Question about Terry Hobbs

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Hmmph, looks like this prosecutor realized his adamant save face "Alford Plea", and insist he was correct took a bit of turn, election around the corner for the Supreme Court position, community finally decides that 3 young men wrongly accused, oopsie... jmo.

I say a little to late. Guess I'm still angry about the injustice continuing for these 3 young men and those 3 young children that still have not gotten any justice either.
 
Hmmph, looks like this prosecutor realized his adamant save face "Alford Plea", and insist he was correct took a bit of turn, election around the corner for the Supreme Court position, community finally decides that 3 young men wrongly accused, oopsie... jmo.

I say a little to late. Guess I'm still angry about the injustice continuing for these 3 young men and those 3 young children that still have not gotten any justice either.


ITA, Mr Ellington is trying to maintain votes from both sides of the West Memphis fence and I find it rather pathetic myself. I keep hearing 'they admitted their guilt' but if that were really what it amounted to they would not be free.

If it didn't make me so angry I would find it humorous that the State let them out because they realize they WOULDN'T be found guilty again as there is no evidence, however D,J&J had to say they are innocent but believe there is enough evidence to convict them. There is no evidence to convict them with and they have been forced into a corner in order to obtain the freedom they deserve. I would have taken the deal also as I would not want to be in prison any longer. I can't imagine staying in prison because I am innocent and want it proven. It will be proven in time and they have had to give up too many years already.

I hope eventually they will bankrupt the state.

JMO
 
That may be true considering the upcoming film and all the others in the previous films were paid $$. So, you have a really good point. Besides that, I thought that some of the supporters were also blaming Byers too.

It seems to me that if the DNA testing that was going to 'prove WM3 innocent' was going to occur in Nov/Dec that they should have waited so that could be proven. If I were a supporter I would be mad because they didn't wait and now we will not know about that lil' ol' DNA test.

I'm not a supporter, but I'm mad. I thought this hearing in Dec (and probably subsuquent trial) was going to finally knock me off the fence. But, alas...it was not to be.

Just throwing in my $.02 -

I was 20 and there was a disappearance here in my hometown. A 13 year old child named Leigh Occhi (sp?) who has yet to be found. I never knew her or her family. I wasn't her neighbor. But I remember to this day where I was when I found out she was missing.

I don't remember my age, but I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when CNN broke in (I stream them here at the office) and showing the Colombine standoff as it was still happening. I live near West Memphis, not in Colorado.

My point being, that even 20 years later people can remember things just like it was yesterday if the trauma is bad enough. 3 8 year olds missing and later found dead whom I knew and was neighbors with, would certainly be enough for me to remember exactly where I was and what happened that day.
 
The supporter movement is collecting money to continue what the State of Arkansas refuses to do, find more and compelling evidence that implicates THe real killer of Michael, Chris and Stevie. That takes money. Some big names are already on board with this plan, and the supporter movement will not rest until Damien, Jason and Jessie are fully exonerated and THe real killer is in jail.

BBM - UBBM

OK - I just had to laugh. Sorry. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program! :blushing:
 
The posters here that are non supporters are angry because the WM3 are free.
They are angry because they believe 3 people who viciously attacked 3 innocent boys and murdered them were set free.They never met these 3 boys that died 18 years ago but they feel outraged.
If I would think the WM3 were guilty,if I would even suspect they had anything at all to do with that crime I would feel the same way right now.
Todd Moore loved his son and I can't even begin to imagine his pain thinking his kid's murderers were freed.
Yet Terry Hobbs has forgiven them??????
IMO Terry Hobbs needs to keep praying and hoping that his God is indeed a forgiving one.

It's nice to read the truth.
 
I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here for a minute... Why didn't it come out earlier? If it were emblazoned on their memory then you would think it would have gotten around by now. Such as anybody talking to them about the murders I'm sure they would have said something along the lines of "Gosh I saw them that day with Terry" rumors and gossip start fast and that surely would have gotten around a small town. Not saying I dispute it, but 16 years is a very long time to remember something like that. On another note, maybe it did get around and the WMPD disputed it as just rumor.

The reason that they gave, IIRC, is that they had no idea until the 2007 Pasdar suit with Terry Hobbs came out that he was claiming that he didn't see the boys at all that day. So, their information wasn't Earth shattering. At the time, the town was focused on finding the killers. These girls, teenagers at the time themselves, really had no reason to tell the police that they saw Terry Hobbs talking to the little boys that night. They assumed that he had told the police that he saw the boys, as he should have. That's the logical explanation, IMO.

However, it is possible that the WMPD were protecting and continue to protect Terry Hobbs for some unknown reason. If this is the case, anyone who told them a story implicating him in some way would not be believed and the story would be quashed. This evidence only came to light because the defense team asked around (which the WMPD only did in a cursory fashion at the time of the murders) and found these young women now who had a story to tell. I'm sure that, had the WMPD canvassed their neighborhood in May, 1993 (which they did not), they would have told the police what they saw.
 
wow,it's gone.Maybe it's being revised? It stated that the prosecution was willing to perform more tests on the DNA,well,I'm not sure anymore what exactly it said but it gave me so much hope that they would not close the case as stated before.

It's back !!! http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15337892/prosecutor-lab-to-study-west-memphis-3-case-dna

Here are the important paragraphs from the article linked above in case this disappears again.

"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Prosecutor Scott Ellington said Arkansas' crime lab is willing to analyze DNA evidence that attorneys for the three men known as the "West Memphis Three" said will exonerate them in the murders of three Cub Scouts in 1993.

Ellington said at a panel discussion on the case Thursday that he does not plan to reopen the case that led to the convictions of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley. But he said he would consider compelling evidence if it's brought forward by the men's attorneys
."
 
I understand that back in the day when this happened that there wasn't the technology out that we have now so it boggles my mind that people still believe that the WM3 is guilty. After everything I have read I have yet to see what physical proof there is linking any of them to the boys or crime scene. The only person I have found linked to it is TH and his friend. If I have missed the proof please correct me but I can't recall it.
 
I don't remember if it was in that article or in the Q & A Thursday night, but Ellington also said that all material should be filtered through the defense. That makes me think that maybe he's not the <modsnip> I thought he was!
 
The reason that they gave, IIRC, is that they had no idea until the 2007 Pasdar suit with Terry Hobbs came out that he was claiming that he didn't see the boys at all that day. So, their information wasn't Earth shattering. At the time, the town was focused on finding the killers. These girls, teenagers at the time themselves, really had no reason to tell the police that they saw Terry Hobbs talking to the little boys that night. They assumed that he had told the police that he saw the boys, as he should have. That's the logical explanation, IMO.

However, it is possible that the WMPD were protecting and continue to protect Terry Hobbs for some unknown reason. If this is the case, anyone who told them a story implicating him in some way would not be believed and the story would be quashed. This evidence only came to light because the defense team asked around (which the WMPD only did in a cursory fashion at the time of the murders) and found these young women now who had a story to tell. I'm sure that, had the WMPD canvassed their neighborhood in May, 1993 (which they did not), they would have told the police what they saw.

It might not protecting Hobbs so much as dismissing him. Statistically most children are killed by a parent or step-parent, and even though this is kind of common knowledge quite a lot of people still don't believe that or at least don't want to. Honestly as a cop wouldn't you be a bit more relieved that the killers were some young devil worshiping hoodlums than a parent say TH who up to this point was a upstanding citizen as far as the police knew or JMB who was good friends with many in WMPD?
 
I understand that back in the day when this happened that there wasn't the technology out that we have now so it boggles my mind that people still believe that the WM3 is guilty. After everything I have read I have yet to see what physical proof there is linking any of them to the boys or crime scene. The only person I have found linked to it is TH and his friend. If I have missed the proof please correct me but I can't recall it.

Carla about all your gonna get proof wise will be Jessie's confession repeated ad nauseum.
 
Nah, he still is a douche bag, lol. He wants the defense to do all the work before it gets to him so the state doesn't have to wade through stuff is all. The state isn't gonna do any work because the case is 'closed'.

This. And money. And the ever-present saving face.

The State has to be able to claim the guys are guilty; they can't say that with any credibility if they are investigating evidence. And, as a bonus, the defense will have to pay the costs.
 
^Nothing more than anecdotal evidence which is inadmissible and totally unreliable.

Things I find bothersome with the Ballard/Clark/Moyer affidavits:

  • 16 years after the fact.
  • Ballard was 13 at the time. Brandy was 11
  • None of them ever bothered mentioning they supposedly had extremely important information. ie. Seeing the 3 boys playing in their backyard shortly before they were murdered. Heck, Jamie even claimed she talked with Christopher.
  • When they did come forward (16 years later), Ballard sought out Echols' investigators to share this information with.
  • Their statements conflict with other witnesses who saw the boys that evening. Particularly Cindy Rico's statement (oh who happened to think seeing the boys that evening was actually important so she called LE all on her own)
    http://callahan.8k.com/images2/c_rico/rico_c_tipsheet.jpg
  • This statement from Ballard's affidavit is inaccurate considering Ryan didn't attend school the next day per Brit Smith. "The next day, I saw Ryan at school and he was very upset. Ryan told me that the boys had never come home and that the police had found the bodies of the Stevie, Michael and Christopher. Ryan was so upset. When he told me that the boys had been killed, I said something like, "What, I just saw your brother last night playing in my backyard!" Ryan was crying and said to me, "Why didn't you tell my brother to come home?" That really upset me and I told Ryan, "I did tell him to come home!" see Brit Smith statement http://callahan.8k.com/images/brit_smith03.JPG
  • This statement by Ballard:
    "On May 5, 1993, I walked home from school with
    Ryan Clark, like I did most days. On my way home, I passed the Byers' house. Mark Byers was in the driveway yelling to Ryan, telling him to find his brother, Christopher, and to tell him to come home. This happened at approximately 3:15 – 3:30 PM on May 5, 1993."

    doesn't reconcile with what Ryan told LE:
    "States he got home at exactly 3:38pm. --Chris was not @ home. Ryan had to be in court @ 4:00pm. --his dad took him. Dad dropped him off @ court"
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ryanclark.html

Now, I'm not straight out accusing Ballard and Co of perjury. I'm willing to give them benefit of the doubt on that aspect and we'll just say they are confused on their dates and times.

Point, Set and Match on the first page. Well done Puffin.
 
Point, Set and Match on the first page. Well done Puffin.

So I presume that you didn't read my following post in which I refuted each of the points made? Here you go:

As to your first bullet point, I noticed that you didn't post the last paragraph of my previous post where I point out under what circumstances I felt that someone could remember with clarity events that had transpired years earlier, which was the reason for my anecdote in the first place. If I can remember something from that long ago, it is reasonable to assume that others can, too. That is the meaning of a "memorable event." Just because Terry Hobbs can't remember things doesn't mean that others don't.

Next, you mention that the girls were young, 13 and 11, at the time. So were the "softball girls" whose testimony was accepted at the trial. IMO, they were seeking attention, but these women are now testifying from the perspective of adults about past events. I tend to believe adults over giggly tweens any day. Remember Salem, MA?

As to your next point, they didn't know until much later that TH was denying having seen the boys. They were young at the time, as you pointed out, and didn't realize that their information was important. When it became public knowledge that Terry was denying having seen the boys, they came forward with their information.

Sharing the information with Echols' investigators seems natural to me. The police were no longer investigating, and the defense team was. Who's to say that they didn't go to the WMPD, only to be shot down as Pam Hicks Hobbs was by Gitchell when he told her not to mess up his investigation when she tried to give him information that didn't support the prosecution's theory?

With the Rico statement (who, BTW, was an adult who realized immediately that what she saw was important), the time frame she gave of between 6:30 and 7:00 makes it possible for the boys to be seen by the neighbors at 6:30 and Ms. Rico at 7:00. No one was looking at a clock. The girls were waiting for a ride to church which is what gave them their time frame. I don't recall Ms. Rico citing any particular reason for her time frame. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that she could have been off by a little either way.

Just because Jamie said that she saw Ryan at school the next day doesn't necessarily mean that Ryan had attended school. He could have gone by to get his assignments. She didn't say that she saw him in class or anything that explicitly implied that he was in attendance at school. She said that Ryan told her that the police had found the bodies. Since cell phones were not that prevalent in '93, it seems to me much more logical that Ryan had come by the school after the bodies were found for his assignments and happened to see Jamie and talk to her because she was a friend and he was upset.

As to your last bullet point, I see no great conflict here. Ryan simply didn't remember Mark asking him to look for Chris before they went to court. The important thing to Ryan was his court date. Just because he didn't mention that Jamie was with him (as she says she was most days) doesn't mean that she wasn't. Basically, at least to me, they are telling the same thing.
 
So I presume that you didn't read my following post in which I refuted each of the points made?

Yes, I read every word of your post in which you refuted NOTHING and inserted irrelevant personal stories to try to obscure the truth regarding the facts in this thread. Try as you might, you can't explain away or "refute" these facts so I will simply quote them again.


^Nothing more than anecdotal evidence which is inadmissible and totally unreliable.

Things I find bothersome with the Ballard/Clark/Moyer affidavits:

  • 16 years after the fact.
  • Ballard was 13 at the time. Brandy was 11
  • None of them ever bothered mentioning they supposedly had extremely important information. ie. Seeing the 3 boys playing in their backyard shortly before they were murdered. Heck, Jamie even claimed she talked with Christopher.
  • When they did come forward (16 years later), Ballard sought out Echols' investigators to share this information with.
  • Their statements conflict with other witnesses who saw the boys that evening. Particularly Cindy Rico's statement (oh who happened to think seeing the boys that evening was actually important so she called LE all on her own)
    http://callahan.8k.com/images2/c_rico/rico_c_tipsheet.jpg
  • This statement from Ballard's affidavit is inaccurate considering Ryan didn't attend school the next day per Brit Smith. "The next day, I saw Ryan at school and he was very upset. Ryan told me that the boys had never come home and that the police had found the bodies of the Stevie, Michael and Christopher. Ryan was so upset. When he told me that the boys had been killed, I said something like, "What, I just saw your brother last night playing in my backyard!" Ryan was crying and said to me, "Why didn't you tell my brother to come home?" That really upset me and I told Ryan, "I did tell him to come home!" see Brit Smith statement http://callahan.8k.com/images/brit_smith03.JPG
  • This statement by Ballard:
    "On May 5, 1993, I walked home from school with
    Ryan Clark, like I did most days. On my way home, I passed the Byers' house. Mark Byers was in the driveway yelling to Ryan, telling him to find his brother, Christopher, and to tell him to come home. This happened at approximately 3:15 – 3:30 PM on May 5, 1993."

    doesn't reconcile with what Ryan told LE:
    "States he got home at exactly 3:38pm. --Chris was not @ home. Ryan had to be in court @ 4:00pm. --his dad took him. Dad dropped him off @ court"
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ryanclark.html

Now, I'm not straight out accusing Ballard and Co of perjury. I'm willing to give them benefit of the doubt on that aspect and we'll just say they are confused on their dates and times.
 
The post mentions the youth of two of the affiants, yet I'm sure that you, like other non-supporters, believe the testimony of the "softball girls" who were about the same ages at the time they testified as to a conversation that they merely eavesdropped upon and did not hear in its entirety or, due to their lack of life experience, understand the sarcasm exhibited in said conversation.

Bottom line, Damien, Jason and Jessie did not kill Christopher, Michael and Stevie. IMO it is much more likely that the killer is Terry Hobbs. I hope and pray that some day, hopefully soon, this will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If he had any care or concern for his former step son (which he doesn't), he would confess.

The falsely incarcerated young men are trying to get on with their lives. The supporters, with their help, are trying to clear their names. The non-supporters are threatening the three recently-freed men and trying to keep crap about them circulating. Well, "the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on!"
 
Twice convicted triple-murderers Damien, Jessie and Jason tortured and killed three young boys and you will never be able to make that fact go away. You won't be able to make the fact that each of them confessed to different people go away, and you won't be able to hide from the multiple statements of guilt from each of the murderers. You won't be able to hide from the overwhelming amount of evidence of their guilt, no matter how many times you scream the pop-culture lie of "there is no evidence".

Dedicating ones life to trying to vindicate three child murderers is truly one of the sickest things I have ever witnessed.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
277
Total visitors
470

Forum statistics

Threads
608,543
Messages
18,240,893
Members
234,392
Latest member
FamilyGal
Back
Top