Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by missy_g, May 8, 2011.
Does anyone have any info or transcripts on what David Jacoby has said?
As far as I know, all that has been made public from Jacoby is his deposition in the Pasdar case. There is probably much more, but it is being kept out of the public eye IMO by the defense team. Beyond that, I don't want to speculate on what he might have said as it might hurt the efforts of the defense team. Obviously, they have worked very hard to keep his statements (and him) under wraps. We'll just have to wait for December to see what he says at the hearing. I'm sure that he'll be called as a witness by the defense.
After reading the new allegations that Terry Hobbs may have had help from David Jacoby, L.G. Hollingsworth and Buddy Lucas, I re-read David Jacoby's statements from 2007 and 2009 (found on callahan).
Next I transcribed his statements made in the documentary "West of Memphis". This consisted of a discussion with John Douglas, profiler for the FBI, and a phone conversation with Terry Hobbs.
Mr. Jacoby's statements have changed with each re-telling. In his 2007 statement to the police, he says Terry came by to play guitars and that Terry had told Stevie to be home before dark. After playing an hour Terry left with Amanda (although he waffled on this quite a bit), then came back for David's help.
In David's 2009 declaration in the Hobbs v. Pasdar suit, he claims he saw the boys in Terry Hobbs presence as Terry arrived at his house to play guitars. This time he was "90%" sure Terry left Amanda behind.
Then in his West of Memphis interview with John Douglas he claims Terry came over with Amanda "looking for Stevie". But for some reason David delayed Terry by requesting he show him how to play some music. After a while, Terry left saying "I need to go look for Stevie". No mention of Amanda, although I am sure this is not the entire interview.
One thing I find interesting is how Jacoby describes the interview with John Douglas to Terry Hobbs.
David: Hey. Had me a visitor today, John Douglas.
Terry: John's the FBI. What'd he say?
(Note: Terry didn't ask what John wanted, or what David told him, only what did John Douglas say.)
David: Just a bunch of discrepancies on where I said we were and where you say we were at and it just...
Terry: I don't give a (bleep) what them people got to say about where I was at and what time I was there. We don't have to answer to them people.
(Note: David uses the word said to describe himself, and as we noted he has changed his story several times. I have not compared it to Terry's statements to see if he has stuck to his timeline, but he uses the word say to decribe Terry.)
(Note: I find it interesting in light of the newest allegations that Terry uses the word "we" after talking about himself.)
Does the evidence support the theory that more than one man may be responsible for the murders? We certainly thought the placement of the bodies (Michael Moore being further away) supported the WM3. If you take out all evidence of WM3 (Jessie's confession), could the crime have been committed by two men, or even four men?
I am going to compare Terry Hobbs statements, and re-read Hollingsworth's and Lucas' and comment further.
Ok, comparing Terry Hobb's 2007 police interview and his 2009 deposition, he keeps to this story: he drove and/or walked around his neighborhood with Amanda until he meets up with Dawn Moore and John Mark Byers. Then he drops Amanda off at David Jacoby's and he and David drive "all over the city of West Memphis" looking for the boys.
He is very vague about the times, but he insinuates that he and David began searching around 6:30, yet other testimony show that Terry didn't meet up with Dawn Moore and John Mark Byers until around 8:30, after which he picked up Amanda at the Jacoby's house and went to report Stevie missing to the police at Pam's work.
Yet in West of Memphis Terry had this to say:
David: I don't know from what I've said and what you sad and what they're telling me, 6:30 to 9:30pm is really (bleep) up. And I don't know what they're playing on with that.
Terry: 6:30 to 9:30. We rode around looking for three little boys. We got out and we did a little walking looking for three little boys. I went and picked my wife up at 9:00. Where did you ride around Mr. Hobbs? West Memphis. You was with me David. You remember that?
(If Terry didn't learn of Chris Byer's being missing until he met his father at 8:30, how did he know he was looking for three little boys at 6:30? See Jamie Ballard's deposition for Hobbs v. Pasdar on Callahan's for the answer to that!)
I found this at jivepuppi. http://www.jivepuppi.com/lg_hollingsworth.html
So it seems L.G (little gangster) has some problems sticking to his stories too.
Buddy Lucas claimed he was at a bar-b-q, left with his cousin "little Rex", went to Jessie's house to take him and his father some bar-b-q, saw Jessie leaving, stayed until 9pm when they went home and "ate supper".
In 1994 however, Mary Hudon (Buddy's mom) told John Fogelman during a taped phone conversation that Buddy was at work that night. (From callahans)
More conflicting stories!
If you take out evidence you're engaging in a logical fallacy, and there's far more evidence against the convicted than just a single confession. Perhaps you might consider familiarizing yourself with the all evidence presented in the links under the "The Case Against the WM3" heading in the navigation bar on the left of each page at WM3 Truth. If you do bother to do that, I suspect your concerns about inconsistencies in people's statements regarding where they were nearly two decades ago and the claims from a couple of rapists will seem utterly trivial in comparison to the evidence against the convicted.
Just to add, JMB finds these lies very telling.
17. In fact, I met Hobbs at my house at approximately 8:20 or 8:30 PM. I know it was 8:20 or 8:30 PM or so, because: (1) Dana Moore had last seen the boys riding their bikes around 6:00 PM; and (2) I called the police to report Christopher missing around 8:08 PM. Simply put, I did not and Dana Moore did not even think the boys were missing at 6:00 PM or 6:30 PM. At 6:00 PM I was in the West Memphis courthouse picking up my son, Ryan, who was testifying in a car wreck case. Officer Regina Meeks came over to my house to take the report after I called it in. Dana Moore, the mother of Michael Moore, saw the police car and came over to my house to report her son missing as well. As Officer Meeks was leaving, Hobbs walked up.
He also states he was in the woods searching between 6:00-6:30 with Jacoby, this is refuted by Jacoby himself. Goes on to say there were many people searching on three wheelers, on foot, bicycles etc, at 6:00:6:30. Complete and utter lies. Chris wasn't reported missing until 8:08pm, Dana just saw the boys at 6:00 so she was never under the impression anyone was missing.
I would love to hear an explanation of these inconsistencies.
KyleB, I have read, re-read, and re-re-read all of the trial transcripts, notes, depositions and everything else available on callahans. I have read every news article I could get my hands on. I have read (and participated)on every website, forum, you name it, that I could find. I have been following this case since it happened.
I am not saying or implying that the WM3 are guilty or innocent. I am looking at the basic physical evidence of the crime and asking, could this new scenario (Hobbs, Jacoby either together or with Hollingsworth and Lucas) fit ?
Please stop attacking. Read my words, do not ASSume what I mean, or what I know.
Is the "He" you are referring to Terry Hobbs? I doubt we will ever hear the reason they can't get their stories straight, not after all this time. They will stick to "It was so long ago..."
One thing I found was that during his 2007 police interview, Jacoby claimed he saw footprints and bicycle tracks in the woods, and he claims he told the police officer who was searching with them. Keep in mind Jacoby only searched the woods the night of the 5th.
According to police testimony in the Echols/Baldwin trial, Officer John Moore was the only male police officer searching for the boys that night. The only person he saw or was with was John Mark Byers. He also said he saw no other searchers in the woods that night.
Human memory is far from flawless, particularly over the course of decades.
I read you your words, which referred to Misskelley as having only given a single confession, and suggested that is the totality of evidence against the convicted. While again, in fact there were many confessions from Misskelley and far more far more evidence against the three beyond that. Such evidence is documented at length in the Callahan archives and largely surmised at WM3 Truth, which is why I linked the latter. Yes, I assumed you simply hadn't taken time to familiarize yourself with the evidence as that came to mind as the most benign explanation for your claim that a single confession from Misskelley is the only evidence against the convicted. That said, if you care provide an alternative explanation for your flagrant misrepresentation of fact, I'll all ears.
Jessie Misskelly gave one confession. He confessed to witnessing and participating in the murders of the three boys. He gave it multiple times, and he changed his story a few times. In order to be brief, I condensed all the circumstantial evidence down to (Jessie's confession). You assumed I meant only one confession. You could have asked. There is no physical evidence linking the WM3 to the crime, so clearly I was referring to circumstantial evidence, along with the eyewitness testimony of Jessie Misskelly.
This is not a "flagrant misrepresentation of fact." IMO it is merely semantics. If you delete the (Jessie's confession), my words "If you take out the evidence of (should have read against, a grammar error) WM3, could the crime..." may be confusing, but again, there is no "flagrant misrepresentation" happening. This is a discussion forum, not a court of law. Why are you so accusatory? Chill out! We are discussing ideas, theories and our thoughts about the events and new information. No one is trying to "flagrantly misrepresent" facts about the case.
If you, in fact, do see me get a fact wrong, please simply point me in the right direction. Accusations are not necessary. Please and thank you!
That's exactly what I did, to which you snapped back with your "ASSume" argument, and now you've gone on to insist "Jessie Misskelly gave one confession" as if different statements to different people over the course of nearly a year, with a trial where he plead innocent in between, all count as one massive confession. Regardless, Misskelley's many confessions aren't circumstantial evidence, they are direct evidence, or at least the tape recorded ones are anyway. They're also the only direct evidence tying anyone to the murders, and there's an assortment of circumstantial evidence which is consistent with those confessions, which is why I pointed you in the direction of a website which summarizes the bulk of that evidence.
I agree that the human memory is far from flawless. Also 1993-2007 14 years.
TH had every right to answer indicating as such but chose not to. I can also understand if he simply mixed up a few details but that is not the case either, he has stated events that simply did not happen (reminds me of someone else) at all so to me they are imaginary and not from memory. I'm just very suspicious when I hear someone making up events sorrounding a triple homicide.
I know when I am ask about something I do not remember I reply "I do not remember".
If these discrepencies were known a week after the crime I believe this would have been big news. How convenient.
What events did Hobbs state that simply did not happen exactly?
What about when you're asked about something you misremember, or has that never happened to you?
Can you briefly list the totality of evidence, direct or circumstantial, that leads you to belief the WM3 are guilty of this crime. I'm keeping an open mind, and would like to hear what a typical WM3 Truther believes is the evidence against Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley.
As I suggested in my first post in this thread:
Granted, that's not all the evidence against the three I've seen, but it's the bulk of it and was enough to convince me that the convicted are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
By the way, I'm off to visit family for the next few days, so it's unlikely I'll be replying again before Sunday.
I'm still reading callahans. Instead of referring to another website, can you give a brief synopsis. I'd be curious to hear.
The site basically regurgitates the info on callahans, with the disclaimer that the author believes the three are guilty as hell. Not convincing at all.
Do you have a link? I'd be interested in seeing what you are talking about. TIA
Callahans, at least what I've read, provides the raw documents/information with no spin. That other site he discusses is all spin, which is fine if that's what you are looking for. Personally, I prefer a more objective approach to discussing issues.
Separate names with a comma.