New Podcast with ML/New Evidence Log

[Userid]

I hate promoting BR in any way, but he has a new podcast with ML. I haven't listened yet, but I'm hoping it sheds light on the new evidence log that ML acquired through the FOIA recently.

There are many things in this evidence log that are intriguing. One thing is that, hairs were indeed collected from TH, refuting the "WMPD never even talked to him" narrative. But what is more curious, are items such as "hair from knife" (which exact knife?) and the "cloth bracelet from SB," which may (I stress, may) be the notorious friendship bracelet that PH had said SB was wearing the day he was murdered and which supposedly was never found.

The evidence log (8 pages) can be found on this website, which is run by the same person (Christian) who created the Callahan site. This guy is one of the few best sources for this case and his new site will no doubt be as fantastic as Callahan is:
Documents

Podcast: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...QkfYCahcKEwjIxKTe6_z0AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&hl=en

 

[herb4]

What's your problem with Ruff? I mean besides that he disagrees with you and thinking that some people who've been convicted of crimes may not have been guilty so why not look another look it? I listened to the WM3 shows (and admit my bias going in) but he seemed pretty objective to me, along with the other cases he's covered. He takes questions every other episode from a variety of angles and from a lot of detractors and is quick to say "I don't know" or "there's not enough information for me to draw a conclusion there" when something is challenging. Or even to take another look if something new comes up. I'd want him or someone like him working my case if I were ever wrongly jailed and convicted.

You come off on this subforum as having a singular focus and some sort of mission, which I understand if you think the WM3 are guilty, but you're more broad than that and seem to have a pattern of ALWAYS siding with law enforcement regardless of evidence or lack thereof. If you really believe in your heart of hearts that the WM3 are guilty and should be put to death or that Bob Ruff is a hack, seems to me your energy and anger should be aimed at Scott Ellington for freeing 3 insane child murderers or taking Ruff to task on his boards for the deficiencies you find in his work.

But thanks for the link anyways. I'll check it out. I like what Ruff does for the most part and get the feeling he'd be the first one to admit if he got a case wrong or change his mind on something if new evidence came to light. He strikes me as the type to follow and concede to evidence trails and facts regardless of where that leads. I don't think his sole objective is simply to be correct and proven right all the time, unlike some some folks, and he seems to start with the facts first and follow them to a conclusion rather than the other way around - as an investigation should be. I don't think he'd a problem in the world learning that some weird case he was looking at turned out the cops were right or the person was guilty, so long as they got it right.

Like, regarding the WM3, I know about the necklace, the Great Dane, the Evan Williams bottle, the multiple confessions, Exhibit 500, the conflicting and sometimes problematic alibis. All of it. How would I know all that if he didn't address those topics? I mean, I've been following this case forever so I already knew of all that and I'm cheating a little, but none of it was glossed over or dismissed. Bob uses real professionals to help him and listens to them. He got David Jacoby to trust him enough to do a long interview. I personally disagree with his Bojangle's conclusions but can;t take issue with his methods or call him dishonest about them.

What do you find deceptive or shady about him beyond that he doesn't agree with you and that everyone is guilty?

 

[DHT1339]

What's your problem with Ruff? I mean besides that he disagrees with you and thinking that some people who've been convicted of crimes may not have been guilty so why not look another look it? I listened to the WM3 shows (and admit my bias going in) but he seemed pretty objective to me, along with the other cases he's covered. He takes questions every other episode from a variety of angles and from a lot of detractors and is quick to say "I don't know" or "there's not enough information for me to draw a conclusion there" when something is challenging. Or even to take another look if something new comes up. I'd want him or someone like him working my case if I were ever wrongly jailed and convicted.

You come off on this subforum as having a singular focus and some sort of mission, which I understand if you think the WM3 are guilty, but you're more broad than that and seem to have a pattern of ALWAYS siding with law enforcement regardless of evidence or lack thereof. If you really believe in your heart of hearts that the WM3 are guilty and should be put to death or that Bob Ruff is a hack, seems to me your energy and anger should be aimed at Scott Ellington for freeing 3 insane child murderers or taking Ruff to task on his boards for the deficiencies you find in his work.

But thanks for the link anyways. I'll check it out. I like what Ruff does for the most part and get the feeling he'd be the first one to admit if he got a case wrong or change his mind on something if new evidence came to light. He strikes me as the type to follow and concede to evidence trails and facts regardless of where that leads. I don't think his sole objective is simply to be correct and proven right all the time, unlike some some folks, and he seems to start with the facts first and follow them to a conclusion rather than the other way around - as an investigation should be. I don't think he'd a problem in the world learning that some weird case he was looking at turned out the cops were right or the person was guilty, so long as they got it right.

Like, regarding the WM3, I know about the necklace, the Great Dane, the Evan Williams bottle, the multiple confessions, Exhibit 500, the conflicting and sometimes problematic alibis. All of it. How would I know all that if he didn't address those topics? I mean, I've been following this case forever so I already knew of all that and I'm cheating a little, but none of it was glossed over or dismissed. Bob uses real professionals to help him and listens to them. He got David Jacoby to trust him enough to do a long interview. I personally disagree with his Bojangle's conclusions but can;t take issue with his methods or call him dishonest about them.

What do you find deceptive or shady about him beyond that he doesn't agree with you and that everyone is guilty?

what are ruff's thoughts on bojangles?

i'm a fan of what ruff is doing for the cause, but his oxygen miniseries last year was a big disappointment to me because it pretty much just touched on everything we already know (those of us who have studied the case) maybe his podcast is better but i've never listened to it

 

[herb4]

what are ruff's thoughts on bojangles?

That he didn't have enough time to make the walk travelling along the bayou.

I personally think that Bojangles is tied to the case in some way. Either stumbled upon the scene, saw something or someone he wasn't supposed to and/or...got winged by one of those gunshots people heard (9mm handgun?), hauled *advertiser censored*, hid in the restaurant and bailed for whatever reason. Maybe he had a record. Maybe he was holding drugs. Both. Maybe he saw and knew the killer(s) and feared payback. Maybe, being black in the deep south, he (rightly) feared that the cops would hang the murders on him and perhaps he even left evidence behind (negroid hair).

It's just one hell of a coincidence to me that the bathroom and the person of interest looked like they did (muddy, wet and bloody) about a mile from the crime scene in relatively the right time frame. This is compounded by the cops magically losing the blood evidence.

I've begun to think that the police and the state in this case are covering for one of their own, but that's a different topic.

 

[DHT1339]

That he didn't have enough time to make the walk travelling along the bayou.

I personally think that Bojangles is tied to the case in some way. Either stumbled upon the scene, saw something or someone he wasn't supposed to and/or...got winged by one of those gunshots people heard (9mm handgun?), hauled *advertiser censored*, hid in the restaurant and bailed for whatever reason. Maybe he had a record. Maybe he was holding drugs. Both. Maybe he saw and knew the killer(s) and feared payback. Maybe, being black in the deep south, he (rightly) feared that the cops would hang the murders on him and perhaps he even left evidence behind (negroid hair).

It's just one hell of a coincidence to me that the bathroom and the person of interest looked like they did (muddy, wet and bloody) about a mile from the crime scene in relatively the right time frame. This is compounded by the cops magically losing the blood evidence.

I've begun to think that the police and the state in this case are covering for one of their own, but that's a different topic.

i don't think bojangles had anything to do with it. WM's location right near the interstate brought with it a lot of transients who were on drugs/mentally ill and he was probably one of those

if you participate in the murder of 3 boys why would you walk right into a restaurant immediately after? if he was involved somehow, i think the utmost extent of his involvement would be stumbling upon the crime scene and seeing something he shouldn't have. but then where were his footprints at the crime scene? where was his DNA? i believe the african-american hair you're referring to was found on one of the sheets used to cover the bodies, so it could've easily come from someone who was at the crime scene the next day or someone who handled the bodies

i've always wondered if bojangles was the same guy covered in blood that a truck driver at the blue beacon reported seeing that night

 

[herb4]

Agree to disagree, DHT but that's cool. Too bad the cops "lost" the blood evidence so we could compare it to the recently released items that the Echols' team gained access to.

Someone is covering up something. Pam Hobbs and Mark Byers were denied access to the evidence, up to and including the bikes and their kids' clothes.

My biggest question is, for people who think Damien is guilty, why...WHY ON EARTH...would he and his attorneys fight to get all this stuff tested? That's insane.

 

[Prime8]

That he didn't have enough time to make the walk traveling along the bayou.

I personally think that Bojangles is tied to the case in some way. Either stumbled upon the scene, saw something or someone he wasn't supposed to and/or...got winged by one of those gunshots people heard (9mm handgun?), hauled *advertiser censored*, hid in the restaurant and bailed for

Yeah, I've always suspected that Bojangles might have witnessed something. If he was was a transient and/or a drug addict, I could 100% see him not saying anything and just wanting to get out of town. It could totally be a red herring but to be in such close proximity, wet, muddy, bloody just seems like a huge coincidence (although I believe they happen all the time).