Random things about this case...

Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by laurensmom, Nov 1, 2010.

  1. laurensmom

    laurensmom New Member

    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Every once in a while I'll be reading here or somewhere else and think of something I want to post, but there's really no certain place to post it. I thought this would be a good idea for random thoughts/statements/etc.

    I have a few to start off with-some thoughts-some questions. Please feel free to comment or answer if you can.

    *I had forgotten that Gitchell stated in pl2 that he had visions/dreams of Damien standing in his bedroom door. I believe he honestly thought Damien was pure evil.

    *One question I have (of many lol) is I could've swore I read somewhere a long time ago that Damien's family (mom, dad, sister) doesn't visit anymore. Does anyone know anything about this? Because even a few years after he was sentenced I know his mom still talked to him on the phone and visited in pl2. It just seems like I read it but I can't remember the exact wording or where it was that I saw it. ETA In pl2 his mom certainly didn't seem afraid of him.

    I know I'll have tons more.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. laurensmom

    laurensmom New Member

    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thank you so much! so basically he's convinced them to try and live their lives....exactly what I was looking for!!
     
  5. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know that he really feels that he let his son, Seth, down. He wanted to be a better father to Seth than his own father was to him. However, he couldn't do that in prison. I don't know what he'll do when he gets out. It's really sad.
     
  6. mendz

    mendz New Member

    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i don't think damien is going to get out. imo
     
  7. iluvmua

    iluvmua New Member

    Messages:
    6,985
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd be Shocked if he did.
     
  8. laurensmom

    laurensmom New Member

    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would be too....maybe we'll hear something tomorrow
     
  9. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have to believe that he will eventually get out. However, if you're talking about bail if an evidentiary hearing is ordered by the ASSC, I don't think so either.
     
  10. twall

    twall New Member

    Messages:
    5,011
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The shoelace that the hair found to be consistent with Hobbs was found in-has it ever been proven which victim the shoelace belonged to or if it didn't belong to them?

    Wasn't it one that was longer than what the other victims were tied with and had been cut into two pieces that was used to tie up Michael?

    If the shoestring could be proven to belong to Hobbs and his hair was found in it I think that would convict him of the crimes!

    One more thing, the state denied the defense testing of the foreign hairs found on the victims in the last round of tests.

    Is there documentation they were ever tested? If they were does it say whether they were found to be human or animal? If found to be animal hairs, was the specific species that the hairs came from identified?
     
  11. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    It's hard for me to believe that TH or anyone else can be convicted on a single hair. Not when the suspect was known to have some prior contact with the victim on whom the hair was found.

    But if evidentiary rules are as lax now as they were win 1993, who know?
     
  12. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To me, the damning hair is the other hair, Jacoby's. He stated in his deposition in the Pasdar case that he and Hobbs were playing guitars after Hobbs dropped Pam off at work but right before the boys went missing. How did that hair get to the discovery site? Even if the hair in the ligature is proven to be from a shoelace that was Stevie's (even though it was used to bind Michael), I seriously doubt that a hair attached to the shoelace of an eight year old boy would stay on the lace all day. Remember, Hobbs maintains that he did not see the boys that day (although witnesses say differently). This hair would be like the "magic bullet," doing things that defy physics. Eight year old boys tie and retie their shoes many times during the day. The shoelace simply could not have stayed on through all of these retyings. If the hair on the shoelace was picked up when the boys were with Hobbs around 6:30 pm, as the new witnesses state, how do you explain the Jacoby hair? It cannot be explained, in my opinion, unless it came from Hobbs. He picked it up when he was with Jacoby playing guitars and then it fell off him onto the tree stump at some point when he was at the discovery site. Even though he claimed to search off and on all night, he also claims that he was not actually at the discovery ditch. That's why I believe that, if a hair is important, the Jacoby hair is the most important. Even though I don't see how a hair could get embedded into a ligature by innocent transfer, I really don't see how the hair of someone who was never in contact with the victims could be at the scene unless it was carried there by someone who was in contact with the victims. Just my opinion.
     
  13. laurensmom

    laurensmom New Member

    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  15. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    You may be right and I certainly find the Jacoby hair very suspicious.

    But a defense attorney will argue that since Jacoby was often at the Hobbs house, a single hair of his might well remain lodged somewhere on one of the boys.

    I'd feel better if there were fingerprints or more hairs. Maybe additional testing will turn up some...
     
  16. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    This is the first I've heard of it and it makes me shudder. Shades of the Ramsey case.

    I won't be a bit surprised if it eventually turns out that DNA transfer is so easy and so common as to be almost meaningless.

    EXCEPT, if the prosecution's theory is correct and we're supposed to believe JM that the children were sexually assaulted, I would expect foreign DNA to be washed away, wouldn't you? At the very least, if I remember JM's confession correctly, we should expect the "foreign DNA" to be mixed with that of the defendants.

    Even if it doesn't lead to an intruder, this foreign DNA may disprove the sexual assault theory.

    (ETA: I wonder if the DNA has been tested against the other victims. I speak from personal experience that boys of that age do a lot of experimenting (which doesn't mean they will grow up to be gay, of course). If a parent or stepparent came upon the boys "experimenting," an overreaction of extreme rage would not be surprising. This is all entirely speculation on my part and in no way, as I see it, reflects badly on the victims.)

    (ETA #2: the discovery of foreign DNA on the genitals of a victim should put to rest the prosecution's claim that all forensic evidence was 'washed away" by submersion in water.)
     
  17. EntreNous

    EntreNous New Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    whoa!!! she sure dropped a bomb, there! it will be interesting to find out who's dna it belongs to, and i hope they have already done so. wow, that just floored me.

    thanks for sharing!
     
  18. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem is that the Jacoby hair was found on a tree stump, not with the bodies. There are more hairs, but they are animal hairs which support the defense's claim that most if not all of the wounds were caused by post mortem animal predation, not a knife.
     
  19. Roxye

    Roxye Member

    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I think if there is a retrial, the prosecution will say that the hairs where 'planted'. Lame I know, but doubt is doubt. I hope there turns out to be more evidence that links these two men to the crime scene.
     
  20. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I can hear a defense attorney arguing the location of the hair merely proves Jacoby was in the woods at some time, something Jacoby has already admitted. Is that what you mean by "the problem"?

    Because if you mean the tree stump location is somehow more incriminating, I don't get it.
     
  21. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I'm not sure when the hairs were collected? Does anyone know?

    It doesn't seem they were tested until years after the fact, but if they were collected the day the bodies were found, then it will be harder to convince a jury that they were planted, I would think.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice