Fact: The fiber evidence is far from conclusive. That evidence was "microscopically similar" to items in the defendants' homes. The prosecution even admitted to the parents/step parents that the evidence was weak, and Lisa Savekicius (sp?) said the same thing. Further testing, which the State is not wanting
performed, could shed additional light on this subject
14 Q. Will you please state you name and occupation?
15 A. Lisa Sakevicius and I'm a criminalist at the Arkansas State
16 Crime Lab.
17 Q. What education, experience and training have you had to
18 qualify you as a criminalist at the Crime Lab?
19 A. I have a degree in chemistry from the University of Central
20 Arkansas. I worked as a chemist for a year at the Arkansas
21 Plant Board where I learned to use several instruments. Then I
22 started working at the lab about five and a half years ago.
23 I have been to the accelerant detection course from the
24 FBI. I've had polarized light microscopy courses from the
25 McKrohn Institute and manmade fiber identifications from McKrohn
1 Institute. I've had a hair comparison course from the
2 Association of Forensic Sciences in Selma, Alabama. I have
3 been to various workshops involving trace evidence.
1 Q. Just so we're real clear on all this, on the Cub Scout cap,
2 which is State's Exhibit 8, you found a fiber microscopically
3 similar to the fibers in State's Exhibit 85 which is a shirt
4 from Damien Echols' residence?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And then you found a fiber on the white polka-dot shirt,
7 State's Exhibit 44, which was consistent with the fiber from the
8 red housecoat from Jason Baldwin's house?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. And then you found a green polyester fiber on the pair of
11 blue pants labeled State's Exhibit 45 that was microscopically
12 similar to the same shirt from Damien Echols?
13 A. Polyester and cotton.
14 Q. Two fibers. One cotton, one polyester?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. I noted the fibers were what color?
17 A. Green.
18 Q. And the shirt is blue. Explain that to me.
19 A. The color that I see under the microscope isn't necessarily
20 the overall color that it might appear to you. If I have a
21 glass of water, it appears clear but if you look at the ocean,
22 it appears blue. That's the difference in my terminology from
23 what I'm seeing.
24 Q. So what exactly are you looking at when you are looking at
25 -- when you're making a fiber comparison?
1 A. I look at both the fibers side by side in a comparison
2 microscope. I examine the color. I look at a property called
3 birefringence. I look at delustrants.
4 I take them to another instrument called a
5 microspectrophotometer. I examine to make sure the dyes are
6 similar. I take them if they are synthetic to another
7 instrument called a fourier transform infrared microscope and
8 examine them there to make sure the polymers are the same.
9 Q. So it is not just a matter of looking at them under the
10 microscope and saying they are similar?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. In regard to the fiber on the housecoat or fibers in the
13 housecoat that match the housecoat from Jason Baldwin's house
14 and the fiber found on Exhibit 44, which was the black and white
15 shirt, is that a common type fiber that you see in the lab?
16 A. I don't see it as often as I do a lot of the other types.
17 CROSS EXAMINATION
18 BY MR. STIDHAM:
19 Q. Can you tell the jury what microscopically similar means?
20 A. That I cannot distinguish the two. They look the same to
21 me.
22 Q. Does that mean it is a definite match or just similar?
23 A. That means there are no distinguishable differences between
24 the two fibers.
The fiber evidence was not only "microscopically similar, but also:
Ford: Tell me, what kind of microspectometer you have?
Sakevicius: Microspectrophotometer?
Ford: Yeah that.
Sakevicius: Its a Zise QAMS-50
Ford: Ok, and how old is it?
Sakevicius: Its about two years old.
Ford: Is it important, is it important that when you run graphs for these fibers, that the lines be parallel in order to say that theyre a match?
Sakevicius: They need to follow the same general curves and have the same peak and valleys.
Ford: Have the same peak and valleys and follow -- And so if they intersect, theyre not following the same track with the same peaks and valleys because if they do, they wont intersect, is that right?
Sakevicius: You can get two fibers from a known source to intersect.
Ford: Thats not my question. When youre comparing them, if they follow the same parallel course, theyre not gonna intersect, are they?
Sakevicius: They shouldnt.
Ford: Ok. All of these graphs intersect, dont they?
Sakevicius: Yes.
Ford: Your graphs, Charlies graphs, they all intersect?
Sakevicius: Even the graphs of the known fibers intersect. You have to take into account the entire graph, the end points are not as important.
Ford: Ok. Let me see if you would agree with me on this. That lets assume Mr. Linch is a qualified, competent fiber analyst. And youre a qualified, competent fiber analyst. And yall look at the same things and disagree. Doesnt that really leave us with the bottom line that these really dont mean that much at all?
Sakevicius: I cant place the meaning on this, thats not my job.
Ford: Thank you. Pass the witness.
Fogleman: I dont have any further questions.
The Court: Thank you Lisa, youre free to go.
No, CR, THAT ^^^ is fact. By the way, Linda's techniques are still believed to be very reliable in fiber analyses...and are still used today. Sure, there have been small advancements, BUT there's been no paradigm shift that invalidates Sakevicius' findings.
Fact: There has not been one piece of physical evidence in this crime that has been conclusively linked to the young men in prison. The hairs that have been tested further exclude the WM3 as their source. Again, further testing of those and other hairs, which the State is not wanting performed, could shed additional light on this subject as well.
Hairs hairs everywhere, but only a few have been tested. So what that they exclude Damien and his minions. Not surprising. Considering that this was the local beer-drinking hangout for a lot of teens in that area, there's gonna be hair there. Lots of hair.
But let's put the true fact foward. Very little hair evidence has been tested. When it is, indeed, tested (I'm welcoming the hearing, by the way... will open lots of doors. Wonder if Domini will fly in to provide a control sample for that red hair that was found on the bank.) the WM3 and their supporters might find that they've bitten off more than they can chew.
The two hairs that have been tested were tested only for mitochondrial DNA, because no root was present. The newer testing could reveal more here, too. Even with the previous limited testing (2007), the WM3 were excluded as the source for these hairs.
Egads, those same techniques could be used to test the bloody shirt and the Damien pendant... but those somehow got left off of defense's list for testing.
As to the case against TH, since his unsuccessful attempt to sue Natalie Maines Pasdar and the Dixie Chicks, their attorneys did what the WMPD did not (or would not) do; they investigated TH. The Pasdar documents reveal a lot about Mr. Hobbs that we did not previously know. Mildred French, a former neighbor, revealed, for instance, that she reported to the police that TH was beating his wife (first wife, not Pam) and child (biological son), and for her trouble, she reports that TH broke into her home and sexually assaulted her. There is more, but, IMO, that incident shows a propensity to violence that would be circumstantial evidence to prove that TH was capable of the murders.
Yes, I've got to give you supporters credit. You've assisted in the destruction of JMB's life... some thing that Pam committed suicide because of all the suspicion. And now you won't let up until you've tormented Terry to his grave. Very commendable of you...torturing the family members of dead children.
Shifting gears though...
You've left fact, now. Because there's no criminal case against Terry Hobbs in re the murders of Steve, Mike, and Chris. He's just the next convenient target, after your previous target jumped on the Depp Vedder Chick Bandwagon. And from what he himself has said, he has been rewarded nicely, this paragon of virtue.
There's more circumstantial evidence against TH that has surfaced since 1993, also. He left Pam shortly after the murders. He shot Pam's brother (who later died of complications of this gunshot wound) when he (Pam's brother) and Pam's father tried to defend her against his (Terry's) abuse.
Circumstantial evidence to what? That Terri didn't get along with Pam and her family and he was especially angry that night because Pam's sister barged in and planted drugs in his bedroom? By the way it's still up in the air as to whether he shot Pam's brother-in-law in self defense. And he only did small jail time for the charge of aggravated asault. A lot of families go through utter turmoil after the loss of a child in such a henious way. So I'd guess that we could mark up the divorce of Terry and Pam and he turmoil in their house, the death of JMB's wife, and other travesties to the boys in the steel hood.
Statistics indicate that in approximately 61% of the child murders, the guilty party is a parent, step parent or friend of the family. TH fits that profile. The WM3 do not. There are also declarations and depositions from members of Pam's family that speak to Terry's abusive nature against Stevie.
Terry Terry Terry. If one family member won't fit when you try to throw him under the bus, you just move on to the next.
Then there are the hairs. They are physical evidence against whomever the source is, and that source has a strong probability of being TH, who refused to give a full DNA sample at the time (2007). That certainly raises red flags with me.
That's your opinion. And, by the way, Terri freely gave bio samples back a the time of the investigation. I'd laugh my *advertiser censored* off if the cig that is being used for the control sample actually belongs to someone other than Terry.
IMO, this list is stronger than the information against the WM3. All the State has against the WM3 is statements by a mentally-challenged teen who was questioned without an attorney (or even his parents) present, some fibers that are "microscopically similar" to some articles found in some of the defendants' homes (and which would be "microscopically similar" to many items in the local Wal-mart as well) and the "expert" testimony of Dale Griffis (who got his PhD from a now-defunct diploma mill) stating that the murders had "occult trappings." The "Satanic panic" is over, so, even if Griffis were a real expert, this information is no longer viable in this case.
You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how fictional its basis.
So, at this point in time, as the defense prepares for the evidentiary hearings ordered by unanimous decision of the Arkansas State Supreme Court, what do recent events tell us? IMO, recent events tell us the following:
1) No physical evidence has been found to conclusively link any of the WM3 to the crime.
No, there's lots of evidence... it just hasn't been tested yet. But it will be, and it will be presented at the ev hearing. Like I said before, we supporters of the children welcome a new hearing. We welcome the outcome. But I bet that you who support the perps will never be happy, no matter the outcome.
2) The State is arguing against any further testing of any physical evidence (although they did conduct further testing on their own and in secret, but have not revealed the results of that testing).
At present? Really? Link to a verifiable source, not some silly blackboard forum.
3) Quite a bit of circumstantial evidence has surfaced that casts suspicion on Terry Hobbs as the perpetrator of these murders. Unlike JMB, he has not been cooperative in supplying explanations/DNA to prove his innocence.
A hair fragment ,embedded in a shoe lace that most likely was stripped from his son's shoe, that may or may not be Terri Hobbs' hair. That's "quite a bit," huh. And, again, he gave DNA 17 years ago. He has no obligation to jump through defense hoops.
This is where the case stands now. Usually, a guilty defendant, when asked about further DNA testing, is opposed to such testing. Damien especially (and the other two as well) is adamant about testing anything and everything that can be tested. Terry Hobbs does not want to supply a DNA sample (or submit to a polygraph, but that is beside the point since they are inadmissible). The State is backing their heels about further testing. And, our dear friend Senator (formerly Judge) Burnett has introduced a new bill in the Arkansas State Senate that would make it easier to convict based on a confession alone, with no evidence. What do these things tell you?
You must not know much about the Innocence Project. The woman who runs the project receives requests every day from people about whom there is no doubt of guilt. They lie. They beg. They cry. Even though she knows that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that they'll ever be free again,
she still tests them. And they finish their sentences as lonely old men whose cases, in an attempt to find freedom, were confirmed by science.
