New Evidence

Pam has a whole different interpretation for those pictures that were posted on that blog, not to mention that she didn't give permission for them to be posted. She went on that outing for the sake of her grandchildren, to protect them. She said that she spent most of the time in the car. The pictures were for the grand kids (and Amanda). They were not made to be published on the Internet.

What proof is there that the killer was in the woods before the boys arrived? The killer could have arrived in the woods after the boys did just as easily. It's also possible that the killer followed the boys into the woods.

Michael told a friend at school on May 5, 1993, that he was going to his "secret hideout" after school. If the boys went into the woods, the logical assumption is that the "hideout" is in the woods. So, IMO, it is more logical to believe that the boys were there first.
 
Also strikes me as strange that Pam would be hanging out, in ANY way shape or form, with a man she professes to believe killed her son. Not to mention the incident with her brother.

But then, I have never really understood Pam Hobbs. I do wish her nothing but the best, though.
 
speaking of the manhole area (pr posts on the topic on page 1 of this thread) - does anyone know if the manhole was searched? was it tested with luminol? i know that the luminol testing done on the edges, side and bottom of ditch did show blood, but results were excluded from trial (so much for the judge who only favored the prosecution, haha). and of course, even tho tents and such were erected, it wasn't as dark as it needed to be to get more accurate luminol readings - but - it should have been plenty dark in the manhole, no?
 
The luminol wasn't admissable because the prosecution didn't follow it up with blood specific chemicals. On its own luminol is never admissable as evidence because its only a presumptive test.

Its always intrigued me that the police didn't take samples from the spots which reacted to luminol and test them for blood. Instead they sent samples to the lab and tested them again with luminol!!? One of the weirder things about this case, and even weirder that the defense didn't order those tests either.

Sorry, I don't know anything about the manholes.
 
I know that there was a blurb in a newspaper, The Commercial Appeal I believe, about two weeks after the crime, IIRC, that reported that the police were searching the drainage system. We never heard any results from that search to my knowledge. We don't even know what manholes were searched. In short, we really don't know what they searched because it was just a blurb in the paper with no details. I wish I knew where to direct you to it. If I can find it, I'll post a link.
 
I was pretty sure they're guilty until I began researching more....not so sure anymore and I keep reading....

I found this on a blog that is definitely a WM3 guilty site and I wanna know if this is true or not

* Police took a necklace from Echols when he was arrested. An outside crime lab later found blood from two distinct DNA sources on the necklace. One source was consistent with Echols himself. The second source was consistent with both victim Steven Branch and co-defendant Jason Baldwin.

thanks in advance
 
Yes, that's true, although that site seems to have left out two pieces of relevant information. Firstly, the blood speck was consistent with 11% of the population, including both Stevie Branch and Jason Baldwin. Second, that the necklace actually belonged to Jason Baldwin, so it would hardly be earth shattering to find a speck of his blood on it.
 
I looked everywhere for evidence that incriminates them (PHYSICAL evidence cause their characters and statements are something else,I still find them creepy and untruthful ) and that blood spot was the only thing I found..So there is no physical evidence that links them to the crime scene.

Re them being released based on Terry Hobbs's DNA/hairs found on that shoelace....dunno,he lived in the same house with the victim,what's the big deal about that,it could have a totally innocent explanation.I find Jacoby's DNA on the scene suspicious though.
 
They weren't released because of the hair on the shoe lace. As to the significance of any of the DNA at the crime scene, everybody has different opinions on that. The important thing is that none of it belonged to the wm3.
 
I saw on Terry Hobbs's site that Amanda had been in jail? Does anyone know what she was charged with? I feel for her growing up around all that she has. I hope she can get her life together.
 
I saw on Terry Hobbs's site that Amanda had been in jail? Does anyone know what she was charged with?

Yes, I know what she was charged with.

I feel for her growing up around all that she has. I hope she can get her life together.

So do I. Respecting her right to privacy would be a big part of helping her get her life together.
 
O k, I thought when this case came out that the WM3 were guilty. Why? Because of DE behavior. No other reason. So he acted like a Jerk (IMO) and convicted everyone. That doesn't mean they were guilty. There was no evidence against anyone. But still all these years he has persisted in his arrogant and self righteous behavior. It has done him no good. I don't know who committed this murder. All I know is that DE acts like a guilty and proud of it, suspect. I don't know who did this crime but DE is his own worst enemy. MOO
 
The main reason I don't really trust the DNA evidence in this case (which points to Hobbs and Jacoby) is because ,like in so many other cases,it's used by the defence in order to spin.

IIRC
hair found on one of the shoelace

That DNA testing narrowed the possible sources of that hair to about 1.5% of the population, which included Terry Hobbs and excluded Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley.


hair taken from a tree stump

That DNA test (see Exhibit BB) narrowed the possible sources of that hair to about 7% of the population, which included Hobbs’ friend David Jacoby and excluded Hobbs, Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley



Not in a million years could you charge someone based on such weak DNA evidence....this was used only to take the heat a bit off the WM3
 
I am on the fence and trying to understand everything better but I still believe some stuff points to the WM3 being guilty.

-Misskelley correctly identified which boy had been cut on his face , which boy had been cut on his groin and which boy had not been cut at all .How did he know, the victim’s injuries had not been made public.
-the other confessions (DE for ex) was it just bragging?(maybe,he seems like the type)
-their alibis aren't solid



Yep,the fact that there is no physical evidence that links them to the crime scene is huge but that doesn't necessarily mean they're innocent.There is no evidence to link someone ELSE either.


IMO this was a local crime,it wasn't a trespasser...IMo it was either the WM3 or one of the relatives.I was thinking of Byers but he had a pretty solid alibi.Will read more about Terry's.
 
Yes, I know what she was charged with.



So do I. Respecting her right to privacy would be a big part of helping her get her life together.

Yikes sorry for asking. If privacy is such a huge concern for her maybe she ought to tell her Dad not to post it allover his blog.
 
What I read about TH today made me sick to my stomach....and this never happened to me before when following a murder case....I can't even watch his deposition...dunno what it is about this man that scares me and freakes me out like this.....
When I began reading about him(I was interested in his alibi/timeline,which makes no sense btw,something is wrong with it) I thought he was just used by DE's defence team as a scapegoat....(many anti TH boards stopped their activity after the WM3 were released,WHY??) BUT.....if the wm3 were considered good suspects he should be considered a very good one too.His alibi stinks,his timeline is very confusing,he changes his story so many times.And even if the DNA evidence that places him at the scene is very weak if you add it to his violent history,the relationship he had with Steven,his alibi (?),timeline,etc....I think the cops didn't investigate him enough.....
 
It's a pity that the wm3 accepted the plea (IF they're innocent)....I understand WHY they did it but at the same time it makes it harder (if not impossible) to charge the real killer/killers....and this is sad...not only did they spend so much time in prison but it was for nothing....:(

If this crime was indeed committed by TH because he wanted to teach the boys a lesson then it's the most sickest lesson I ever heard of....I still can't get why they were hogtied.....that's so SICK....it's easier to think that some rebellious teenagers did it than to believe a parent is able to do something like this because a kid disobeyed him...that's the problem with this case....every person involved has a dark secret,the entire community just seems......WEIRD (sorry,no offense.....)....


anyway,let's hope that the truth will come out someday even if it's more horrible than some of us thought....
 
...that's the problem with this case....every person involved has a dark secret,the entire community just seems......WEIRD (sorry,no offense.....)....

You are DEFINITELY not alone in your thoughts there. I think it is a normal reaction.
 
Yikes sorry for asking. If privacy is such a huge concern for her maybe she ought to tell her Dad not to post it allover his blog.

True.

madeliene said:
..every person involved has a dark secret,the entire community just seems......WEIRD (sorry,no offense.....)....

Also true. You should look at the alternative suspect section of the Jivepuppi site - the whole town seems to be brimming with suspicious characters.
 
It's a pity that the wm3 accepted the plea (IF they're innocent)....I understand WHY they did it but at the same time it makes it harder (if not impossible) to charge the real killer/killers....and this is sad...not only did they spend so much time in prison but it was for nothing....:(

If this crime was indeed committed by TH because he wanted to teach the boys a lesson then it's the most sickest lesson I ever heard of....I still can't get why they were hogtied.....that's so SICK....it's easier to think that some rebellious teenagers did it than to believe a parent is able to do something like this because a kid disobeyed him...that's the problem with this case....every person involved has a dark secret,the entire community just seems......WEIRD (sorry,no offense.....)....


anyway,let's hope that the truth will come out someday even if it's more horrible than some of us thought....

I don't think it happened quite that way, as in, it was premeditated on TH's part. I think he was plenty pi$$ed at Stevie. I also think he was indeed jealous of Stevie which had been brewing barely under the surface for years. IMO, TH is a major narcissist as is evidenced in the Pasdar deposition. Narcissists harbor a deep seated insecurity and a grandiose sense of entitlement. They need and demand constant praise and admiration. TH felt Pam was not giving him sufficient attention and actually saw Stevie as his rival for Pam's time and affection. TH never wanted Stevie to like him. Neither did he ever have an ounce of empathy for Stevie when he was alive or after his death. The same can be said for how he treated Pam. TH only wanted Stevie to fear, obey and admire him. The problem was, Stevie did not and that infuriated TH. When you research TH you will find extreme self-absorption, completely lack of empathy and insensitivity that has resulted in a trail of victims and emotional wreckage left in his wake. That is a key element in each of the three levels of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Of the three, I believe TH is between 2 and 3 which are Malignant Narcissist and Psychopath.
All that said, (sorry), IMO, TH lost it on Stevie that May afternoon. He couldn't get the fear and reverence he felt his bluster deserved and he lost control. In my mind, I can see him killing Stevie in a fit of rage. I think he probably hit him too hard and did greater damage to the boy than he'd intended. Having realized what he had done, I think he may have then turned on the Michael and Christopher to eliminated his witnesses. Of course, the boys would have been terrified but being little felt they were at the mercy of a parent.
Just my opinion, but in my theory, I think he probably put their bodies in the pool out back. They had stopped using the in-ground concrete pool when it developed a leak, iirc. Pam said they had used it as a dump of sorts for unwanted furniture, garbage, etc. It may have been there that the boys drowned in collected rain water. The concrete of the pool could account for the "road rash" appearance on the boy's bodies. When TH left Amanda at DJ's house, I think he retrieved the bodies from the pool and under the cover of darkness, wrapped the boys in sheets or blankets from the house and took them to the dump site. He then returned to retrieve Amanda and clean up the mess in the house and do the laundry before picking Pam up at the end of her shift. JMHO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
1,840
Total visitors
2,043

Forum statistics

Threads
589,949
Messages
17,928,071
Members
228,012
Latest member
cbisme
Back
Top