alright, calm down a bit, please.
this is the Nth time i am confronted with everything that you said...
let's get right to the evidence:
1. no DNA from any of the WM3 was found at the scene. ..helpful, actually, if you claim you're innocent.
2. can you tell me exactly which shoelace from which shoe was used to bind which ankle and/or wrist from which victim?
... yes, there we go. that was tough figuring that all out back then but it was a collaborative effort and imo a very valuable one. the state crime lab could not figure out which belonged to which, i mean.. like they cared. the laces were cut, in order to bind up the boys. also important.
a "reddish beard hair", was the only thing found on one of the laces. mtDNA confirmed it was terry hobbs. look at a pic of him during the trial - red hair, red beard.
now i don't say that it had to have come from steven's lace - secondary transfer, i got you - but.... the ice is very thin here - could it be from mike's lace.. from chris' lace... highly interesting, especially when they found no hair from any other parent.
you put that strong piece of evidence together with everything else we know about this suspect - a suspect that NEVER was a suspect for the WMPD, a guy who was NEVER asked by police until 14 f*ing years after the crime.....
why would they ignore a stepfather like that?
this guy had a violent temper, hated his own son (and vice versa) and HAD a window of opportunity on may 5th - don't believe me - read the affidavit of his good pal david jacoby, who was with him some of the time during the search, but not all the time... hobbs thought he had an alibi through jacoby, but jacoby f*ed his alibi up, by giving a detailed, credible account of that evening.
hey - don't listen to me, stick with misskelleys outrageous story... the way i see it, this crime was far more realistic.
Being emphatic doesn't make one hysterical. I'm quite calm, thank you.
1. No DNA was found from anyone at the scene - supporters use this all the time and it's bunk. This isn't CSI the TV show - if you actually do a little research (besides watching crime dramas) you'd know DNA is not nearly as huge an "A-HA!" moment as it is on TV. Circumstantial evidence is used all the time for convictions. Their DNA not being found at a muddy, soggy crime scene is not in any way, shape or form an exoneration. DNA is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt someone's guilt. An incidental hair that
may belong to the stepfather of one of the kids is doesn't mean anything. All those kids were at Hobbs' house at different points. I live alone and have short hair and have found plenty of long hairs around my house - means absolutely nothing.
2. Huh? No, why would I know that and what does that have to do with anything? You want to bring up the shoelaces? How about the fact that all 3 boys were tied with THREE distinctive style knots? So Hobbs wrangled these 3 boys, tied them each up one at a time, used totally different knots for each and then inflicted all that damage? Let's attempt a little critical thinking here.
Get your facts straight - the hair most certainly was NOT confirmed to be Hobbs. He couldn't be eliminated as the owner of said hair - and even if it was his - you need to look up and try to understand secondary transfer. Not finding any other parent's hair means nothing as well. Nothing.
You completely disregard the overwhelming totality of the evidence of the twice convicted WM3 and go on a hair (that MAYBE belongs to Hobbs) and the fact that he's a , and come up with -the WM3 are innocent and it was Hobbs? Wow.
So you'll disregard Echols' 500 but Hobbs purported temper and the assumption he "hated" his stepson sealed the deal for you? How about Echols' violent and disturbing temper and propensity for violence that was DOCUMENTED by SEVERAL health care professionals before he killed those children? Talk about choosing your facts to fit your (incredibly far fetched) narrative. You point to flimsy non evidence against Hobbs and rug sweep everything on the WM3. Either you haven't actually done any real research, or you are being obtuse.
Alibis? What was Jason's alibi again? Oh right - he didn't even attempt to present one. How about Echols? Oh right - he got busted on the stand LYING about his alibi - decimated. Misskelly? Sorry, the wrestling "alibi" has been debunked.
And how can any rational person possibly explain someone confessing over and over and over again, pre AND post conviction (when there was absolutely nobody to "coerce" him), knowing things that weren't public, the whiskey bottle, swearing on the bible that he and Echols and Balwdin DID this, while his lawyer pleads and demands he STOP confessing?
If Misskelley was so incredibly malleable and convinced to say anything anyone would tell him, why did that ability to be so easily manipulated vanish when it came to his own lawyer demanding he stop confessing, when it would be in his best interest? You can't have it both ways. You can't make up facts to fit your narrative - it doesn't work that way.