942 users online (180 members and 762 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 92
  1. #1

    Time Line

    Could someone who believes that the WM3 committed these heinous murders please give me a time line of events from 3:00 pm on May 5th (when the little boys got out of school) until 1:45 pm on May 6th (when the bodies were found)?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    CR, you've been around the WM3 scene for a long time so you should have a better idea than most.


  3. #3
    My time line is from the perspective of a supporter of the innocence of the WM3. I would simply like to see a time line from someone who still thinks that they are guilty showing the time when the murder could have taken place. This is a serious question. I just want to try to understand when anyone thought the WM3 could have been together and committed this crime.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    6,915
    about this Timeline, There is No way TH would have been able to pull this off in such a short time frame.

  5. #5
    Then show me how the teens could have, as you put it, "pulled this off" in their window of opportunity (whatever it was).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    CR, your request is pointless because all you can do is what you've done in the past, and that's to believe phony alibis.

    None of the three teens have solid alibis, not only as presented in court, but also according to Jason's own attorney, Paul Ford, in a later hearing, and thus, now in the court records for this case. So any discussion with you as to the whereabouts of the 3 defendants is a waste of time because you simply refute the evidence, and accept without reservation, the word of three convicts and their families. Then, you take it a step farther, even disbelieving Damien's own testimony that his whereabouts time line was altered to make it fit the facts relevant to the case.

  7. #7
    All I want to see is a time line of when people thought the attack on the three boys took place. As to the alibis provided for the teens by friends and family, if they were with friends and family, what should they have done? Should they have made up a story that would have been unsubstantiated by anyone? All people who refuse to believe the alibis are doing is saying that all of the alibi witnesses (who just so happen to be friends and family) are lying.

    However, my point with this thread is not about the alibis. I sincerely want to see a time line showing when these attacks were to have taken place. I haven't seen one, even on the Hoax.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    Look, Paul Ford, Jason's attorney stated he knew his witnesses wouldn't hold up to cross examination as happened to Damien's witnesses, and said that was why he didn't put anyone on the stand in Jason's defense.

    Attorney Ford also stated that Jessie's Dyess alibi fell apart too. He then added in so many words that Damien blew his own defense witness statements when he agreed that his time line kept changing to fit the changing time line of when the murders were committed.

    Jessie told Stidham, in the presence of his father that he committed the crime. That too is in the court records for this case, came up during one of the hearings.

    What you're missing is that the friends and family did in fact lie in efforts to keep the teens from being convicted.

    This isn't what I believe, it's what's in the court records from 1993 and in the hearings that covered ineffective counsel.

  9. #9
    IMO, if the teens had effective (experienced and well-funded) counsel, the alibis would not have fallen apart. Counsel simply wasn't adequate on redirect. The prosecution had more experience and funding allowing them to do what competent attorneys do on cross examination - break witnesses down, even when they're telling the truth.

    A competent attorney on redirect will redirect the witness to the original statement made and, if possible, refute the lies of the prosecution. A competent attorney with a guilty client will plea bargain, saving the time and expense of a trial. A competent attorney with an innocent client will produce witnesses that provide an alibi whenever possible, or, if alibi witnesses are not available, will attack the evidence or the State's witnesses on cross examination. The original defense attorneys did not act competently, regardless of what Burnett ruled in Damien's Rule 37 hearing. Burnett had political aspirations, and he wanted convictions in these trials in order to advance his own political career IMO.

    The ASSC has ruled that Burnett erred in not allowing an evidentiary hearing on the DNA evidence. So, obviously, mistakes were made in the original trial, at least according to the ASSC. In fact, the ASSC impaled Burnett pretty strongly about his mistakes in this case. The new hearing will provide a new look at all evidence by fresh eyes.

    Again, what should someone who is accused of murder and who was with family and friends at the time do to provide an alibi? Make up a lie? Yes, some of the alibi witnesses got confused on the stand. Many of them, especially at the Misskelley trial, were teens themselves. All of them (except the few expert witnesses) were poor and not prepared for a cross examination by an experienced lawyer (another shortcoming of the original defense team). This is simply another layer in this miscarriage of justice.

    Now, please provide me with some sort of time line, as you see it, for the murders. If you think the teens are guilty, surely you have a theory of how they did it. That's what I want to know. As I said before, I've never seen a theory from the other side, even on the Hoax board.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    379
    CR-They can't provide a time line because there is no evidence that the 3 committed these crimes.
    What you're dealing with is a horrendous crime. Three young boys murdered in cold blood. Just that alone upsets people. You look at the bodies and there are these savage injuries all over. It affects people emotionally and warps their judgement and then someone says, "Maybe it's satanic."

    And they say, "Well the only type of person who would do this would be someone like that."


  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    6,915
    Please Give me a reason why Terry Hobbs would kill these kids?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    6,915
    Quote Originally Posted by missy_g View Post
    CR-They can't provide a time line because there is no evidence that the 3 committed these crimes.
    Actually, there is evidence that does not exclude the three, Not everything was tested.

  13. #13
    Terry Hobbs chased after the little boys at around 6:30 or 7 pm (after first taking Amanda back to the Jacoby's and spending 15 minutes or so driving around with Jacoby supposedly searching for Steve but in reality placating Jacoby and then taking him back home saying he wanted to look "one more place" - this is from Jacoby's Pasdar deposition) because he wanted to punish Stevie.

    There are several possible reasons for this sociopath wanting to punish his step son. One is the fact that Stevie blatantly disobeyed him by not staying in the yard when he yelled at him (heard by Jamie and her sister). Another is possibly that, when Terry got home from the Jacoby's, he found Stevie's soiled jeans and became enraged. There are probably other reasons, but either of these two will suffice.

    When he caught up with the little boys (either in their manhole hideout or their tree house, which mysteriously disappeared right after the murders), his "punishment" got out of hand. He didn't mean to kill Steve, only punish him. The other two were witnesses. Therefore, they had to be eliminated. It didn't take long, maybe 20 to 30 minutes, and Terry has a big hole in his alibi from about 6:30 or 7 pm to about 8 pm.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by iluvmua View Post
    Actually, there is evidence that does not exclude the three, Not everything was tested.
    If it wasn't tested, how do you know it is "evidence that does not exclude the three?" Are you referring to the "secret" testing the State did? I didn't think that the results of that testing had been released and, if that evidence had been incriminatory to any of the WM3, the prosecution/State would have been shouting it from the rooftops, not concealing it from everyone, including the defense.

    If you are referring to something else, please don't be so cryptic. State the evidence, and provide a link to the forensics that show it to be incriminating to any of the WM3. Until you can provide such a link, I will continue to assert that no physical evidence has been found that ties any of the WM3 to the discovery site or even to the victims.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,081
    I just started reading a little bit about this case a few months ago . I still do not know what to believe . They had 3 trials and we found guilty all 3 times correct? but there also was no physical evidence . I need to go thru these threads ...

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Time Line thread
    By Indy Gal in forum Stacy Peterson
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-30-2009, 11:34 AM
  2. SPECULATIVE time line
    By nursebeeme in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 07:44 AM
  3. The Time Line
    By CW in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-29-2004, 07:14 AM

Tags for this Thread