't have any of these. Of course, that doesn't mean it's impossible for him to have participated.

There is nothing that has been presented for me to think anybody else -- particularly -- committed this crime, but that is only factoring in the people that have been presented thus far. Bojangles: no. Jacoby: no. TH: no. On the flip side, even those I still suspect -- JMB, TC, OB -- there is suspicion based on statements and actions, but nothing concrete to prove they did it. No smoking gun, so to speak.

 

[leslievernon]

i agree with Userid reg. JB. the jury should have seen this boy on the witness stand, that would have made an end to any diabolical or whatever thoughts the people might have had reg. him.
putting echols on the stand wasn't such a good idea.

@dogmatica
You'll dismiss the necklace but a single hair that might be Hobbs' seals the deal for you??

1. don't tell me what is sealed for me or not.
2. among the hairs that were found, 2 hairs that - most probably - belonged to TH and DJ found there at the scene (tree stump, remember?), putting together with everything else i know like DJ not corroborating with THs alibi multiple times... DJ had nothing to do with it imo.
that's how i look at it. nothing is 100% here but to me it goes into one specific direction... a stepfather. it is crazy why anybody thinks this is not common, that people close to the victims should be seen as suspects first, before looking at strangers.