Was it a whole week?

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

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[addict]

The only thing that was later recovered were the sticks/staff. Was that not on the 12th?

No, that was after Jessie's confession.  Those were entered July 9th.

[raven]

Thanx for great info-very helpful.

[addict]

For the record, the article I was talking about is here (though really hard to read, you can see crime lab personnel was there on the 12th):

http://callahan.8k.com/images/eveningtimes/west_memphis_evening_times_may_13_1993_page_01.jpg
http://callahan.8k.com/images/eveningtimes/west_memphis_evening_times_may_13_1993_page_02.jpg

[LisLis]

Another "key" piece of evidence that was collected well after the boys were discovered in the ditch was the so-called "Jacoby" hair. I use the term so-called because the hair is at best a failure to exclude, but it is most certainly not a match. It could match 7% of the population. Given that West Memphis had approximately 28,000 residents at the time of the murders that it a lot of people the hair could have belonged to.

The biggest problem with this hair is that it was collected after the fact. No one knows for sure when this hair was collected, but we can make an educated guess based on when it was tested and what it was documented with. For example, the hair was picked up with a piece of tape by Lisa Sakevicius. It is believed this was the same day the searches of the three men commenced because it is listed on the evidence list containing materials from those searches. The Jacoby hair is often referenced as yet another reason why Terry Hobbs is guilty because if you believe that the hair was left during or immediately after the commission of the crimes then it allegedly strengthens the hair that could be secondary transfer found in the binding of Michael Moore (belonging to Terry). IMO the Jacoby hair is an extremely flawed piece of evidence and I'd be surprised, based on when it was collected and its overall poor quality, if it were allowed in a retrial.

The hair is also a poor match because one of the loci is different from Jacoby's mtDNA sequence. This was attributed to heteroplasmy, but this is merely a guess. Heteroplasmy only occurs in about 3-11% of the population. It is where mtDNA inside a single cell mutates. This means you can have varying sequences inside a single cell. You won't see more than one instance of heteroplasmy in a single sequence (not usually) because it is rare and indicates problems on the cellular level. It's interesting to note that those who experience heterosplasmy may almost count on getting cancer later on because this seems to be a precursor.

[raven]

Thank you for all that info on the hair-most insightful.

[LisLis]

You're welcome, Raven.

The "Jacoby hair" is extremely important to people who think that Terry Hobbs committed the murders. It's simple as to why. It may easily be argued that the hair found in the ligature was secondary transfer. We don't know whose shoelace the hair was found on; only that it was the lace used to tie a boy who was not Terry's step-son. It is not unreasonable to say that the lace may have been Stevie's and that the hair may have been secondary transfer.

The reason that so much focus is placed on the "Jacoby hair" is because statistically speaking it would be less likely for Terry's hair to be in the binding AND for a hair of his friend to be in the general region of where the boys were found. The Jacoby hair is intended to strengthen the evidence against Terry by making it seem more likely that the transfer was primary (transferred during commission of the murders and not innocently through some other means). Without the "Jacoby hair" the hair found in the binding seems a lot less suspicious.

Of course, it depends on who you ask, as you well know.

[whitelilly]

Except Terry's hair wasn't found IN the binding, it was found ON the binding.

[LisLis]

WL,
From your response it would seem you think I am implying the hair was left through primary transfer; I'm not.

You can argue that the hair was "on" the binding if you want to. Personally, I don't think it helps Terry's argument nearly as much as the discussion I posted pertaining to the mtDNA lack-of-exclusion in reference to David Jacoby. If the hair was "in" the binding then it is easier to argue that it became embedded during ordinary activity within the Hobbs' home.

The hair is described as being "beneath" the ligature. If you want to argue semantics, that's fine. But it's pointless. The hair was collected, it survived the hogtie, and immersion in water...

Instead...it might be more useful to say that Hobbs hair was not a perfect match either, seeing as how it was based on samples obtained from cigarette butts allegedly smoked by Terry. The matches, in terms of nucleotides, is limited. The sample is poor and there are additional problems with the methodology of the testing that most of you are probably well aware of.

[Farm]

The hair is described as being "beneath" the ligature.

Not by the person who recovered it.

The hair - which was recovered from the ligature 15 years ago by Lisa Sakevicious - was described as being "from the binding".

Lisa had no way of knowing if it was "under" a binding or not - she got the laces in a package from Peretti.

If you want to argue semantics, that's fine.

There's no argument to it, semantic or otherwise - the hair was found on a lace, just as WL told you.

But it's pointless.

It's not pointless at all, you are incorrect - it's just as simple as that.

Any implication that the hair got there during the commission of the crime is pure bullshit.

The hair was collected, it survived the hogtie, and immersion in water...

As did another the Defense chose not to test.

[whitelilly]

Further to Farm's point, I just washed my flat-mates bed linen and re-made her bed as she has been in the States for a month and I wanted to do something nice for her when she returned home.

As I was re-making her bed I noticed there was one of her hairs on one of the sheets. I know it was hers because mine is blonde and hers is dark.

It survived going through the washing machine and the dryer.

[Kimbo]

Ditto, WL.

I have had my hair relatively short for maybe the last six months.

Still, from time to time, I find a very long hair, on things that have been washed over and over.

Hair in magnification is made up of a series of scales, which can easily be attached to any textured surface.

People who argue that the hair that was on the shoelace was dropped there during the commission of the crime clearly will not concede that hair is tenacious.

It could have, and most probably was there weeks, or maybe months beforehand. And that's presuming the hair was a direct match, which it wasn't.
 

[Farm]

People who argue that the hair that was on the shoelace was dropped there during the commission of the crime clearly will not concede that hair is tenacious.

I wouldn't have a problem if these morons simply said the hair was "dropped there during the commission of the crime", but they can't.

They have to fabricate evidence that it was.

Found "under" a binding, found "tied in a knot" of a binding - both ways of implying it had to have gotten there during the crime.

They KNOW that simply being found on the lace isn't enough to give it any teeth - Lax knew it from the start, and that's why he made up the "knot" bullshit in the first place.

[RustyShackleford]

Further to Farm's point, I just washed my flat-mates bed linen and re-made her bed as she has been in the States for a month and I wanted to do something nice for her when she returned home.

As I was re-making her bed I noticed there was one of her hairs on one of the sheets. I know it was hers because mine is blonde and hers is dark.

It survived going through the washing machine and the dryer.

wl, you really need to stop lying! you know those were terry hobbs' hairs!!!! lol! jk!

mreally, this entire hair argument is a red herring. those shoe laces went wherever the boys did and if they went over to the hobbs house, then there you go! whether it was in the knot, on the knot, through the knot or hovering over the knot doesn't matter.  this is the problem with trace evidence. the other problem is that people who've never worked with the crimelab expect the crimelab to have all the answers just like they do on csi. that isn't always the case and in the real world you do sometimes get "inconclusive" results from the crimelab.

[fellow hellbilly]

Mary the luminol tests were not done until May 12. So this accounts for the lack of blood found. I am not sure about when the crime was actually searched.

[url]http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_bridge.html[/url]

[url]http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_tanderson.html[/url]

The lack of blood found is because they didn't test it w/ luminol until the 12th?
That is a total BS response!
Do you work for the WMPD?
They botched the crime scene as well as acting like they knew boys were killed there.
They don't&  didn't know shit!

[flexj]

Hey HellBilly boy
It was several days later when the luminol testing was done,further it rained between the time of discovery and the testing. You REALLY need to show a little respect here. The very people you are quoting have spent a considerable time researching the case. Some in fact WERE supporters who approached this case with an open mind and once looked at the evidence in its entirety just as the jurors did came to the conclusion that the Jur
y made the correct decision