Has anyone been following the West Memphis Three?

[John Jones]

I'm trying to. Was it confirmed as a blood sample? I assume they can do a blood spatter test before swabbing, so they'd at least say "yes, it was blood, and not motor oil", or something like that.

Who knows? The responding West Memphis Cop never got out of the car, and took the report through the drive-though window of the fast-food joint.

The purported blood samples were taken the next day, after the restroom had been nominally cleaned, and these same samples were lost!

Listen: The WMPD lost blood samples that may have been critical to this case.

 

[DallasDad]

I've read most of the documents, but I don't get a cohesive concept of the purported motive. It looks like sexual assault has been ruled out, leaving only rage or sport as possible motives (assuming we discount the satanic postulate).

Rage I'd believe for Mark Byers, assuming he did it. But neither rage nor sport seems to fit any of the other suspects.

Leaving aside who did it for the moment, why were these three little boys murdered?

 

[John Jones]

I've read most of the documents, but I don't get a cohesive concept of the purported motive. It looks like sexual assault has been ruled out, leaving only rage or sport as possible motives (assuming we discount the satanic postulate).

Rage I'd believe for Mark Byers, assuming he did it. But neither rage nor sport seems to fit any of the other suspects.

Leaving aside who did it for the moment, why were these three little boys murdered?

I don't know. I haven't seen any reason for their murders.

 

[JustPietzche]

Is there anything anyone can point to that precludes the 3 from having killed the kids, or is it more a matter of reasonable doubt? Is there anything that shows actual innocence?

One of the problems with this case is that the only known crime scene was an outdoor crime scene. The time window for collecting inculpatory or exculpatory evidence has long passed (the entire area has been bulldozed and cleared since then), and the way the investigation was handled with a confirmation bias, exculpatory evidence was not considered. They might have found physical evidence of guilt had they conducted their investigation without bias. They never once questioned Terry Hobbs or searched his house, despite Gary Gitchell's acknowledgment that you look at family first (Terry Hobbs left a couple weeks after the murders, about the time they talked to Byers, because his wife's family was accusing him of the murders).

That being said, any new evidence will have to come from items that were collected back then.

Some things that establish reasonable doubt:
1) No physical evidence links the WM3 to the scene.
2) There were no reports that the WM3 exhibited any signs (on their hands / knuckles) of having beaten anybody on the head with their fists to the point of unconsciousness (as Jessie confessed he did).
3) There was DNA in a strand of hair that was matched to Terry Hobbs, and DNA in a strand of hair that was matched to David Jacoby -- Terry's best friend.
4) Six world-renowned forensic experts have concluded that the injuries which were thought to have been caused by a knife (as per the WMPD's presumption / Jessie Misskelley's confession) were the result of animal predation.
5) Police records that demonstrate a clear confirmation bias.
6) Court records that demonstrate a clear bias in favor of the prosecution.
7) Sworn statements from a former prosecutor alleging that a juror had spoken with him regarding the case and had engaged in acts of juror misconduct / lied during his voir dire.

 

[John Jones]

This is extremely lengthy pdf of the Testimony of Terry Hobbs in his lawsuit against Natalie Pardas (known professionally as Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks).

Terry Hobbs sued her for remarks she made regarding the WM3, and lost his case in court.

I'm presenting this for people who might be interested in this case.

Once again, It's very long, and tangentially related.

You were warned.

Edited to add: You may be required to register.

http://www.paradiselost3.com/images/Docs/Exhibit-1.pdf

 

[John Jones]

Unabogie, they already found DNA not belonging to the WM3 that pointed to someone else. It pointed to Terry Moore, and one of his friends.

That should have read Terry Hobbs. Please forgive my mistake.

 

[John Jones]

I've read most of the documents, but I don't get a cohesive concept of the purported motive. It looks like sexual assault has been ruled out, leaving only rage or sport as possible motives (assuming we discount the satanic postulate).

Rage I'd believe for Mark Byers, assuming he did it. But neither rage nor sport seems to fit any of the other suspects. [...]

I just learned today that Terry Hobbs was never interviewed by police until after a hair containing his DNA was identified among the hog-ties in 2007 - fourteen years after the murders.

 

[John Jones]

Terry Hobb's statement to the press, 2010

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/new...hree-stepfather-calls-johnny-depp-out-of-line

 

[Matthew Best]

This is extremely lengthy pdf of the Testimony of Terry Hobbs in his lawsuit against Natalie Pardas (known professionally as Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks).

Terry Hobbs sued her for remarks she made regarding the WM3, and lost his case in court.

I'm presenting this for people who might be interested in this case.

Once again, It's very long, and tangentially related.

You were warned.

Edited to add: You may be required to register.

http://www.paradiselost3.com/images/Docs/Exhibit-1.pdf

There seem to be an awful lot of missing pages in that, which makes the whole thing difficult to read - is there any particular significance to this?

 

[John Jones]

There seem to be an awful lot of missing pages in that, which makes the whole thing difficult to read - is there any particular significance to this?

It does indeed have a lot of missing pages. I presume that the webmaster wanted us to read the parts s/he thought were important, and not have it become a tome of insurmountable proportions.

I don't know what the significance of this was except this: In all these years I have heard almost nothing about Terry Hobbs except his name. This was a collection of depostions/affidavits telling us what people close to him thought about him.

Is it evidence of his guilt in the WM3 case? No. It is information about him that I didn't know.

For instance, I didn't know that he was never questioned by the WMPD until 2007.

I didn't know he shot his brother-in-law (Steve Branch's uncle). I didn't know that his wife and in-laws considered him a person of interest if not a suspect.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Just my two cents on this thread (though I won't go so far as to say I've been completely convinced), and I write this as someone with no previous familiarity with the case.

The people arguing that these kids were railroaded and convicted almost entirely due to Satanic hysteria have done a far better job and are far more convincing than the, "But they were FOUND guilty, what else matters?" crowd.

 

[zerospeaks]

The people arguing that these kids were railroaded and convicted almost entirely due to Satanic hysteria have done a far better job and are far more convincing than the, "But they were FOUND guilty, what else matters?" crowd.

Some people are so terrified at the idea of our justice system being imperfect and having errors (even wrongful convictions) that they wont even entertain the thought.

The best evidence jharyn could muster was. "he was a rebellious teenager that ran around and did rebellious teenager things, and talked big like a kid would do. Therefore he must be a psychopathic killer"

 

[Rolfe]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, because all I did was read a wiki page and a WM3 supporters' site. I found both well-argued and persuasive, though. I was waiting to see if anyone was prepared to put forward a good case for guilt, as happened in the Amanda Knox case, where both sides seem to have a rational argument. One or two posters arrived who said they had made a detailed study of the case and believed the boys were guilty, so it seemed quite hopeful. But these posters didn't even try to make a coherent argument, which I think is telling.

I'm interested because of the parallels with the discussions regarding the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing. I've noted the same attitude there - a court found him guilty, don't confuse me with the evidence. Now that one I have made a study of, and it's a howling scandal. Not only was the case absolutely heaving with extremely reasonable doubt, it appears Megrahi actually had an alibi for the bombing. Nevertheless the amount of stick-fingers-in-ears-and-hum-real-loud is remarkable.

It's interesting as a psychological and sociological phenomenon, but I don't pretend to understand it.

Rolfe.

 

[John Jones]

It's interesting as a psychological and sociological phenomenon, but I don't pretend to understand it.

I lived in the area when the West Memphis 3 were arrested, and the public attitude was absolute terror among parents with young children. A collective sigh of relief was sighed when arrests were made. Thank god the monsters who killed those 8 year olds were apprehended before they killed again.

I followed the trial closely, and when they were convicted, I figured I must have missed something, because none of the evidence that was presented in the media pointed to a conviction in my mind - especially for Baldwin and Echols.

I now see that I figured wrong. There wasn't any more evidence pointing toward their guilt than I read in the paper. There was, however a lot of evidence pointing to incompetence and conflict of interest.

 

[zerospeaks]

HEY!
Do you guys remember the TV show that aired a few years back.
I think it was called "the jury"

It was a REAL murder trial, with a REAL jury, with a REAL camera inside the jury room.
And you got to see them decide.

They found him guilty with no evidence.
Except one thing, he bragged to a guy wearing a wire that he did it. But he even got the details of the murder wrong.
His defense attorney marched witness after witness up to the stand (including his psychatrist) all of them said that the guy suffered from a walter smitty problem.
He constantly lied about everything. Bragging his was a mafia hitman, CIA, FBI, drug dealer etc... None of it ever true.

The jury found him guilty.
I remember I lost all faith in juries after seeing that show.
A jury of my peers? No thanks, my peers are dumb.

 

[zerospeaks]

AH found it, it was called "in the jury room"
and it aired on ABC in 2004

 

[Rolfe]

I never saw that, and it would certainly be illegal in Britain.

I've noticed that juries seem sometimes to take the view that surely the police and prosecutors wouldn't have brought these people to trial if they didn't have some good evidence. So if I'm not seeing that evidence, maybe I'm being a bit thick and missing something? There also seems to be a degree of reverence for the prosecution case and in particular the prosecution's expert witnesses, while the defence are seen in the light of, well of course they have to try to get their guy off. How any jury managed to convict Sion Jenkins I have no idea, but two of them did. If the police think this is the guy who carried out this horrible murder, how can I be responsible for letting him go free?

Ironically, it was an appreciation of this phenomenon that led the defendants in the Lockerbie case to insist on a non-jury trial. The case was so notorious in Scotland that they feared no Scottish jury would give them a fair hearing. So the case was judged by a bench of three judges - with the convoluted minds of lawyers, and no experience of deciding on guilt or innocence. This does not prevent the usual cadre of drive-by "experts" sneering that since a jury found the guy guilty then obviously the evidence must be strong!

In the event, the evidence pointed so strongly to a not guilty verdict that many, many ordinary Scottish people, including people directly affected by the disaster, have declared they don't believe Megrahi had anything to do with the bombing. Nevertheless the judges issued a written judgement which is an absolutely text-book example of circular reasoning, threw common sense and indeed most of the rules of evidence to the winds, and pronounced a guilty verdict. (Inside legal knowledge says this was a result of a judicial disagreement, with one judge who wanted to convict both defendants being bought off with the compromise of convicting one of the two alleged conspirators but not the other, even though his presence was necessary to the alleged operation. Of course a split decision couldn't have been countenanced and somehow it had to be announced as unanimous. This leads to some speculation about what was motivating that judge.)

So it seems you can't win. Juries do some bloody incomprehensible things sometimes. But qualified legal eagles aren't necessarily a better bet.

Rolfe.

 

[zerospeaks]

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
-WOPR

 

[Piggy]

In the mid 1980s, right across the Mississippi river in Memphis, Tennessee there was a day-care child abuse scandal that rivalled the McMartin Daycare case in California. It was called the Georgian Hills Daycare case.

Ritual sex, satanic worship, sexual abuse of children. Just like the McMartin case.

When it was all said and done, people had been imprisoned for years, lives and reputations were ruined, yet there was never a single conviction that held-up to judicial appeals.

For some reason, I can't find any references to it on the internet.

It's still going on.

Look at the case of Patrick Kelly. Fortunately, it looks like he'll get a new trial.

It was very much like Little Rascals, but not on that scale. A girl in foster care who had been the victim of abuse, and had a marked tendency for acting out, told wild tales of theatrical sexual molestation in front of groups of adults.

There was no evidence.

The girl claimed that Kelly and others had burned all the tapes in the backyard -- and that she witnessed this.

She also claimed that she saw Kelly drag a woman out into the woods and she was never seen or heard from again.

Stuff like that.

The jury believed the girl, despite the total lack of evidence and the patent bizareness of the claims.

Juries can be very, very stupid and emotional when it comes to this stuff. And prosecutors can be extremely devious.

 

[Rolfe]

And prosecutors can be extremely devious.

That's what really shocks me. And it shocks me sometimes as an expert witness being consulted by the prosecution. So often there is a mindset of intent to "get" this person, one way or another. When the point comes that the search for the truth is abandoned in favour of getting a particular person convicted, the prosecution has lost its way.

I actually said this to a prosecutor once. I more or less expect the defence to try every trick in the book. The defendant didn't choose to be there, and he has to defend himself as best he can. I'm not surprised when I spot attempts to game the system or exploit technicalities.

When I see this in prosecutors, I'm actively shocked. But it happens. All the time.

Rolfe.