PDA

View Full Version : Non's how can you explain this away?


Junebug99
02-29-2012, 08:57 AM
Spotlight: Stevie's pocketknife.

In his 2007 police interview, Terry Hobbs denied having the knife. In his Pasdar deposition, he said he confiscated it years before the murders.

Officer: Do you remember Stevie ever having a knife at all?
Terry Hobbs: I don't know if he got one at the boyscouts or not. He did go to boyscouts, but I don't think they gave him a pocket knife. But his real daddy may have given him one. Cause his grandaddy was real proud of him, he really liked that little boy. It's possible, I can't say yes or no to that. Not honestly.
Officer: Would, so if he, he had one you wouldn't have known what it would have looked like or
Terry Hobbs: Well, if I seen it I might recognize it but I can't place one at the moment.
[snip]
Officer: Now did you ever keep any of Stevie's personal possessions after, after their death, the boys were, were killed.
[snip]
Terry Hobbs: Not that I can think of. [p. 26-7, Hobbs police interview, 2007]

This contrasts with Hobbs testimony in his deposition.

Attorney for Pasdar: On Channel 5 on the 21st, they also talk about finding the knife and the knife that Stevie's grandfather had given him in your stuff?
Terry Hobbs: So?
Attorney for Pasdar: Did you have any your possession, Mr. Hobbs?
Hobbs: I don't know. I think I still have his pocketknife.
Attorney for Pasdar: You have Stevie's pocketknife?
Hobbs: I think so.
Attorney for Pasdar: And is that a pocketknife that Stevie carried with him on a regular basis?
Hobbs: Until I found it. Until I seen my stepson, who wasn't old enough to have a pocketknife, I felt like. I took the pocketknife from him and put it in a drawer with the rest of our pocketknives. [Hobbs v. Pasdar, Terry Hobbs deposition, p. 226-7, and returning to the subject:]
Attorney for Pasdar: Did you take the knife from Stevie?
Hobbs: Years before. [Hobbs v. Pasdar, Terry Hobbs deposition, p. 297]


why would he lie about Stevies knife? Pam assumed the killer had it, I believe she was right.......

justthinkin
02-29-2012, 01:22 PM
What happens to people with long term, drug usage? Their brains are fried.

Junebug99
02-29-2012, 02:10 PM
What happens to people with long term, drug usage? Their brains are fried.

Hmmm, what about the phony alibi's? Why lie? Unless you're guilty of something.

Cappuccino
02-29-2012, 03:32 PM
What happens to people with long term, drug usage? Their brains are fried.

Speaks to motive. His brain is fried that's why he attacked the other two instead of facing the music for what he'd done to Stevie, (hypothetically speaking).

Compassionate Reader
02-29-2012, 04:40 PM
jt,

Is his long term drug use your explanation for all of Terry's lies or just this one?

If we assume that his long term drug use caused memory loss, then how can we believe anything that he says? Therefore, it follows that his whereabouts would have to be confirmed by others. That makes him a prime suspect in this case because his alibi witnesses (primarily David Jacoby, Mark Byers, Dana Moore and his ex-wife, Pam) contradict his version of his timeline.

justthinkin
03-01-2012, 08:18 PM
I think long term drug use explains a lot. I wouldn't say it explains all nor would I say it explains just this one thing.

Also, look at the people you've mentioned as alibi witnesses, and tell me which ones of those didn't also have a problem with drugs or alcohol?

krimekat
03-01-2012, 08:51 PM
all evidence leads to . . . TH

IMHO only

justthinkin
03-02-2012, 10:04 AM
all evidence leads to . . . TH

IMHO only

And that evidence would be one hair?:floorlaugh:

Evidence of other crimes are not evidence he committed this crime!

krimekat
03-02-2012, 10:09 AM
And that evidence would be one hair?:floorlaugh:

Evidence of other crimes are not evidence he committed this crime!

Respectfully, I believe the evidence is actually 2 hairs (one tangled in the ligature), THs behavior, his "alibi", and other reasons as discussed in other WM3 threads.

justthinkin
03-02-2012, 03:07 PM
The other hair you're talking about doesn't match Hobbs, and was collected 2 weeks after the murders. For that reason, it doesn't mean jack.

Hobbs has no less of an alibi than any of the convicted whose alibis were either shot down in court or altogether absent as in the case of Baldwin.

Contrary to what one of you supporters said about Baldwin's alibi not being entered into court is proof of his attorney's incompetence, the truth is Baldwin's alibi wasn't entered into court because his attorney felt like it would be shot down just as Misskelley's and Echols alibis were shot down, and stated so. Baldwin had no dependable alibi witnesses that could stand up to the prosecution's cross examination, and that's according to Baldwin's own attorney.


I am not going to rehash alibis with anyone because the alibis of the three convicts are worthless. If they were truly innocent at least one of them would have had an iron clad alibi, but that wasn't the case back then, and it isn't true today either.

People can take someone else's word for something, but the only way to know the truth is to read the trial transcripts for yourself, all of them.

Cappuccino
03-02-2012, 05:16 PM
The other hair you're talking about doesn't match Hobbs,

It matches Jacoby, who was in Hobbs company that night, and who was never at the crime scene. Somebody else brought Jacoby's hair to that tree stump.

and was collected 2 weeks after the murders. For that reason, it doesn't mean jack.


Nonsense. The knife wasn't fished out of that lake behind Jason's trailer park until six months after the murders, and it was produced as evidence at trial. Besides, why do you think the state's criminologist was at the crime scene going over the place with tweezers if nothing they could find at that stage would mean jack?

Hobbs has no less of an alibi than any of the convicted whose alibis were either shot down in court or altogether absent as in the case of Baldwin.

There's a difference though, and its one nons won't like. None of the wm3's own alibi witnesses have ever contradicted them. They may have been discredited in the juries eyes by an experienced prosecutor, but the witnesses themselves did not contradict D,J and J's alibis then and they have never recanted since either.

Everybody contradicts Terry Hobbs account of his own movements that night, even Officer Regina Meeks who should surely be on the side of the prosecution.

Nova
03-04-2012, 06:55 PM
...If they were truly innocent at least one of them would have had an iron clad alibi, but that wasn't the case back then, and it isn't true today either....

Where in the annals of science did you get that assertion, that given any group of three innocent people, at least one will have an ironclad alibi? (Particularly for a crime committed at night, when most people have no alibis except for the people with whom they live.)

There have been a lot of faulty presumptions employed to assert the guilt of the WM3, but that's a classic, IMO.

gheckso
07-13-2012, 07:48 PM
What happens to people with long term, drug usage? Their brains are fried.

err... his deposition states he didn't take drugs etc and alcohol so were are you getting this information? "half a joint" tried meth once, tried cocaine once, wasn't into that stuff etc etc.

If you now say he was lying I will lmfao. Honest people don't need to lie do they? and for the life of me i cannot see how someone can forget so much about the night their son was killed, seems to have been burnt into everyone else's memory except his, how convenient.

p.s. first post hi all.

DevilsPlayThing
07-13-2012, 09:26 PM
Well this is beyond disturbing.

9. When my family arrived, there was a fight between Terry and my brother, Jackie Hicks, Jr. As they were fighting, Terry pulled out a gun and shot Jackie in the abdomen. He was moving to again shoot Jackie and my father started walking toward Terry. At that point, Terry pointed the gun at my dad and said "You'd better not go any farther; I'll shoot you, too, you fat m*f*." My father, Jackie Hicks Sr. was able to grab the gun from Terry's hands. My brother was severely injured as a result of the gunshot. He had to have over ten surgeries. The doctors first decided to leave the bullet where it was lodged because they thought it would kill him to remove it, but later it caused a bowel obstruction, so they removed the bullet. After that surgery to remove the bullet, Jackie developed a blood clot and died from an aneurysm.

From Declaration Of Pamela Marie Hobbs

At Link
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/p_hobbs_declaration2.html

Aura
07-13-2012, 10:56 PM
I want to say, I am NOT A NON OR A SUPPORTER. :), before i start

Ok, The hair. or hairs. OMG the hairs..LOL Damiens own defense stated the hairs was not any evidence that proves it was Terry Hobbs. The hair matched 1 in 10,000 people in Arkansas. I dont take the hairs into account. And if it is Terry's hair, he himself stated he was in those woods searching.

Terry's deposition with Pasdar was full of lies, and trying to skirt the questions. He was pissed, he didnt want to be there, and he didnt want to answer anything for Pasdar's lawyers. He dug himself in a hole for that depo. He laughed at things, he tried to skirt around the drug questions, especially when it is common knowledge he did meth many times, and he didnt want to admit anything that might make him look bad, well he made it worse by lying about it. So ill agree, his depo wasnt a good thing for him. The whole thing with Mildred French was horrible, and its on record and he still wouldnt admit anything.

This case will haunt me till the end of my days, unless they prove without a doubt who did this crime.

Terry is not a first class citizen by any means. He has got some ghosts in his closet that make him questionable. But to accuse him of murder, the murder of his step child, I will not do until there is 100% proof. Supporters argued TO THE GROUND FOR 14 YEARS it was JMByers. They turned his life into hell. They caused so many problems for Byers. And then, 'oops.. sry wrong step father.' I was on that bandwagon for a long time, thinking it had to be JMB. Im ashamed after all that. I wont do it again. Its why I wont accuse Damien, Jessie, or Jason. I dont like they plead guilty instead of going to court, and being found innocent. But I was never in prison, so I dont know how he or the others felt. And i dont like all the lies associated with this case. If they are innocent/guilty, why lie? And that goes for both sides. There should be NO reason for lies or exaggerations.

Cappuccino
07-14-2012, 12:25 AM
Ok, The hair. or hairs. OMG the hairs..LOL Damiens own defense stated the hairs was not any evidence that proves it was Terry Hobbs. The hair matched 1 in 10,000 people in Arkansas. I dont take the hairs into account. And if it is Terry's hair, he himself stated he was in those woods searching.


I agree that we shouldn't accuse anybody at this stage, and I also agree with you, (and Thomas Fedor), that the hair is weak evidence. All that said, you are still underestimating the significance of the hair. The level of significance which can be attached to that hair depends alot on which child was tied with whose shoe laces. We know that Michael was wearing white shoelaces and that he was tied up with black ligatures. On the face of it that would seem to mean that he was tied with either Christopher or Stevie's shoe laces. That would weaken the hair evidence further because obviously Hobbs lived in the same house as Stevie, and Christopher was also inside their home that after noon, so secondary transfer from either child's shoe laces is a realistic explanation for that hair's presence.

But then the plot thickens - there was a shoe lace left intact inside Christopher's left sneaker, which means there are seven shoe laces at the crime scene. Michael's ligatures only contain one aiglet on each side, which makes it look like it was one adult sized shoe lace cut in half. Two explanations spring to mind...

1) Either Chris or Stevie had previously broken/lost a shoe lace and used an adult sized one to replace it.

2) The person who tied them up broke/lost one of the shoe laces in the process and used one of his own cut in half, thus not needing one of Christopher's laces.

Can you see how its important to find out which one of those options is the truth? If Michael was tied with a shoe lace from Chris or Stevie, the hair is not that big a deal. If he was tied with a lace from the killer's shoes that hair, and any other physical evidence on or around Michael's ligatures, is a very big deal indeed.

gheckso
07-14-2012, 01:11 AM
I still find it amazing that a single hair can survive the journey of bike riding skateboarding and playing in the bush for hours...

Cappuccino
07-14-2012, 01:22 AM
Its possible. Its ludicrous when nons argue that the Hobbs hair is innocent transfer which survived while all the wm3's DNA magically washed away. But there is unidentified DNA at that crime scene, so its possible that some of that belongs to the killer(s) and the Hobbs hair is innocent transfer.

I'd like to see all the ligatures unwound and measured, and the remaining shoe lace from Christopher also measured, to see which matches which.

DevilsPlayThing
07-15-2012, 05:14 PM
All 3 entered original plea of not guilty . Damien and Jason were co-defendants their case forever linked. Jessie had a separate trial since his confessions were used against the other 2. All found guilty at the 2 trials. Jason sentenced to Life. Damien Death. Jessie Life. All appeals were denied.
Yet the 3 were offered a plea bargain after sentencing and serving 17 + years. The opportunity to simply enter a plea. The 3 had done this as teens - and the outcome was not optimal. Especially for Damien. If innocent and not only found guilty but sentenced to Death was possible once - surely it would be possible a second time. Especially since no active search can take place for alternative suspects - nor will any alternative suspects ever be publicly discussed by any official.

Any other similar cases where 2 or 3 co-defendants have entered not 1 but 2 pleas for the very same charges. Effectively evacuating their sentence immediately. One of them being a Death sentence. Or is this case the precedence .

Cappuccino
07-15-2012, 05:31 PM
Damien Echols is not the first person to walk off Death Row in return for an Alford plea, there is one other case - one of those dodgy arson cases where the science turned out to be faulty. Its very rare though. Afaik those are the only two.

As to three defendants walking out together in return for Alford pleas, I've never heard of that before. In that sense the wm3 case is the precedence.

Compassionate Reader
07-21-2012, 05:24 PM
Also, it is important to remember that there is much more than the hairs (one probably TH's and one probably DJ's) that make TH a viable suspect. In fact, IMO, there is much more circumstantial evidence against TH than against Damien, Jason and Jessie. So, what really needs to happen is a thorough investigation of TH. However, the wmpd and the State of Arkansas don't seem to want to do that.

LE officials are happy with the Alford pleas, no matter how weak. That's where things now stand. The State of Arkansas is content with the outcome of the hearing on 8/19/2011 and Damien, Jason and Jessie want their names cleared.

The only people willing to work toward exoneration are the three freed men and their defense teams. The State is unconcerned and/or unwilling to reopen the case. IMO, that begs the question why? If the State's case is so strong, what do they fear? IMO, this case won't just go away unless TH is thoroughly investigated.

Aura
07-22-2012, 04:24 PM
LE officials are happy with the Alford pleas, no matter how weak. That's where things now stand. The State of Arkansas is content with the outcome of the hearing

And this is what pisses me off. How in the hell can they be happy that they dont know who killed these kids. I know some officials really believe they had the right ones, well then why the hell did you release them. And if they werent the right ones, why the hell arent you working to find the right one. I agree, Terry does need to be looked at, fairly. But to be honest, i think the state of Arkansas has given up. I think the celebrity crap was crap, BUT... if Damien, Jason, and Jessie really didnt do this, Then Im glad it got 3 innocent people out of prison. So now what happens to all the other prisoners who are really innocent of their crimes.

Heres my problem.. Im a Gemini. :) I see both sides of the story. I see why people are thinking Terry Hobbs did this, and I see how the D, J, and J didnt do this, I se ehow they couldve done it, and how Terry Hobbs could just be accused. i cant pick a side 100%. Things Damien has done are very weird and should be looked at, and things Terry and even JMB have done are very weird and should be looked at. Im trying to pick a side, but there are too many questions on both sides. I dont want to be the person who got out 3 guys who may or may not have done this. And I dont want to be the person who accuses someone who didnt do this. This is such a horrible crime. I think the WMPD did a horrible job that nite, and further down the road. I hate this case, but i wonder, in 100 years will people still be arguing over this?? My bet is Yes.

Compassionate Reader
07-22-2012, 10:49 PM
And this is what pisses me off. How in the hell can they be happy that they dont know who killed these kids. I know some officials really believe they had the right ones, well then why the hell did you release them. And if they werent the right ones, why the hell arent you working to find the right one. I agree, Terry does need to be looked at, fairly. But to be honest, i think the state of Arkansas has given up. I think the celebrity crap was crap, BUT... if Damien, Jason, and Jessie really didnt do this, Then Im glad it got 3 innocent people out of prison. So now what happens to all the other prisoners who are really innocent of their crimes.

Heres my problem.. Im a Gemini. :) I see both sides of the story. I see why people are thinking Terry Hobbs did this, and I see how the D, J, and J didnt do this, I se ehow they couldve done it, and how Terry Hobbs could just be accused. i cant pick a side 100%. Things Damien has done are very weird and should be looked at, and things Terry and even JMB have done are very weird and should be looked at. Im trying to pick a side, but there are too many questions on both sides. I dont want to be the person who got out 3 guys who may or may not have done this. And I dont want to be the person who accuses someone who didnt do this. This is such a horrible crime. I think the WMPD did a horrible job that nite, and further down the road. I hate this case, but i wonder, in 100 years will people still be arguing over this?? My bet is Yes.

I agree that it is unconscionable to believe that the State of Arkansas would release three men who they believe are murderers. I believe that at least some of LE officials in Arkansas are convinced that Damien, Jason and Jessie are innocent of the murders or they wouldn't be walking free today. Personally, after studying this case since 1996, I'm convinced of the innocence of Damien, Jason and Jessie simply because I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

I'm also convinced that the circumstantial evidence pointing to TH is stronger than any evidence that was made public against D, J and J. Although I don't know for a certainty that TH is guilty, I do know that he has never been thoroughly investigated (as JMB has), and he needs to be. The adamant refusal of the wmpd to even consider him as a suspect is highly suspicious IMO.

Unfortunately, I also agree with your assessment about the state of the case 100 years from now. Even if TH is investigated, tried and convicted, I imagine that some people will continue to proclaim his innocence. This will be like the JonBenet case. I don't think that, short of a valid confession, everyone will ever be happy with the resolution of this case.

primitivefuture
11-04-2013, 06:30 PM
I agree that it is unconscionable to believe that the State of Arkansas would release three men who they believe are murderers. I believe that at least some of LE officials in Arkansas are convinced that Damien, Jason and Jessie are innocent of the murders or they wouldn't be walking free today.

I agree! I interpreted judge Laser's statement during the Alford plea hearing as such.


Judge Laser said: "I believe this ruling will give rise to discussions for a long time to come. I don't think it will make the pain go away for the families of the victims. I don't think it will make the pain go away for the families of defendants. It won't take away a minute of the time these men have served in prison. This is a tragedy on all sides."

http://m.arktimes.com/arkansas/blogs/Post?basename=flash-west-memphis-3-freed-in-plea-bargain-on-1993-murders&day=19&id=ArkansasBlog&month=08&year=2011





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

ScarlettScarpetta
11-04-2013, 06:33 PM
I agree that it is unconscionable to believe that the State of Arkansas would release three men who they believe are murderers. I believe that at least some of LE officials in Arkansas are convinced that Damien, Jason and Jessie are innocent of the murders or they wouldn't be walking free today. Personally, after studying this case since 1996, I'm convinced of the innocence of Damien, Jason and Jessie simply because I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

I'm also convinced that the circumstantial evidence pointing to TH is stronger than any evidence that was made public against D, J and J. Although I don't know for a certainty that TH is guilty, I do know that he has never been thoroughly investigated (as JMB has), and he needs to be. The adamant refusal of the wmpd to even consider him as a suspect is highly suspicious IMO.

Unfortunately, I also agree with your assessment about the state of the case 100 years from now. Even if TH is investigated, tried and convicted, I imagine that some people will continue to proclaim his innocence. This will be like the JonBenet case. I don't think that, short of a valid confession, everyone will ever be happy with the resolution of this case.

I agree..

There is no way they would have offered or participated in this plea if they believed any of these three were really guilty. This was not just a murder, it was a heinous murder of 3 little boys.
IMO, they know they did not do it. And I think they knew it even back then.

primitivefuture
11-04-2013, 06:39 PM
I still find it amazing that a single hair can survive the journey of bike riding skateboarding and playing in the bush for hours...

Agreed. I'm familiar with the concept of the transfer of hairs, and it isn't totally far fetched for me to believe that a person's hair could end up in the laces of another person's shoe. What I do find very hard to believe is that a hair could be transferred to another person's shoe laces and remain there after the shoe lace has been removed from that person's shoe. It's not as if shoe laces just slide right out of a shoe. They have to be pulled this way and that to be removed from each individual eyelet. And during the course of this crime, I imagine the shoelace was yanked around rather hastily. Anyway, that's why the transfer theory has always struck me as improbable, in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

kyleb
11-04-2013, 10:05 PM
What I do find very hard to believe is that a hair could be transferred to another person's shoe laces and remain there after the shoe lace has been removed from that person's shoe.
Do you believe there was only one hair recovered from the shoelaces?

Compassionate Reader
11-05-2013, 01:33 AM
There were quite a few hairs recovered from the shoelaces, IIRC. Most of those hairs belonged to the victims. Some were animal hairs. Some are still unidentified. One is a 97.5% match to the mtDNA of Terry Wayne Hobbs. None of the hairs can be tied to Damien, Jason or Jessie.

primitivefuture
11-05-2013, 02:47 AM
There were quite a few hairs recovered from the shoelaces, IIRC. Most of those hairs belonged to the victims. Some were animal hairs. Some are still unidentified. One is a 97.5% match to the mtDNA of Terry Wayne Hobbs. None of the hairs can be tied to Damien, Jason or Jessie.

There were 2 slides containing 3 hairs taken from the Moore ligature, If i recall. One slide containing an auburn hair and an auburn beard hair and another slide containing a different human hair, from what i remember. Were their animal hairs in that ligature as well? It's late and I'm having a hard time locating the document I'm looking for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

reedus23
11-05-2013, 09:16 AM
I agree..

There is no way they would have offered or participated in this plea if they believed any of these three were really guilty. This was not just a murder, it was a heinous murder of 3 little boys.
IMO, they know they did not do it. And I think they knew it even back then.

At the end of the day, we can debate evidence the evidence against the WM3 until we are blue in the face but rest assured, not a single sole on the state's side of the case would have ever voluntarily gone along with these pleas if they thought for one second that the WM3 were guilty of these crimes.

Compassionate Reader
11-05-2013, 10:27 PM
There were 2 slides containing 3 hairs taken from the Moore ligature, If i recall. One slide containing an auburn hair and an auburn beard hair and another slide containing a different human hair, from what i remember. Were their animal hairs in that ligature as well? It's late and I'm having a hard time locating the document I'm looking for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

IIRC, the animal hairs were found with the bodies, not necessarily in the ligatures. Again, to the best of my memory, the actual ligature hairs were as you described them. Of course, the important part is that for one of the hairs, Terry Hobbs cannot be ruled out as the donor. However, all three of the wrongfully convicted can be ruled out as donors for any of the hairs for which an mtDNA sample could be obtained. IIRC, there is one hair or hair fragment for which all that can be determined is that it came from a male. Not much, is it?

primitivefuture
11-06-2013, 01:06 AM
IIRC, the animal hairs were found with the bodies, not necessarily in the ligatures. Again, to the best of my memory, the actual ligature hairs were as you described them. Of course, the important part is that for one of the hairs, Terry Hobbs cannot be ruled out as the donor. However, all three of the wrongfully convicted can be ruled out as donors for any of the hairs for which an mtDNA sample could be obtained. IIRC, there is one hair or hair fragment for which all that can be determined is that it came from a male. Not much, is it?

Is the hair sample you referred to at the end of your post the other hair from the ligature on Moore or another source? I remember reading about the ligature hairs on another forum a while back. Somebody claimed that aside from one of the ligature hairs being linked to Hobbs, that the other ligature hair belonged to Michael. i was having a hard time confirming that while sorting through evidence on Callahan.

Also, can you tell me if all the hair/dna evidence was tested as to whether any of it belonged to the victims? I'm having a hard time remembering. Oh, and was the evidence tested to rule out investigators(or anyone else who came into contact with the scene and/or evidence for that matter)? I was wondering that earlier, while watching you guys debate the negroid hair found on the sheet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Compassionate Reader
11-06-2013, 01:32 PM
Is the hair sample you referred to at the end of your post the other hair from the ligature on Moore or another source? I remember reading about the ligature hairs on another forum a while back. Somebody claimed that aside from one of the ligature hairs being linked to Hobbs, that the other ligature hair belonged to Michael. i was having a hard time confirming that while sorting through evidence on Callahan.

Also, can you tell me if all the hair/dna evidence was tested as to whether any of it belonged to the victims? I'm having a hard time remembering. Oh, and was the evidence tested to rule out investigators(or anyone else who came into contact with the scene and/or evidence for that matter)? I was wondering that earlier, while watching you guys debate the negroid hair found on the sheet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

The problem is that, for much of what you ask (because of the sloppy police work) we simply don't know! All, IMO, that's certain at this point is that at least one of the full hairs (sans root) found in the ligature that bound Michael Moore is a 97.5% mtDNA match to Terry Hobbs, and this hair was purported to be a beard hair, auburn in color. Supposedly all biological evidence was tested against the victims' DNA, and a large majority of the hairs found were, in fact, from the victims. Again, as to ruling out the investigators, I've never read anything to indicate that the investigators' DNA was collected and/or tested. The hair that is a 97.5% mtDNA match to Terry Hobbs is, IMO, the most interesting one of the bunch. Also interesting is that, even though two of the three wrongfully convicted men had long hair at the time, none of the hairs found can be positively identified as belonging to any of the three. Again IMO, that is very interesting indeed!

Cappuccino
11-06-2013, 01:42 PM
It was a 98.5% match to Terry Hobbs.

Also, can you tell me if all the hair/dna evidence was tested as to whether any of it belonged to the victims?

All of the biological material tested was compared to the victims' DNA and the wm3's DNA. Most of it was consistent with the victims, none of it was consistent with the wm3's.

Compassionate Reader
11-06-2013, 02:53 PM
It was a 98.5% match to Terry Hobbs.

I've seen both figures. I believe some place on jivepuppi they use the 97.5% figure. In any case, I go with the more conservative figure as it is, IMO, more than adequate to indicate the necessity of a proper investigation into Terry Hobbs!

Cappuccino
11-06-2013, 03:11 PM
It is indeed.

I've also seen people describe the Hobbs hair in different ways, but I tend to go with Thomas Fedor's description - that the mtDNA was consistent with 1.5% of the population, from which Terry Hobbs cannot be excluded.

UdbCrzy2
11-06-2013, 05:36 PM
The problem is that, for much of what you ask (because of the sloppy police work) we simply don't know! All, IMO, that's certain at this point is that at least one of the full hairs (sans root) found in the ligature that bound Michael Moore is a 97.5% mtDNA match to Terry Hobbs, and this hair was purported to be a beard hair, auburn in color. Supposedly all biological evidence was tested against the victims' DNA, and a large majority of the hairs found were, in fact, from the victims. Again, as to ruling out the investigators, I've never read anything to indicate that the investigators' DNA was collected and/or tested. The hair that is a 97.5% mtDNA match to Terry Hobbs is, IMO, the most interesting one of the bunch. Also interesting is that, even though two of the three wrongfully convicted men had long hair at the time, none of the hairs found can be positively identified as belonging to any of the three. Again IMO, that is very interesting indeed!

Have you ever looked at this before, it's quite good. 1.5% of the population


http://wm3truth.com/new-alternative-suspect-terry-hobbs/

primitivefuture
11-06-2013, 08:49 PM
I've seen both figures. I believe some place on jivepuppi they use the 97.5% figure. In any case, I go with the more conservative figure as it is, IMO, more than adequate to indicate the necessity of a proper investigation into Terry Hobbs!


Have you ever looked at this before, it's quite good. 1.5% of the population


http://wm3truth.com/new-alternative-suspect-terry-hobbs/

Since people with red hair make up between 1-2% of the population, and the red hair that is a 97.5% match to Hobbs' mtDNA, am I incorrect to assume that it is impossible for this hair to have come from anybody within 1.5% of the population? Has the fact that the hair is red already been factored into that calculation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

kyleb
11-06-2013, 10:53 PM
Is the hair in fact red? I've seen claims of such, but never anything in the documentation to corroborate them. Regardless, the color of a particular hair doesn't rule out the possibility that it grew out of someone whose hairs are typically a very different color. So even if the hair is actually brown or blonde, it still may well be Terry Hobbs'. It could also be his brother's, his mother's or anyone else who share the same maternal linage as him, which Thomas Fedor estimated at 1.5% of the population. In the same regards, any of the hairs consistent with mDNA of any of the boys could in fact be hairs from their respective siblings, mothers, or millions of other people who share their same respective mDNA profiles.

Also the percentage claims regarding how close of a match the hair is to Hobbs' mDNA are clearly based on misunderstanding, as every last human's mDNA profile is a far closer match to each other than the percentages claimed here. In fact all of our mDNA profiles are so close to each other that the first mDNA profile ever sequenced is used as a reference by which other profiles are reported as difference from them within two regions which do show varation. It's called revised Cambridge Reference Sequence (rCRS) (http://www.phylotree.org/resources/rCRS_annotated.htm), and as can be seen in the link just a long list of numbered positions with letter values for each. In contrast, you can see many examples of how the mDNA for the hairs in evidence is reported throughout the 5/23/08 Bode report (http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jb_habeas_rule37/exh70_bode_5_23_08.pdf) which focus on the consistency between the one of the hairs from the ligatures and a hair sample from Terry Hobbs. Here's the results for those two particular hairs:

http://i.imgur.com/L5uo34X.jpg


As can be seen, both share the same differences from rCRS, aside from a variation at potion 16093 on the Hobbs sample, which isn't enough variation to exclude Terry Hobbs as the source of that hair. Anyway, I'd planned to go on regarding the hair evidence and DNA testing, but a friend has dropped by so I'm cutting it short for now. There's many facts to consider in the one Bode report I linked alone though, and I hope some of you might take an interest reviewing the documentation and comment regarding what you've found.

reedus23
11-07-2013, 02:49 PM
I take it to mean that Hobbs cannot be excluded as the source of that hair whereas the WM3 and nearly all of the rest of the population can be excluded.

kyleb
11-07-2013, 03:06 PM
Well you've got that much correct, but have you not found anything else in the documentation regarding the hair evidence and DNA testing which you consider worthy of mention? I've found plenty worth sharing myself, so I don't want to spoil others' chances of contributing first.

reedus23
11-07-2013, 03:31 PM
Well you've got that much correct, but have you not found anything else in the documentation regarding the hair evidence and DNA testing which you consider worthy of mention? I've found plenty worth sharing myself, so I don't want to spoil others' chances of contributing first.

That's like shooting in the dark. Who knows what you find worthy of sharing. So if you find something worth sharing, why not just spit it out? I'm not going to re-read it trying to guess what you find worthy. I am curious to hear though.

kyleb
11-07-2013, 03:46 PM
I'm not asking anyone to re-read anything, let alone to guess what I find worthy sharing. I'm asking if anyone else here has ever found anything in the documentation which might help others better understand the hair evidence and DNA testing, particularly anything which would help correct any misunderstandings others have expressed about such evidence throughout this thread. Anyone?

primitivefuture
11-08-2013, 12:40 AM
Is the hair in fact red? I've seen claims of such, but never anything in the documentation to corroborate them. Regardless, the color of a particular hair doesn't rule out the possibility that it grew out of someone whose hairs are typically a very different color. So even if the hair is actually brown or blonde, it still may well be Terry Hobbs'. It could also be his brother's, his mother's or anyone else who share the same maternal linage as him, which Thomas Fedor estimated at 1.5% of the population. In the same regards, any of the hairs consistent with mDNA of any of the boys could in fact be hairs from their respective siblings, mothers, or millions of other people who share their same respective mDNA profiles.



From Kermit Channell rule 37 testimony: "Had someone asked to review the photo logs used by the lab, and hair slides
generated by the Lab, someone would have been able to tell that there were
questioned hairs associated with ligature FP6, which was associated with the
victim Michael Moore. One of them was a red beard hair. (BMHR 443-444).
There were notations on the slide itself from Lisa Sakevicius. Defense counsel
could have actually looked at those hairs. On the slide from the Moore ligature
there was an indication of a red hair fragment and a beard hair fragment.
While I recall having met with Paul Ford, I never recall telling Ford that
some hair had been found on one of the ligatures. (BMHR 444-445). I did not
know how Ford would have come about the information concerning the ligature,
though the hair were found in the Moore and not the Byers ligature. That kind of
information would have typically come from Lisa Sakevicius."


Yes, the hairs were red. And I highly doubt that the red beard hair and red head hair came from a blonde or a brunette. Possible? Maybe. Probable? Absolutely not. And they certainly didn't come from Jason, Jessie or Damien.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

kyleb
11-08-2013, 03:17 AM
Yes, most certainly, and I thank you for the quote from this transcript (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_channell1.html) regarding identification of the hairs. In turn I'll offer a bit of information from the DNA reports which it seems has been overlooked by many. Beyond the three hairs recovered from the shoelaces used to bind Micheal Moore, there's also evidence items 2S04-114-09, -15, and -16, hairs recovered from other shoelaces as can be seen on the first page of the first Bode report (http://callahan.8k.com/images2/writ_exhibits/Exhibit_P_02.jpg) among many other pages of more recent documentation.

Compassionate Reader
11-08-2013, 08:27 PM
When discussing mtDNA, some people might find [uwl=http://www.hsc.unt.edu/departments/pathology_anatomy/dna/Forensics/Defined/Defined.cfm]this site[/url] helpful. Of particular interest is the following:

This means all of the mtDNA in the cells of a person's body are copies of his or her mother's mtDNA and all of the mother's mtDNA is a copy of her mother's, and so on. No matter how far back you go, mtDNA is always inherited from the mother. If you went back six generations in your own family tree, you'd see that your nuclear DNA is inherited from 32 men and 32 women. Your mtDNA, on the other hand, would have come from only one of those 32 women.

So, as I have said repeatedly, it is not important how many people could have been the source for the hair in the ligature. What is important is that whoever is the source of the hair shares a maternal ancestor with Terry Hobbs. The progeny of that ancestor is approximately 1.5% of the population.