I love how people are so quick to believe people when it points to TH being guilty, but so hesitant to believe people when it points to one or all of the WM3 being guilty. If you're going to poo-poo one side, that's fine, but don't go and do the exact same thing on the other.
Truth and Justice Podcast
- Thread starter missy_g
- Start date
I love how people are so quick to believe people when it points to TH being guilty, but so hesitant to believe people when it points to one or all of the WM3 being guilty. If you're going to poo-poo one side, that's fine, but don't go and do the exact same thing on the other.
Wow, hey? The convicted child killer literally confesses over and over and over, both pre and post conviction, and supporters dismiss this, but invent a phantom confession from Hobbs and this is somehow a smoking gun. Astounding.
Could you reach any further? And if anyone "downplays" anything, it's supporters and the overwhelming evidence that points to the guilt of the 3 convicted child killers. I can't tell if you're obtuse or just trolling.
I keep going back to this in regards to TH. Why refuse to provide DNA? If youve truly got nothing to hide? And the overwhelming evidence is nothing but circumstantial. Its no more damning than the case against Hobbs.
Its just nearly impossible for me to believe that 3 teenagers committed that crime (one of which is borderline retarded) and left zero dna evidence behind. How many people (let alone teenagers) knew much about DNA in 93? I just dont see those 3 being that smart and disciplined.
Im open minded though. What, in your opinion, is the most damning evidence against the WM3? And dont say the confession because thats garbage. What testimony or physical evidence proves to you theyre guilty?
It's all been provided here ad nauseam. Supporters just blindly dismiss it. Also, there were many confessions. Several post conviction. You can just say they're "garbage" all you want. That's not a real argument.
Where did I ever say there was "overwhelming evidence" against anyone in this case, let alone the WM3? I didn't.
I'm a fencie. I don't know who committed the crime, but I don't automatically, completely rule out the idea that one or all of the WM3 were involved simply because a couple documentaries framed it that way. The fact that JB's Uncle completely denies JB and DE's alibi of them cutting grass at his house that day (and the reason why they need to leave; they said they needed to go to the laundromat to call for a ride home, even though the Uncle had a perfectly-working phone in his house -- they still said this, because they knew they were seen at the laundromat that day, so they invented that reason); Buddy Lucas' interview with police (speaking of people who would have no reason to lie, unless you think he pulled Keyser Soze, which is laughable); the fact that JB tried to get rid of weapons (an ice axe, a knife, and a sheath) right after the murders; the fact JM actually did get a plethora of things right, even in the initial confession (that MM was "separate" from the other boys, the exact injuries to the exact victims as far as CB with the genital wound and SB with the facial wound; his route to and from the crime scene; the crime scene). There's much more, I'm just lazy and I've said it already on this board; just go look through some threads if you're truly interested.
I just think it's misguided. I've been following this case for at least 10 years now. First, JMB was the one. Now, it's TH. If TH is ever somehow absolved, it'll be TM. I get it: the parents are always the first ones that should be investigated (no argument there; TH should have been thoroughly investigated), but this automatic assumption to jump to one of the parents simply because no one knows who committed this crime -- it's just foolish. The hair found on the scene is just as circumstantial as the fiber evidence that was found that connected the WM3 to the crime. It's proves absolutely nothing, and it isn't even directly linked to TH, but 1% of the population at the time in West Memphis, which is around 1,000 possible people.
Yeah, multiple confessions because he got virtually every important detail wrong in the first confession.
Rather convenient that one of the more damning testimonies came from The Hollingsworth family considering L.G. ended up being implicated in a far more likely scenario in 2013
You actually think the 4 perp theory is "likely," wow.
LG could have very well been involved, but it wasn't in this ridiculous scenario where TH and DJ pick up two kids they had never even met before and make them wrestle in front of them. Also, BL would have had to be Keyser Soze to not crack while being interviewed by police multiple occassions, both on the phone and in person. This was a kid as slow if not worse than JM.
Actually the 1% wouldve equaled less than 300 people back in 93 but I get your point. Fact is that way too much information (some of which wasnt even accurate) got leaked immediately and tainted any confessions made back then. Hell the California cops damn near got a confession out of Morgan and Holland who had nothing to do with it.
Any decent defense attorney today would cut so many holes in those confessions that theyd be useless. Im not saying Im 1000% sure theyre innocent, but theres a pretty damn good case to be made against Hobbs, Lucas etc. And that is the definition of reasonable doubt is it not? It just sucks that the state cared more about covering their own a$$es more than legitimately reopening the case when reasonable doubt was raised.
Because now, no matter who committed the crime, no one will ever do another day in jail for it.
Fair enough, 300; I stand corrected; perhaps I was thinking of the Jacoby hair.
No, don't say that: the cops in California were nowhere close to obtaining a confession from Morgan/Holland. Morgan was beyond sarcastic when he said something along the lines of, "Alright! You want me to confess to a crime I had nothing to do with? Fine, I did it. I confess." Sorry, I hate when supporters bring this up, because it was so damn obvious that Morgan made the statement sarcastically and out of frustration; those interrogations turned up absolutely nothing.
I actually think there's more of a case against the WM3 than I do anyone else in the case. I agree: it's unlikely that 3 teens could have pulled this off, so clean, without turning on each other (although you could argue one did), etc. That is a fair supporter point. But someone did; somebody was able to leave pretty much no evidence behind -- you can call it luck, skill, both; but it's hard to fathom anyone was actually capable of doing this, in this area, without leaving something behind. But that's what happened.
Also, it wasn't the state that enacted the Alford plea; it was the WM3 themselves. It's okay if you're happy they're out -- seriously, that's fine -- but what this plea did, was kill any sort of follow-up. The case, since it's a guilty plea, is considered closed now; and the WM3/defense were the ones that brought the Alford to the State; not the other way around.
No, he did not. See userid's post above. And denying the weight of multiple confessions, many post conviction, and after his own attorney BEGGED him to stop, is either pure denial or just plain crazy. He got PLENTY right, and to believe that a child killer who was wasted at the time is going to be 100% truthful in his dealings with the cops is naive. He also admitted to attempting to "throw them off" (the police), minimize his involvement, obviously.
To think a child murderer is going to suddenly be totally forthright with the cops is just silly. How many confessions would it take before you start thinking "hmm. There might be something to this??"
But of course the many confessions aren't the only reason it's obvious they're guilty. Don't ask me to repeat them - it's all a matter of public record, and plastered all over this site.
Cher Lockhomes
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2014
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 13
The truth does sometimes help to convict the real perp/s. The real perp/s might feel guilty about killing the boys too. As usual, measuring with multiple standards is not gonna take anyone anywhere in this case. A lie from DM is just as helpful as a lie from TH, whether it is understandable or not, yet when a fable like Jessie's confession is backed up by major lies by Michael Carson, Victoria Hutchison, and minor lies by others like the parents / relatives etc. (who were under oath at court), plus major dabbling by the likes of the wmpd, Kent Arnold etc. How can anyone sit back and believe the WM3 were even possibly guilty.
Cher Lockhomes
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2014
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 13
If I remember correctly, you also believe that the affidavits made by the Hobbs relatives were also based on resentments against TH. In my experience and in many cases I've followed where relatives are involved, people often reveal the truth at later points in time due to detachment, or due to the fact that they are not in danger of repressive measures. When things get serious most people leave their resentments aside. Only particularly mean people who want to get others into trouble (maybe like juvenile probation officer Jerry Driver) are willing to play at higher stakes. I don't think DM is that type of person, nor is J.C. Ballard, and I would think the Hobbs sisters / relatives are not all making things up.
Steven Branch did not come home for his supper on this day. His Mother said he had never done this before.He knew he would be in big trouble, would be grounded, his most loved bike would be taken away. Maybe his fear of coming home was greater than staying away. What a coincidence he was murdered on this day!!!
Indeed. Like in this case.
You're conflating. There are degrees to lies: some are relevant, some are irrelevant. To pretend that all lies are created equal is absurd, I hope you know that.
JCB's sighting could not have logically occurred that day, considering the plethora of credible sightings (taken at the time of the murder; not a decade-plus later) that puts the boys on the other end of the neighborhood. Even Bob Ruff admits this. So whether she's deliberately lying or simply mistaken -- I really wouldn't know, and I wouldn't really care -- either way, it's not a credible sighting.
Neither you or I know any of these people; so your assumptions are just as good as mine. Here's what we do know: there's an on and off rift with PH and TH sides of the family -- this is fact, stemming from PH supposedly cheating on TH, and her brother threatening TH at his house, prompting him to be shot by TH in self-defense (according to him). He never served time for the crime. So, to assume PH's side had a bone to pick with TH, and accused him at one point of being involved in the murders, is unsurprising. By the way, PH doesn't even believe this anymore; her and TH are on friendly terms last I heard; TH confirms this on his webpage.
Don't know where to put this, so I will start here. I've seen all the documentaries, read Jivepuppi, WM3 main page, midsouth justice forums and Devil's Knot and listened to Bob Ruff's podcasts. I haven't seen this brought up anywhere. I'll state right up front: I am a "fencie". Background info: my husband has been involved in the Boy Scout movement from Cub Scouts until he retired and draws Social Security. I am very familiar with Cub Scouts, both thru my husband and having been a Den Mother for my son in 1992.
My question is: Why was Michael Moore wearing his Cub Scout shirt and hat? The Cubs didn't just wear their uniforms. Most schools (even the schools where the children wore uniforms) allowed Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Brownies and Girl Scouts to wear their uniforms the day of their meetings. The Dens would meet once a week and all the Dens in a Pack would meet once a month.
Somewhere, it was stated that TM was the Den Leader for this particular den and they met on Thursdays. Apparently, he was working out of town Wednesday, 5-5-93.
The Cub Scout uniform was to be respected. It was ceremonial as it was only to be worn for meetings and Cub/Boy Scout activities. It was not something that would be played in. MM's mother would have to have washed it for the Thursday meeting unless there was a Pack meeting on that Wednesday night and no one has mentioned this.
Since MM was wearing his uniform and Aaron Hutcheson told his mother that he wanted to go with the other three to do "scout stuff", had these boys been told there was something "scout related" going on that afternoon/evening?
James Kenny Martin, in his (odious) statement, said that a child molester would have used some way to connect with these boys. Was this it??????
My question is: Why was Michael Moore wearing his Cub Scout shirt and hat? The Cubs didn't just wear their uniforms. Most schools (even the schools where the children wore uniforms) allowed Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Brownies and Girl Scouts to wear their uniforms the day of their meetings. The Dens would meet once a week and all the Dens in a Pack would meet once a month.
Somewhere, it was stated that TM was the Den Leader for this particular den and they met on Thursdays. Apparently, he was working out of town Wednesday, 5-5-93.
The Cub Scout uniform was to be respected. It was ceremonial as it was only to be worn for meetings and Cub/Boy Scout activities. It was not something that would be played in. MM's mother would have to have washed it for the Thursday meeting unless there was a Pack meeting on that Wednesday night and no one has mentioned this.
Since MM was wearing his uniform and Aaron Hutcheson told his mother that he wanted to go with the other three to do "scout stuff", had these boys been told there was something "scout related" going on that afternoon/evening?
James Kenny Martin, in his (odious) statement, said that a child molester would have used some way to connect with these boys. Was this it??????
It's a well-established fact that MM loved wearing his cub scout uniform, even on days where no meetings were being held.
That day, if memory serves, he actually returned home after school to change in his cub scout uniform, before he went to SB's house.
Another less known fact that is key here: MM actually had "two" cub scout uniforms: one for ceremonial events, and one to "play around in." You can see the differences if you find the well-known picture of MM's school photo -- that cub scout shirt he's wearing in the photo differs from the one that was found at the crime scene slightly.
Notice the multiple patches: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/10694468/james-michael-moore#view-photo=53064434
Notice the lack of patches: http://callahan.mysite.com/images2/mm_clothing/mm_clothing_223.JPG
Thanks. Can anyone answer another question I have? Does anyone know who the school resource officer was at Weaver Elementary in 1993? If there wasn't one, does anyone know who the "Officer Friendly" was? (The city/county officer that all the children knew who would have been on TV 'this is your friend' and who would be in parades and school appearances).
MilanaCapricorn
CapricornMimi
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2017
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 53
Hello all! Not putting my self in any category wether it's Non, fencie, or as a supporter because I think that is irrelevant, and puts people in this group against each other for no reason other than proving their point.
Felt like I needed to chime in, because Bob Ruff is IMO doing a great job of separating fact from fiction. I understand it is human nature to formulate opinions and jump to theories and defend ( or attack) what we believe to be true, but it is also human nature to forget, to lie, to speculate, to manipulate, and to justify what we believe is right. At the end of the day our words are NOT facts, and neither are our memories. People in this case could be lying for reasons completely out of the realm of covering up any involvement in this case. The confessions also could be lies or not, but the justice system is not designed to convict people based on what they say. It is designed to convict people based on evidence and a lack of reasonable doubt. This did not happen on any level in this case, beginning with LE. I commend the T&J Podcast for trying to find the facts of what happened to these poor children without jumping to conclusions based on the mere words of human beings. Frankly that should have been LE's job.
Does anyone know if there was DNA other than the few hairs found on the bodies (which belonged to the boys)? Meaning, was their any physical evidence recovered in the investigation that does not belong to the boys? And do we know if the bikes still exist somewhere in evidence?
Thanks!
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk