Summary? Guilty or wrongful conviction

[iluvmua]

Why would Terry Hobbs & his friend David Jacoby even be in those woods?
and if Terry & David killed those 3 boys how come nobody saw them driving a vehicle to/from the woods?

how come no witnesses have come forward 16/17 years later saying that TH killed the three boys?

Terry Hobbs must be a PRO at not telling anyone for the last 16/17 years he killed his step son and his friends.

It's a real head scratcher as to why TH and his friend David Jacoby have not been charged 17 years later with murder of three innocent little boys. :waitasec:

The right three are in prison.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If "the right three are in prison," how did they leave no physical evidence of their action, but evidence of TH and his friend DJ is at the discovery ditch? If the TOD is between 1 am and 3 am like the prosecution claims (which I personally don't believe), all three of the teens were home in bed asleep. The little boys were seen as late as 6:30 pm by neighbors alive and well. The search of the woods began shortly after that. If you believe TH, he was searching the area from about 5:15 onward all night long. If the teens killed the boys in the woods anytime during the search, someone would have heard something. The only person who could have approached the little boys during the searching time period without alarming them and causing them to scream bloody murder would be a parent, step parent or family friend. The teens all had alibis. You may not accept them. I do. Jessie's "confession" was coerced, and the other "confessions" are laughable. One was a jailhouse snitch whose counselor later told the defense that he told the snitch everything the snitch told the police. The other was a sarcastic statement made by an alienated teen who had already been "convicted" in the eyes of the town. The tweens who supposedly overheard this statement remind me of the giggly girls in Salem, MA who accused their neighbors of being witches. Damien was a scapegoat. He was the town "weirdo" who therefore (according to West Memphis logic) had to be guilty. Damien said a lot of things, but there is no evidence that he was ever violent towards young children. However, Mildred French has given a deposition that states that TH was violent towards his young son by his first marriage and his first wife. For her trouble, Ms. French was attacked and sexually assaulted by TH. The Hicks family has made statements claiming that TH physically abused Stevie and sexually abused Amanda. There is no real evidence against the WM3. There is much more real evidence supporting the guilt of TH than what the WMPD have on the WM3. The wrong people are in prison, and the evidentiary hearing will hopefully begin the process to free the three.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

iluvmua,

I'm sorry. I neglected to address your issues.

TH and DJ were in the woods looking for the boys. TH claims to have been in and out of the woods all night, until 5 am on May 6th. DJ contradicts TH's story in that DJ says that TH left Amanda with him and searched alone on a couple of occasions before Pam got home from work. TH contends that he was searching with DJ from the time he got home from taking Pam to work until he returned to pick her up at about 9 pm. There are many inconsistencies and many versions of his story.

As to why no one saw them in a vehicle entering or leaving the woods, the only vehicles to enter the woods were four-wheelers. DJ does say that on two occasions, he and TH drove around the neighbor, covering the same area on both occasions, looking for the boys. TH says that they also questioned people (went door to door), but DJ says they never left the vehicle, that they talked to some people from the vehicle. DJ does say that he helped search the woods by foot later, but he says that he didn't go very far into the woods, certainly not as far as the pipe bridge and the discovery ditch.

No one has come forward to say that TH killed the boys because no one saw him do it. No one saw the WM3 do it, either. However, since the DNA revelations of 2007 and the failed suit TH brought against the Dixie Chicks (which led to his questioning for the first time by the WMPD and his statement, made public, that he never saw the boys on the night of May 5th) three neighbors have come forward to refute that statement, saying that they saw TH calling after the boys on the night of May 5th. The boys ran from him at that time. That makes me wonder why the boys would be so defiant. I have a theory about it, but it's just a theory. I think something happened on May 4th that cause Stevie to decide to run away from home. He talked to his friends about it at school on May 5th, and they hatched a plan of having Stevie hide in their "secret hideout" (a manhole since they were really into Teen Aged Mutant Ninja Turtles) until someone contact his maternal grandparents to come get him. (A deposition by one of Pam's sisters, JoLynn, taken during the civil suit TH brought [unsuccessfully] against the Dixie Chicks states that Stevie was afraid of TH and that TH physically abused him and sexually abused both he and Amanda.)

You said that TH must be a PRO at keeping his mouth shut about the murders. So were BTK and many other killers. Only a mentally-challenged youth would confess to these murders. However, that "confession" (which was obviously coerced in my opinion) simply doesn't match up with the evidence and the expert's interpretation of the evidence in this case. The most glaring error IMO is Jessie's statement about knives. Experts have since ruled that the supposed stab marks (and the one supposed human bite mark) are actually caused by post mortem animal predation. At the time, these wounds were believed to be stab wounds. Therefore, the police interrogator possibly suggested the knife to Jessie. Hence, its inclusion in his "story" about the killings.

As to why TH and DJ aren't in jail, the DNA evidence just came to light in 2007. In 1993, DNA testing was in its infancy. With the increased abilities of testing, the evidence was retested and the results were published. Let me make one thing clear. I don't believe DJ was involved in the crime. I believe that the DJ hair (matched through mtDNA to a 93% degree of accuracy) found on the tree stump near the discovery ditch, was transported there by TH, who, according to DJ's deposition in the Dixie Chicks suit, was playing guitars with DJ between approximately 5:15 pm and 6:15 pm on the night of May 5th. The TH hair (matched by mtDNA to a 97.5% degree of accuracy) was found in the ligature of Michael Moore, not TH's step son, Stevie. This new evidence (or, really new interpretation of evidence collected in 1993), along with the statements of neighbors who refute TH's statements and allegations of jury misconduct at both trials (which was initially dismissed by Burnett) have been deemed by the Arkansas State Supreme Court sufficient to grant the WM3 an evidentiary hearing which will IMO lead to a new trial and the exoneration of the three in prison and, hopefully, the arrest and conviction of the actual killer. The court ruled that Burnett erred in his interpretation of the new DNA laws by not granting an evidentiary hearing at the time. The court also ruled, over the objection of the State, that "all means all" so that all evidence, whether collected in 1993 or post-conviction, can be introduced at the hearing. The State had argued that only evidence of guilt could be introduced, not evidence of innocence. Thankfully, the court disagreed.

As I stated before, the wrong men are in prison, and the evidentiary hearing will, hopefully, be the first step in correcting a miscarriage of justice that small-town politics has allowed to continue for over 17 years.

 

[justthinkin]

It can be an error, a misstatement, a different interpretation of the known facts, or, as in this case, simply a somewhat different use of the words.

A "lie" is a deliberate and knowing distortion of the truth.

You are using a very narrow definition of "with" that requires immediate proximity. And that's fair. But others may use a somewhat broader definition.

As far as I'm concerned, the boys WERE "with" the three witnesses, if only briefly as they ran past. But I'm certainly not going to call you a liar because you use the word "with" differently than I.

I think context is everything in this particular instance. We have the defense claiming that Terry Hobbs was with the 3 boys. I think we all know exactly what the defense wants people to think--that Terry Hobbs was in possession of the trio, had custody of, controlled...They knew it wasn't true, but they put it out there deliberately with that wording IMO.

 

[Maznblu1]

iluvmua,

No one has come forward to say that TH killed the boys because no one saw him do it. No one saw the WM3 do it, either.

True, but TH has never said he killed the boys. Each of the WM3 has.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't think that very many killers actually confess. The only one of the WM3 who has "confessed" to LE is a mentally-challenged teen whose statements, even after three attempts, don't align with the evidence found at the discovery ditch and the analysis of the crime by experts. Additionally, the statement was taken after several hours of interrogation without either a parent or an attorney present. Damien's "confession" was supposedly overheard by a couple of tweens who were not even part of the conversation. None of the other people actually in the supposed conversation has come forward to confirm the girls' "story" and one of their mothers has said that she believes the girls exaggerated. Even if the statement was made, in all probability it was said sarcastically, as is typical of a teen who is alienated from his surroundings and who was already suspected by LE and the town. Jason's "confession" was to a jailhouse snitch whose counselor notified the defense when the statement was made to tell them that he (the counselor) had told the snitch everything that the snitch purported to have heard from Jason. Unfortunately, the original trial judge did not allow this counselor to testify. Additionally, the ADC officials present at the time state that they were within earshot all of the time and never heard Jason say the things he was supposed to have said. However, one of TH's old girlfriends (his girlfriend at the time of the crimes) has made a statement to the effect that TH told her that he found the boys' bodies before the police did. It's Exhibit 71 of Jason's Habeas Petition. You can see it listed here: http://callahan.8k.com/images2/motions/jb_habeas/jb_05-30-08_145.jpg. This link is to the entire petition, but you have to search page by page to find it: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/img/jb_habeas.html. Sorry, I couldn't locate it quickly.

 

[Nova]

I think context is everything in this particular instance. We have the defense claiming that Terry Hobbs was with the 3 boys. I think we all know exactly what the defense wants people to think--that Terry Hobbs was in possession of the trio, had custody of, controlled...They knew it wasn't true, but they put it out there deliberately with that wording IMO.

To which specific statement are you referring? You use the word "the defense" as if everyone who questions the WM3 verdicts were somehow working in concert to choose prepositions to cast doubt on the verdicts.

Yes, some internet posters have written that "TH was with the 3 boys" because there is testimony that places the victims in TH's general vicinity and has TH calling to them. Such posters are using the word "with" loosely.

But to inflate that into a defense conspiracy is to use the word "defense" far more carelessly than anyone has used the word "with".

(ETA and BTW: my original point was that it's fine to remind us that nobody actually saw the victims in TH's immediate presence. It's calling large numbers of people "liars" that I find unnecessary. In an adversarial system, EVERYONE--defense and prosecution--chooses to present the evidence that best supports their own position; that doesn't make them "liars", it's how the system is designed. And to some extent, that system is mirrored in internet discussions about every case.)

 

[iluvmua]

Paradise Lost 1 & 2 are obviously Biased Documentaries.

Feb 8th, 1994.

It was before the Prosecution had ever spoken to him:

Davis: It was our information that on the way down to the Department of Corrections on Friday, that he had spoken, talked continuously for a period of two to three hours, however long it took to get there, describing his involvement and even indicating to the officers that he was not shocked by what the jury did because he basically deserved the punishment he received. He talked constantly about what -- his involvement in the case. The officers advised me of that information and that's when I contacted Dan Stidham to see if we should go down there to discuss his client's options and if he did in fact want to testify.

We then rode down to the Department of Corrections on Tuesday. Mr. Stidham rode with me. Mr. Fogleman and Mr. Gitchell met us at Brinkley, and we went to Pine Bluff. At that time, Mr. Stidham talked with him for approximately ten or fifteen minutes, at which point he came out of the room, grabbed a Bible. went back in and -- this is my personal observation -- but approximately 30 to 45 minutes later Mr. Stidham exited. He was very upset, unnerved, just kept mumbling things -- "I don't know what I'm supposed to do now. I don't know what to do now."

Stidham denied this confession for years, until he was forced to present the tape to the current defense attorneys during Misskelley's recent rule 37 hearing:

Jonesboro Sun
Friday, November 21, 2008

Caught on tape: WM3 murderer described killings in graphic detail
By George Jared

JONESBORO - In a private audiotaped conversation with his attorney on Feb. 8, 1994, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley described in graphic detail how he and two cohorts tortured and killed three 8-year-old boys - one of whom may have still been alive when they were dumped into a West Memphis ditch.

The tape was played Thursday during a Rule 37 hearing in Jonesboro. Misskelley, Damien Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin, commonly referred to as the West Memphis Three, were convicted in the May 5, 1993, slayings of Michael Moore, Steven Branch and Christopher Byers.

A Rule 37 hearing is held when a convict claims his or her legal counsel was inadequate and seeks a new trial.

Prosecutor Brent Davis questioned Misskelley's trial attorney, Dan Stidham, who testified for a second day that he was too inexperienced to handle the case and lacked enough money to pay for expert testimony.

The conversation on the tape took place four days after Baldwin and Echols' trial began.

On the tape, Misskelley said he, Echols and Baldwin were drinking alcohol next to a ditch when the boys approached.

"Damien grabbed one of them and started hitting him," Misskelley told Stidham.

Within moments Misskelley and Baldwin attacked the other boys, he said. Misskelley said he let his boy go, and then Damien yelled "get him."

At one point Baldwin pulled out a knife and started cutting one of the victims, and Misskelley told his attorney, "That's when I realized they're going to kill these boys."

Baldwin repeatedly shook his head while the 90-minute long tape played in the courtroom. During a court recess, Baldwin held hands with a woman whom he refused to identify.

Before the attack was over, Misskelley said Echols sexually assaulted one of the victims, and Baldwin cut the genitals off another. Byers was still moving after he was bound like the others and dumped into a water-filled ditch, Misskelley said on the tape.

From the witness stand, Stidham said the confession "stunned" him.

But there were inaccuracies in Misskelley's account, his former attorney said. When shown a map of the area where the attack occurred, Misskelley incorrectly estimated the size of a pipe near the water, misidentified where a grove of trees was in relation to where the boys were sitting and didn't know exactly where the bodies were dumped, Stidham said.

DNA evidence found on a pair of one boy's pants was mentioned in the post-conviction conversation, but Misskelley never mentioned it during a 12-hour interrogation by police, the initial meeting in which he admitted guilt.

The pants were mentioned by Davis in his closing arguments during the trial, and Stidham said he thinks Misskelley pieced together a false confession from information he gleaned at the trial.

Just eight days later, Misskelley gave another confession to Davis in which he said there was no sexual assault, Stidham said.

About a month later Misskelley recanted both confessions and has maintained his innocence since, Stidham said.

Judge David Burnett, who is presiding over the hearing, was angered by Stidham's lengthy answers to some of Davis' questions.

"Can you answer a question without making a speech?" Burnett asked.

"I guess not," Stidham replied.

Davis continued to press Stidham about the quality of Misskelley's defense almost 15 years ago. Stidham said a jury selection expert helped him, and more than 300 witnesses were retained for trial. Alibis for Misskelley from 15 witnesses were also heard.

These and other facts made Davis believe that Stidman provided a thorough defense.

Stidham said some of his miscues included not admitting into evidence a letter written by Misskelley to his parents just days after his arrest. He thought that if the letter was admitted, Misskelley would have to testify.

Inconsistent statements by Misskelley throughout the summer and early fall prior to trial plagued the case, Stidham said. Misskelley repeatedly got victims, timelines and other information wrong in interviews.

From his arrest in June 1993 through that September, Misskelley said he was guilty and prosecutors had DNA evidence, Stidham said.

The attorney thought his only job would be to get a plea deal for his client.

When the DNA evidence returned inconclusive and Misskelley started claiming he was innocent, Stidham said he had to prepare for a trial he wasn't ready for.

Stidham believes his former client is not guilty.

"If I had an ego I wouldn't be admitting to these missteps in 1994," Stidham said.

Previously, Stidham said of Misskelley, "I failed him."

 

[Compassionate Reader]

"Damien grabbed one of them and started hitting him." If true, why were Damien's hands not damaged? When you hit someone with bare knuckles, your knuckles are bruised and/or bloodied. Damien's were not. "At one point, [according to the report] Baldwin pulled out a knife . . ." Experts now agree that the wounds once believed to be knife wounds are post or peri mortem animal predation. Besides, if you have a knife, why would you scrape it over your victim? If you have a knife, you stab. There were no stab wounds. "Misskelley said Echols sexually assaulted one of the victims , and Baldwin cut the genitals off another." There was no evidence of sexual penetration, and technically, Chris Byers wasn't castrated; he was degloved. The penile shaft was not totally severed. Experts have since stated that this injury was done again by post or peri mortem animal predation, most likely alligator snapping turtles which are prevalent in the area. The DNA evidence found on one of the boys' pants which was inconclusive at the time has now been proven to exclude all of the WM3. The contributor is still unknown, or at least unrevealed to the public. Stidham's statement that Jessie "pieced together a false confession from information he gleaned at the trial" is probably accurate. Given Jessie's limited mental capacity, he would have wanted to please the police. He would do this in the misguided belief that, by telling the police what they wanted to hear, he would get to go home. So, he would have given them a "story" that matched what he thought they thought happened, based on what he heard and remembered from his trial. Since February, 1994, Jessie has steadfastly maintained his innocence and did not testify against Damien and Jason. I believe that the upcoming hearing will shed light on some if not all of the statements in this report.

 

[Nova]

All documentaries are biased. Somebody decides where to point the camera and what footage to include in the final edit, based on what he or she believes will best represent the truth.

The alternatives are fictional films and security-camera footage.

 

[Nova]

I'm not sure what is being discussed in the two posts preceding my last.

So, on Dec. 8, 1994, Jessie Misskelley told his lawyer more or less the same story fed to him by interrogators. Why is this significant? Is it just because JM told it to his own attorney? Does somebody actually believe clients never lie to their lawyers?

Regardless of whom he told, the story still doesn't correspond to the forensics (as CR points out in some detail).

And BTW, of course, Stidham didn't go around saying, "Yeah, he confessed to me, too." That would have been a clear violation of attorney/client privilege.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Nova,

I'm assuming that iluvmua was referencing the infamous "in the police car on the way to prison" confession of JM. S/he also referenced an article in the Jonesboro Sun back in 2008 during Jessie's Rule 37 hearing. Even the article stated that there were inconsistencies in JM's statements, all three of them. I'm not sure what iluvmua was trying to say/prove, but I was simply pointing out the numerous inconsistencies in his statement, as you said. Again, as I've said several times before, I believe that many of the inconsistencies will be cleared up by the upcoming hearings.

 

[Nova]

Nova,

I'm assuming that iluvmua was referencing the infamous "in the police car on the way to prison" confession of JM. S/he also referenced an article in the Jonesboro Sun back in 2008 during Jessie's Rule 37 hearing. Even the article stated that there were inconsistencies in JM's statements, all three of them. I'm not sure what iluvmua was trying to say/prove, but I was simply pointing out the numerous inconsistencies in his statement, as you said. Again, as I've said several times before, I believe that many of the inconsistencies will be cleared up by the upcoming hearings.

I don't understand the continuing blind faith in the magical reliability of confessions. Yeah, JM told that story numerous times, never the same way twice and never managing to make his story correspond to even the limited forensics available at the time.

To me, this is indicative of someone trying to find the right tale that will somehow get him out of his fix. It isn't a "search for the truth."

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't understand the continuing blind faith in the magical reliability of confessions. Yeah, JM told that story numerous times, never the same way twice and never managing to make his story correspond to even the limited forensics available at the time.

To me, this is indicative of someone trying to find the right tale that will somehow get him out of his fix. It isn't a "search for the truth."

Exactly! When you add to the mix the fact that JM was mentally challenged, the repeated confessions are even more explainable. I have a feeling that this "confession" will be thoroughly discounted at the hearing, but that's just my opinion, or rather hope. To me, the "confession" is the only real evidence that the prosecution has, especially since the "Satanic panic" prevalent at the time of the crimes has passed. If it is disproved or discounted, their case falls apart IMO. If you saw Paradise Lost, you will remember the scene right before the E/B trial where Fogleman and Davis are discussing the case with the grandparents and parents of the victims. Even they admitted that, except for Jessie's "confession," the case was weak. The fibers will be or have been retested, and when the results are made public and exonerate the Three, along with the new expert testimony that states that the "lake knife" didn't cause any of the wounds on the boys, there is absolutely no physical evidence to connect the Three to the crime. What convicted the guys at the time was the "Satanic panic" coupled with Damien's actions and the attitude of the community that convicting these three "throw away" kids would somehow make them feel safe. I know that's a sad thought, but I think that's what happened. Right now, I feel those who continue to believe that the Three are guilty fall into two groups: those that for personal and/or professional reasons cannot change their stance and those that believe that "the police are always right" so the Three have to be guilty because two juries said so. This second group has blind faith in the justice system. Unfortunately, the justice system does make mistakes. There may be a few non supporters out there that continue to argue against the Three just for the sake of argument or who just don't accept some of the new evidence, but IMO they are few in number. I truly look forward to the hearing when more evidence is promised that can hopefully shed some much-needed new light on this case.

 

[Nova]

Indeed, CR! None of likes to think that innocent parties can not only be arrested but convicted in this country (and all too easily, if you ask me).

It's a very scary thought.