Regarding the JCB-statement, if she's wrong about that one detail, is the general consensus that her whole statement should be thrown ut?
Not in my opinion.
Regarding the JCB-statement, if she's wrong about that one detail, is the general consensus that her whole statement should be thrown ut?
Good and fair question -- I guess that depends. The fair answer would be, "not necessarily." I could abide by that answer, but only under the following stipulation: if she's wrong about this part of her statement (which she supposedly remembers so well), what else could she be wrong about (in that same statement)?
Also, look at it from a prosecutor's point of view, and imagine her on the stand trying to answer this in front of a jury. In my view, she'd get eaten alive on this point. Whether a jury would throw out her whole statement is an even deeper question to ask, and quite frankly, I believe a jury would....the "general consensus" of an impartial jury, that is; not this message board, of course. :crazy:
There are (at least) two major holes in her statement: saying she saw all the boys in her yard at 5:30 pm, and saying she saw RC at school the next day. Those are 2 pretty big holes for any jury to simply overlook, when examining the totality of her statement.
"I have nothing to hide," Hobbs told The Memphis Commercial Appeal. "I still didn't have nothing to do with them boys dying."
MM's bike is relevant to me in the sense that, TH (if he indeed did commit this crime) would have had to have gotten his hands on MM's bike eventually to have disposed of it (along with SB's). That's relevant in the sense that TH is the endpoint (i.e. the killer). If that isn't the endpoint, then this sighting is somewhat moot, even if it did happen as JCB describes. It would "prove" (for lack of a better word) that TH "lied," but nothing more -- in the grand scheme of things.
Here is another statement from TH that makes me just feel soooo uncomfortable!
From the 19th July 2007 Commercial Appeal after the new DNA evidence was revealed.
What a strange thing to say!
I don't want to read too much in to this, but his wording is a bit odd. "Them boys dying" sounds so... Detached?! He's talking about the brutal murder of his 8 year old stepson for crying out loud! However, I don't know him, and AFAIK this might just be the way he expresses himself - he might just be a very emotionally detached person and that doesn't make someone guilty.
However, claiming that he has got nothing to hide is rather ridiculous. Sure, he doesn't have to do anything, and I think that's an important right to exercise. But if he had nothing to hide he might have been a little more compliant, especially when he himself has instigated a bit of an investigation by trying to sue Natalie Maines (Pasdar).
Well, he obviously would've at some point. I just don't think it would've had to have been on S. McAuley, as I believe the woods (or the immediate area) was the murder site.
Yes, it would prove that TH lied but it would also add a little something in regards to motive.