Terry Hobbs & Pam Hicks on Opperman Report

[kyleb]

The hair was found IN THE KNOT of the ligature. Not ON the shoelace, but bound IN it.

That's what a lot of people like to claim, but I've yet to find anyone who can provide any documentation to actually prove as much.

 

[reedus23]

And what evidence, aside from your "belief" would you rely on?

Don't get to hung up on that. I think that was part of the plug, i.e. if he's qualified to testify, he's worth listening to. I could be wrong about his involvement, but I would imagine about the only thing he could testify to is if Hobbs or someone else confessed to him. For the most part, everything else wouldn't be able to get around the hearsay rule.

 

[Ausgirl]

Prosecutor Brent Davis would not comment about the DNA, but did file a report acknowledging that DNA from the West Memphis 3 was not discovered at the crime scene. Davis also acknowledged there was a hair discovered in the knot in the shoelace.

Davis said he believes the West Memphis 3 are guilty, but he has agreed to allow the defense to do more DNA testing.

(bbm)

http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?s=6814836

 

[gheckso]

LISA SAKEVICIUS
Link

Q. In regard to those ligatures -- and I assume the ligatures
25 are the knots in the shoestrings that we're referring to?
1508

1 A. Yes.

 

[kyleb]

http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?s=6814836

I've seen plenty such hearsay, but I've yet to find anything in documentation to back it up. Besides, even if one does carelessly take that news report as gospel, the single hair referred to there isn't necessarily the one which is consistent with Hobbs' mtDNA, as there's five other hairs listed as being recovered from the ligatures throughout the documentation, such as onthis page of the initial Bode report.

LISA SAKEVICIUS
Link

Sure, but Sakevicious was talking in the context of the knots in the shoelaces there, not hairs recovered from them.

 

[Ausgirl]

That's what a lot of people like to claim, but I've yet to find anyone who can provide any documentation to actually prove as much.

Davis also acknowledged there was a hair discovered in the knot in the shoelace.

^ Does Davis have eye problems?

Was he lying?

Why else would Davis -acknowledge- that a hair was found in the --knot-- in the shoelace, if it was not so?

Or was the person making this report lying about Davis' acknowledgement?

 

[kyleb]

Are you familiar with the game Chinese whispers?

 

[gheckso]

Sure, but Sakevicious was talking in the context of the knots in the shoelaces there, not hairs recovered from them.

And the next question...

24 Q. In regard to those ligatures -- and I assume the ligatures
25 are the knots in the shoestrings that we're referring to?
1508

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What examinations did you make of those items?
3 A. I looked at the types of knots present and examined them
4 for hairs and fibers.

So we have a shoelace with ligatures and the ligatures were further attributed to being the knots as acknowledged by Lisa.

 

[kyleb]

So Sakevicious only examined knots for hair and fibers and ignored the rest of the laces? Seems doubtful an expert such as herself was that sloppy.

 

[gheckso]

I'm not assuming anything or suggesting anything as to her expertise, only going by Lisa's confirmation that she acknowledges the ligatures to be the knots of the shoelaces and examined them for hairs and fibers.

 

[kyleb]

In the context of describing the knots she did, but that doesn't come anywhere close to proving any of the six hairs recovered from the shoelaces were actually in the knots rather than simply on those knots or elsewhere on the laces.

 

[Ausgirl]

Are you familiar with the game Chinese whispers?

I'm trying to work out if what you are implying here is that:

Davis did NOT indeed acknowledge that a hair was found IN a knot.

Or:

ALL of the reports in which it is said Davis acknowledged a hair was found in the knot are false.

or maybe:

Davis just plain got it wrong.

 

[kyleb]

It could be any of the above, as when information is passed along from one person to another it tends to get corrupted. That's why hearsay is generally inadmissible in court and why it's important to check with primary sources in general, in this case whoever actually removed the hairs from the laces. But again, even if the report regarding what Davis said is correct and Davis was correct in saying it, there's still noting to identify which of the six documented hairs recovered from the laces he was referring to.

 

[Ausgirl]

But again, even if the report regarding what Davis said is correct and Davis was correct in saying it, there's still noting to identify which of the six documented hairs recovered from the laces he was referring to.

Sure - but this isn't the point at hand.

Either Davis acknowledged a hair was found in a knot, or he didn't. You say it's 'hearsay'. I want to know which version is correct.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Sure - but this isn't the point at hand.

Either Davis acknowledged a hair was found in a knot, or he didn't. You say it's 'hearsay'. I want to know which version is correct.

You might try going to Callahans to look for that information. They have it all broken down over there.

 

[Ausgirl]

I'm not the one stating it's hearsay.

 

[kyleb]

Either Davis acknowledged a hair was found in a knot, or he didn't. You say it's 'hearsay'.

Actually, what Davis reportedly said isn't necessarily hearsay, as Janice Broach may have heard or read him say it herself, in which case that part of the article is a witness statement from her, though the article doesn't make clear if that is the case or otherwise. Regardless, the clam of a hair in a knot is still "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge" absent documentation from whoever actually recovered the hairs from the laces. And yes, I'd like too know the truth of the matter too, which is why I've asked many who've made the claim for documentation and I've looked for as much quite a bit myself, but I've yet to come up with anything.

Anyway, Here's the crime lab information and the DNA reports which I've scoured to no avail, but perhaps there's actually confirmation of a hair being recovered from in a knot in those documents which I've overlooked. Or perhaps such documentation can be found elsewhere, but absent that the claim is by definition hearsay.

 

[Ausgirl]

So wait - it's hearsay.... but it's not.

Okay.

I contend that no-one is going to put words in Davis' mouth like that and get away with it. What was said is that he filed a report acknowledging these things.

That neither you nor I have laid eyes on said report doesn't mean it does not exist, it simply means it's not available for the general public.

I wonder why...

And to say it doesn't exist is to say by implication that either the reporter lied and put words in his mouth that Davis never bothered correcting, despite that it actually undermines his own stance on the matter -- or Davis himself is a liar.

 

[kyleb]

Do I really have to explain the facts of the situation here yet again?

 

[Miranda!]

Please spare us that!

Nons are nons and nothing will change that now - how they can live with the idea of the State of Arkansas letting three kid killers free, one off DR, and not start a major campaign about it but pretend that it is 'Justice', is something I do not understand - nor ever want to!

As to the Opperman guy, I have never heard of him before the radio show plugs on facebook. If he is an 'expert' on the case it is very weird how he did not even know the names of the boys who were killed. Especially so if you are also a radio journalist and know you are going to be interviewing someone who comes from the same small town where it all happened! And then a step father of one of the victims as well. Had I been in his shoes, I would have been up all the night before mapping out possible flow charts for how to structure the programme and points I wanted to get established, whilst also leaving enough space incase of something totally unexpected coming up.

Rather than telling us who is is going to interview in the coming weeks, he would be on firmer ground if he could list those he has already had as his guests - with links to confirm this, like press reports, photographs or something - anything! Just typing / posting on a message board does not make something an established fact.

The small segment I heard it sounded as if Wheeler had more control over who was answering what.

As to using the word 'expert' without solid evidence to support it, is not a good idea in this particular case! Remember that fake PhD purchased by an attention seeking self proclaimed 'expert' who was allowed to testify, as such, by a Judge, who in my view, was looking to win popularity contests rather than adjudicate on a serious case.

Also, there are many supporters who, over the years, have come to know some of those at the heart of this case. Family members of the murdered children, family members of the wrongfully convicted and even some of the legal representatives over the years.

Several supporters have made a determined effort, over the years, to get to court hearings, and had the chance to meet some of the people directly involved.

Thousands have blogged, or something similar, on the case over the years. That, in my book, does not gain them 'expert' status!