Non's how can you explain this away?

[Junebug99]

Spotlight: Stevie's pocketknife.

In his 2007 police interview, Terry Hobbs denied having the knife. In his Pasdar deposition, he said he confiscated it years before the murders.

Officer: Do you remember Stevie ever having a knife at all?
Terry Hobbs: I don't know if he got one at the boyscouts or not. He did go to boyscouts, but I don't think they gave him a pocket knife. But his real daddy may have given him one. Cause his grandaddy was real proud of him, he really liked that little boy. It's possible, I can't say yes or no to that. Not honestly.
Officer: Would, so if he, he had one you wouldn't have known what it would have looked like or
Terry Hobbs: Well, if I seen it I might recognize it but I can't place one at the moment.
[snip]
Officer: Now did you ever keep any of Stevie's personal possessions after, after their death, the boys were, were killed.
[snip]
Terry Hobbs: Not that I can think of. [p. 26-7, Hobbs police interview, 2007]

This contrasts with Hobbs testimony in his deposition.

Attorney for Pasdar: On Channel 5 on the 21st, they also talk about finding the knife and the knife that Stevie's grandfather had given him in your stuff?
Terry Hobbs: So?
Attorney for Pasdar: Did you have any your possession, Mr. Hobbs?
Hobbs: I don't know. I think I still have his pocketknife.
Attorney for Pasdar: You have Stevie's pocketknife?
Hobbs: I think so.
Attorney for Pasdar: And is that a pocketknife that Stevie carried with him on a regular basis?
Hobbs: Until I found it. Until I seen my stepson, who wasn't old enough to have a pocketknife, I felt like. I took the pocketknife from him and put it in a drawer with the rest of our pocketknives. [Hobbs v. Pasdar, Terry Hobbs deposition, p. 226-7, and returning to the subject:]
Attorney for Pasdar: Did you take the knife from Stevie?
Hobbs: Years before. [Hobbs v. Pasdar, Terry Hobbs deposition, p. 297]


why would he lie about Stevies knife? Pam assumed the killer had it, I believe she was right.......

 

[justthinkin]

What happens to people with long term, drug usage? Their brains are fried.

 

[Junebug99]

What happens to people with long term, drug usage? Their brains are fried.

Hmmm, what about the phony alibi's? Why lie? Unless you're guilty of something.

 

[Cappuccino]

What happens to people with long term, drug usage? Their brains are fried.

Speaks to motive. His brain is fried that's why he attacked the other two instead of facing the music for what he'd done to Stevie, (hypothetically speaking).

 

[Compassionate Reader]

jt,

Is his long term drug use your explanation for all of Terry's lies or just this one?

If we assume that his long term drug use caused memory loss, then how can we believe anything that he says? Therefore, it follows that his whereabouts would have to be confirmed by others. That makes him a prime suspect in this case because his alibi witnesses (primarily David Jacoby, Mark Byers, Dana Moore and his ex-wife, Pam) contradict his version of his timeline.

 

[justthinkin]

I think long term drug use explains a lot. I wouldn't say it explains all nor would I say it explains just this one thing.

Also, look at the people you've mentioned as alibi witnesses, and tell me which ones of those didn't also have a problem with drugs or alcohol?

 

[krimekat]

all evidence leads to . . . TH

IMHO only

 

[justthinkin]

all evidence leads to . . . TH

IMHO only

And that evidence would be one hair?:floorlaugh:

Evidence of other crimes are not evidence he committed this crime!

 

[krimekat]

And that evidence would be one hair?:floorlaugh:

Evidence of other crimes are not evidence he committed this crime!

Respectfully, I believe the evidence is actually 2 hairs (one tangled in the ligature), THs behavior, his "alibi", and other reasons as discussed in other WM3 threads.

 

[justthinkin]

The other hair you're talking about doesn't match Hobbs, and was collected 2 weeks after the murders. For that reason, it doesn't mean jack.

Hobbs has no less of an alibi than any of the convicted whose alibis were either shot down in court or altogether absent as in the case of Baldwin.

Contrary to what one of you supporters said about Baldwin's alibi not being entered into court is proof of his attorney's incompetence, the truth is Baldwin's alibi wasn't entered into court because his attorney felt like it would be shot down just as Misskelley's and Echols alibis were shot down, and stated so. Baldwin had no dependable alibi witnesses that could stand up to the prosecution's cross examination, and that's according to Baldwin's own attorney.


I am not going to rehash alibis with anyone because the alibis of the three convicts are worthless. If they were truly innocent at least one of them would have had an iron clad alibi, but that wasn't the case back then, and it isn't true today either.

People can take someone else's word for something, but the only way to know the truth is to read the trial transcripts for yourself, all of them.

 

[Cappuccino]

The other hair you're talking about doesn't match Hobbs,

It matches Jacoby, who was in Hobbs company that night, and who was never at the crime scene. Somebody else brought Jacoby's hair to that tree stump.

and was collected 2 weeks after the murders. For that reason, it doesn't mean jack.

Nonsense. The knife wasn't fished out of that lake behind Jason's trailer park until six months after the murders, and it was produced as evidence at trial. Besides, why do you think the state's criminologist was at the crime scene going over the place with tweezers if nothing they could find at that stage would mean jack?

Hobbs has no less of an alibi than any of the convicted whose alibis were either shot down in court or altogether absent as in the case of Baldwin.

There's a difference though, and its one nons won't like. None of the wm3's own alibi witnesses have ever contradicted them. They may have been discredited in the juries eyes by an experienced prosecutor, but the witnesses themselves did not contradict D,J and J's alibis then and they have never recanted since either.

Everybody contradicts Terry Hobbs account of his own movements that night, even Officer Regina Meeks who should surely be on the side of the prosecution.

 

[Nova]

...If they were truly innocent at least one of them would have had an iron clad alibi, but that wasn't the case back then, and it isn't true today either....

Where in the annals of science did you get that assertion, that given any group of three innocent people, at least one will have an ironclad alibi? (Particularly for a crime committed at night, when most people have no alibis except for the people with whom they live.)

There have been a lot of faulty presumptions employed to assert the guilt of the WM3, but that's a classic, IMO.

 

[gheckso]

What happens to people with long term, drug usage? Their brains are fried.

err... his deposition states he didn't take drugs etc and alcohol so were are you getting this information? "half a joint" tried meth once, tried cocaine once, wasn't into that stuff etc etc.

If you now say he was lying I will lmfao. Honest people don't need to lie do they? and for the life of me i cannot see how someone can forget so much about the night their son was killed, seems to have been burnt into everyone else's memory except his, how convenient.

p.s. first post hi all.

 

[DevilsPlayThing]

Well this is beyond disturbing.

9. When my family arrived, there was a fight between Terry and my brother, Jackie Hicks, Jr. As they were fighting, Terry pulled out a gun and shot Jackie in the abdomen. He was moving to again shoot Jackie and my father started walking toward Terry. At that point, Terry pointed the gun at my dad and said "You'd better not go any farther; I'll shoot you, too, you fat m*f*." My father, Jackie Hicks Sr. was able to grab the gun from Terry's hands. My brother was severely injured as a result of the gunshot. He had to have over ten surgeries. The doctors first decided to leave the bullet where it was lodged because they thought it would kill him to remove it, but later it caused a bowel obstruction, so they removed the bullet. After that surgery to remove the bullet, Jackie developed a blood clot and died from an aneurysm.

From Declaration Of Pamela Marie Hobbs

At Link
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/p_hobbs_declaration2.html

 

[Aura]

I want to say, I am NOT A NON OR A SUPPORTER. , before i start

Ok, The hair. or hairs. OMG the hairs..LOL Damiens own defense stated the hairs was not any evidence that proves it was Terry Hobbs. The hair matched 1 in 10,000 people in Arkansas. I dont take the hairs into account. And if it is Terry's hair, he himself stated he was in those woods searching.

Terry's deposition with Pasdar was full of lies, and trying to skirt the questions. He was pissed, he didnt want to be there, and he didnt want to answer anything for Pasdar's lawyers. He dug himself in a hole for that depo. He laughed at things, he tried to skirt around the drug questions, especially when it is common knowledge he did meth many times, and he didnt want to admit anything that might make him look bad, well he made it worse by lying about it. So ill agree, his depo wasnt a good thing for him. The whole thing with Mildred French was horrible, and its on record and he still wouldnt admit anything.

This case will haunt me till the end of my days, unless they prove without a doubt who did this crime.

Terry is not a first class citizen by any means. He has got some ghosts in his closet that make him questionable. But to accuse him of murder, the murder of his step child, I will not do until there is 100% proof. Supporters argued TO THE GROUND FOR 14 YEARS it was JMByers. They turned his life into hell. They caused so many problems for Byers. And then, 'oops.. sry wrong step father.' I was on that bandwagon for a long time, thinking it had to be JMB. Im ashamed after all that. I wont do it again. Its why I wont accuse Damien, Jessie, or Jason. I dont like they plead guilty instead of going to court, and being found innocent. But I was never in prison, so I dont know how he or the others felt. And i dont like all the lies associated with this case. If they are innocent/guilty, why lie? And that goes for both sides. There should be NO reason for lies or exaggerations.

 

[Cappuccino]

Ok, The hair. or hairs. OMG the hairs..LOL Damiens own defense stated the hairs was not any evidence that proves it was Terry Hobbs. The hair matched 1 in 10,000 people in Arkansas. I dont take the hairs into account. And if it is Terry's hair, he himself stated he was in those woods searching.

I agree that we shouldn't accuse anybody at this stage, and I also agree with you, (and Thomas Fedor), that the hair is weak evidence. All that said, you are still underestimating the significance of the hair. The level of significance which can be attached to that hair depends alot on which child was tied with whose shoe laces. We know that Michael was wearing white shoelaces and that he was tied up with black ligatures. On the face of it that would seem to mean that he was tied with either Christopher or Stevie's shoe laces. That would weaken the hair evidence further because obviously Hobbs lived in the same house as Stevie, and Christopher was also inside their home that after noon, so secondary transfer from either child's shoe laces is a realistic explanation for that hair's presence.

But then the plot thickens - there was a shoe lace left intact inside Christopher's left sneaker, which means there are seven shoe laces at the crime scene. Michael's ligatures only contain one aiglet on each side, which makes it look like it was one adult sized shoe lace cut in half. Two explanations spring to mind...

1) Either Chris or Stevie had previously broken/lost a shoe lace and used an adult sized one to replace it.

2) The person who tied them up broke/lost one of the shoe laces in the process and used one of his own cut in half, thus not needing one of Christopher's laces.

Can you see how its important to find out which one of those options is the truth? If Michael was tied with a shoe lace from Chris or Stevie, the hair is not that big a deal. If he was tied with a lace from the killer's shoes that hair, and any other physical evidence on or around Michael's ligatures, is a very big deal indeed.

 

[gheckso]

I still find it amazing that a single hair can survive the journey of bike riding skateboarding and playing in the bush for hours...

 

[Cappuccino]

Its possible. Its ludicrous when nons argue that the Hobbs hair is innocent transfer which survived while all the wm3's DNA magically washed away. But there is unidentified DNA at that crime scene, so its possible that some of that belongs to the killer(s) and the Hobbs hair is innocent transfer.

I'd like to see all the ligatures unwound and measured, and the remaining shoe lace from Christopher also measured, to see which matches which.

 

[DevilsPlayThing]

All 3 entered original plea of not guilty . Damien and Jason were co-defendants their case forever linked. Jessie had a separate trial since his confessions were used against the other 2. All found guilty at the 2 trials. Jason sentenced to Life. Damien Death. Jessie Life. All appeals were denied.
Yet the 3 were offered a plea bargain after sentencing and serving 17 + years. The opportunity to simply enter a plea. The 3 had done this as teens - and the outcome was not optimal. Especially for Damien. If innocent and not only found guilty but sentenced to Death was possible once - surely it would be possible a second time. Especially since no active search can take place for alternative suspects - nor will any alternative suspects ever be publicly discussed by any official.

Any other similar cases where 2 or 3 co-defendants have entered not 1 but 2 pleas for the very same charges. Effectively evacuating their sentence immediately. One of them being a Death sentence. Or is this case the precedence .

 

[Cappuccino]

Damien Echols is not the first person to walk off Death Row in return for an Alford plea, there is one other case - one of those dodgy arson cases where the science turned out to be faulty. Its very rare though. Afaik those are the only two.

As to three defendants walking out together in return for Alford pleas, I've never heard of that before. In that sense the wm3 case is the precedence.