SURPRISE HEARING Friday 18th August

[SmoothOperator]

I definitely believe that if the shoelaces that are in a pair of regularly worn tennis shoes from my house(my sons or husbands) that it would be quite likely that DNA evidence such as my hair could likely be found on those laces..
And the hyped hair within the knot, if even true, as it is only an independant test only done by the defense that states the hair "could be associated" with a DNA sample supposedly of Hobbs, likely obtained thru such as a cigarette butt(as given as example of the various ways they went about obtaining his DNA)that some of the DT's PI's obtained.. None of this supposed "conclusive DNA damning evidence" has ever even made its way into evidence in the slightest into a court of law.. But clearly if the single hair of a person who resided within the home was on a shoelace when tied into the multiple knots along the shoelaces the result would be that the hair would and could be anywhere within or near any of those multiple knots

 

[gelfie68]

Having a child a child that is Bipolar I. When he was in his teen years also DX with psychotic tendencies. This included 13 hospitalizations within a years time and a long term care facility for 9 months. He was given MULTIPLE diagnoses in that time frame. He also in his severe manic times also heard voices and vocalized very bizarre statements. He also for shock value said and did some disturbing things. His meds were changed as frequently as his hospitalizations.

I am ALSO bipolar, I am Bipolar II. I also had my share of hospitalizations, medications. I was reckless in my behavior and prone to do things for shock value.

He is now 25, stable and fully med compliant. He works, goes to school etc. He is on a medication regime.
I am 43, stable, fully functional. I am not on medications. I can function without therapies.

Oh, may I also mention that I am practicing pagan and have been for over 27 years?

My point? I take HUGE offense to people pointing out that OBVIOUSLY a person is guilty of a heinous crime because they have a mental illness in their personal history. I am positive that if someone read my or my son's psych reports line by line (without the benefit of a knowledge of mental illness or psych education) I or my son are in fact nuts, psychopaths, etc and need to be incarcerated for every crime we may possibly indirectly come in contact with.

I am sorry but this is a very sore subject for me. Yes, there are some cases where the crime is a direct cause of mental illness. But this case is not.

The fact that Mr. Echols has a history of psychiatric issues is one small factor. His questioning of religion in a small town was also a small factor. His music choice? His manner of dress?

I am breaking my cardinal rule of posting angry, but something MUST be said.

 

[Nova]

No need to apologize, gelfie. Thanks for the reminder (and congratulations on doing so well)!

 

[~n/t~]

You're guessing wrong. You really need links to the Jacoby hair, the Ballards affidavits, the testimony of Pam Hobbs about the knife Stevie carried, the testimony of other family members about the bad blood between stepfather and stepson, the downright impossible claims which Terry Hobbs makes when he gives his "alibi" for the night of May 5th 1993, or his admission of regular beatings of Stevie and making him hold his hands over his head?

I can and will give them, but its nearly 1 am here, and I am going to bed. I'll look them up and post them for you in the morning.

Good night

 

[SyraKelly]

SmoothO-I am sorry-I know this question has probably been ask of you and your answer is probably somewhere in this thread,but its a long thread.I am trying to understand your reasoning of thinking the 3 are guilty-can you please give maybe a summary of your thoughts behind that..Thank you

 

[Pensfan]

MOO regarding the laundry list of allegations on Terry Hobbs per his ex wife Pamela Hobbs and her family, friends, and associates..

Some may think it is in criminal court cases the most vile and disgusting of human nature is seen.. I know many that have had personal experiences with "exes" both in and out of court rooms, and some Attys as well that have made the statement that in dealing with the vile and disgusting human nature that is seen in MANY relationships that have dissolved into literal vehement hatred of one another(each of the exes) that it makes even the most horrendous of criminal court room details pale in comparison to the details, allegations, and accusations that are hurled between the "exes"(and I am not only speaking in family court and it's surrounding procedures but even more frequently outside of the court proceedings as well) [exes]themselves as well as absolutely anyone they can beg, steal, or borrow to assist in painting their ex no less than Satan, himself..

IMPO there are/were a great number of this community that would be seen or labeled "questionable" at best IMO.. I don't personally put stock into the laundry lists created by exes, their fam, friends, and acquaintances.. And it's well proven that sadly children of all ages are too swept up in the vile and disgusting human nature that many selfishly display for years and lifetimes on end manipulating, swaying, and even feeding children caught in the middle of these hellish situations downright lies about the other parent(sometimes even coming from both sides)..

It's just a known fact that I personally have witnessed in complete fabrications of the worst abuses, attacks, rapes, etc against "exes" both in and out of court proceedings.. It by far is not a rare occurrence by any stretch of the imagination..

All of the nastiest of the vilest of accusations hurled still does NOT a murderer it make.. And definitely it does not make one the murderer of Stevie, Michael, and Christopher.. That has been twice over found to be Damien, Jason, Jessie with 7 counts 1st degree and 2 counts of second degree murder of those three little boys..

Just as we have to live with the Casey Anthony jury's finding of Not Guilty of her daughter's murder.. So too must we live with the fact that two separate juries, at two separate trials, at two separate times found first, Misskelley GUILTY of 1 count 1st degree murder and 2 counts 2nd degree murder.. And then to follow was that separate trial and jury finding Echols and Baldwin of 6 counts of 1st degree murder(3 per defendant obviously).. That's a fact that must be lived with as it was once again upheld this past Friday that all three would remain as the jury of their peers found them.. ALL 3 defendants GUILTY of murdering all three of the little victims

Yes. False allegations of sexual abuse or neglect are frequently used as a retribution “tool” for far too many dysfunctional families and arguing couples.

The National Study of Child Abuse estimated that 1.1 million child abuse and neglect reports have been filed with Child Protective Agencies each year and that more than 600,000 (MORE THAN HALF) of these probably cannot be substantiated even using the broad definitions of child abuse and neglect often used by the protective service agencies.*


Douglas Besharov, the first director of NCCAN, addressed the issue of unfounded allegations in an article that broadly outlined the development of child maltreatment as a social issue.* He said, "We now face an imminent social tragedy: the nationwide collapse of child protective efforts caused by a flood of unfounded reports" (p.22).*
Besharov, D. J. (1986). Unfounded allegations — a new child abuse problem. The Public Interest, 83, Spring, 18-33.

 

[Nova]

in this case, an entourage was good for 18 years of unjust confinement.

it's truly laughable that people are bent on claiming these 3 got one over on the justice system bc of the help of some high-profile individuals.

as much as i'd love to have a reason to attach myself to johnny depp, 18 years behind bars is not a price i'd be willing to pay for it.

If one believes some of the posts here, the WM3 "got one over on the justice system" because their legions of supporters overwhelmed the poor, helpless little state of Arkansas.

 

[claudicici]

I definitely believe that if the shoelaces that are in a pair of regularly worn tennis shoes from my house(my sons or husbands) that it would be quite likely that DNA evidence such as my hair could likely be found on those laces..
And the hyped hair within the knot, if even true, as it is only an independant test only done by the defense that states the hair "could be associated" with a DNA sample supposedly of Hobbs, likely obtained thru such as a cigarette butt(as given as example of the various ways they went about obtaining his DNA)that some of the DT's PI's obtained.. None of this supposed "conclusive DNA damning evidence" has ever even made its way into evidence in the slightest into a court of law.. But clearly if the single hair of a person who resided within the home was on a shoelace when tied into the multiple knots along the shoelaces the result would be that the hair would and could be anywhere within or near any of those multiple knots

Michael Moore was not Hobbs son.
As far as ex wifes spreading rumors ,I agree,I take that with a grain of salt but what about the neighbor?Hobbs got charged in that case.She testified to his abuse of his wife and child.He has no relationship to this child.What about Amanda's journal?
Thank you gelfie for your wonderful post,it's hard for me not to be angry also.I can't believe posters keep pointing to Damien's mental health record as proof of his guilt.
He has no connection to the victims.
It breaks my heart to think that Stevie and also Chris were abused during their short lives.
It makes me absolutely sick.There is a very disturbed young lady out there (Amanda).I feel that she may have witnessed or knows something.Where is justice for her?

 

[SmoothOperator]

I may be wrong but in the misconception that each of the victims were tied up as matched with their own personal shoelaces is not true nor IMO very reasonable.. I'll explain ATLEAST my view of how I find it to unreasonable to believe it to be that each child's very own shoe laces were matched with each of them when tying them up..

IMO throughout the course of the attacks on these little boys it was only toward the end that they were tied up bound wrist to opposite ankle with their shoelaces.. I believe that there having their shoes taken off, ripped off, knocked off, or however you personally believe it to have happened did not happen in a uniform and orderly fashion.. Does that make sense??

I am not being snarky here but rather just asking in using common sense would one truly believe that over the course of the abuses inflicted on these boys, however and whatever one may believe those abuses entailed obviously they resulted without their shoes and clothing and IMO I find it difficult to believe that the "killers"( and thats no matter who you believe them to be ) that after this period of attacking the little boys, which again IMO was not in a uniform, step by logical step manner.. That when the killers got to the point of using the shoelaces from their tennis shoes does it seem likely that they would A) remember or care whose shoes and therefor shoelaces belonged to who
B) take the time to find out by asking or some other way of figuring out which shoes and therefor shoelaces matched with each individual victim

MOO that's not reasonable or likely.. So while yes, it was the laces that were binding Michael Moore's wrist to his opposite ankle tht the "supposed hair that could be associated to TH" was found on.. It very easily could have been the shoe lace or laces that were from Stevie Branch's tennis shoes..

MOO

 

[indicat]

...a hair tied inside the shoelace that bound Michael Moore.I'm having a hard time thinking of a way this could have been innocent transfer,especially since Hobbs maintains he did not see any of the children at all that day.

And as been pointed out, what we would give for a hair from Casey found bound up in that duct tape or anywhere with Caylee's remains. I would have thought that would be enough to convince that jury but I guess they too could have said "well of course, Casey lived with and took care of Caylee".

ETA: here I am staying off the Caylee threads because I can't handle the outcome of the case and now I'm discussing it on this thread and the Susan Powell thread, how's that for irony.

 

[indicat]

If one believes some of the posts here, the WM3 "got one over on the justice system" because their legions of supporters overwhelmed the poor, helpless little state of Arkansas.

There is good reason to be sceptical of celebrity envolvement or more to the point "money". Sorry but it's not so much they put one over on poor helpless Arkansas but the amount of superiority they bring with them. Maybe not so much Eddie Vedder but Natalie Maines leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Whenever she's involved my stomache turns.:sick:

 

[HRCODEPINK]

And as been pointed out, what we would give for a hair from Casey found bound up in that duct tape or anywhere with Caylee's remains. I would have thought that would be enough to convince that jury but I guess they too could have said "well of course, Casey lived with and took care of Caylee".

O/T completely at this point, and just a response to indicat's post above:

It really goes back to the fact that sometimes juries get it all wrong. I don't know if CFCA's jury would have convicted her with video of her doing it. That said, however, one (perhaps not on that jury) would think that after having been supposedly drowned in the pool, dumped some place by George, found by the meter reader and then duct taped and again dumped elsewhere, that a hair in the tape would have to point towards guilt of Casey while...I guess helping the meter reader, who was supposedly there when the tape was put on Caylee, since that was what was implied by the defense. I think that if one of her hairs had been found wrapped in that tape, it would have blown their whole story and proven that they were lying and thus convicted her of something.

If the defense team had come up with another story, I don't know how that would play out. :innocent:

One test down, the longer one to go, then off to dig up some info on candle wax!

ETA: Sorry, I worded that wrong in my rush to get back to class. not have to belong to Casey, but show her guilt.

 

[gitana1]

I may be wrong but in the misconception that each of the victims were tied up as matched with their own personal shoelaces is not true nor IMO very reasonable.. I'll explain ATLEAST my view of how I find it to unreasonable to believe it to be that each child's very own shoe laces were matched with each of them when tying them up..

IMO throughout the course of the attacks on these little boys it was only toward the end that they were tied up bound wrist to opposite ankle with their shoelaces.. I believe that there having their shoes taken off, ripped off, knocked off, or however you personally believe it to have happened did not happen in a uniform and orderly fashion.. Does that make sense??

I am not being snarky here but rather just asking in using common sense would one truly believe that over the course of the abuses inflicted on these boys, however and whatever one may believe those abuses entailed obviously they resulted without their shoes and clothing and IMO I find it difficult to believe that the "killers"( and thats no matter who you believe them to be ) that after this period of attacking the little boys, which again IMO was not in a uniform, step by logical step manner.. That when the killers got to the point of using the shoelaces from their tennis shoes does it seem likely that they would A) remember or care whose shoes and therefor shoelaces belonged to who
B) take the time to find out by asking or some other way of figuring out which shoes and therefor shoelaces matched with each individual victim

MOO that's not reasonable or likely.. So while yes, it was the laces that were binding Michael Moore's wrist to his opposite ankle tht the "supposed hair that could be associated to TH" was found on.. It very easily could have been the shoe lace or laces that were from Stevie Branch's tennis shoes..

MOO

At least two of the three little boys, Stevie and Christopher, were whipped by their step-dads, Christopher on the day he was murdered and Stevie, apparently regularly by Terry.

I can see these three boys as easily threatened, intimidated by an adult who they are afraid of, who has punished at least one of them before.

If you accept the Terry Hobbs theory, I can see Terry looking for Stevie, mad as heck because Stevie was not home. "I like to know where the kids are. He was supposed to be home. I kept looking up the road for him."

He admits to searching for a long time, in the woods and elsewhere, for Stevie. I can see him intending to "punish" Stevie as he apparently often had before, for not coming home on time.

I can also see him finding the three and deciding to punish one or all and losing control, or having to hide an accidental killing.

In such a scenario, I could see him ordering the three boys to take off their clothes and give him their shoelaces. He could have decided to bind them before whipping them. We know he liked to make sure Stevie's hands were not in the way when he beat him. I can see these three little boys doing exactly as he said, out of fear of an adult figure they knew.

Either that, or he could have tied them afterward, to make it look like a predator got them.

I just can't see a scenario where shoelaces are flying and swapped between three teens who all somehow manage to find a pair and tie up different boys, each with a pair that doesn't belong to them.

Besides, I believe the evidence is that each child was tied with his own shoelaces.

 

[indicat]

At least two of the three little boys, Stevie and Christopher, were whipped by their step-dads, Christopher on the day he was murdered and Stevie, apparently regularly by Terry.

I can see these three boys as easily threatened, intimidated by an adult who they are afraid of, who has punished at least one of them before.

If you accept the Terry Hobbs theory, I can see Terry looking for Stevie, mad as heck because Stevie was not home. "I like to know where the kids are. He was supposed to be home. I kept looking up the road for him."

He admits to searching for a long time, in the woods and elsewhere, for Stevie. I can see him intending to "punish" Stevie as he apparently often had before, for not coming home on time.

I can also see him finding the three and deciding to punish one or all and losing control, or having to hide an accidental killing.

In such a scenario, I could see him ordering the three boys to take off their clothes and give him their shoelaces. He could have decided to bind them before whipping them. We know he liked to make sure Stevie's hands were not in the way when he beat him. I can see these three little boys doing exactly as he said, out of fear of an adult figure they knew.

Either that, or he could have tied them afterward, to make it look like a predator got them.

I just can't see a scenario where shoelaces are flying and swapped between three teens who all somehow manage to find a pair and tie up different boys, each with a pair that doesn't belong to them.

Besides, I believe the evidence is that each child was tied with his own shoelaces.

How sad is it that either way because of these boys socioclass and home life they were pretty much targets for this kind of thing. My heart just breaks for these sweet little angels.

 

[Pensfan]

I am saddened that some are sensitive to this topic and I am not posting this to upset anyone. I believe in the facts.

DE was diagnosed with two severe mental disorders: bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

Most schizophrenic and bipolar individuals are not violent. However, there have been studies that show increased rates of violence in schizophrenic and bipolar individuals when compared to control groups who do not have a severe mental illness.

Studies from 2000 reported rates of violence, taken from official records, as high as 11.3 – 33.3 percent in schizophrenic individuals, compared to 2.2 – 3.8% in control groups with no mental illness.

Brennan, P. A., Mednick, S. A., & Hodgins, S. (2000). Major mental disorders and Criminal Violence in a Danish birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 494-500.







The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study found that 18% of people with a psychiatric disorder committed at least one act of violence in a year. It found that 31% of people who had both a substance abuse disorder and a psychiatric disorder committed at least one act of violence in a year.


Rates of violence in schizophrenics compared (in an additional study):
5.1% in control group without a mental health disorder
8.5% in schizophrenics without a substance abuse disorder
27.6% in schizophrenics with a substance abuse disorder
Percentage of people convicted of at least one violent crime, 1973–2006
Source: Fazel S, et al. Journal of the American Medical Association. May 20, 2009.

Rates of violence in people with bipolar disorder compared:
3.4% in control group without a mental health disorder
4.9% in bipolar individuals without a substance abuse disorder
21.3% in bipolar individuals with a substance abuse disorder
Percentage of people convicted of at least one violent crime, 1973–2004
Source: Fazel S, et al. Archives of General Psychiatry. September 2010.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsl...tter/2011/January/mental-illness-and-violence

 

[Wishbone]

There is good reason to be sceptical of celebrity envolvement or more to the point "money". Sorry but it's not so much they put one over on poor helpless Arkansas but the amount of superiority they bring with them. Maybe not so much Eddie Vedder but Natalie Maines leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Whenever she's involved my stomache turns.:sick:

Don’t know much about Natalie Maines except that she had the courage to voice her political and anti war feelings and that makes me appreciate her courage. Seems like she isn't afraid to fight for what she believes in. I don’t know for sure who murdered those little boys and would have liked to have seen a retrial of the WM3. Of course I would like to see casey anthony retried as well but that’s impossible.

 

[claudicici]

I am saddened that some are sensitive to this topic and I am not posting this to upset anyone. I believe in the facts.

DE was diagnosed with two severe mental disorders: bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

Most schizophrenic and bipolar individuals are not violent. However, there have been studies that show increased rates of violence in schizophrenic and bipolar individuals when compared to control groups who do not have a severe mental illness.

Studies from 2000 reported rates of violence, taken from official records, as high as 11.3 – 33.3 percent in schizophrenic individuals, compared to 2.2 – 3.8% in control groups with no mental illness.

Brennan, P. A., Mednick, S. A., & Hodgins, S. (2000). Major mental disorders and Criminal Violence in a Danish birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 494-500.







The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study found that 18% of people with a psychiatric disorder committed at least one act of violence in a year. It found that 31% of people who had both a substance abuse disorder and a psychiatric disorder committed at least one act of violence in a year.


Rates of violence in schizophrenics compared (in an additional study):
5.1% in control group without a mental health disorder
8.5% in schizophrenics without a substance abuse disorder
27.6% in schizophrenics with a substance abuse disorder
Percentage of people convicted of at least one violent crime, 1973–2006
Source: Fazel S, et al. Journal of the American Medical Association. May 20, 2009.

Rates of violence in people with bipolar disorder compared:
3.4% in control group without a mental health disorder
4.9% in bipolar individuals without a substance abuse disorder
21.3% in bipolar individuals with a substance abuse disorder
Percentage of people convicted of at least one violent crime, 1973–2004
Source: Fazel S, et al. Archives of General Psychiatry. September 2010.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsl...tter/2011/January/mental-illness-and-violence

but Pensfan that is exactly why I am so confused by your posts.You are a certified psych nurse,you are stating that most bipolar people and schizophrenics are not violent , only slightly higher than in the control group without mental disorder.Therefore I would understand if Damiens mental health record would be brought up if someone he was connected to ended up dead.But there is no proof he was near the crime scene or knew the victims.I don't understand why his mental health record is being brought up as evidence of committing this crime.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Where one sees it as it as three teenagers "intentionally" throwing around and mixing up shoelaces, another sees that nothing even near that to have happened, nor near what I explained in my opinion was most likeliest to have happened..

There was no intentional anything and throughout the course of three victims 8yoa being beaten, roughed up however one wants to call it, there was nothing about the beating, abuse and murder that was done in any type of an orderly fashion whatsoever..

Throughout the course of being beaten, shoes ripped off, clothes ripped off and a continued beating and assault.. Is it reasonable to believe that throughout the course of the attack beaten both before and after their clothing and shoes were removed.. Is it reasonable to believe that each victims shoes were removed in a uniform fashion where after more time passes with continued beating of them shoeless that upon the time that they were bound that their shoes had been removed in such an organized and neat way that the two little shoes were right there next to each of the little boys??

The evidence proves this not to be the case.. There was no uniform, organized fashion with which their clothes and shoes were removed prior to the time they were bound.. One shoe found having made it's way down the creek.. The clothes NOT in neat little piles near each matching owner of the clothes and shoes..

IMO not in anyway reasonable THAT the shoelaces were INTENTIONALLY mismatched.. Nor IMO reasonable that they were removed and placed in any type of organized or easily discernable way..

Just clarifying that I in no way believe nor stated they were intentionally mismatched.. IMO that's even more unreasonable than believing they removed them and neatly placed each pair just so.. So that when the time came to bind them they'd know whose shoes and laces were whose..

That is as clearly as I am able to explain that the likelihood is great that the laces binding Michael quite easily came from Stevie's shoes..

 

[indicat]

Where one sees it as it as three teenagers "intentionally" throwing around and mixing up shoelaces, another sees that nothing even near that to have happened, nor near what I explained in my opinion was most likeliest to have happened..

There was no intentional anything and throughout the course of three victims 8yoa being beaten, roughed up however one wants to call it, there was nothing about the beating, abuse and murder that was done in any type of an orderly fashion whatsoever..

Throughout the course of being beaten, shoes ripped off, clothes ripped off and a continued beating and assault.. Is it reasonable to believe that throughout the course of the attack beaten both before and after their clothing and shoes were removed.. Is it reasonable to believe that each victims shoes were removed in a uniform fashion where after more time passes with continued beating of them shoeless that upon the time that they were bound that their shoes had been removed in such an organized and neat way that the two little shoes were right there next to each of the little boys??

The evidence proves this not to be the case.. There was no uniform, organized fashion with which their clothes and shoes were removed prior to the time they were bound.. One shoe found having made it's way down the creek.. The clothes NOT in neat little piles near each matching owner of the clothes and shoes..

IMO not in anyway reasonable THAT the shoelaces were INTENTIONALLY mismatched.. Nor IMO reasonable that they were removed and placed in any type of organized or easily discernable way..

Just clarifying that I in no way believe nor stated they were intentionally mismatched.. IMO that's even more unreasonable than believing they removed them and neatly placed each pair just so.. So that when the time came to bind them they'd know whose shoes and laces were whose..

That is as clearly as I am able to explain that the likelihood is great that the laces binding Michael quite easily came from Stevie's shoes..

I'm sorry, I think I'm missing something. Who's shoelace was the possible TH hair in?

 

[SmoothOperator]

It's my opinion only but the reason the psych record is brought up is because it is the psych record of a man convicted of murder in the 1st degree of the 3 victims..

Some opinions may be that he is not in any way proven connected to the murders but however he very much was found GUILTY OF THOSE MURDERS..