so there is no DNA evidence that ties the WM3.....

[Satch]

I think there are more question that answers, which will never be known about the WM3 and this case. As a juror though, I would be FORCED to acquit on the reasonable doubt of their guilt for one huge reason, and that is because none of the WM3's DNA was found at the crime scene or on the victims. How can you be guilty, and not have your DNA at the crime scene where the murders occurred?

I guess that would be my lingering question for those who are adamant about the WM3's guilt. Where is the DNA at the scene that points to them as the real killers? That doubt is certainly reasonable enough to overturn a conviction in this case.

Satch

 

[Pensfan]

Where was the DNA? Misskelley, Echols and Baldwin left the defenseless little boys bodies bogged down in mud and in the moving drainage ditch water (slow moving, but still moving water).

 

[Cappuccino]

And yet there was plenty of DNA there, both on the bodies, and around the crime scene. If the mud and the slow moving ditch water was enough to remove all traces of the wm3, why didn't it remove all the other peoples' DNA?

 

[tezi]

I think there are more question that answers, which will never be known about the WM3 and this case. As a juror though, I would be FORCED to acquit on the reasonable doubt of their guilt for one huge reason, and that is because none of the WM3's DNA was found at the crime scene or on the victims. How can you be guilty, and not have your DNA at the crime scene where the murders occurred?

I guess that would be my lingering question for those who are adamant about the WM3's guilt. Where is the DNA at the scene that points to them as the real killers? That doubt is certainly reasonable enough to overturn a conviction in this case.

Satch

At the time Satch, DNA wasn't really used in the courts in AR.

I would have had to vote to acquit because there was no evidence whatsoever tying the WMFree to the crime scene or the three young boys who were murdered. No reliable eye witness accounts, nothing. And I don't take Mrs. Hollingsworth to be a reliable eye witness to anything....Just sayin'.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Then there is the DNA (well, mtDNA) that points to Terry Hobbs and his friend, David Jacoby. Like others have said, if the water washed away the evidence, why was is so selective? That is simply implausible. IMO, that mtDNA provides more than enough reasonable doubt to acquit the three falsely convicted men.

What I want to know is what hold Terry Hobbs has on the WMPD or the State of Arkansas? Does he know where some bodies are buried or what? As was mentioned, according to the police, he was never a suspect, even after the mtDNA was found. Parents, step parents or family friends are the murderers of 6 - 11 year old children 61% of the time while strangers are the murderers only 13% of the time. ( http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV34.pdf ) Why would the WMPD not investigate a member of the most likely group of potential suspects?

In his Pasdar deposition, Gitchell mentions that the proper police procedure would have been to clear all the parents, etc. This was not done. They didn't even canvass in the Hobbs neighborhood, only in the Byers/Moore neighborhood. This is why the Hobbs neighbors never mentioned seeing Hobbs with the boys until much later, when they learned that Hobbs was denying having seen the boys. Todd Moore was out of town as an OTR driver on May 5, 1993. JMB was interrogated thoroughly. Why the kid glove treatment of Terry Hobbs? It's just strange.

 

[LunaticFringe]

Door to door canvassing.

http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_door_to_door.html


Not that much on McAuley Circle...but there was some done.

 

[Pensfan]

Then there is the DNA (well, mtDNA) that points to Terry Hobbs and his friend, David Jacoby. Like others have said, if the water washed away the evidence, why was is so selective? That is simply implausible. IMO, that mtDNA provides more than enough reasonable doubt to acquit the three falsely convicted men.

What I want to know is what hold Terry Hobbs has on the WMPD or the State of Arkansas? Does he know where some bodies are buried or what? As was mentioned, according to the police, he was never a suspect, even after the mtDNA was found. Parents, step parents or family friends are the murderers of 6 - 11 year old children 61% of the time while strangers are the murderers only 13% of the time. ( http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV34.pdf ) Why would the WMPD not investigate a member of the most likely group of potential suspects?

In his Pasdar deposition, Gitchell mentions that the proper police procedure would have been to clear all the parents, etc. This was not done. They didn't even canvass in the Hobbs neighborhood, only in the Byers/Moore neighborhood. This is why the Hobbs neighbors never mentioned seeing Hobbs with the boys until much later, when they learned that Hobbs was denying having seen the boys. Todd Moore was out of town as an OTR driver on May 5, 1993. JMB was interrogated thoroughly. Why the kid glove treatment of Terry Hobbs? It's just strange.

It is because Terry isn't guilty.

Even Pam thought for 16 years that it wasn't Terry that killed the boys. She posted several times on Dana and Todd's memorial page that Mark was guilty.

The hairs came from secondary transfer. Stevie Branch lived in the same home with Terry Hobbs, his stepdad.

 

[Nova]

It is because Terry isn't guilty.

Even Pam thought for 16 years that it wasn't Terry that killed the boys. She posted several times on Dana and Todd's memorial page that Mark was guilty.

The hairs came from secondary transfer. Stevie Branch lived in the same home with Terry Hobbs, his stepdad.

So Terry Hobbs wasn't investigated because Terry Hobbs isn't guilty. Yep, that pretty much sums up the investigative thinking of the WMPD.

As for the secondary transfer, it was in fact tertiary transfer: TH to SB to MM. And all this at a crime scene were all traces of the "real killers" was magically washed away. Hmmm.

 

[news247]

i'm curious. to those of you who have read each and every one of the PRE-trial motions (i read at callahan, can't remember the exact name of the site, sorry but IF you read them in their entirety, weren't you even a 'tad' swayed by evidenced that was left out b/c it was 'too prejudicial' to the defense?

didn't the luminal findings strike you at all? the coronor's evidence about the WM3 actually PEEING in those little boy's mouths?

soooo many findings could not be totally done away with; but FACTS were 'watered down' b/c the little boys were placed in water, face down, for hours and hours b/4 they were located.

and the 'precision carving' that it would have taken to mutilate the litlle boys? what about the 'precision carving' that it took to tatoo the word 'EVIL' on jason and damien's knuckles?

IMO - i don't give a whit what natalie whomever, jonny depp and eddie vitter think. IMO I THINK if they read every, single word of the available trial transcripts (INCLUDING the pre-trial transcripts - they would have a different opinion as well.

again - JMO.

 

[Cappuccino]

i'm curious. to those of you who have read each and every one of the PRE-trial motions (i read at callahan, can't remember the exact name of the site, sorry but IF you read them in their entirety, weren't you even a 'tad' swayed by evidenced that was left out b/c it was 'too prejudicial' to the defense?

I have read all the pre-trial motions on the Callahan's site in their entirety. No, I wasn't a tad swayed by the evidence that was left out. On the contrary, the evidence that was left out would have mostly bolstered the case for the defense, eg, evidence that Jessie passed his polygraph.

didn't the luminal findings strike you at all? the coronor's evidence about the WM3 actually PEEING in those little boy's mouths?

The luminol evidence wasn't excluded because it was "prejudicial to the defense", it was excluded because the Arkansas Supreme Court had ruled that luminol is inadmissable in any trial without corroborative evidence. They ruled that way for the very good reason that luminol reacts with far too many different substances to single handedly provide evidence of the presence of blood at any crime scene. Anybody who thinks the luminol results are in any way significant doesn't understand the science behind luminol.

Nobody ever peed in the boys mouths, and I can find no record of the coroner claiming any such thing at pre-trial hearings. I can however remember the ME, Dr Peretti, testifying at the rule 37 hearings that there was no evidence of any such thing, and that he doesn't know who started that rumour.

soooo many findings could not be totally done away with; but FACTS were 'watered down' b/c the little boys were placed in water, face down, for hours and hours b/4 they were located.

Yes, water that was inhabited by plenty of snapping turtles and other marine carnivores.

and the 'precision carving' that it would have taken to mutilate the litlle boys? what about the 'precision carving' that it took to tatoo the word 'EVIL' on jason and damien's knuckles?

Dr Peretti changed his testimony about the amount of precision necessary to carry out the so called mutilations, but even if he hadn't, the amount of "precision" necessary to write a word on your hand is minimal compared to the amount of precision necessary to deglove the male genitals while leaving the penile shaft intact. The two things are not comparable at all.

IMO - i don't give a whit what natalie whomever, jonny depp and eddie vitter think. IMO I THINK if they read every, single word of the available trial transcripts (INCLUDING the pre-trial transcripts - they would have a different opinion as well.

I have read every word of the available trial, pre-trial and appeals transcripts, and I have a different opinion to yours. The more I read on Callahan's, the more convinced I became that the case for the prosecution was a railroad job. I'm sorry, but you have no right to assume that someone who takes the opposite position to yours is automatically less well read on the case, or influenced by celebrities.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I have read every word of the available trial, pre-trial and appeals transcripts, and I have a different opinion to yours. The more I read on Callahan's, the more convinced I became that the case for the prosecution was a railroad job. I'm sorry, but you have no right to assume that someone who takes the opposite position to yours is automatically less well read on the case, or influenced by celebrities.

This is my position, too. I have read (and I know you have, too, Cappuccino) the 700+ page Rule 37 Abstract. I have read every legal document that I can find on this case. I have a college degree, and my intelligence and research tells me that the three were railroaded by the good ol' boy system of injustice in Arkansas.

Contrary to what the other poster said, I have trouble understanding how anyone can read everything and still believe the WMFree to be guilty. This divergence of opinions by people who have read everything is why this case is so frustrating. I am not going to say that someone who believes the WMFree are guilty (after reading all available information on the case) is stupid. I'm just going to say that I don't understand how an intelligent person can read everything and still come to that conclusion.

 

[Nova]

As for celebrity participation, I think Natalie Maines and Johnny Depp are heroes with regards to this case.

But I and most of the posters here who believe in the innocence of the WM3 did so well before any celebrity became involved. Maybe there are a few people out there who are so blinded by fame that they believe something because Johnny Depp says it, but I doubt there are many. Celebrities brought attention to the case; they weren't what convinced most WM3 supporters.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

"Scientific experts testified Wednesday at the Chandra Levy murder trial that there is no DNA or forensic evidence linking defendant Ingmar Guandique to the crime scene in Rock Creek Park where Levy's remains were found."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110307302.html

Note: defendant was convicted
----
"TRENTON — Preliminary DNA tests found no evidence of semen on a 7-year-old New Jersey girl who police said was gang-raped after her stepsister sold her for sex.

The lack of DNA evidence will not cripple the state's case against two men and three teenagers who have been charged with rape."
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/no_dna_evidence_is_found_in_ra.html

Note: Doesn't appear verdict is in on this case yet.
----
Adam Walsh - Case Closed
No DNA Evidence, but Prime Suspect Ottis Toole is Named

Read more at Suite101: Adam Walsh - Case Closed: No DNA Evidence, but Prime Suspect Ottis Toole is Named http://www.suite101.com/content/adam-walsh-case-closed-a84763#ixzz1DnKEcsUI


DNA is not the be all, end all in all cases as these cases may represent. The defendant WAS convicted in the Chandra Levy Case without DNA evidence.

While Toole was never tried in the Adam Walsh Case, still lack of DNA did not stop LE from naming their suspect. Something LE usually doesn't do. The Trenton case has yet to be decided as far as I can find out.

While we all prefer to see DNA evidence, sometimes there just isn't any, but trials still take place.

I agree, I've seen many cases where the defendant was found guilty by jury when there was no dna evidence. Sometimes it's not necessary when proving reasonable doubt. I know that people watch TV forensic shows like CSI, but that's not real life for sure.

 

[Miranda!]

DNA and MtDNA are yet more tools in the official investigator's arsenal. Convictions were achieved even before the days of finger-prints!

No-one, that I have seen, is claiming that 'no DNA = Innocent'. All that the lack of DNA of the WMFree actually means is that none was found! But it is worth remembering that teenaged boys are usually the hardest to galvenise into tidying their rooms - let alone making a part of a crime scene sterile, especially in the possible drunken state they were alleged to have been in!

However, in that stagnant water (that was flowing), the hair in the ligature of Michael Moore survived and was not washed away, also the MtDNA excluded 97% of the population.

Convictions can be gained and be sound as long as the cirumstantial evidence is strong. In this case it was not!

And before anyone posts something along the lines of Echols' weird imaginative writing being 'evidence', then I guess both Tolkein and C S Lewis should be convicted of something other than their extremely active (thank goodness) imaginations!

i'm curious. to those of you who have read each and every one of the PRE-trial motions (i read at callahan, can't remember the exact name of the site, sorry but IF you read them in their entirety, weren't you even a 'tad' swayed by evidenced that was left out b/c it was 'too prejudicial' to the defense?

Pretty well all the long term supporters have read Callahans multiple times and have the name of the site imprinted, with no need for a bookmark!

I have yet to come across compelling evidence that urine was found either in the stomaches of any of the children or even residual cells in their mouths. Anyone can walk into a police station and report something and make a statement about it - that does not make it true! Rumours were swirling around West Memphis back then and the wmpd were leaking things, like a sieve, to the media to bolster their case!

Like others here, I, too, find it hard getting my mind around anyone reading everything there is to read and coming away so convinced that they would convict the WMFree. This is just my opinion and I accept that others are entitled to theirs. Even if I find it somewhat bemusing.

 

[Ausgirl]

Anyone can walk into a police station and report something and make a statement about it - that does not make it true! Rumours were swirling around West Memphis back then and the wmpd were leaking things, like a sieve, to the media to bolster their case!

Immediately coming to mind is that one boy who claimed Echols lifted him off the ground -- by merely looking at him!

 

[Mrs G Norris]

So Terry Hobbs wasn't investigated because Terry Hobbs isn't guilty. Yep, that pretty much sums up the investigative thinking of the WMPD.

As for the secondary transfer, it was in fact tertiary transfer: TH to SB to MM. And all this at a crime scene were all traces of the "real killers" was magically washed away. Hmmm.

Not necessarily since all boys played at each others houses.

 

[Ausgirl]

Were the sticks used to keep the clothes underwater completely submerged? If not, were they ever tested (I've never come across that info, if so..)? A rough surface like the end of a stick used for prodding something into the water would, unless a person was gloved, be a very likely place to find a bunch of skin cells.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Were the sticks used to keep the clothes underwater completely submerged? If not, were they ever tested (I've never come across that info, if so..)? A rough surface like the end of a stick used for prodding something into the water would, unless a person was gloved, be a very likely place to find a bunch of skin cells.

I know that there were sticks presented at trial. I don't know if those sticks were ever tested. That's another good question.

I've often asked the question (and never received an answer) about why there were no wood or bark pieces embedded in the children if, as Jessie said, Damien and Jason beat them with "big ol' sticks." Wouldn't something have clung to the boys, or, more rightly, have been embedded into their scalps, if Jessie's story were true? I just don't see sluggish ditch water being able to wash away all evidence of these sticks being used.

 

[hopeandglory]

This thread though... We're all entitled to our opinions, obviously, but I fail to see the logic in how it's more likely that the WMFree did it when there's nothing that ties them to the crime scene, but TH is clearly innocent even though his DNA was found there.

Can someone explain this to me?

Personally I'd say both parties are equally innocent in this. The WMFree have nothing that links them to the crime scene, and TH's DNA has a logical explanation.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

This thread though... We're all entitled to our opinions, obviously, but I fail to see the logic in how it's more likely that the WMFree did it when there's nothing that ties them to the crime scene, but TH is clearly innocent even though his DNA was found there.

Can someone explain this to me?

Personally I'd say both parties are equally innocent in this. The WMFree have nothing that links them to the crime scene, and TH's DNA has a logical explanation.

Again, what about Jacoby's mtDNA? It was there, too, and he says that he wasn't at the discovery site. To my knowledge, he had no direct contact with the boys on May 5, 1993. If the TH hair is innocent secondary transfer, how did the Jacoby hair arrive on the scene?