Jessies confession with comments from Dave and Boohiss

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112886]

112886 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4616 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[ASpears20]

Yep ASSPEARS20 is a Damien supporter who has watched CSI/Cold Case and thinks he knows what he's talking about, yet his post are remarkably concise with the stainers view of the case.

I do know what I'm talking about, though -- at least as much as one can know. Outside of that, I hypothesize, I speculate, I guess, and I sometimes use sarcasm, because everybody loves sarcasm. I don't

Who ever coined the phrase "PARROTING" hit the nail on the head.

I coined it. That was me. There's always going to be parroting on both sides of an issue in which the known facts are finite, and not much new happens. People have been arguing most of these same points for 17 years. And since then, at least the supporters are coming up with new theories, while non's are limited to the WM3 set of facts and the theory of Satanic ritual sacrifice. That being the case, you'll have to do more parroting, because you don't have free reign to devise theories about aliens, Bigfoot, and Ninja Turtles on the Grassy Knoll like we do. The world is our oyster -- we can get as nutty as we want!

Although there might be 1 or 2 points that i could agree with him on, it is not worth pointing those out because the same courtesy would never be reciprocated. It is futile because he has is scope on Terry Hobbs.

That is simply not true. I agree with you on 1 or 2 points that I made, and if you made any points that I agreed with, I would say so. And on that note, yes, my scope is on Terry Hobbs, but it's not a religion to me. As far as who killed Christopher, Stevie, and Michael, I'm agnostic, which is why I don't think anybody should be on the cross for it.

But for the very meat of the case, HE CLEARLY is blinded by his bias...There are several people that are NoN's who were supporters, and saw all the lies/spins the supporter movement used to push their cause and started using an open mind to see how the case came together.

For every supporter-turned-non, there are three going the other way.
Alright... I just made that number up, but the fact of the matter is that there are more supporters for the WM3 than their are nons. Does that mean anything? No. Not at all. A majority can be wrong.

Say what you want...I know I am right, and I know it wont bother me a bit when Damien gets the needle and Jason/Jesse die in prison

You could be right, but only the people who were there can know for sure. Have you done any reading about false confessions?

Well, we're in agreement about Satan anyway.     Still, what do you mean by "crimes like this"?  Also, do you think turtles removed Christopher Byers's penis?

When I said “crimes like this,” I was speaking of all aspects of the crime John Douglas used to create his offender profile. Here is a link:
http://paradiselost3.com/index.php?topic=205.0
I have no opinion on the subject of animal predation. Six forensic experts have given their opinion that the injuries are a result of animal predation, but in this case it doesn’t matter. Even if the boys were flat as a pancake or if all that remained of them was a pink mist, it wouldn’t mean anything. All that matters is what Jessie Misskelley says happened.

[flexj]

[color=]

I coined it. That was me. There's always going to be parroting on both sides of an issue in which the known facts are finite, and not much new happens. People have been arguing most of these same points for 17 years. And since then, at least the supporters are coming up with new theories, while non's are limited to the WM3 set of facts and the theory of Satanic ritual sacrifice. That being the case, you'll have to do more parroting, because you don't have free reign to devise theories about aliens, Bigfoot, and Ninja Turtles on the Grassy Knoll like we do. The world is our oyster -- we can get as nutty as we want!

But see that is where you are wrong.
The prosecution did present that as to motive, but it was the jury who weighed the evidence and came back with a guilty verdict.

I will add that this, it my opinion that the prosecution presented it as a "Satanic Ritual" when actually it is a text book OIC.

Again it is the Jury's Duty to examine the evidence and JUDGE.

You could be right, but only the people who were there can know for sure. Have you done any reading about false confessions?

Only the arguments from both sides as it relates to this case...How about you take a look at the accuracy of information on this board, I can tell ya we have some pretty damn smart people here that contribute, and have shown ignorant supporters like Dave, that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.. Pretty sad if ya ask me!

And on that note, yes, my scope is on Terry Hobbs,

And this is where I lose any respect for you.  Instead of really weighing the evidence like the jury, your utter disbelief that 3 teenage boys could do this and leave a very small amount of physical evidence blinds you to the rest of the case.  But see I can take the fact that the boys had no alibi's, and the fact that Damien's own girlfriend aunt places them at the service road, in muddy clothes and later a report that 2 boys and a girl were at the laundry mat that night.  See after they murdered the boys, it doesn't take much to conclude that they washed down the bank as the detectives witnessed, and that they were muddy, and laundered the evidence of their clothes. 

I don't like JMB's but I would never do what you guys do, and wreck the life of an innocent man.  Terry does not deserve it, just as JMB did not deserve it.  Its deplorable!!!!!!!!!!

[Ric2F]

Aspear

Not if the detectives and the prosecution thought they were right. Jessie caving in as easily as he did would have been a sense of relief which gave their investigation a focal point. It’s my opinion that it was a false sense of relief. The lack of evidence is an enormous problem.
Not only was there a lack of evidence, but evidence you would expect to see was also not there. What do you think would happen to a person’s hands by beating a person about the head and face until they were unconscious? Three boys are found guilty of beating these kids with their bare knuckles – Jessie said he was drunk while he was beating one of the victims unconscious. Yet, did Jessie ever talk about any pain, swelling, or bruising in his hands? Did his friend Buddy Lucas mention anything about Jessie’s hands being swollen, purple, cut, or anything like that? Did he complain about busting his knuckles open or did any witnesses come forward to say “all of a sudden so-and-so’s knuckles were black and blue, and their hands were swollen,” or “the palms of their hands were shredded to bits” from using a stick to beat the children? There were no such injuries. No defensive wounds on the boys from the knife Jason is alleged to have used.

( Well Misskellys hands could have been bruised but not absolutely bruised. Lucas not mentioning it doesnt mean Jessies hands weren't and they may not even have been hurting. Shredding from a stick? is that a real statement? Defensive wounds from unconcous victims? are you really asking this?
==========================================
It would be good stuff for the defense, and it’s not that no such evidence exists, but the judge would not allow it.
DAVIS: Any significant changes that we should be aware of in your nine-page report that you made based on those first eleven hours?
WILKINS: Um, one of the sessions with Jessie was, uh, I made up a false story; in about a half an hour got Jessie to confess to a robbery that didn’t occur—
DAVIS: Your Honor, Excuse me, your Honor we’re going to have to approach the bench on that one.
BENCH CONFERENCE
DAVIS: I had never heard this story before, but I think what he’s getting ready—he, it’s some sort of creative test that he came up with where he created a false story and then, as I understand it he’s gonna say that in ten minutes he had Jessie confessing to something in his office regarding some made-up story about—
THE COURT: Well, I’m not gonna allow that.
FOGLEMAN: I think he already testified to it, your Honor, and we’d ask that it be stricken

(Are you saying Wilkins statement is evidence? Possibly Wilkins is a child molester, that cares little about three childrens deaths. Made claims of a recording that nobody is able to produce. If I am incorrect please show me the recording of the robbery that never occurred. Not just some statement from a discredited child molester.)
================
I’m not sure what you mean when you say, “finding them the second time. Find them a third time…” This is a hypothetical timeline, based on eyewitness statements. In this hypothetical timeline, is an alternative theory that attempts to account for the time when Terry Hobbs’ location is unknown. It is hypothesized by this timeline, that there would be no need for Terry Hobbs to find the boys a second or third time, because they have been incapacitated and hidden at the bottom of a manhole. So each time he “finds” them, he merely returns to the manhole, under the guise of searching for the boys, and does what he needs to in order to conceal his involvement. Placing them in the manhole was a temporary measure to hide the bodies until he could return after dark and affect a more thorough completion of the crime.

(I am so glad you admit that the time line is just garbage that it doesn't fit the events, just theory and hypothesis. Hopefully you will soon admit the manhole theory is the same. Hey, there is another board I was looking at last night "Blue beacon" check it out for your  manhole Eureka moment. You may find out that the manhole was about 15 feet deep and the rebar was much too large to have made the marks. Maybe the marks are shoe tread markings, or a stick with carvings I dont know. Seriously check the manhole thread out.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 It also explains the discrepancy between the time the children were last seen (about 6:30pm around Goodwin Ave.), and the time of death estimated by the medical examiner (between 1am-5am).

( except for the fact that the time of death was between 6 PM and 8:30 PM and the medical examiner was mistaken. Search and find out how why.)

If Damien Echols was seen walking with Domini around 9:30pm, and if Jessie was truthful about his leaving the scene at about the time it was getting dark (around 8pm), then it would have taken a few hours for Moore and Branch and to drown. Unless Jason Baldwin stayed and put the bodies in the water sometime around 1am to 5am.

( well the bicycles were gone at 8:27 PM, Most of the evidence points to the time of Death being before 8:27 PM. Look through the statements.)
 
Terry Hobbs was out “looking for the boys” between 3:30am and 5:00am. That is a 90 minute period that happens to fall within the time range the medical examiner testified the boys had died, and he does not have an alibi for it.

( again sorry, The ME erred in the time of death "among other things" and nothing but his statement indicates that 1-5 AM was the time of death)
--------------------------------------------------
===================================
Look it up yourself if you want. I don’t care either way. You know it’s impossible to prove that the hair was not on the shoelace for days or weeks before the boys were murdered, but it’s highly unlikely, given the how much the shoelaces were handled during the murders. The chance that two hairs being found at the scene of the crime with a rate of occurrence of 1.5% and 7%, is 0.105% -- or 1 in 1050. It’s significant in light of whose DNA was not found at the scene of the crime

( I am glad you admit that there is no proof how long the hair had been there)
====================================
Paraphrasing what you said to me before, “you have to look at the whole thing… look at the big picture.” You’re begging for evidence against Terry Hobbs, but you let the prosecution slide when it comes to evidence against the WM3, simply because they can get a nearly-retarded person to confess? Even on his best day, he’s as dumb as a box of rocks. And you don’t see the injustice against the WM3 in light of the lack of “proof?” Would you say Terry Hobbs was guilty if the evidence against him was the same as the evidence against the WM3? If Terry Hobbs acquaintance, who is missing a few fries in his happy meal, says Terry Hobbs did it? Because, apart from the DNA evidence, the evidence against Hobbs is as good as what they got against the WM3. I’m not even entirely convinced it was Hobbs, but I think DNA evidence wrapped in the knot of a ligature used to bind one of the victims is stronger than the best evidence against the WM3, especially when it’s combined with the DNA of Jacoby.
 
 (But you just admitted there is no way to tell how long the hair had been on the shoelace. And hair is far from DNA. Please stop calling hair DNA. Its not, its not linked to Hobbs at all. The other hair is not even close to be proven to be Jacoby's hair.
What evidence are you refering to? The manhole or the time line theory?
Are you dismissing all the confessions and witness statements against the WM3 as less strong than supporter theories?)

======================
BELOW ARE SOME STATEMENT CONCERNING WILKINS

Holly's report on Misskelley's rule37 - Wedesday, November 19th, 2008

Stidham said that Jessie gave him so little info that it was like not having a client at all and that he would change his story to please Dan. He said that Jessie confessed to an armed robbery at the Flash Market that never occurred and that he and Wilkins had gotten Jessie to confess to it within 15 minutes.
========================
Yep, that's what the man has been saying for 14 years.
====================================
The court was told that a lengthy video, the State's exhibit, would be next, and court broke for lunch.
==========
Excellent!
I can hardly wait!
============
After lunch, Davis put in the DVD of the Wilkins/Misskelley interview.
===========================================
The excitement is almost too much to bear, isn't it?
======================================
Wilkins asked questions regarding Jessie being told that he failed his lie detector test. Jessie then told them that he saw photographs of the murdered children. He said that he had been told that they were cut up, and that the police began asking him the same questions again and again. He said that Ridge drew Xs around a circle with three dots in the middle.
=========
Yeah yeah, we know all that - get on with the robbery!
====================================
Wilkins then told Jessie that they knew that he had robbed the Flash Market. Jessie said he never robbed anybody-why would anyone say that?-he never had a gun-he had a 25mm and a 22mm-he never pulled a gun on nobody-he did have a knife-he never had a knife-he never pulled a gun on anyone…
====================
OK?

So let's hear him say he did it already!
========================
Wilkins said that their informant had called Jessie a "little faggot" and asked if that made him mad. Jessie looked despondent. They took a break, and then told Jessie that the police were on the way. There was a long break, and Jessie reappears smoking a cigarette. He said that he got to the "shop," and got out of his dad's truck. The tape cut out and picked up again with a discussion of what happened in the police station on June 3rd.
========================================================
You mean the part where Misskelley confessed to this robbery is "missing"?

What kind of chicanery is that?
========================
Dr. Derning would later say that he didn't believe the missing segment was due to any chicanery. He pointed out that Wilkins would had to have committed perjury if it hadn't occurred.
======
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!
========================
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/jm_wilkins_hearing.html (Hearing on Wilkins Feb 1, 1994)

[Ric2F]

Aspear

We can go back and forth. We can continue a hundred times with the my theories Vs your theories arguements. We can discuss witnesses, qualifications of witnesses, timelines, manholes, rebar, crime scenes, John Mark Byers, Terry Hobbs, L.G. Holingsworth, and any other person you can bring up. I am pretty sure we can state something at any time to refute either persons theory. In fact we could go over every aspect of the trial and every document and witness statement out there. I think the thread is heading in that direction. So this is what I suggest.
Since there is a lack of a witness seeing the crime committed, No video of the crime, and no property belonging to a victim that was found connecting them to the crime. It all comes down to the confessions and statements of the actors and people that the actors told. Like it or not it is really all there is as proof/evidence.
===========================
I have stated why I believe Misskelly's confessed as he did, but I will repeat it again for the purposes of this thread"

I believe that Misskelly was being interviewed because people had told the police that he knew Damien Echols and Damien Echols kept being pointed to as a suspect by many people.

I believe during the questioning of Misskelly that several statements from Misskelly occured.

 Misskelly was given a polygraph and showed deceit.

The police, not knowing at the time that Misskelly was involved asked Misskelly questions and discovered he knew things concerning the crime. Police asked Misskelly to do a taped statement. During that statement several things happened.

The Police were told that Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelly were there and committed the murders.

Misskelly told a bunch of inconsistent statements to throw off the police, Make them think he was lying about the murder, and tried to keep from implicating himself.

Misskelly gave police some statement that he thought the police wanted to hear and he was happy to give them anything as long as it was about Jason and Damien and did not implicate himself.

The police knew of the inconsistent statements, let Misskelly tell his statement, then went back and basically let Misskelly know he was caught in some lies, but did not flat out call him a liar.

Misskelly being the brainiac he is, saw no harm in changing a few statements to the truth as long as he didnt implicate himself.

 Misskelly mentioned a pair of shoes he had worn the night of the murders and stated he gave them to Buddy Lucas, again not thinking it would implicate himself in the deaths, and possibly not realizing the police would ask Lucas about statements Misskelly had made.
======================================================
Buddy Lucas statement

I do not think when the police questioned Lucas they expected that Lucas
had anything substantual to say concerning Misskelly.

Lucas opened up and told a very detailed story about how he had gone to Misskelly's house with BBQ. How on the morning after the murders Jessie confessed and named Damien and Jessie.

Police discover that the shoes were given to Lucas the day after the murders and there is much information that Lucas knows.

 Lucas stated he believed the shoes he got were converse, and also that he had gotten Adidas shoes.

Lucas told a totally believeable story that day. Complete with details of the day.

 Lucas told the police more than once that it made him feel good to get the confession off his chest.

Lucas was asked to give a polygraph and blood sample.

Lucas first mentioned not wanting to get brought up in all this
===========================================

Misskelly is convicted and confesses to two transport officers.

Not only does Misskelly confess to being more involved and to my knowledge he was never even accused of being more involved, Misskelly makes statements that the police lied when they said they didnt see him on May 5th.

Misskelly admits to trying to throw police off in first confession by lying about the rope and time. (I realize no taped statement, but I find this a credible statement by credible people)
================================================
 Lucas recants, fails polygraph, talks with prosecutor on the phone

Lucas claims the police yelled at him.

Lucas says Lax was nice.

Lucas says boss wasn't happy he had to leave work.

Lucas mother is on phone.

Lucas says he knows nothing , the shoes were given at a different time, and just wants to be left alone. This is a total change from the previous nothing to hide attitude.
==================================================
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

Misskelly brought from jail and gives another taped confession

Misskellys lawyer seriously argues that Missklelly does not want to make a statement.

Misskelly lawyer explains to Misskelly that he should not make a statement.

When asked directly Misskelly tell his lawyer straight to his face he does want to make a statement, and does.

Misskelly makes a statement, implicating himself more than ever. Misskelly admits to trying to throw the police off.

Misskelly corrects Calvin about the knife.

 Misskelly tells where the Evan Williams bottle was broken.

Misskelly forgets names, doesnt know the times things happened, clothes and other unimportant details even though he has just gone trough a trial and has heard the names and times.
=============================================================
MY CONCLUSION

Misskelly first confession was a pack of lies.  Misskelly is pretty stupid and his way of confusing the police without implicating himself and only implicating Damien and Baldwin fails miserable. Misskelly gives enough truthful statements to find further evidence against him.

Misskellys lawyer and paid experts convince the lawyer the confession is coerced and Misskelly's lawyer convinces Misskelly not to testify.

Buddy Lucas tells the truth during the first statement.

Many people tell Lucas he is sending Misskelly to death if he testifies. People convince Lucas that they will constantly be bringing him to court. Lucas thinks about his first statement and begins to fear Misskelly's friends and family will come after him if he doesn't change his story.

Lucas now says the police were mean to him, but he has no fear of the police during the polygraph.

Misskelly is convicted by jurors that heard all the evidence, formed conclusions.

Misskelly tells the truth to transport officers.
 
Transport officers tell the prosecution about the confession on the way to the jail.

Misskelly is asked if he will give another statement.

 The statement is given and taped and supports the transport officer's report.

=========

 All the statements, the timing of the statements, cause me to believe the things above are true. I look at all the statements, not only the first statement with inaccuracies to form my conclusion.
I believe the first Misskelly statement was an attempt to tell what Jason and Damien did without implicating himself. I believe Misskelly is dumb and told some lies that he knew ere not possible to try and confuse the police and make them think he did not know anything.
I  believe the first Lucas statement because of the manner it was discovered and the fact that police did not know Lucas knew any information about the crimes.
I believe the transport officers because they are credible witnesses and the last confession taped confirms many things the transport officers stated that Misskelly said. I believe the final taped statement as the closest statement to the truth of all three statements. I believe Misskelly finally admitted he was beating the children, and much more involved, because it is the truth. I also believe the statement closer to the truth because he lacked details, didn't embelish, admitted that Damien did not actual sexually assault the children, corrected interviewers, didnt care what his lawyer advised.
==============================================================

In this case the confessions and statements are all that matter. The above material in this post is what I consider evidence, common sense, corroberated facts and witness statements. No other information I have heard or read deflects me from the belief that the three committed the crime. In fact all other statements point towards the three that were convicted.  This post is my view of the MIsskelly confessions, all of them, and not just the first confession. The other statements concerning Baldwin and Echols are not included in this conclusion.

[ASpears20]

You could be right, but only the people who were there can know for sure. Have you done any reading about false confessions?

Only the arguments from both sides as it relates to this case...How about you take a look at the accuracy of information on this board, I can tell ya we have some pretty damn smart people here that contribute, and have shown ignorant supporters like Dave, that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.. Pretty sad if ya ask me!

I don’t disagree that there are smart people on here.

And this is where I lose any respect for you.  Instead of really weighing the evidence like the jury, your utter disbelief that 3 teenage boys could do this and leave a very small amount of physical evidence blinds you to the rest of the case.  But see I can take the fact that the boys had no alibi's, and the fact that Damien's own girlfriend aunt places them at the service road, in muddy clothes and later a report that 2 boys and a girl were at the laundry mat that night.  See after they murdered the boys, it doesn't take much to conclude that they washed down the bank as the detectives witnessed, and that they were muddy, and laundered the evidence of their clothes.

I don't like JMB's but I would never do what you guys do, and wreck the life of an innocent man.  Terry does not deserve it, just as JMB did not deserve it.  Its deplorable!!!!!!!!!!

I don’t believe there is anything deplorable about it, in light of the crime that occurred. The crime was deplorable, and in pursuit of justice, it would be deplorable to ignore new evidence or turn a blind eye to any person who might have been involved. A potential murderer should never be overlooked simply because a conviction has been made. In this case, it’s possible a brother-in-law might be alive today if the right person were investigated the first time around. Now he is being investigated. That is a good thing, considering his propensity towards extremely violent outbursts. He has a strong propensity to lie, to minimize his presence at the scene of the crime, to make attempts to convince others that he was with them at key times during the search for the boys, he has been accused of sexually molesting his daughter, and has a friend whose DNA is at the scene of the crime along with his. It may be deplorable to you that anybody should have to undergo such scrutiny, but even in this wonderful world of Disney, parents need to be brought to justice sometimes.

( Well Misskellys hands could have been bruised but not absolutely bruised. Lucas not mentioning it doesnt mean Jessies hands weren't and they may not even have been hurting. Shredding from a stick? is that a real statement?

For Jessie, Damien, and Jason to not exhibit any bruising, cuts, scrapes, broken bones, etc., creates only more questions about the credibility of Jessie’s statements, and whether or not they were given voluntarily or compelled with statements like, "you can fess up and go home right now, or keep quiet and face the death penalty."

Defensive wounds from unconcous victims? are you really asking this?

Unless you're proposing the victims were found unconscious, and then the WM3 began beating on them, yes, I am really asking this.

Even at the point in which Jessie claimed Jason had cut Christopher’s penis, he implies that Christopher was conscious:
DAVIS: What'd the boy do when that happened?

MISSKELLEY: He started hollering. And Jason put his shirt over his mouth.

So, according to Jessie, Byers was conscious when he was being attacked with a knife, and Christophers hands were free to block the knife attack (hands not tied, and Jessie & Damien were otherwise occupied), but even though the blade was open while Jason was swinging it around Christopher’s legs, no defensive wounds were noted in the medical examiner’s report. Imagine the tremendous amount of willpower it would take to not even attempt to block that with your hands or arms.

DAVIS: Ok. Could you see where he, was he cutting the boy?

MISSKELLEY: No, he was like this swinging the knife at his legs.

DAVIS: Ok. Could you see, did you ever see one of the boys get cut with the knife?

MISSKELLEY: After he cut through with'm then I noticed what'd he done.

DAVIS: What did you see?

MISSKELLEY: I saw that boy you know missing

(Are you saying Wilkins statement is evidence? Possibly Wilkins is a child molester, that cares little about three childrens deaths, was in a mental hospital and allowed to leave to testify at the case. Made claims of a recording that nobody is able to produce. If I am incorrect please show me the recording of the robbery that never occurred. Not just some statement from a discredited child molester.)

I’m not going to argue that Wilkins wasn’t discredited, but to say “Wilkins might be a child molester, therefore he did not convince Misskelley to confess to a robbery that never occurred,” is a non sequitur. In his case synopsis, Judge Stidham had written of having participated in the experiment. You can believe it or not. I have no reason to believe it didn’t happen.

(I am so glad you admit that the time line is just garbage that it doesn't fit the events, just theory and hypothesis. Hopefully you will soon admit the manhole theory is the same. Hey, there is another board I was looking at last night "Blue beacon" check it out for your  manhole Eureka moment. You may find out that the manhole was about 15 feet deep and the rebar was much too large to have made the marks. Maybe the marks are shoe tread markings, or a stick with carvings I dont know. Seriously check the manhole thread out.)

I never said the timeline is “just garbage,” nor did I say that it “doesn’t fit the events.” Those are your biased extrapolations and interpretations of what I said. The words “theory” and “hypothesis” are not synonymous with “garbage.” They are the foundations upon which truth is explored and built, and it ain’t like I’m the one claiming a satanic cult ritually sacrificed some kids.

You have stated many times that “it doesn’t fit the events,” but Mr. Hobbs places himself and Mr. Jacoby alone in the woods several times on the night the boys went missing.
Q. And Mr. -- and it's your testimony Mr. Jacoby was with you all night in the woods?
A. We were together quite a bit that night.
Q. No, that's not my question. My question is, you testified earlier that you and Mr. Jacoby were together all night in the woods until it was time for him to go to work?
A. Exactly.
http://www.freewestmemphis3.org/download/Terry%20Hobbs%20Deposition.pdf?28e5bbf660cb545fc854f5c048c7be7c=51a8702229a46f0332ce9964b9896e7e] [url]http://www.freewestmemphis3.org/download/Terry%20Hobbs%20Deposition.pdf?28e5bbf660cb545fc854f5c048c7be7c=51a8702229a46f0332ce9964b9896e7e [/url]

I’ve seen the post you’re referring to about the rebar. It’s one very unscientific test being done in an attempt to debunk the rebar hypothesis, which was reviewed by 5 forensics experts who said, “the rebar cannot be ruled out as the source of the skin pattern.”

If that doesn’t satisfy you, have a qualified expert look at the photos, but it’s not even a vital thread in the manhole theory. The timeline fits, whether you like it or not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 It also explains the discrepancy between the time the children were last seen (about 6:30pm around Goodwin Ave.), and the time of death estimated by the medical examiner (between 1am-5am).

( except for the fact that the time of death was between 6 PM and 8:30 PM and the medical examiner was mistaken. Search and find out how why.)

( well the bicycles were gone at 8:27 PM, Most of the evidence points to the time of Death being before 8:27 PM. Look through the statements.)

None of the evidence shows time of death being before 8:27pm, because the only evidence that can be used to determine the time of death was the testimony of the medical examiner. If it doesn’t fit your theory or the state’s theory, I’m sorry, but that doesn't mean you can change expert testimony that you don't like. In this instance, if you don’t like it, that means something is wrong with your opinion of what happened. That means something is wrong with Jessie's timeline. If you can show me a contrary statement that speaks to the time of death from a qualified person, then ok. But you’re not qualified to contradict a medical examiner regarding time of death. You just want to just say, “to hell with considering the possibility that the WM3 might be innocent. All of these people who think they're innocent are nutty! Jessie confessed, darn it!!”

So you’re going to let the fact that bikes were gone at 8:27pm be the basis for your judgment of their time of death, over the judgment of a medical examiner, because that's in line with what Jessie says. That’s how you’re going to play this? And you’re calling my theory garbage even though it doesn’t require dismissing the ME’s expert opinion and testimony?

Do you know that the bicycles being gone, does not mean the boys were dead?

The medical examiner said the boys were not dead at 8:27pm. However, the victims could have been unconscious or otherwise disabled (perhaps at the bottom of a manhole), and their bikes disposed of in the bayou by somebody who didn’t want to attract attention to the area yet. Perhaps somebody was pissed that a certain boy was not home when he was supposed to be, acted out in a rage, things got out of hand, and then that person realized he needed time to clean the area up, so he tossed the bikes in the Bayou, tossed the boys down the manhole, and went about "looking" for the boys in order to pretend like nothing happened. This all fits quite well with the opinion offered by FBI profiler John Douglas, who also believed the person who committed the crime was likely to have a violent past and a violent future (Hobbs all the way).
 

( again sorry, The ME erred in the time of death "among other things" and nothing but his statement indicates that 1-5 AM was the time of death)

And nothing but Jessie’s confessions indicate the WM3 as having committed the murders, but you’re trusting him and his utterly flawed statements, and dismissing a qualified expert? Just gonna say “fuck you” to the experts and go with the story of a retard? You may as well say it was done during mid-day and they were tied up using brown rope, because fuck anybody or anything that contradicts Jessie Misskelley, which even includes Jessie Misskelley.
 

(But you just admitted there is no way to tell how ling the hair had been on the shoelace. And hair is far from DNA. Please stop calling hair DNA.

SMH.

Its not, its not linked to Hobbs at all.

SMH again.

The other hair is not even close to be proven to be Jacoby's hair. What evidence are you refering to? The manhole or the time line theory? Are you dismissing all the confessions and witness statements against the WM3 as less strong than supporter theories?)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are being a stickler for the precise usage of the words hair and DNA. Going forward, however, please understand that when I am talking about DNA, I mean the DNA contained in a strand of hair (unless I indicate otherwise).

And do you think the hair / DNA evidence is just a part of the theory? Something somebody just made up?

Well, I have news for you: The West Memphis PD has an open file on Terry Hobbs since 2007 because of a hair found in a knot of the ligature that was tied to Michael Moore, and the hair belonged to Terry Hobbs to the exclusion of 98.5% of the population, based on DNA testing. There was a hair found on a tree at the scene of the crime that belonged to David Jacoby to the exclusion of 93% of the population.

Terry Hobbs talks about it during his deposition.
Transcript:
http://callahan.8k.com/hobbs_pasdar/t_hobbs_depo1.html] [url]http://callahan.8k.com/hobbs_pasdar/t_hobbs_depo1.html [/url]
Video:
http://thewm3.yuku.com/topic/49?page=1] [url]http://thewm3.yuku.com/topic/49?page=1 [/url]

And his interrogation...
Terry Hobbs Speaks Part 1] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFXsWO9OBMg#normal]Terry Hobbs Speaks Part 1 [/url]

Geez... I haven't even touched on animal predation.

[flexj]

In this case, it’s possible a brother-in-law might be alive today if the right person were investigated the first time around.

Terry called the police, he told them he was going to get his gun and protect himself.  Terry shot the gun, it WAS in self defense.  As sad as it is, It was HIS fault not Terry's.

Now he is being investigated. That is a good thing, considering his propensity towards extremely violent outbursts.

Funny how you supporters did a 180 with JMB as soon as he turned supporter, I mean come on, HE HAD BLOOD ON HIS KNIFE, HE WAS CAUGHT IN LIES, HE HAS A SHADY BACKGROUND.  It's a frickin Double Standard.  But just as JMB had all these things over his head, it is ONLY because he is a supporter that they went after Terry.

So you are going to tell me that this man killed his stepson and his friends? Come on the guy was chilling with his friend, smoked some weed, and went in a violent rage and killed his stepson and his 2 friends so there wasn't any witnesses?  If that were true he should be in Holllywood, because he would have to be the best damn actor ever,  I mean a person that did something so heinous could look his friend Jacoby and the Dana and Mark in the eyes and not have paranoia (especially if had been smokin weed and playin guitars) all over him, plus the blood.  This guy would have been freaking out and THAT would have caused great suspicion. USE SOME FUCKING COMMON SENSE ALREADY GEEZ!!!!!!

Face it, You guys like your celebrity child killer Damien, and the his celebrity groupies, and feel the need to identify with this piece of crap.  This guy has you DUPED. 

[Farm]

I decided to split this thread so folks can get back to the confessions.

ASpear's eight pages of mindless "leg-humping" has earned it's own thread.

Now,... back to the confession nonsense:

Judge Stidham had written of having participated in the experiment. You can believe it or not. I have no reason to believe it didn’t happen.

That's because as usual you aren't familiar with the facts.

Here's another bit of supporter commentary for you, from Wedesday, November 19th, 2008 at Misskelley's rule 37 hearing:

Stidham said that Jessie gave him so little info that it was like not having a client at all and that he would change his story to please Dan. He said that Jessie confessed to an armed robbery at the Flash Market that never occurred and that he and Wilkins had gotten Jessie to confess to it within 15 minutes.
The court was told that a lengthy video, the State's exhibit, would be next, and court broke for lunch.
After lunch, Davis put in the DVD of the Wilkins/Misskelley interview.
Wilkins asked questions regarding Jessie being told that he failed his lie detector test. Jessie then told them that he saw photographs of the murdered children. He said that he had been told that they were cut up, and that the police began asking him the same questions again and again. He said that Ridge drew Xs around a circle with three dots in the middle.
Wilkins then told Jessie that they knew that he had robbed the Flash Market. Jessie said he never robbed anybody-why would anyone say that?-he never had a gun-he had a 25mm and a 22mm-he never pulled a gun on nobody-he did have a knife-he never had a knife-he never pulled a gun on anyone…
Wilkins said that their informant had called Jessie a "little faggot" and asked if that made him mad. Jessie looked despondent. They took a break, and then told Jessie that the police were on the way. There was a long break, and Jessie reappears smoking a cigarette. He said that he got to the "shop," and got out of his dad's truck. The tape cut out and picked up again with a discussion of what happened in the police station on June 3rd.
Dr. Derning would later say that he didn't believe the missing segment was due to any chicanery. He pointed out that Wilkins would had to have committed perjury if it hadn't occurred.

So....

For 16 years Stidham has been telling people that they got Misskelley to confess on video to this robbery that never happened.

The court finally gets to view the video,....... and the part where Misskelley supposedly confesses isn't there.

(this is where everyone is supposed to feign shock).

[Farm]

I'm noticing a trend here with ASpears.

I'll call it the "boohiss" syndrome.