The supposed "evidence" against Mark Byers
- Thread starter kyleb
- Start date
Cappuccino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 3,204
It doesn't matter if 500 movies are made about the wm3, it won't change the DNA results from 2007. And it was those DNA results which finally made people notice the very quiet presence of Hobbs in the background, not any movie. Of course, once people did notice him, he looked so suspicious everybody wondered why they hadn't noticed him before.
That suspicion will linger over Hobbs for life, no matter how much mud gets slung in other directions and no matter how many movies are made.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 113
Exactly! I, for one, am sick of being accused of moving from one "step" father to another, implying that the move was not evidence driven. When JMB was initially suspected, it was because of the Kershaw knife and the possible bite mark on Steven's forehead along with the false assumption that his son, Christopher, was the most severely injured and his own outlandish behavior. When the animal predation information along with the mtDNA was made public, moving on to TH as a more viable suspect was just an intelligent decision on the part of those who did so. IMO, as I've stated before, those who refuse to look at the new information are either being stupid or allowing their egos, for whatever reason, to cloud their decision-making process. I'll add one other thing: IMO, TH should remain as the prime suspect until and unless additional information or evidence surfaces pointing more conclusively in a different direction. If such information/evidence surfaces, I'll be the first to move on to a more credible suspect!
I see a pattern of blaming others and when one pans out they go to another. That's why I said, who's next?
So far we've had Bojangles, Byers now Hobbs and we're only on the 5th movie and how many books?
Speaking of mud, Terry Hobbs wasn't spotted near the crime scene with muddy clothing, but Damien was.
These threads go loco and are almost unreadable. I really do try to understand both sides of an argument. But I don't see what Pam's addictions have to do with anything. I don't see what making movies or books about the case have to do with anything. I don't see what having delved into multiple suspects has to do with anything. I really do try. Is it just me or are these types of topics just off the wall? The only legitimate point (though not on point to this thread) that I saw was that Damien was said to have been seen in the area. I truly feel like I'm missing something. HELP!!!
Cappuccino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 3,204
Neither Bojangles nor Byers "panned out". The focus was switched to Terry Hobbs because a hair consistent with his DNA was found in the ligature binding Michael Moore, and as soon as the focus did switch to him it quickly became clear that there were a whole load of other reasons to suspect him, and also that he'd never been looked at during the original investigation.
It was all very unpleasant for Byers no doubt, and if Hobbs is innocent, it is unpleasant for him and will remain so for the rest of his life. But that's what happens when the police and courts completely stuff up something as major as a triple child murder.
Cappuccino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 3,204
Its borderline trolling really - its just random sling mud at Pam Hicks, supporters generally, especially those who make movies and books. I'm only humouring it because this thread has no real basis for discussion anyway. Unless someone shows up to argue for JMB's guilt there's no serious debate to be had here.
primitivefuture
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2013
- Messages
- 285
- Reaction score
- 5
Expressing outrage that suspicion is being cast on Terry Hobbs and then trotting out Pam's mistakes to cast her in a negative light is beyond me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
And if Byers mtDNA was tested and proved to be consistent with one of the other five hairs from the shoelaces would you all go back to pointing fingers at him too?
I don't understand why some simply ignore evidence pointing to the three convicted, but instead focus on the parents/step-parents who actually lived with the victims.
Which makes me think about this thread
Hairs recovered from victims microscopically constant with Baldwin and Echols
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207020"]Hairs recovered from victims microscopically constant with Baldwin and Echols - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
Cappuccino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 3,204
You're misunderstanding the importance of the DNA results. A hair at a crime scene isn't enough to point fingers at anyone, including Hobbs. All the hair did was draw attention to him - before that nobody, including the police, had taken much notice of him at all, he was just lurking quietly in the background. Only after the DNA results in 2007 did attention focus on Hobbs, and when it did it soon became apparent that there were plenty of other reasons to suspect him.
Who has ignored evidence pointing to the 3? I have inquired and discussed it ad nauseum. The problem is it comes down to a "confession", recanted testimony, Domini transforming into Baldwin, Echols near the scene, the softball girls' testimony, Echols past and someone's knife that was found in a communal lake.
I'm not sure why you're linking about hair. As far as I know, the only hairs that have been linked with any probability to anyone have been linked to Hobbs and Jacoby.
Everything wasn't tested. As I remember Echols requested testing, but then filed a motion to drop it. It's in the documents area here on WS. He requests testing then later requests that it not be tested.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7211240&postcount=25"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Document Links **LIST ONLY NO DISCUSSION**[/ame]
Cappuccino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 3,204
Echols never filed any motion to drop testing, that's complete nonsense. The motion you've linked to was a motion to dismiss the Habeas Corpus writ after their release. That has diddly squat to do with testing.
In the motion it says to do testing among other things. There are other things in that motion, but bundled in there was the testing too. And we've not seen that recent testing that I have heard of.
Cappuccino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 3,204
The contents of your post are absolute nonsense. The only mention of testing in that writ is an explanation of the history of the case and why the original conviction was vacated. The motion itself is simply to dismiss the Habeas Corpus writ because the "corpus" in question, ie Damien, had already been released. You clearly don't understand the document you've just read.
Damien's wish list for testing was completed in late July 2011 anyway, so there were no further tests to dismiss even if he wanted to. That's why the only test results we've seen since came from Baldwin's team.
Damien's wish list for testing was completed in late July 2011 anyway, so there were no further tests to dismiss even if he wanted to. That's why the only test results we've seen since came from Baldwin's team.
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
No, I'm pointing out the absurdity of using one of many hairs recovered from the shoelaces as a launching pad for scapegoating of Hobbs after the decade and a half long effort to scapegoat Byers fell through. If the people behind the DNA testing were honestly investigating they'd have surreptitiously obtained samples from people like James Kenny Martin and William Edward Johns to test them against those hairs rather than making a stink about Hobbs, and you all wouldn't be overlooking the fact that a hair from the scout cap doesn't show enough variation to rightly exclude Baldwin as its source.
Cappuccino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 3,204
I would dearly love to see them do that! Not to mention others.
I'm having problems with PDFs, as you know, but I did manage to get through nearly 40 pages of one posted in another thread, so now you've reminded me I'll take a look at the PDF you PM'd me on the scout cap hair. Thanx for the reminder.
The 'new evidence' isn't really new at all. I uploaded a post in the document area on WS showing about hairs and the dogs and turtles.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10054322&postcount=28"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Document Links **LIST ONLY NO DISCUSSION**[/ame]
I thought maybe there was some 'new' evidence, but there doesn't seem to be any. I am not sure that there has been any testing done since.
I'll second that as to wishing we could have other's DNA to compare as well.
As for Hobbs, my only contention is that there is more than sufficient evidence to support looking closer at him. Not that there is sufficient evidence to say he did it. I would have suggested the same about Byers at the time if I were around then. Not that I would have thought he did it, but there was sufficient reason to delve further. I understand those that firmly believe the WM3 are guilty come from a different perspective, but for the others such as myself, who are unsure of who committed the crimes, it's a natural process to go through a list of possible persons of interest and look at what indicates and what contra-indicates their involvement. So it's also only natural that some potential persons of interest will be eliminated as new evidence or information is learned. It's for those reasons I have no issue with people who think it was justified to question Byers' involvement and I see no problem with people who now think he is cleared and have moved on to other potential persons of interest. It's avoiding the tunnel vision that LE seems to suffer from time to time. JMO