Why Mark Byers (and other former nons) became supporters / Why Hobbs is guilty

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

[78478]

78478 Posts in 6928 Topics by 701 Members
Latest Member: ace32

[cewatson]

And Auburn, what's your point? I still say they'd testify if they could.

I'll add reading comprehension to the list.

I wasn't talking about exposing him as a murderer, I was talking about exposing his character as they perceive it ... so add reading comprehension to YOUR list of things to improve upon, please.

[flexj]

Flex ... what is has to do with the WM3 has yet to be determined. You're probably right, maybe absolutely nothing. But maybe everything. I don't know how all this TH stuff is going to turn out.

Storm ... I don't know JMB. I think I might have said 2 things to him on the other board, but they weren't really directly aimed at him. Frankly, I find him to be moronic and I'm aware of his checkered past. But his story about that night adds up a hell of a lot better than TH's.

Auburn ... again, I said "if." It's still a big "if." That hasn't changed. I don't get what point you're trying to make. I can use hypotheticals.

Well According to the board you are going to, and the comments I read, It doesn't take a genius to see your innuendo as TH did it.

Just remember that most of the supporters over there went after Mark in the same fashion.  Ask Paid about how he pointed everything at Mark

face it Watson, your wasting your time on a losing battle.  The 3 losers in prison did it.  Damien will die of lethal injection, and the other 2 will be somebody's bitches till they die in prison.

No hope for them whatsoever. 

[cewatson]

No, actually I've never outright accused him of being a murderer. Just a liar. On this board and that one. Yes, I believe there's a lot his hiding, but I haven't bought into the "TH Theory" yet as I'm still not even completely clear what the theory is. As you probably noticed on the board, I asked what it was, and even said I found it hard to believe that he did it. As I read more and more about TH though, I can see that he's certainly a manipulative and dishonest guy. And there's a lot more I'm referring to other than the murders. Just because I think he's a liar doesn't mean I necessarily think he's a murderer or that he's necessarily lying when he says he had nothing to do with the murders. My posts don't "imply" anything to the contrary.

[auburnesq]

And Auburn, what's your point? I still say they'd testify if they could.

I'll add reading comprehension to the list.

I wasn't talking about exposing him as a murderer, I was talking about exposing his character as they perceive it ... so add reading comprehension to YOUR list of things to improve upon, please.

All things considered that's pretty funny.

Now, when you untwist your panties, you might want to actually read what I posted. You know, the repetitive stuff about the complete improbability for testimony of character evidence against Hobbs and the complete irrelevance of your misinformed hypothetical thereof.

[flexj]

Well when you finally want to admit the TH did it theory, you can come post it here and watch how it gets torn apart.  Until then, you shouldn't be posting that crap, as He and his family have been here, and or check in.  Regardless of what he has or may of done is irrelevant to this forum.

See this forum is about defending the verdict to uninformed people.  If you choose not to believe it fine, as there are other boards that love to get into conspiracy theories and what not.

(side note: If I am wrong about the purpose of this board, don't hesitate to inform me..LOL)

Watson
I know your helluva a lot smarter than this, it boggles my mind how you dismiss so much. 

Have fun with the stainers

[addict]

I'm sure you have an 'explanation' for that by now,

Fuck off Addict.


sheer

It was a real question. I'm not sure why you're so pissed, unless you don't like the fact that "explanation" was put in quotes.

As far as disregarding inconsistencies, it's quite easy. Hurst was very obviously relating what Echols had told him. Echols didn't tell him the whole truth because he probably assumed Hurst would inform on him and was trying to lessen his involvement and point fingers in other directions.

I guess that's possible. I don't think it's the only possibility, but I do appreciate that you answered my question.

eta: In another thread recently, flexj said something about a "word" being used (by Farm?) to describe what Echols was doing when talking to Hurst. I was curious what that word was, but I haven't located the thread flexj was talking about. Sounded like it could have been a different explanation than yours, which is the one usually used when facts don't match up in alleged statements made by the wm3 to other people about their involvement in the crime. I got the impression from flexj that maybe some of you had a different view on Echols/Hurst, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Farm]

I'm not sure why you're so pissed, unless you don't like the fact that "explanation" was put in quotes.

I suspect she's finnally catching on to your "habits".

[addict]

Really?  Hooray!  If it's true, it's a good thing.

[cewatson]

Flex... why are you so convinced I think that? Seriously... I'm hardly familiar with that theory at all. As is obvious from the other board. So go ahead and year it apart ... that won't hurt me any. Might help, who knows? Convince me while they haven't yet

[sheer]

It was a real question. I'm not sure why you're so pissed, unless you don't like the fact that "explanation" was put in quotes.

 

I shouldn't have sworn at you, I just am tired of it.


sheer

[Kimbo]

CE asks, yet again:

Convince me while they haven't yet...

I'm not quite sure why the boards are getting like this.

Convince yourself, CE, or don't. You seem to have the impression that people here are somehow working for you as secretaries. There are umpteen threads on this board and others dealing with everything you asked to be convinced of over and over, so why don't you just read them yourself. There are no short cuts to this process if you are to arrive at an honest conclusion for yourself.

You plonk yourself here, demand information, insult people who try to help you, and then say "convince me". If you need to be convinced, you're not doing it right. There are facts and then there are things open to interpretation. Facts are facts. The things open to interpretation - you have to make up your own mind and use your own intelligence and knowledge- no one can spoon feed those qualities.

Your interpretation of Terry Hobbs' behaviour, for example - you seem to have come to the conclusion that IF there was child abuse (and it's a VERY BIG IF) that it points toward him being a multiple child murderer. Let's just go on stats - do you know how often three unrelated children are murdered at the one time? Now let's look at the commonality of a parent abusing their child. Look up the figures yourself.

If that brain dead fake advocate WG was here I would have to spend some time saying that because something is garden variety common I think it's great and pretty and lovely, but let's not presume you're quite that stupid. It's dirty, disgusting, horrible reality and you can pretend it doesn't happen, but the fact is - it does. We know the children were murdered, we don't know that the child abuse did. (The fact that the presumed victim denies it - well that's another set of conclusions that it is UP TO YOU to decide. You weren't party and the two involved deny it. Anyway that's another aside.)

How you can relate multiple child murder with family abuse defies logic, yet you continue to state that others have "comprehension problems" and that we should "convince you"...

Excuse me if I'm up to pussy's bow with you and the rest of the "convince me" gang.

Work it out yourself.

Kimbo

[kerriew]

You see the thing is, we are not the ones who have to convince the supporters of anything because the three have already been tried and convicted. It's the supporters who have to convince people the State got it wrong and they are innocent.

[Kimbo]

Clickety Click.

BINGO

I don't know why they don't get it.

Talking facts..... the FACT is the WM3 are convicted child murderers.

We're not in a Roman forum or French court, discussing the options.

DAMIEN ECHOLS, JASON BALDWIN AND JESSIE MISSKELLEY ARE CONVICTED MURDERERS.

Fact.

You want to dispute it? Your problem, Child Killer Supporters.

[addict]

It was a real question. I'm not sure why you're so pissed, unless you don't like the fact that "explanation" was put in quotes.

 

I shouldn't have sworn at you, I just am tired of it.


sheer

No worries. I understand being tired of it all too well myself.  In fact, you'll probably see a lot less of me here from now on, so at least that should rejuvinate you a bit.

[Kimbo]

Why should you feel it would rejuvenate Sheer, or anyone else, Addict?

Knock your socks off, or drag them free slowly with your toes, as comes with the "tiredness". (I know because I still had one dangling when I woke last morning.)

Less of you? Well that'd be a crying shame, just don't presume Sheer or anyone else is getting "rejuvenated" over it.

Your case logic is faulty, but feel free to blame your ennui on others. Especially us big bad Nons.

It's worked, and been believed, coming from far lesser minds than yours.

Let me know how you go. (I'll presume it's not a pants-on-day.)