Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by missy_g, Nov 7, 2017.
I know Opperman is a huge guilter when it comes to the WM3. He has had Terry Hobbs on his show.
Right, and Ruff is an admitted supporter of all the WM3 and who had Echols on his show. Just saying.
When did he have Echols on his show? I must have missed that.
The point of Opperman still stands; Opperman had Terry on his show despite the fact that Terry's criminal history easily eclipses Damian (did he ask Terry about Mildred French?)
Damian's worst crimes (the dog) were either never proven or are urban legend. Hobbs attempted to rape someone and ADMITTED IT. How Nons can ignore that is beyond me. If I had to chose between the two I'm going with Terry.
I would have one or two points for Mr. Ruff concerning podcast 507 if anyone is interested in conveying them. (I'm also a non-FB member)
Firstly, he states that J. Ballard saw Steven on "a" bike and subsequently carries on to think it was Stevens bike (by asking where was Michael's bike at the time). Of course it could also have been Michael's bike Steven was riding on. My own speculation is that if Steven was at home after TH came back from taking PH to work, he would have probably "grounded" Steven as threatened by PH, and taken his bike away from him.
Secondly, the fact that PH states that Christopher first started coming over and playing with Steven "a couple of weeks before they were murdered" (Dimension interview) strengthens the Ballard /Moyer affidavits in the following way:
As the Ballards only went to Church classes on a Wednesday (at least that is what JB states), this narrows the occasions as to when this could have happened down to 2, 3 or at the most 4 alternative dates. Putting all the things together, the boys playing in the backyard, the conversation with Christopher, the picking up by friends, the limited times this could have happened, and the fact that the boys were murdered after this incident, this all makes for a very strong sighting IMO.
Great stuff that Mr. Ruff pointed out the connection between Britt Smith, Ryan and Jamie Ballard. I remember this being discussed on another board. As he says, if the canvassing had taken place on a much widespread area, the sightings might have told a completely different story. I really do hope he can follow up on the Ballards.
He hasn't aired the episode, but he sat down with Echols and interviewed him -- he clearly states this.
I was sad he once again didn't bring up the Cindy Rico sighting in his last episode (508 -- which was very good, but nevertheless). I don't understand why.
I do like how he doesn't think the JCB sighting is credible. He has to move it up to like 4:15 in order for it to make sense, but even then, it still doesn't make sense. Ruff (rightly) believes the 4 other sightings that have always contradicted the JCB sighting are more credible, which place the boys at the complete other end of the neighborhood (Goodwin entrance) at the same time that JCB places TH as being the last to see them at 6/6:30.
The evidence against the three is still laughably weak. Other than Narlene no one places Damian or the others in the woods. Also Terry Hobbs claims he was in the area searching; he would have seen something if they were there. Even if he didn't see the boys when JCB said she could have its still logical to put Terry higher on the list (Especially given his lack of an alibi for large chunks of time)
Terry Hobbs being a bad man and the WM3 being guilty of the crime they were convicted of are not mutually exclusive, you understand that, right?
In addition to Cindy Rico sighting, could you tell Bob Ruff on his Facebook page that moving the JCB sighting to 4:15 is problematic in the sense that, if TH had just encountered the boys at that time (before driving PH to work), why would he and PH then drive up past the Moore's house to look for him twenty minutes later? PH would have still been at home. TH obviously would have told PH before driving her, "Hey, I just saw the boys outside." My point is, she would have known about the encounter between the boys and TH, if it occurred -- but she has never once mentioned such an encounter occurring that day. Ruff should just dismiss the JCB sighting all together, as opposed to trying to make a round peg fit into a square hole. She's either lying or she saw the boys a week(s) before the actual day of May the 5th. He asked for listeners to find holes, and that's one that I can think of.
Perhaps symptomatic for the whole approach to this case. Garry Gitchell and the wmpd approached it in this way, Fogelman / Davis and LE approached it in this way. Let's just say "Mr Echols did it in the library with a candlestick (with a Blue candle in it of course).
Why "nons" (and fencies) are so worried about this sighting that they spend hours and hours trying to talk it away, I do not know. If it's true, what does it change ? That TH lied ? TH appears to be a notorious liar anyway. What makes it so difficult to deal with notorious liars is that you never know when they are telling the truth. So he did see the three boys on this day, does that mean he's guilty ? Of course not. It doesn't make a lot of difference because there are many other things that point towards him. If the JCB sighting turns out to be false does that mean he's out of the race ? No. A parent who refuses to take a polygraph (for what it's worth), who refuses to supply DNA, foot- or handprints, who doesn't help in every way possible to clear up the murder of three 8 year old boys, will always leave peoples mind in doubt.
The JCB sighting is just another piece of the puzzle. It won't go away if you ignore it.
Um, what? Not that it even matters in the first place one way or the other, but it's supporters that tout this sighting much more frequently than nons/fencies do to support their belief that TH is guilty. Nice try though.
I think the most astounding thing to me about supporters, is that they completely disregard all the evidence against the WM3 - and refute it in the most ridiculous ways, but are somehow convinced by the phantom, make believe "evidence" against TH to come to the conclusion that he did it. Mind boggling.
If the only "evidence" against the WM3 was tantamount to what they claim to have on TH, supporters would laugh it out the door. Hmm.
Listening to their newest episode, he finally addresses the Cindy Rico sighting and says the reason why he didn't bring it up was simply because he forgot about it.
Next question (Mzopinionated), does he know about Aaron H. (Vicki H's son) as possibly being the mystery boy?
The Dawn interview didn't really reveal anything other than the following:
She has the encounter of the 3 boys who "asked her if she wanted a shot" occurring at 5 pm; not 6 pm. Also, she has no recollection of her mom sending her after the 3 victims at 6 pm.
She mentions that her and her mother actually went to TH's house while looking for MM, before going out to eat around 8 pm. While at TH's house, she says TH was there (at the house) and that him and her mother talked at the front door while she waited in the car. TH's whereabouts are a hot issue around here, so I thought this was noteworthy. She doesn't recall the exact time, but did say it was before they went out to eat at Crystal's. This is also strange because, Dana had always claimed that she had cooked dinner that day, and sent Dawn to get MM to eat -- but Dawn says she doesn't think that happened, and she specifically remembers eating out with her mother that night after searching for the boys (unsuccessfully).
When nons downplay it and rely on confessions that are so blatantly inconsistent it's not funny than yes it matters.
Jessie's Confessions get even basic facts wrong, and Damian had no bug bites, physical injuries etc even though having been supposedly shirtless he would have had it. His fists had no injuries consistent with having punched someone.
Another issue is that **** like the dog was never proven outside of a few whispers that were never really followed on. It's a pathetic attempt to bolster a case that is nonexistent
Didnt reveal anything? The fact that Todd and Dana were abusive alcoholics that lied about the majority of their testimony wasnt revealing? If what she stated in that interview had any truth to it (and what benefit would she get from lying) then everyone has been fed a completely false narrative for the last 25 years.
It also lends credence to the theory that the boys were all wanting to run away. I never fully believed that theory because I never understood why a 8 year old boy from a happy family would attempt to run away. But if all 3 boys were being abused at home it makes much more sense.
Ill admit that Ive waffled on the WM3 guilt/innocence, but after what Ive listened to from the T&J guys Ill eat my hat if Terry Hobbs isnt involved. If the manhole hideout the boys had existed Hobbs couldve easily subdued the three if he found them there. I dont think he went there intending to kill the boys, but I think his volatile temper (and thats been well documented over the years) caused him to snap. I think he hit Stevie harder than he intended and probably knocked him unconscious. At that point he panics because the other two are witnesses and he isnt going to let them talk. The whole thing snowballed from there.
The absolute incompetence from the WMPD was astounding. You always investigate the family first in these cases. Especially when youve got a highly violent stepfather with no legitimate alibi. Instead they listened that hack of a probation officer that wouldnt know a satanic cult from a cheeseburger.
The saddest part is that the boys will never get justice with the Alford Plea. We'll all just have to wait for the Terry Hobbs deathbed confession, even though he already confessed multiple times.
Confessed multiple times ??? I think you're talking about someone who was convicted of this crime.
Considering he referred to it as the Hobbs family secret, he had to have told someoneAnyways theres something in that Dawn Moore interview that I cant wrap my head around. Why did Dana lie multiple times under oath? For the last 25 years it was said that Dana was one of the witnesses that saw Michael and Stevie ride off on their bikes. But PH was quoted twice saying that MM told her my moms not home yet but she will be in 5 minutes. Why did Dana say she was home when apparently she wasnt? And what kind of mother loads their daughter up and goes to supper when, by that time, its apparent all three boys are missing?
Yes I agree with you! I also found the Dawn Moore interview to be one of the more thought provoking ones thus far.
And not to mention the findings of the turtles! How incredible was that to hear they pushed the flesh back with their claws when feeding on it. This explains the cuts that appear on the boys. It also explains why Stevie had more than Michael based on the location of the bodies in relation to up vs down stream.
I give a ton of credit to T&J and their dedication to uncovering what really happened to these boys.
I havent made my mind up on who exactly was involved but I do know I am beyond 100% convinced that the 3 accused are in fact completely innocent.
Im also leaning strongly towards the perp being someone who was well known to all 3 boys, otherwise whats the point in killing all of them? To keep a secret.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, no, it wasn't. At least with regard to this particular day (May 5th) and this particular murder. All it proved was that MM's mom didn't want to admit she wasn't home that day, because she was obviously guilty about not being home, considering what would happen (we already knew TM was supposedly out trucking that entire day). It was already known that both the M's and the B's were alcoholics and that they didn't like each other. It all stemmed from when JMB had a party at his house, didn't invite the M's (for whatever reason; they would normally invite each other to parties), and some of his guests ended up parking on the M's property -- so the M's called the cops, and there was a rift ever since then. So maybe you didn't know about that, and it was enlightening to you, but it wasn't for me. The fact they were alcoholics doesn't prove anything one way or the other, and there was no specific episode that occurred that day between MM and his parents that would make him personally want to run away that day, considering (according to DM) he didn't even interact with his parents at all that day. The fact there are many years of built-up hard feelings between the daughter and her parents give me pause about whether her story is totally accurate also, if I'm being completely honest about it. Resentment (whether justifiable or not) is the reason she would lie, so to say there's no reason she would lie is a bit naive to me.
The hideout wasn't necessarily a manhole. There were manholes in the Blue Beacon Woods (and RHH, if I remember right), but they were all searched by police. There was supposedly a "club house," and the location has varied; no one really knows where it was. If you go on Cally's, you will see cops on ladders investigating makings made on trees high up -- they are investigating these marks because they were man-made, and because there was a structure high up in the trees at one point, right in the area where the boys were found. When that structure was torn down is debatable, as there was a witness (forgot who now exactly) that claimed he saw the structure up a day before the boys went missing (which would mean it was destroyed on the 5th, as it wasn't there when the boys were found); but there were other accounts that it was torn down some time (i.e. months/years) before then. This structure could have been their hideout; it's been supposed that it was either a tree-house sort of structure or a hunter's booth. But either way, no one knows exactly what their hideout was -- there were caves made by teenagers in the trails that ran west along the 76 lot also that also could have been their hideout.