Yet one doesn't rightly have to ever go to an area for their hair to wind up there. Do you not comprehend this fact, or are you simply intent on ignoring it?
It sounds like I comprehend the significance of the hair more than some. You can hold steadfast to your opinions, I really don't care because your's will never change no matter what evidence is discovered. Your refusal to acknowledge that that hair and the findings relative to that hair justifies a further investigation into Hobbs is mind boggling. You act as if I'm saying that's enough to convict on. I'm not. It is enough to justify a further look however. Continue to twist and ignore all you like.
I contend the effort would be better spent getting mDNA samples from the other parents of the boys along with their friends, teachers, and others who traveled in the same circles as them. At least a couple of those people likely have mDNA consistent with some of other hairs recovered from the scene, perhaps even other hairs from the ligatures, and that would go a long way toward taking the wind out of the sails those of you who've gotten so worked up over a hair.
Support 100%. Start with those closest and work your way out. That's how the investigation should have been run from day 1. Glad we agree on something.
Sure, but again your opinion is biased by your denial of the evidence uncovered against the three who were convicted and eventually plead guilty to the murders.
Remind me again. What evidence did LE have that the WM3 were so guilty on Day 1 that it would justify not properly investigating these crimes? Or on
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 1000
Only by wearing blinders can one make the argument that not investigating/interviewing Hobbs right away was justified, even if there was evidence of WM3 involvement, which there was not.
Even if they had SOME evidence against the WM3, how in the hell does that justify not fully investigating the obvious? Further, you have no idea what evidence I haven't considered and which evidence I have considered. My guess is what you consider a mountain of solid evidence in my opinion is scant and flimsy...on its best day. Maybe the one here with a bias is you.
There's also a difference between investigating someone and making wildly inaccurate statements about evidence to cast suspension on someone, such as the comment which got this line of discussion started:
Reality check. If my sister's child is murdered and a hair is found and that hair matches the child's step-father, who also happens to be a seedy person, you are damn right I am going to want LE to look into him further. God help your children if you don't think the same way.
And you've seen seen other examples of outright blaming a parent, I know because I've showed examples before of Echols and Baldwin blaming Byers.
Go take it up with Echols and Baldwin. I really don't care what they say as far as blaming anyone. I wouldn't fault them for making even crazier accusations after what they went through. And no, did not click link because I didn't care enough to do so.
A good debate requires both parties to be familiar with the facts of the matter being discussed, and can't rightly occur when one party shows no interest in accurately recounting even the simplest of facts.
Again with personal bashing, which is what one has to resort to when the facts do not support their position. Carry on.