The Shoe Lace Bindings

[EntreNous]

What do you think about the other poster's theory of being 'seated' at a house somewhere and drowned in TH pool?

BTW do you have a time of death yet? The other poster didn't give one.

wanted to add - we are not really sure about the rigor because none of us are qualified to give an opinion and these boys were bound and drowned. Rigor may have lasted a full 3-days too.

i'd venture to guess most of us aren't "qualified" to do lots of things. are you a detective? yep, me neither. we're still trying to hash it all out though, right?
by the way, what i mentioned is just a theory i've thought about over the years. when i mentioned "a house" i didn't mean a random house. i meant the Hobbs house. it seems logical to me that, since there was a witness sighting at approx. 6:30 of the boys with TH near the Hobbs house and since Stevie had been threatened by his mother that he was likely in trouble for not reporting back home at the designated time. if that witness was correct i would think TH would have been upset with Stevie for not obeying the time rule. since this is possibly the last time the boys were seen by anyone and the witness recalled TH calling Stevie home, home likely could have been the last place Stevie was alive.
if TH is, in fact, guilty i don't think he planned it. in my mind i can see him being highly peeved with Stevie because of his defiance of the agreement with his mother about when to be home. since TH has a history of violent anger issues i can see him losing his temper at the house. it is possible that he hit Stevie too hard, maybe knocking him out. with the other boys at witness, likely terrified, (deer in headlights), it would stand to reason TH ultimately decided he had to eliminate the witnesses. the abandoned pool would be an ideal temporary dump site. that's simple logic. yeesh, you can ask Siri where to hide a body and she will tell you a garbage dump/landfill. the pool would have been the quickest, most convenient hiding spot. the bodies would then be out of the house, facilitating a clean up which witnesses have claimed seeing TH cleaning and doing laundry on the night of May 5th.
no, i'm not qualified to say exactly when rigor set in but i have a close friend who is a mortician and a brother who is a police sgt. and i've consulted with them. while there is no stop clock on the stages of mortis, what you have suggested above is wildly inaccurate.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

i'd venture to guess most of us aren't "qualified" to do lots of things. are you a detective? yep, me neither. we're still trying to hash it all out though, right?
by the way, what i mentioned is just a theory i've thought about over the years. when i mentioned "a house" i didn't mean a random house. i meant the Hobbs house. it seems logical to me that, since there was a witness sighting at approx. 6:30 of the boys with TH near the Hobbs house and since Stevie had been threatened by his mother that he was likely in trouble for not reporting back home at the designated time. if that witness was correct i would think TH would have been upset with Stevie for not obeying the time rule. since this is possibly the last time the boys were seen by anyone and the witness recalled TH calling Stevie home, home likely could have been the last place Stevie was alive.
if TH is, in fact, guilty i don't think he planned it. in my mind i can see him being highly peeved with Stevie because of his defiance of the agreement with his mother about when to be home. since TH has a history of violent anger issues i can see him losing his temper at the house. it is possible that he hit Stevie too hard, maybe knocking him out. with the other boys at witness, likely terrified, (deer in headlights), it would stand to reason TH ultimately decided he had to eliminate the witnesses. the abandoned pool would be an ideal temporary dump site. that's simple logic. yeesh, you can ask Siri where to hide a body and she will tell you a garbage dump/landfill. the pool would have been the quickest, most convenient hiding spot. the bodies would then be out of the house, facilitating a clean up which witnesses have claimed seeing TH cleaning and doing laundry on the night of May 5th.
no, i'm not qualified to say exactly when rigor set in but i have a close friend who is a mortician and a brother who is a police sgt. and i've consulted with them. while there is no stop clock on the stages of mortis, what you have suggested above is wildly inaccurate.

There is no evidence that points to Hobbs let alone that the crime happening inside their home and in their pool.

Echols and Misskelley both had a history of violence. Echols own mother and father were afraid of him. All evidence points back to the 3 who were convicted.

Maybe you missed the thread about the Last Sightings of the 3 boys. There are multiple witnesses who saw the 3 boys together near the crime scene at 6:45pm.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229773"]Last Sightings of the 3-eight-year-old Boys - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

The defense went from Bojangles, to Byers to Hobbs.

The defense went from human bite marks to turtles to dogs/wolves.

I can't wait for the next movie to come out to see what and who is next.

If I were a supporter I would be really disappointed to know that after all these years that I have spent my time and some donated money toward proving them 'innocent' only to have them plea guilty to 3 child murders. That's pretty wild if you ask me.

 

[EntreNous]

There is no evidence that points to Hobbs let alone that the crime happening inside their home and in their pool.

Echols and Misskelley both had a history of violence. Echols own mother and father were afraid of him. All evidence points back to the 3 who were convicted.

Maybe you missed the thread about the Last Sightings of the 3 boys. There are multiple witnesses who saw the 3 boys together near the crime scene at 6:45pm.
Last Sightings of the 3-eight-year-old Boys - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

The defense went from Bojangles, to Byers to Hobbs.

The defense went from human bite marks to turtles to dogs/wolves.

I can't wait for the next movie to come out to see what and who is next.

If I were a supporter I would be really disappointed to know that after all these years that I have spent my time and some donated money toward proving them 'innocent' only to have them plea guilty to 3 child murders. That's pretty wild if you ask me.

seriously, udb? no hair found in the shoelace binding? no motive? no highly criminal violent history against people, (breaking/entering and assaulting a naked woman in her home, dead brother-in-law. those things do not equal a fist fight)? no background in slaughterhouse hogtying? no challenged alibi?
this is what makes it so hard to have a meaningful conversation with folks. at least you must acknowledge the possibility? no close relationship with the deceased?
as i said, it is a theory. we should be able to discuss theories, no? and one that is far more probable than a satan worshiping ritual. i just want the truth. no more. no less.
they plead to alford pleas. a whole different ball game. let's not get snarky. i respect you, i only ask that you respect me in return. peace.

 

[LordYAM]

Aside from what entre posted david Jacobi also placed Hobbs with the boys and he acted uncomfortable when actually questioned. The evidence if anything points to Hobbs and away from the convicted

 

[LordYAM]

And the defense has settled on snapping turtle marks

 

[kyleb]

no hair found in the shoelace binding?

Rather, six hairs recovered from the shoelaces, two of which Hobbs has been excluded as the source of and another three which nobody has. Furthermore, notions of motive and challenges to alibis don't constitute evidence, and neither does not the assault a decade prior, let alone an act of self-defense years later, and it's not like the way the boys were bound was anything close to how hogs are tied in a slaughterhouse.

as i said, it is a theory. we should be able to discuss theories, no? and one that is far more probable than a satan worshiping ritual.

It would be better to focus on the facts, such as fact that neither the prosecutors, nor Misskelley throughout his many confessions, suggested the murders were committed as a part of any ritual. As much as you may want the truth you're never going to get there by embracing misrepresentations of it such as the "satan worshiping ritual" canard and the like.

And the defense has settled on snapping turtle marks

And they showed a whopping one wound which looks reasonably like a turtle bite as evidence for that conclusion, eh?

 

[missy_g]

I don't know if I'm reading that wrong, but I think the prosecutors brought it up MANY times that this was a ritualistic killing.....

 

[kyleb]

Please quote whatever statement from the prosecutors you believe evidences that claim best.

 

[missy_g]

"It's not something made up, it's not something dreamed up, it's not a figment of our imagination. And it doesn't matter whether I believe it, or the defense attorneys believe it, or you even believe in these concepts. The only thing that matters is what these defendants believe. That's the only thing that matters, in relation to motive. The testimony in this case was that these murders -- when you take the crime scene, the injuries to these kids, the testimony about sucking of blood--and do you remember there was testimony about that--in the satanic areas, that blood is a life force, there is a transference of power from drinking of blood -- when you take all of that together, the evidence was that this murder had the trappings of an occult murder. A satanic murder."

-Fogleman's closing arguments
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/closefogleman.html

Also I believe that if they weren't using Satanism as a motive, they would have never brought it up during trial. It wouldn't be mentioned in the closing arguments as many times as it was and they wouldn't have brought in an expert on the Occult.

 

[kyleb]

Yes, Echols occult beliefs were brought up to address the issue of motive, but not to insist the murders were committed the in the course of any actual ritual. As Fogleman went on to explain right in those closing arguments you quoted from:

Not that it was some kind of a ritual and you have an alter and all that, although, remember them asking about the candles? And lo and behold there was candle wax on the black and white dotted shirt. Remember Lisa Sakevicius testifying about the candle wax? But it doesn't matter whether it was a ritual or simply those beliefs motivated these defendants to commit this crime.

In the same regard people like Richard Ramirez and the Ripper Crew committed many murders motivated by their satanic beliefs, but not in the context of any actual ritual either.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

"It's not something made up, it's not something dreamed up, it's not a figment of our imagination. And it doesn't matter whether I believe it, or the defense attorneys believe it, or you even believe in these concepts. The only thing that matters is what these defendants believe. That's the only thing that matters, in relation to motive. The testimony in this case was that these murders -- when you take the crime scene, the injuries to these kids, the testimony about sucking of blood--and do you remember there was testimony about that--in the satanic areas, that blood is a life force, there is a transference of power from drinking of blood -- when you take all of that together, the evidence was that this murder had the trappings of an occult murder. A satanic murder."

-Fogleman's closing arguments
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/closefogleman.html

Also I believe that if they weren't using Satanism as a motive, they would have never brought it up during trial. It wouldn't be mentioned in the closing arguments as many times as it was and they wouldn't have brought in an expert on the Occult.

BBM

'nuf said

 

[LordYAM]

Branch's aunts testified that Hobbs had beaten Stevie. David Jacobi testified that Hobbs was with the boys that night which Hobbs denies. And there is enough cause to investigate him (as in question him more thoroughly) and try to look at him. Hobbs might not have conclusive evidence but only a liar or a moron would say he doesn't warrant further investigation and no that Half assed interview doesn't count.

That disclaimer was a cheap one. Why make a deal of candle wax otherwise? Why bring up ritual as a motive at all?

Hobbs alibi wan't challenged. It was shattered. He has no alibi plenty of motive on account of being a violent ******* and plenty of attempts to evade questioning.

I said settled on snapping turtles because ubdcrazy2 claimed they switched to got bites which is a lie

 

[kyleb]

Hobbs might not have conclusive evidence but only a liar or a moron would say he doesn't warrant further investigation and no that Half assed interview doesn't count.

Half truths about hairs, decade and a half old recollections which contradict witness reports from shortly after the murders, and other such nonsense doesn't warrant further investigation of anyone. I don't figure you a liar or a moron for believing otherwise though, just mislead on this particular matter, albeit belligerently so.

That disclaimer was a cheap one.

Twisting Foglaman's suggestion that a candle might have been burnt into an insistence that there was some sort of actual ritual is cheep. Prosecutors surely mentioned the couple of pentagrams Richard Ramirez's occult beliefs motivated him to draw during one of his murders, but even that's a far cry from suggesting it was a ritual murder.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Half truths about hairs, decade and a half old recollections which contradict witness reports from shortly after the murders, and other such nonsense doesn't warrant further investigation of anyone. I don't figure you a liar or a moron for believing otherwise though, just mislead on this particular matter, albeit belligerently so.

BBM

Considering the source, :floorlaugh:

 

[kyleb]

I've been confronted with a lot passive aggressiveness and some outright hostility which I've been blunt in addressing on this forum, and been misconstrued as meaning offense when I intended none on a at least a few occasions as well. I've not done anything along the lines of insisting anyone who disagrees with me on a particular point is either "liar or a moron" though. as I'd rather stick to discussing the evidence in this case regardless of how much I come under attack for doing so.

Anyway, sticking to the topic sources for a moment but getting back to the topic of this thread as well, in your opening post you made a lot of claims about the lengths of the laces which ended with "All of these measurements can be verified by checking the evidence lists on Callahan's", but there are no such measurements on any evidence list at Callahan, are there? And please note I'm not asking this to attack you, but because I'm interested in better understanding the facts of this case, hopefully without coming under further attack for my interest in doing so.

 

[LordYAM]

You are misrepresenting what I said. Members of the branch family attested to Hobb's violent nature, and David Jacoby retracted his statement supporting Terry that night. Take Jacoby and add other witness statements and hobbs has no alibi. There's also the fact that hobbs acknowledge the hairs were probably his and the fact that given where they wound up (in his son's friend's laces, and the fact that these are 8 year old boys constantly playing rough and tough, that the hair would have to survive being tied and retied for more than a day to be casual transfer on account of hobb's claim he never saw the children that day, that the hair would have to survive being pulled through the lace, and submerged in the water) the secondary transfer just doesn't hold water. And given that statistically step parents are far more likely to murder their children than the creepy goth kid, that alone warranted investigation from day 1. Todd moore had an alibi, but John Byers (who was investigated partially) and terry hobbs should have both been throughly grilled. Hobb's questioning was 14 years overdue.

And the ritual thing was brought up because ritual murder isn't all that common. Domestic abuse gone wrong is more common. Hobbs beating stevie to death in a fit of rage and murdering the other two to cover his *advertiser censored* is statistically far more probable than creepy goth kid doing it for ritual murder. You are belligerent, and I have been getting angry partially because your stubbornness was irritating.

 

[kyleb]

You are misrepresenting what I said.

I suspect you've simply misinterpreted what I've said, but please quote whatever statement from you you are alluding to if you contend otherwise.

And the ritual thing was brought up because ritual murder isn't all that common.

Yet it wasn't what was alleged by the prosecutors either, nor suggested by Misskelley throughout his many confessions for that matter, and rattling off a sundry of arguments to point the finger at others does nothing to change that.

 

[primitivefuture]

There's also the fact that hobbs acknowledge the hairs were probably his and the fact that given where they wound up (in his son's friend's laces, and the fact that these are 8 year old boys constantly playing rough and tough, that the hair would have to survive being tied and retied for more than a day to be casual transfer on account of hobb's claim he never saw the children that day, that the hair would have to survive being pulled through the lace, and submerged in the water) the secondary transfer just doesn't hold water.

Add to it that they were facial hairs and it seems even less likely. That's my assumption anyway.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

What are the evidence numbers of the hairs you are claiming are facial hairs, and what evidence do you base that claim? Also, secondary transfer doesn't mean the hair had to be on the shoelace when the boys entered the woods, but rather it could've been elsewhere on the boys, the perpetrators, already in the woods before the murders, or even wound up where it was found afterwords by careless police work. That goes for the other two hairs recovered from the shoelaces which Hobbs has been excluded as the source of too, and the other three from the laces for which nobody has been excluded from, and plenty of other hairs in evidence.

 

[primitivefuture]

What are the evidence numbers of the hairs you are claiming are facial hairs, and what evidence do you base that claim? Also, secondary transfer doesn't mean the hair had to be on the shoelace when the boys entered the woods, but rather it could've been elsewhere on the boys, the perpetrators, already in the woods before the murders, or even wound up where it was found afterwords by careless police work. That goes for the other two hairs recovered from the shoelaces which Hobbs has been excluded as the source of too, and the other three from the laces for which nobody has been excluded from, and plenty of other hairs in evidence.

hairs associated with ligature FP6, which was associated with the
victim Michael Moore. One of them was a red beard hair. (BMHR 443-444). There were notations on the slide itself from Lisa Sakevicius. Defense counsel could have actually looked at those hairs. On the slide from the Moore ligature there was an indication of a red hair fragment and a beard hair fragment.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_channell1.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk