TH and potential evidence

[reedus23]

I'm not sure of it's evidentiary value, but since we're only talking about what casts suspicion on TH and not what is ultimate proof of guilt, I'd throw out there that TH also nearly matches Douglas' profile to a "T". Are there any other profiles done by professionals out there? Not some blogger or whatever, but a true expert in the field?

 

[NCSleuth]

Is the question should TH have been investigated then or is it the question should TH be investigated now?

 

[kyleb]

Who bled all over Bojangles?

If your not familiar with the matter I was referring to, This page provides a decent summery.

And these "vague assertions" are all one has to go on in this case, or else we have nothing.

Nonsense. There's who wealth of documented facts regarding this case on Callahan alone, many of which I could cite regarding various points on Reedus's list if vague assertions myself, but I've no interest in doing so with people who limit themselves to vague assertions or nothing.

For one to suggest that Byers, Mr. Bojangles or Hobbs should not have been investigated gives a clearer picture into that persons point of reference.

Yet I've never suggested anything of the sort.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Originally Posted by reedus23
For one to suggest that Byers, Mr. Bojangles or Hobbs should not have been investigated gives a clearer picture into that persons point of reference.

Yet I've never suggested anything of the sort.

So, I would like a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following question. Is there enough evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, implicating Terry Hobbs to warrant a true investigation into him as a suspect, something which the wmpd (and the State of Arkansas) have so far refused to do?

 

[NCSleuth]

To warrant an investigation at this time? NO. Case is closed. Three people have plead guilty to this crime!

 

[kyleb]

So, I would like a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following question. Is there enough evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, implicating Terry Hobbs to warrant a true investigation into him as a suspect, something which the wmpd (and the State of Arkansas) have so far refused to do?

No, there's never been any actual evidence implicating Terry Hobbs, Mark Byers, or the man who bled all over Bojangles in the murders, let alone enough to warrant investigating them for such now. That in no way suggests they should've been held above suspicion two decades ago though, nor do I imagine anyone was held above suspicion regardless of how thoroughly they were investigated or otherwise.

 

[missy_g]

I know who Bojangles is. You said a man bled all over him. I was wondering what man because I have never heard of a man bleeding all over Bojangles before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I know who Bojangles is. You said a man bled all over him. I was wondering what man because I have never heard of a man bleeding all over Bojangles before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe the reference was to the restaurant (technically, the restroom in the restaurant) and not the man.

 

[missy_g]

Ohhh duh...LOL...I always just call him Bojangles, so to me Bojangles=Mr. Bojangles. My mistake.

 

[reedus23]

Is the question should TH have been investigated then or is it the question should TH be investigated now?

I was particularly referencing currently. If you prefer then, it's fine as well. I'm just curious to know if, from the viewpoint of someone who believes the WM3 are guilty, there is anything that while still holding strong to that belief they acknowledge or believe casts suspicion on TH.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

No, there's never been any actual evidence implicating Terry Hobbs, Mark Byers, or the man who bled all over Bojangles in the murders, let alone enough to warrant investigating them for such now. That in no way suggests they should've been held above suspicion two decades ago though, nor do I imagine anyone was held above suspicion regardless of how thoroughly they were investigated or otherwise.

WRT the portion I placed in bold, I respectfully disagree. LE in this case has always contended that Hobbs "is not now and never was" a suspect. JMB was investigated exhaustively. Todd Moore (Michael's father) was ruled out by virtue of being an OTR trucker who was out of town until about 5:00 am on the morning of the 6th of May. Hobbs was never even questioned by the wmpd until 2007 when the defense presented their mtDNA evidence.

WRT the rest of the above, if by "evidence" against Hobbs, you mean something presented in court, you are correct. I imagine that's why the title of this thread refers to "potential evidence." However, the problem with this case is that LE is turning a blind eye to any information that doesn't "fit" their theory of the crime. The "evidence" against Mr. Bojangles was conveniently lost by the wmpd - not to imply that I believe he was involved, but, if he were, the proof was lost by the Keystone Kops (aka the wmpd).

 

[reedus23]

To warrant an investigation at this time? NO. Case is closed. Three people have plead guilty to this crime!

NC, thanks for the direct answer and not dancing around it.

My follow up question would be, if that is the reason, there would never be a scenario where a further investigation is called for once a conviction or guilty plea is accepted. That presupposes that no innocent man is in prison.

What if the perverbial "smoking gun" were found that undeniably indicates that John Doe was responsible for the murders. Wouldn't that warrant an investigation.

 

[gheckso]

To warrant an investigation at this time? NO. Case is closed. Three people have plead guilty to this crime!

Is this still not cleared up? :banghead:

 

[Alyssa2013]

Yes, three people were found guilty...convicted only on supposed circumstantial evidence. If you could even call it "evidence." And the case won't be closed until the real perpetrator(s) are proved guilty by DNA. You can say they were guilty all you want but DNA doesn't lie and the DNA did not place any of the three (Damien, Jessie or Jason) at the scene that day.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I know who Bojangles is. You said a man bled all over him. I was wondering what man because I have never heard of a man bleeding all over Bojangles before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Missyg, Bojangles is a place not a person.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

To warrant an investigation at this time? NO. Case is closed. Three people have plead guilty to this crime!

They also have convinced supporters that they just plead guilty so that they could prove their innocence, but nothing has happened since their release.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This case is not CLOSED. That sham of a DA's office may call it closed but we all know that it is not. They were not guilty. They pleaded guilty but maintained their innocence.

If the DA was so sure of their guilt they would not have even offered the deal.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

This case is not CLOSED. That shame of a DA's office may call it closed but we all know that it is not. They were not guilty. They pleaded guilty but maintained their innocence.

If the DA was so sure of their guilt they would not have even offered the deal.

I agree 100%. I'll just add one caveat. If this case is truly closed, why were JMB and Pam Hicks recently (Feb, 2013) denied access to their children's things that are "evidence" in the case?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I agree 100%. I'll just add one caveat. If this case is truly closed, why were JMB and Pam Hicks recently (Feb, 2013) denied access to their children's things that are "evidence" in the case?

Good point. If the case was closed then there was no need to offer the plea deal. They were all already in prison. I understand why they took it. They had been in prison for a long time and damien was going to be put to death.
But All it means is that the prosecution KNOWS they are wrong.

 

[reedus23]

There was discussion about Hobbs' evasiveness in the other thread and I found this exchange enlightening as well but figured it was probably better suited in this thread.

13 Q. Well, you shot your brother-in-law in the
14 stomach with a .357, didn’t you?
15 A. No, I did not.
16 Q. You didn’t shoot your brother-in-law in the
17 stomach with a gun?
18 A. No.
19 Q. He was never shot?
20 A. There was a gun discharged, and no one knew
21 where it went. No one pointed a gun at anybody
22 to shoot somebody with.
23 Q. Let’s back up here. Your brother-in-law was
24 shot, right, in the stomach?
25 A. I’m not sure where.


Page 137
Q. Your brother-in-law was shot, though, right,
2 with a handgun?
3 A. He was hit with a bullet.
4 Q. And whose gun did the bullet come from?
5 A. Mine.
6 Q. And who was holding the gun when it went off?
7 A. I was.
8 Q. And the gun was loaded with hollow point
9 bullets, right?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And you were charged -- criminal charges were
12 brought against you, right?
13 A. And soon dropped.

Man, I don't care if it was justified or not, but this exchange is very disturbing to me. To me it demonstrates an ability to rationalize away his involvement in the death of someone. Complete empathy for someone having died. I think people have been asking him the wrong question all along. It should not be "Did you kill the 3 boys?" but should be "Did the boys have knife wounds?" and "Did the knife cause those wounds?" and "Were you holding the knife at the time the wounds were inflicted?".