Terry Hobbs - My Story

[reedus23]

That's what he did.


Rather, Mincer said "I came to the conclusion with reasonable certainty that it was not a human bite mark"? Do you not comphrened the difference, or do you just not care?

He's playing with legalese. I understand if you don't get it. It's a nuance to the system. Did he compare the partials? I missed it if he looked at the partials and compared them. My recollection was that he only looked at the photos and the driving force behind his opinion was that since it was known the other injuries weren't bite marks, neither was this one. I'll go back an re-read his testimony but I don't recall him actually doing comparisons with the partials in particular.

 

[reedus23]

I just want to remind some of these posters that they are blaming a victim instead of the ones who were found guilty by juries and also plead guilty.

It's against the rules of this board to do this and not to mention a very cold thing to do.

I respect what you say and I don't believe I have ever gone so far as to say any one person did it. I might have my beliefs as to where the evidence points or where I wish LE would thoroughly investigate, but I would not be so bold as to say I know who did. Just strong suspicions.

What I think is very cold is not wanting to ensure justice is handed out for Michael, Chris and Stevie. It would seem to me, even if the same conclusion were to be reached, a thorough and complete investigation would be desired by all. And spare me the rhetoric of but they pled guilty or they were found guilty already. Anyone that doesn't have an ax to grind would at a minimum recognize that the WM3 taking the deal was about avoiding the death penalty and getting their freedom and not about justice for the 3 deaths. Likewise, without an ax to grind, a person would have to at a minimum acknowledge that the investigation was flawed. It kind of sickens me personally that people don't want to see and ensure that full and complete justice is served for those boys.

 

[reedus23]

What leads you to believe Dr. Mincer wouldn't want to uphold his oath to tell the truth to the best of their ability regardless of what side he wound up being a witness for?

Don't be naïve. If you don't think there were discussions between attorney and expert way before any materials were sent to him, you are naïve. Same goes for both sides. And of course his testimony was crafted to support the prosecution. That doesn't mean Mincer outright lied on the stand. It means it was developed in such a way that he could make his points supporting the prosecution and avoid having to go any further where it might harm the case against the WM3. These conversations go on all the time. The expert tells the lawyer, look, if you ask me the question this way, I can say x, y and z. But if you ask it this way, I will be forced to say a, b and c which might hurt your case.

 

[kyleb]

i do have problems with the bite mark theory which i thought had been ruled out, no?

Have you not noticed the posts from others in this thread suggesting the wounds might be a bite mark from Terry Hobbs? Regardless, this thread at the BB will fill you in on the details.

He's playing with legalese.

So you consider "I came to the conclusion with reasonable certainty that it was not a human bite mark" to be the specialized language of the legal profession for "it might be human bite marks"? And you don't you consider it dishonest for a person to say one when they believe the other?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I do comprehend the difference between what Reedus said and what you believe his point was, and I care about respecting the difference between what people have actually said and what one might imagine their words to mean. In that regard, I'm still hopping you'll elaborate on your assertion here:

Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader
Since Jessie's wild stories didn't mention any biting, Dr. Mincer, as a prosecution witness, would not want to opine that the bite was definitely a human bite mark

What leads you to believe Dr. Mincer wouldn't want to uphold his oath to tell the truth to the best of their ability regardless of what side he wound up being a witness for?

I believe that your query has been adequately addressed by another poster with much more legal knowledge than I have. I totally agree with what was said and with the notion that anyone who doesn't realize that attorneys prep witnesses is more than a bit naive. Again, why the disagreement with further investigation in the cause of true justice?



BTW, IMO Terry Hobbs is not a victim. He should have been a suspect from the beginning but wasn't. That is one of the biggest problems of this case. If he cannot be investigated, then how can justice be served? I've read articles (but lost the links in a computer crash) that stated that, when the death of a child under 12 is involved, the percent of the time that a parent (including a step parent) or close family friend is the perpetrator is upwards of 60%. So, if the wmpd had done their job properly, Terry Hobbs would have been a suspect. Gary Gitchell admitted as much during his Pasdar deposition. However, Hobbs has never been a suspect and has bragged about that fact as recently as a few days ago on a radio program. Here is a link: [ame]http://www.youtube.co/watch?v=rzq392gFLzY[/ame] So, again, just how has justice been served?

 

[kyleb]

I totally agree with what was said and with the notion that anyone who doesn't realize that attorneys prep witnesses is more than a bit naive.

I know attorneys prep witnesses, but I don't know that "Dr. Mincer, as a prosecution witness, would not want to opine that the bite was definitely a human bite mark", as I figure most attorneys consider it dishonest to "prep witnesses" in such a manor, and most people consider it dishonest to act as a witness in such a manor. So what exactly is your contention here, is it that you don't consider such actions dishonest, and hence consider me naive for figuring that most people would not engage in such behavior?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

My contention is that Dr. Mincer met with the prosecutors before he testified. He went over his testimony, leading the prosecutors to the proper questions to ask so as to get the answer they desired. Again, if the defense attorneys were more experienced and/or better at cross examination, they might have been able to elicit more specific information from Dr. Mincer. The defense attorneys were inexperienced. The prosecutors followed Dr. Mincer's lead and got the answers they wanted. Dr. Mincer didn't outright lie; he just didn't tell everything that he could have told.

 

[reedus23]

So you consider "I came to the conclusion with reasonable certainty that it was not a human bite mark" to be the specialized language of the legal profession for "it might be human bite marks"? And you don't you consider it dishonest for a person to say one when they believe the other?

No. Not the same. I understand that. What I am saying is that experts can hide behind those legal catch phrases based on what they are provided to review and the specific way a question is asked. The simple question that could have been asked by defense counsel is "Dr. Mincer, you indicated that based on viewing this one photograph, that it might be a human bite mark. Can you tell me what information or what further reviews, testing or results would allow you to raise your level of confidence from this might be a human bite mark to within a reasonable degree of medical certainty this is a human bite mark?"

By the way, I do give him credit for acknowledging and respecting the differences in standards. Such was not the case at all times with some of the testimony at trial.

As to your second question, I'll ignore it because I think you missed the point. A dog comes up and licks a stranger. After the stranger leaves the dog bites the next 5 people that come along. If the responding police officer only interviews the first stranger, he will report that the dog did not have vicious propensities. I would not necessarily call the police officer dishonest BUT had he thoroughly investigated he would have learned that the dog does, in fact, have vicious propensities. In much the same way, if Dr. Mincer had compared the injuries to the partials he would be able to give a more complete and more accurate description of that dog.

 

[reedus23]

I believe that your query has been adequately addressed by another poster with much more legal knowledge than I have. I totally agree with what was said and with the notion that anyone who doesn't realize that attorneys prep witnesses is more than a bit naive. Again, why the disagreement with further investigation in the cause of true justice?



BTW, IMO Terry Hobbs is not a victim. He should have been a suspect from the beginning but wasn't. That is one of the biggest problems of this case. If he cannot be investigated, then how can justice be served? I've read articles (but lost the links in a computer crash) that stated that, when the death of a child under 12 is involved, the percent of the time that a parent (including a step parent) or close family friend is the perpetrator is upwards of 60%. So, if the wmpd had done their job properly, Terry Hobbs would have been a suspect. Gary Gitchell admitted as much during his Pasdar deposition. However, Hobbs has never been a suspect and has bragged about that fact as recently as a few days ago on a radio program. Here is a link: http://www.youtube.co/watch?v=rzq392gFLzY So, again, just how has justice been served?

Hobbs portrayal of himself as a victim is not out of character for perpetrators either. Further, he brings much of this upon himself. If he was truly innocent and truly wanted all the focus off of himself, he would have quickly and quietly had all the comparisons, all the testing, all the polygraphs done long ago. Instead, he files a frivolous lawsuit and then carries himself in the deposition as someone who is guilty.

 

[reedus23]

I know attorneys prep witnesses, but I don't know that "Dr. Mincer, as a prosecution witness, would not want to opine that the bite was definitely a human bite mark", as I figure most attorneys consider it dishonest to "prep witnesses" in such a manor, and most people consider it dishonest to act as a witness in such a manor. So what exactly is your contention here, is it that you don't consider such actions dishonest, and hence consider me naive for figuring that most people would not engage in such behavior?

Had that been Dr. Mincer's opinion, he never would have testified and you probably would never have heard of him. The prosecution would have moved on to the next expert. I do not suggest that the prosecution would have instructed him to state an opinion that he does not hold and I don't think Dr. Mincer would give an opinion he does not hold. Expert testimony can and is sculpted where the desired opinion can honestly be given or sculpted based on the information at hand and the form in which it is elicited.

 

[reedus23]

My contention is that Dr. Mincer met with the prosecutors before he testified. He went over his testimony, leading the prosecutors to the proper questions to ask so as to get the answer they desired. Again, if the defense attorneys were more experienced and/or better at cross examination, they might have been able to elicit more specific information from Dr. Mincer. The defense attorneys were inexperienced. The prosecutors followed Dr. Mincer's lead and got the answers they wanted. Dr. Mincer didn't outright lie; he just didn't tell everything that he could have told.

You get it. I was beginning to worry I wasn't making my point clearly. Well said.

 

[kyleb]

My contention is that Dr. Mincer met with the prosecutors before he testified. He went over his testimony, leading the prosecutors to the proper questions to ask so as to get the answer they desired.

No doubt, but are you not also contending that in the case of Mincer's testimony "the truth is carefully scripted to avoid the WHOLE truth from being discussed", as [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9869771#post9869771"]reedus previously contend[/ame] is the reality of expert witness testimony? Again I ask because while I know scumbags engage in such dishonesty, I've yet to see any reason to suspect Dr. Mincer and the attorneys who asked him to testify engaged in such scumbaggery, let alone evidence to prove as much.

The simple question that could have been asked by defense counsel is "Dr. Mincer, you indicated that based on viewing this one photograph, that it might be a human bite mark...

Surely such a proclamation would be likely prompt an objection on the grounds Dr. Mincer never suggested the wounds might be a human bite mark, and to the contrary had already testified that he "came to the conclusion with reasonable certainty that it was not a human bite mark", eh? Also, isn't actually the state which is on the defense in an appeal hearing, not the convicted?

 

[reedus23]

No doubt, but are you not also contending that in the case of Mincer's testimony "the truth is carefully scripted to avoid the WHOLE truth from being discussed", as reedus previously contend is the reality of expert witness testimony? Again I ask because while I know scumbags engage in such dishonesty, I've yet to see any reason to suspect Dr. Mincer and the attorneys who asked him to testify engaged in such scumbaggery, let alone evidence to prove as much.


Surely such a proclamation would be likely prompt an objection on the grounds Dr. Mincer never suggested the wounds might be a human bite mark, and to the contrary had already testified that he "came to the conclusion with reasonable certainty that it was not a human bite mark", eh? Also, isn't actually the state which is on the defense in an appeal hearing, not the convicted?

As to your first part, it doesn't make it scumbaggery. It happens with nearly all experts. If Mincer was going to testify as to the whole truth and drop this gamesmanship, why wouldn't he actually compare the wounds to impressions or the partials. I don't think Mincer is a for it, but Mincer plain and simple did not look at any impressions or the partials so he did, in fact, do exactly what you say you have no reason to suspect him of.

I understand you may look down upon it, but consulting with experts as you described is a common occurrence. Attorneys frequently strategize with their experts about how to best elicit their testimony to avoid any pitfalls. Admittedly, it is the job of the opposing attorney to then elicit and follow up on those things that the other may not have brought out. If they have done their job, they have consulted with their own expert and discussed with him how and what areas to cross examine the opposition's expert on. In this case, however, I would just like to see the gamesmanship dropped. This case, of any, needs complete transparency. If there is anything to this partial matching the wound, I would like to see the WM3's experts actually get together with Mincer, for example, and see if there isn't some consensus.

As to your second point, while judges are granted wide latitude in their rulings, I suspect a majority of judges would over rule such an objection. Lawyers are allowed to ask hypotheticals to expert witnesses. Besides that, while Mincer did say what you indicated, he also did say it might be a human bite mark but he couldn't say that with any certainty.

Unless Arkansas is different, I would imagine once on the appeal stage the state becomes the appellee and the WM3 would be the appellants. With regard to the Rule 37 hearings the WM3 are probably referred to as the Petitioners and the State becomes the Respondent. It wouldn't be unusual within the content of those pleadings to refer to the WM3 as the defendants still thought. I don't believe the State would ever be referred to as a "Defendant" though Arkansas could be different. Now, in both, you will see the names reversed in the caption as it was from the trial. In other words:

Damien Echols

vs.

State of Arkansas

But their "titles" or names would be as set forth above. Again, unless Arkansas is different.

 

[kyleb]

As to your first part, it doesn't make it scumbaggery.

Do you seriously not see anything contemptible about carefully scripting testimony to avoid the whole truth from being discussed and then going up on the stand to swear an oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth before reciting such a script? If you don't understand what's objectionable about that, then suppose I can imagine how you might figure nearly all experts would do as much, but again I figure most people have at least enough integrity to avoid engaging in such flagrantly dishonest behavior.

If Mincer was going to testify as to the whole truth and drop this gamesmanship, why wouldn't he actually compare the wounds to impressions or the partials.

Have you imagined Dr. Mincer was asked to compare the dentures to the wounds during his testimony or prior, or are you actually contending that his not doing nobody had suggested doing until well after a decade after he testified was part of some game to obscure the whole truth?

while Mincer did say what you indicated, he also did say it might be a human bite mark

No, Dr. Mincer never said the wounds might be a human bite mark, and I doubt many judges would overrule an objection to such misrepresentation of testimony.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

When Jessie's alibi witnesses were testifying, the prosecutors pointed out the ribbons of support they were wearing so as to discredit them. Do you not see this as "scumbaggery?" I'm sorry, but our adversarial judicial system is rife with such scumbaggery on both sides - especially in high profile cases.

I'd rather that everyone tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" but that simply doesn't happen in a Court of law. Just look at all of the times Burnett disallowed testimony that would've put the defendants in a good light. Just look at how Burnett did a tap dance to admit Griffis as an "expert" witness! This case is rife with it!

Oftentimes (and I believe this is the case w/Dr. Mincer), the witness on the stand is not necessarily happy with the sophistry, but those witnesses do it for varying reasons. They always find a way to justify it - just as the State of Arkansas found a way to justify the railroading of three innocent trailer trash teenagers because they either couldn't be bothered to do a proper investigation or because they know who the perpetrator is and said perpetrator has some sort of hold over the State.

 

[reedus23]

Do you seriously not see anything contemptible about carefully scripting testimony to avoid the whole truth from being discussed and then going up on the stand to swear an oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth before reciting such a script? If you don't understand what's objectionable about that, then suppose I can imagine how you might figure nearly all experts would do as much, but again I figure most people have at least enough integrity to avoid engaging in such flagrantly dishonest behavior.

I think I've said a couple times that I'd like to see the gamesmanship taken out of the equation, particularly in this case. Whether I find it acceptable or not though does not change the fact that it is routinely done. Would I have preferred Mincer to have done actual comparisons so he could testify to the whole truth? Absolutely. Does that mean I think Mincer is dishonest? Not necessarily. I think he gave his honest opinion based on viewing 3 photographs and doing no comparisons.

Have you imagined Dr. Mincer was asked to compare the dentures to the wounds during his testimony or prior, or are you actually contending that his not doing nobody had suggested doing until well after a decade after he testified was part of some game to obscure the whole truth?

I apologize but I'm not quite following your question here. There are two parts to it as I think I understand you. First, yes, I would have liked to have had Mincer do actual comparisons to impressions/partials prior to rendering his opinion all those years ago. That means the WM3 as well. That way his opinion would be that much closer to discussing the whole truth as you like to say. Second, (assuming he's still alive which I haven't looked up), in an ideal world I would like to have all of the experts, including Mincer, get together, review actual comparisons, and see if some consensus could be reached. I have no idea if that addresses what you were asking but I tried.

No, Dr. Mincer never said the wounds might be a human bite mark, and I doubt many judges would overrule an objection to such misrepresentation of testimony.

Dr. Mincer did say they might be human bite marks on two different occasions. First, he said at first glance the wound appears to be a human bite mark. Second, he said if he was looking only at the picture of this wound, he could say this might be a human bite mark. As an additional note, he says the main reason he doesn't believe it's a human bite mark is because there were other curved wounds caused by some other instrument then it would be beyond reason that this one wound is a human bite mark. Frankly, for me, that is completely faulty logic. Just because there are other wounds caused by something else means there aren't any bite marks? Just because someone beats someone with an object means they didn't also bite them? One is exclusive from the other? That doesn't make sense to me. Someone correct me if I read his testimony wrong.

As to your doubt, all I can tell you is you'd be wrong 90% of the time.

 

[reedus23]

When Jessie's alibi witnesses were testifying, the prosecutors pointed out the ribbons of support they were wearing so as to discredit them. Do you not see this as "scumbaggery?" I'm sorry, but our adversarial judicial system is rife with such scumbaggery on both sides - especially in high profile cases.

I'd rather that everyone tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" but that simply doesn't happen in a Court of law. Just look at all of the times Burnett disallowed testimony that would've put the defendants in a good light. Just look at how Burnett did a tap dance to admit Griffis as an "expert" witness! This case is rife with it!

Oftentimes (and I believe this is the case w/Dr. Mincer), the witness on the stand is not necessarily happy with the sophistry, but those witnesses do it for varying reasons. They always find a way to justify it - just as the State of Arkansas found a way to justify the railroading of three innocent trailer trash teenagers because they either couldn't be bothered to do a proper investigation or because they know who the perpetrator is and said perpetrator has some sort of hold over the State.

Well said.

 

[kyleb]

When Jessie's alibi witnesses were testifying, the prosecutors pointed out the ribbons of support they were wearing so as to discredit them. Do you not see this as "scumbaggery?"

Not at all, and if prosecutors ever called witnesses wearing ribbons of opposition to the stand, I'd take no issue with the defense asking jurrors to consider such displays of bias when assessing the credibility of those witnesses either.

Someone correct me if I read his testimony wrong.

It's ultimately up to you to correct yourself, an if you'd truly like to do so a good place to start would be in attempting to rephrase your arguments regarding Mincer's testimony by using actual quotes from it rather than simply stating your impressions of it as if they were fact.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Not at all, and if prosecutors ever called witnesses wearing ribbons of opposition to the stand, I'd take no issue with the defense asking jurrors to consider such displays of bias when assessing the credibility of those witnesses either.

That statement tells me quite a lot.

 

[reedus23]

It's ultimately up to you to correct yourself, an if you'd truly like to do so a good place to start would be in attempting to rephrase your arguments regarding Mincer's testimony by using actual quotes from it rather than simply stating your impressions of it as if they were fact.

Naw, I'm good.