TH and potential evidence

[Mrs G Norris]

All three were mistaken.. They all saw him but the ALL got it wrong.. Yeah, No... Sorry.

Or they were simply lying hoping to score some of that reward $$$ ..

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Or they were simply lying hoping to score some of that reward $$$ ..

Sure.. All three..

 

[kyleb]

They had over a decade an a half to get it wrong, which is a lot of time to develop false memories, unlike all the witnesses who reported the boys far further north shortly after they went missing which one has to disregard to take the Moyer's claims as true.

 

[Hez]

It's worse than that. They don't even have to call him a suspect. Just investigate him thoroughly. Lots of people get investigated that never turn into suspects, but they haven't even done that.

BBM - Perhaps calling him a person of interest will reduce all the angst some people seem to have about this issue. :twocents:

 

[LordYAM]

they aren't bullying him. Given that

a.) Hobb's is an abusive ******* who most likely abused his stepson and wife
b.) that the evidence is far more damning than the nons want to admit (in order for the hair to have been transfer it would have had to survive being pulled through the ropes as the laces were being tied. (remember, these are 8 year olds who are constantly playing rough and tough), being removed from the shoe through the hole, and it would have had to survive for more than a day (Hobbs claimed he never saw Stevie that day remember).
c.) Hobbs has no real alibi for that night (Jacoby retracted his statement)

I'm sorry but I'm calling ********.



Terry Hobbs is not some poor abused victim. the case isn't concrete, but looking into him is legitimate. If someone looks suspicious (which Hobbs is) than you investigate him. If he's innocent, okay.

And Kyle, the reason the supporters stopped hounding byers (which i will cheerfully admit was wrong) was because they looked into it and eventually found proof that he couldn't have done it. After the forensic results conducted in 2007 occurred most supporters backed off and concluded that they were wrong. It was more of an "okay, we were wrong" sort of thing.
The supporters admitted that they were wrong, and moved onto the next potential suspect (which is what Hobbs was) Like real investigators do. If anything, that makes them better than the nons. The animal bite marks shocked them as much as anyone, since it kind of derailed the idea that byers was the primary victim (and yes I think they were animal marks. The guy who said it was knife wounds isn't even certified, while the guys who identified them as animal marks were all highly trained experts with more experience.) Hobbs made himself look guilty during that Pasdar trial, and in general the Nons tend to try and ignore evidence that doesn't fit their worldview to the point of engaging in doublethink.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I never saw the value of denying the knife wounds and going with the most improbable castrating snapping turtles. Nobody denies this was murder.

 

[LordYAM]

That's the problem. the guy who claimed it was knife wounds is an incompetent fool with no qualifications. The only ones clinging to the knife wounds are nons and Peretti and the WMPD, who want desperately to believe in their guilt. Pretty much every other forensic expert who has examined the wounds has concluded that they are predation marks made on the dead bodies. The case isn't concrete and it is impossible to know for certain unless either Hobbs confesses or evidence implicating either hobbs or the wm3 resurfaces that could shut everyone to hell up. However, if I was a betting man I'd say Damian was innocent. A wierdo who had issues, but no murderer. I'd also bet that Hobbs is a cold blooded monster (or hot blooded) and that he is indeed the murderer of those three children. After looking at both sides, the nons just come across as more willing to make mental leaps, more willing to ignore anything which contradicts them, and more condescending and dogmatic (the supporters can be, but the supporters are also far more willing to admit when they're wrong, hence why they left byers alone after the forensics examination implicated terry hobbs.)

 

[Mrs G Norris]

So if people who think the WM3 are guilty are going to be continuously referred to as 'nons' does that mean that people who think the WM3 are innocent can be referred to as 'sups'? I think we should drop the little nick-names myself.

 

[primitivefuture]

So if people who think the WM3 are guilty are going to be continuously referred to as 'nons' does that mean that people who think the WM3 are innocent can be referred to as 'sups'? I think we should drop the little nick-names myself.

I'm not very fond of those terms either. For most people, it seems to be the established way of referring to either side. I avoid using those terms, but then I try to avoid using any of the common Internet abbreviations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

does that mean that people who think the WM3 are innocent can be referred to as 'sups'?

Echols likes to call them chupacabras, which seems fitting to me.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Echols likes to call them chupacabras, which seems fitting to me.

Kyleb, you are correct that's how he addresses his followers. Here is an article about it.

With us today is Brandie Perez, 19, wrapped in a skull-print scarf and visiting from Florida to meet her “hero.” I bring up his robust, often poetic Twitter feed, where he affectionately addresses his followers as chupacabras. They’re generous: “I get so much stuff: crystals. Boots. A jar of mayonnaise. One time, a woman in the street gave me a painting she made. From the waist down, it’s a horse; from the waist up, it’s me. I said ‘Thank you’ and kept going.” He turns to chupacabra Perez. “You gave me a bag of jack-o’-lanterns once.”
http://www.vulture.com/2013/01/damien-echols-on-tattoos-life-after-prison.html

 

[Ausgirl]

So if people who think the WM3 are guilty are going to be continuously referred to as 'nons' does that mean that people who think the WM3 are innocent can be referred to as 'sups'? I think we should drop the little nick-names myself.

I agree, I don't like them, either.

It's a bit like the RDI's and IDI's - and all that BS that happens with the Ramseys - it only causes ill feeling, and makes people feel like there's a war going on between posters in which people must pick sides.

While we're at it, we could probably also do away with nasty jabs and such toward posters who do not agree with us (and I mean 'we', everyone here).

It's all a bit grade school, isn't it.

 

[Hez]

Kyleb, you are correct that's how he addresses his followers. Here is an article about it.

With us today is Brandie Perez, 19, wrapped in a skull-print scarf and visiting from Florida to meet her “hero.” I bring up his robust, often poetic Twitter feed, where he affectionately addresses his followers as chupacabras. They’re generous: “I get so much stuff: crystals. Boots. A jar of mayonnaise. One time, a woman in the street gave me a painting she made. From the waist down, it’s a horse; from the waist up, it’s me. I said ‘Thank you’ and kept going.” He turns to chupacabra Perez. “You gave me a bag of jack-o’-lanterns once.”
http://www.vulture.com/2013/01/damien-echols-on-tattoos-life-after-prison.html

UBM - Context is everything. Exactly how does this relate to the actual topic of this thread? Oh that's right, it doesn't. :banghead:

 

[ontheclock]

I agree, I don't like them, either.

It's a bit like the RDI's and IDI's - and all that BS that happens with the Ramseys - it only causes ill feeling, and makes people feel like there's a war going on between posters in which people must pick sides.

While we're at it, we could probably also do away with nasty jabs and such toward posters who do not agree with us (and I mean 'we', everyone here).

It's all a bit grade school, isn't it.

I agree, a little respect goes a long way. It's painful reading here on most days.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

OK potential evidence against TH.

There was an article some time back in The Commercial Appeal stating that TH's presence at work on May 5, 1993 was not verified. I don't recall seeing anything to either corroborate or disprove the article. Have I missed something, other than TH's own insistence that he went to work that day, to clear up that little mystery?