My view has done a complete 180

[Wescott]

Ask Gryncher. I posted that a while ago, still waiting for an answer from the poster. Obviously rumour but it was stated as if it was a fact.

Source?

 

[Wescott]

In your opinion. IMO he does have something to do with it.


QUOTE=Mary456;6343917]He's not; I was being facetious.

Terry Hobbs is not a suspect. He never was and never will be, because he had nothing to do with these murders.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mary456]

Gary Gitchell did state in his Pasdar deposition that all parents were originally suspects, as should be the case in a situation like this.

Possible suspects, sure, but not likely suspects. Not when three unrelated children are murdered in a wooded area away from their homes. That almost always points to a person or people outside of the family.

Back in 1993, IIRC, TH did his best to avoid the police and questioning.

TH gave fingerprint and hair samples to the police back in 1993. I suppose it was all done in complete silence - no talking allowed :floorlaugh:

 

[Compassionate Reader]

When I was living in Texas, we had a murderer dubbed "The Candy Man" who killed his own children for the insurance money. He also killed some neighborhood children as well in order not to have suspicion cast on him. He killed the children by giving them cyanide-laced Pixy Stix as Halloween candy. So, just because there were other children killed, a parent or step parent of one of the murdered children cannot be ruled out. (BTW, "The Candy Man" who ruined Halloween for generations of Texas children was ultimately executed by the State of Texas.)

I don't know if TH spoke or not while his fingerprints and hair samples were being taken, but he was never officially questioned by the WMPD until 2007. The questioning was a result of a hair that was found at the discovery ditch which was retested using more sophisticated means than those available in 1993 and proved to be a 97.5% (some documents say 98.5%) mtDNA match to him. Additionally, a hair found at the discovery ditch was a 93% mtDNA match to his friend, David Jacoby with whom TH was playing guitars shortly before the children were reported missing.

There is much more suspicious behavior attributed to TH shortly after the murders. He moved out for a period of several weeks. He quit his job because, according to him, he couldn't stand the sympathy from his co-workers. He shot his brother-in-law who was trying to protect his sister, TH's wife, from TH. (The brother-in-law later died from complications resulting from the gunshot wound.) All of these things, plus other past behavior that was revealed in the Pasdar investigation, IMO, should have made the WMPD stop and think about this man. Hopefully, more evidence will be presented at the hearing and the community will demand that TH be seriously investigated, as he should have been back in 1993.

 

[justthinkin]

When I was living in Texas, we had a murderer dubbed "The Candy Man" who killed his own children for the insurance money. He also killed some neighborhood children as well in order not to have suspicion cast on him. He killed the children by giving them cyanide-laced Pixy Stix as Halloween candy. So, just because there were other children killed, a parent or step parent of one of the murdered children cannot be ruled out. (BTW, "The Candy Man" who ruined Halloween for generations of Texas children was ultimately executed by the State of Texas.)

I don't know if TH spoke or not while his fingerprints and hair samples were being taken, but he was never officially questioned by the WMPD until 2007. The questioning was a result of a hair that was found at the discovery ditch which was retested using more sophisticated means than those available in 1993 and proved to be a 97.5% (some documents say 98.5%) mtDNA match to him. Additionally, a hair found at the discovery ditch was a 93% mtDNA match to his friend, David Jacoby with whom TH was playing guitars shortly before the children were reported missing.

There is much more suspicious behavior attributed to TH shortly after the murders. He moved out for a period of several weeks. He quit his job because, according to him, he couldn't stand the sympathy from his co-workers. He shot his brother-in-law who was trying to protect his sister, TH's wife, from TH. (The brother-in-law later died from complications resulting from the gunshot wound.) All of these things, plus other past behavior that was revealed in the Pasdar investigation, IMO, should have made the WMPD stop and think about this man. Hopefully, more evidence will be presented at the hearing and the community will demand that TH be seriously investigated, as he should have been back in 1993.

Ronald Clark O'Brien only killed one child, his son, Timothy. He did not kill any neighborhood children! He distributed a few of the poisoned Pixie Stix, 5 or less, but no child had attempted to eat the Pixie Stixs, other than his son, and at Ronald's insistence that he try it.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The police were able to retrieve most of the tainted Pixy Stix. You're right; no one else died, but that wasn't because O'Bryan didn't give out the tainted candy. That was because the police were able to get it back before it was ingested. I'd forgotten that the neighborhood children only got sick. I posted from memory only instead of looking it up first. Upon reading, his son was the only one who died, but other candy was distributed to at least four other neighborhood children. http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/004392.html I do remember that Halloween was ruined for all children in the area because of this murderer.

The point I was making, however, is still valid. O'Bryan did distribute the tainted candy to others. The fact that they didn't die was pure luck and good police work. So, a parent intent on killing a child will, when necessary, kill others as well. In this case, I believe that Michael and Christopher were killed because they were witnesses to the original, accidental murder of Stevie, not because the murderer was specifically targeting them or ever intended to kill them (or, for that matter, his own step son). To try to imply, as the previous poster did, that a murderous parent will only kill his/her own child or step child is simply not true. The case of the Candy Man proves this.

 

[justthinkin]

I don't see how anyone could've gotten sick, as you claim, if none of the children ingested any of the candy as is claimed on Wikipedia. I remember this case, and I don't remember any other child being affected by this man's actions either. Oh for sure, they could've been, but fortunately the few poisoned Pixie Stixs, 5 or less, were tracked down in time.

TH's DNA from a single hair or even two, will never play any role in making TH a suspect or the minor DNA of any other parent because their DNA is expected to be on their children. None of the victims were tied with their own shoelaces so the fact that TH's DNA was found on Michael Moore's ligature is meaningless.

I don't know why all supporters can't just concentrate on the improbable, freeing the WM3, and leave the poor victims parents out of it. You can have compassion for what you see as your cause without dragging the victims' families through the mud, and tormenting them. I am speaking of what was done to JMB, and now Terry, and all because of a slanted documentary, and a woman who wrote a book without ever setting foot in the courtroom. Freeing the WM3 has nothing to do with finding a new suspect. That is a different investigation and would follow in earnest, only if the WM3 are freed. Whether they are freed or not or given a new trial or not has everything to do with confessions, alibis, witness statements, and the statements of Damien Echols, Jason, and Jessie, and the future testing of the collected, alleged evidence and existing evidence.

IMHO, supporters need to worry less about TH, and worry more that Jessie will testify against Damien and Jason! If he does, you can absolutely forget this going to the SCOTUS.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I remember the Candy Man, too. I recall at least a couple of children getting sick. Maybe it was never reported or maybe it was from something else in their Halloween candy sacks, but it was suspicious to me at the time. Whether or not any other children even got sick, the fact remains that O'Bryan did distribute the candy to children other than his own. What I remember the most is how his reprehensible actions forever changed Halloween. (BTW, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It's like citing an encyclopedia in the old days on a term paper or something.)

As to dragging the victims' families into this, supporters didn't drag them in, they did it themselves. Todd Moore's inflammatory posts on another board have made him vulnerable to discussion as did Terry Hobbs' ill-advised law suit against Natalie Maines Pasdar and the Dixie Chicks. When someone whose child (or step child) was murdered refuses to look at new evidence, it makes others wonder why. When someone's mtDNA and that of a friend with whom they were playing guitars earlier that day is discovered where the bodies were discovered, it makes others wonder why. Maybe Hobbs' DNA was transfer, but what about Jacoby's?

One of the things that is usually done at an evidentiary hearing is to provide the Court with a viable alternative suspect. That is what the defense will do in December, and I believe that suspect will be Terry Hobbs. Remember, at the hearing, the burden of proof is shifted to the defense. Therefore, providing an alternative suspect (with more evidence of guilt than the wrongfully convicted) is one way of helping to prove innocence or at least cast doubt on guilt.

I have nothing but compassion for the people who were harmed in these murders and their families. However, that compassion does not extend to the point of letting one of them get away with murder. I want justice for those three little boys; I'm not trying to hurt anyone, and I feel that people who insist on the guilt of the WM3 are hurting three innocent young men. (Did you know that some people on the Hoax are planning a party on the day Damien is executed? That's just sick!) I just want the truth to come out. Thankfully, I believe it will in December.

 

[Mariah]

I remember the Candy Man, too. I recall at least a couple of children getting sick. Maybe it was never reported or maybe it was from something else in their Halloween candy sacks, but it was suspicious to me at the time. Whether or not any other children even got sick, the fact remains that O'Bryan did distribute the candy to children other than his own. What I remember the most is how his reprehensible actions forever changed Halloween. (BTW, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It's like citing an encyclopedia in the old days on a term paper or something.)

As to dragging the victims' families into this, supporters didn't drag them in, they did it themselves. Todd Moore's inflammatory posts on another board have made him vulnerable to discussion as did Terry Hobbs' ill-advised law suit against Natalie Maines Pasdar and the Dixie Chicks. When someone whose child (or step child) was murdered refuses to look at new evidence, it makes others wonder why. When someone's mtDNA and that of a friend with whom they were playing guitars earlier that day is discovered where the bodies were discovered, it makes others wonder why. Maybe Hobbs' DNA was transfer, but what about Jacoby's?

One of the things that is usually done at an evidentiary hearing is to provide the Court with a viable alternative suspect. That is what the defense will do in December, and I believe that suspect will be Terry Hobbs. Remember, at the hearing, the burden of proof is shifted to the defense. Therefore, providing an alternative suspect (with more evidence of guilt than the wrongfully convicted) is one way of helping to prove innocence or at least cast doubt on guilt.

I have nothing but compassion for the people who were harmed in these murders and their families. However, that compassion does not extend to the point of letting one of them get away with murder. I want justice for those three little boys; I'm not trying to hurt anyone, and I feel that people who insist on the guilt of the WM3 are hurting three innocent young men. (Did you know that some people on the Hoax are planning a party on the day Damien is executed? That's just sick!) I just want the truth to come out. Thankfully, I believe it will in December.

Can you tell me, (other than trial transcripts you say you have read), what evidence you have that these men are innocent? Misskelly confessed multiple times even after conviction. I, too have worked with children/adults with low IQ and I have not seen them confessing to crimes or other things "to please people". Damian is/was his own worst enemy..he looked and acted as if he were playing a part in a movie and showed very little emotion. He is a psychopath. IMO, of course.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Mariah,

The standard at the original trial should have been "innocent until proven guilty" as our laws say. Gitchell announced publicly that the case against the WM3 was "an eleven," a statement that he now regrets according to his Pasdar deposition. The boys were assumed to be guilty by the entire town (except their friends and family who knew them best). The WMPD didn't properly investigate these murders back in '93. Instead, we had a witch hunt which railroaded three innocent teens and sent one of them to Death Row.

Nonetheless, all three have alibis. Most "nons" don't want to accept the alibis because they were provided by family and friends. I ask you, if you were with family and friends at the times in question, should you make up some other story that is more "believable" or should you tell the truth? The WM3 told the truth, but they were not believed.

Also, there is no physical evidence indicating that the WM3 were responsible for these murders. There is, however, physical evidence (in the form of two hairs and two footprints) that point to the presence at the scene (a place where he has sworn he wasn't) of Terry Hobbs. Should such evidence simply be ignored or should it be investigated? The WMPD did not even formally interrogate Terry Hobbs until 2007.

As to the actions of people with low IQs, I have never had one confess to murder, true, but I have had them claim responsibility for other lesser acts (stealing, etc.) of which they were not guilty. If you read Dr. Tim Derning's testimony from the Rule 37 abstracts, he discusses this phenomenon also. The movie Radio, a true story, shows a similar incident when a mentally challenged young man tried to accept responsibility for something that was not entirely his fault. So, although you may not have experienced this phenomenon personally, I have. It does happen.

In December, at the hearings, I am certain that further evidence of the innocence of the WM3 will be presented. I am also certain that further evidence pointing to the involvement of Terry Hobbs will be presented. Whether or not the State of Arkansas and/or the WMPD are willing to pursue the real killer of these three little boys will be up to the authorities in Arkansas. Time will tell, and the truth will out. The three will be free, because they are innocent.

 

[Mary456]

Damian is/was his own worst enemy..he looked and acted as if he were playing a part in a movie and showed very little emotion. He is a psychopath. IMO, of course.

Was he a psychopath? That's debatable.

What is not debatable, however, is that Echols was diagnosed as psychotic prior to the murders. He had a long history of severe mental illness.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

He may be bipolar. That is treatable with medication. I hardly think that qualifies for "severe mental illness" or the hospital would not have released him. IIRC, the first time he was hospitalized was in '91 or '92. That hardly qualifies as a "long history" either. I don't think he's psychotic. Neurotic, maybe, but many people suffer from neuroses.

Damien was a troubled teen, no doubt, as are many teens. Additionally, he was extremely poor. If he had been properly medicated, he might not have acted so differently. However, none of his past mental history makes him a murderer. He is not and never has been a raving maniac. His father said that he was kind to children and animals. The one fight that he had has been blown way out of proportion. Now he is a thoughtful and introspective young man. He did not kill those little boys. He needs to be freed to live his life.

 

[justthinkin]

Then why oh why did Damien Echols state that he wouldn't change anything that had happened in his life including being on death row? He also said, "What was I supposed to do, become a clone? March along like everyone else? I"d rather die first."

JMO, Spoken like the heartless killer he is. This is from a video everyone who isn't familiar with the real Damien Echols needs to see. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOuEo1ouDOk&playnext=1&list=PL60737A98CA7255A0[/ame]

 

[cami]

I don't know exactly what the new evidence is, but I'm very curious as to what it will show, too. I was referring to the fact that no biological evidence has been found and tested to date (that we know of) that links anyone execpt TH and DJ to the discovery site. There is some biological material (one allele) that to date has not been publicly identified. I don't know, but I hope that the donor of that allele will be revealed at the hearing. During Gitchell's deposition in the Pasdar case, he refused to call anything new evidence, saying that a lot of the things tested were just tested with newer methods that now can reveal more than could be revealed in 1994. That is true. However, I believe that, among the new evidence, are things that have come to light since the original trial like the Warford affidavit and the deposition of two of the softball girls' mother, Deborah something, Medford I think. Those statements would qualify as new evidence. I'm betting that there's more that hasn't been made public. We just have to wait and see, unfortunately. However, it's totally understandable why the defense (or the prosecution, for that matter) doesn't show its hand to the public.

Oh there's always new evidence. It's coming any day now. Any day now, they'll be freed. Blah Blah Blah It's typical defence bs. Oh and it's always a secret. I'm still waiting for the new evidence that will free some of these killers that have been in prison for eons.

 

[cami]

He may be bipolar. That is treatable with medication. I hardly think that qualifies for "severe mental illness" or the hospital would not have released him. IIRC, the first time he was hospitalized was in '91 or '92. That hardly qualifies as a "long history" either. I don't think he's psychotic. Neurotic, maybe, but many people suffer from neuroses.

Damien was a troubled teen, no doubt, as are many teens. Additionally, he was extremely poor. If he had been properly medicated, he might not have acted so differently. However, none of his past mental history makes him a murderer. He is not and never has been a raving maniac. His father said that he was kind to children and animals. The one fight that he had has been blown way out of proportion. Now he is a thoughtful and introspective young man. He did not kill those little boys. He needs to be freed to live his life.

He was psychotic..big difference from being a "troubled teen." He was probably delusional too, the two go hand in hand.

 

[cami]

Oh man CR - Jessie doesn't have a "mental disability". I know plenty of guys with his level of intelligence. Not the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's not handicapped for christsake.

Watch PL1. He understands sarcasm and even uses it himself. He reads his card without skipping a beat.

Being a bit of a dumbass doesn't mean you will confess over and over again to a crime you didn't commit. That's insanity, and Jessie is not insane.

He's guilt ridden.

it's astonishing that you discount all of that.

Holy denial!

ITA, I found him articulate as well. If he's retarded than I am a genius.

 

[cami]

Gary Gitchell did state in his Pasdar deposition that all parents were originally suspects, as should be the case in a situation like this. However, TH was not interviewed by the police until 2007 - after the new testing revealed that his mtDNA was found at the discovery site. Back in 1993, IIRC, TH did his best to avoid the police and questioning. The defense has indicated their intent to question him at the upcoming hearing. Let's wait and see what happens after that.

This is typical defence rhetoric.

His dna was found at the crime scene because one of his hairs was found in his son's shoelace.

How do you know he did his best to avoid the police? Were you there? No, you weren't so that's only heresay isn't it?

 

[cami]

I want to know why his hair being at the scene, his odd behavior during that day, his constant lying about simple questions about this case, and his constant anger and abuse towards other people doesn't make people understand why some would think he committed these murders.

Who says he's lying? Where is the constant anger from the three who are allegegly wrongly convicted?

 

[cami]

When I was living in Texas, we had a murderer dubbed "The Candy Man" who killed his own children for the insurance money. He also killed some neighborhood children as well in order not to have suspicion cast on him. He killed the children by giving them cyanide-laced Pixy Stix as Halloween candy. So, just because there were other children killed, a parent or step parent of one of the murdered children cannot be ruled out. (BTW, "The Candy Man" who ruined Halloween for generations of Texas children was ultimately executed by the State of Texas.)

I don't know if TH spoke or not while his fingerprints and hair samples were being taken, but he was never officially questioned by the WMPD until 2007. The questioning was a result of a hair that was found at the discovery ditch which was retested using more sophisticated means than those available in 1993 and proved to be a 97.5% (some documents say 98.5%) mtDNA match to him. Additionally, a hair found at the discovery ditch was a 93% mtDNA match to his friend, David Jacoby with whom TH was playing guitars shortly before the children were reported missing.

There is much more suspicious behavior attributed to TH shortly after the murders. He moved out for a period of several weeks. He quit his job because, according to him, he couldn't stand the sympathy from his co-workers. He shot his brother-in-law who was trying to protect his sister, TH's wife, from TH. (The brother-in-law later died from complications resulting from the gunshot wound.) All of these things, plus other past behavior that was revealed in the Pasdar investigation, IMO, should have made the WMPD stop and think about this man. Hopefully, more evidence will be presented at the hearing and the community will demand that TH be
seriously investigated, as he should have been back in 1993.

The Candy Man had accomplices too. They were the little boys he molested. they recruited for him. Oh wrong Candy Man, I'm talking of Dean Coril I think his name is

 

[cami]

CR, I am published poet too, but that is off-topic so I won't go into it here other than to say I studied creative writing at the U of H, main campus. Poppycock, your statement about all writers'
correspondence being seen as a creative effort. Sheesh, you were really overboard with that one, and you know it. LOL.

How can I not judge Echols based on his teen aged behavior? He is on death row for his teen aged behavior is he not?

You and I will just have to agree to disagree as to whether or not he belongs there. We've obviously drawn our lines in cyberspace.

Yes, yes, his writing has improved tremendously, but his efforts are still highly personalized. He hasn't attempted anything ambitious yet. True also, he is not writing from a psychotic mind today which is why we get a poem like, First Love, which is a decent poem.

I would like to see others of at least that same caliber if you have them. I refuse to pay for anything Echols might get a pittance from, though likely he's already gotten his dimes from Rattler and Porcupine if indeed he was even paid for his submissions. I know little of Porcupine and less of Rattler.

I also do not know that Damien is not a paranoid schizophrenic. If he isn't now, he was well on his way to being one at age 18. For all I know, all of his behavior has been an act, an attempt to deceive others for various imagined gains.

There is something disturbing about him today that makes him seem not quite right. His dismissive arrogance does not warm him to the cockles of anyone's heart, that is anyone who casts a cold eye on him. I don't know, but would think it possible that his flat or blunted affect came from the years in prison and before. For sure he is trying to be normal to the degree creative types are willing to go to help their art.

If he is to be a poet of any worth, he will have to learn not to set himself above his readers, not that I've seen he's done that recently. I'm just saying. If he can't do that, then he's got a mental problem, and either it will be dealt with or not.

I think there is a dark undercurrent to him, that you supporters don't seem to see or overlook because you don't want to see that about him. It rises to the top when he is under great strain and stress. I am not sure what positive coping skills he has acquired. Obviously it takes skill to cope with death row, but then, that is a very small world, and Lorri Davis is responsible for a great deal in dealing with Echols personally. He does seem aware of that. Death Row is not the real world of husbands and wives, competitive writers, artists, musicians and the easy flow of drugs.

I'd rather support the memory and the families (some in dire straits themselves) of three innocent little boys who lost their lives, than take a chance on a death row inmate, esp. one with a history of mental illness, and grandiosity, the latter still disturbingly present.

As Pam said, he was a punk. Now I think he might be turning into a brat. Don't give him standing in writing he hasn't earned. I will say this much. He is surrounded by people who care for him, and about him, and he never had any kind of consistency or support in his life before prison, and until Lorri Davis showed up. I do think the support he's received is curative by degrees for whatever mental disorders he has or suffered from in the past if he owns up to it, and is self-aware of it. However, I think there is a danger of too much, too fast as far as accolades go, and in this case for minimal efforts.

Right now, he knows he has to keep a lid on himself for fear of harming his case. I really don't know what's under that lid from this point forward anymore than anyone else does, but I wouldn't risk that he's all that benign either, seeing where he's coming from, death row. That's just how I feel about it. I'd rather convict an innocent man (which as you know, I do not believe Echols is) than see the murderer of three children set free. Not all our choices can be positive ones in life.

Speaking in general here, I'm not running around wanting to do away with the death penalty. Neither do I clamor for it in all cases. I do see it as a viable alternative to our already overcrowded prisons, and I absolutely believe serial killers, child murderers, and serial rapists deserve the death penalty, not all, but the majority do. Off the top of my head, I'm think of the woman in Houston who drowned her 5 children. She was clearly insane, and is now where she belongs, for life. in a hospital for the criminally insane.

He's probably on some pretty heavy anti-psychotic meds. They don't want him acting crazy on the row. But I agree with you there is a darkness about him and he just cannot keep that arrogance under control.