[Susan]

6.)Why has Terry Hobbs still to this day not submitted to a polygraph examination?

There is absolutely no reason why he should. The case against Hobbs rests on a hair found on one of the shoelace used to tie up Michael Moore. The Damien Echols defense team had this hair tested for DNA in 2006-2007. 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

Assuming that hair came from Terry Hobbs, does this really prove he was present at the killings? Of course not. One of the three boys could have picked up that hair while inside the Hobbs home, hours or days before they entered the woods. The shoelaces used to hogtie the three victims were mixed up, so that shoelace might have belonged to Steve Branch. Michael Moore and Chris Byers frequently spent time in the Hobbs home, so having a hair from that home on their shoelaces would not be surprising. In short, that hair does not link Terry Hobbs to the murders; it simply proves that Terry Hobbs lived in the same house as his stepson.

[Susan]

7.)What physical evidence linked Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley to the scene?

The physical evidence was scarce, just as it would be in any case where the bodies had been dumped in water, in a highly trafficked area, and when some dumb officer removes the bodies from the ditch before the medical examiner arrives. But just as there is little physical evidence against the wm3, there is none against anyone else. Here is what physical evidence was held against the wm3

* All three victims had been hogtied with their own shoelaces, and the crime lab found three different kinds of knots used. This pointed toward multiple killers rather than one killer.

* Fibers found on the victims’ clothes matched clothes seized from Echols’ and Baldwin’s homes. The prosecution presented this fiber evidence at both trials. Supporters argue that those fibers came from common material found in many homes and that the fiber matches don’t really connect Echols and Baldwin to the crime scene. Frankly, I side with supporters on this one. The fiber evidence was weak.

* Blue candle wax on one victim’s shirt was similar to blue candle wax found in Damien Echols’ bedroom.

* 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.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Excellent reply, susanmarie. I'm still not convinced of their guilt, but it shows why the waters are so muddy with this case.

I still find it odd that if the case against them was so solid, why were they released after only 18 years? Why the Alford plea? Why did the court insist on the negation of its legal liability as a condition of their release? Why do even the parents of the victims (Byers included) now believe that the WM3 were innocent?

It still just doesn't add up. What would be your thoughts on that?

[Susan]

8.)How did the investigators explain the lack of blood at the scene where the victims' bodies were discovered? Why was there no consideration of the possibility that the boys were murdered elsewhere and then dumped in the woods?

I don't know why you think it was not even considered that the boys were murdered elsewhere because that is not true, it was considered. The key question was whether they were dealingn with a crime scene or a dump site. Several factors pointed to “crime scene”.

The last known sighting of the three boys alive came around 6:30 pm, headed into the woods where their bodies were later found.
Many searchers were in those woods on Wednesday night and Thursday morning. It would have been very difficult for anyone to carry three bodies to the ditch without being seen. Why take that risk rather than dump the bodies somewhere secluded? And why also bring the victims’ clothes to submerge in the same spot? (Remember, the victims were hogtied after their clothes were removed.)
Police found no tire tracks, drag marks, footprints or any other physical evidence indicating a body dump.
One victim died from his knife wounds, the other two died from drowning. Were they beaten and drowned somewhere else, then brought to the ditch for disposal? Or were they beaten unconscious somewhere else, then brought to the ditch for drowning? The far more likely scenario: the beatings, knife attacks and drownings all occurred at the same location in one continuous attack.
The one factor pointing toward dump site was the lack of visible blood on the ground near the ditch. An early WMPD case summary noted, “A crime scene search failed to locate any traces of blood or other evidence which would lead investigators to believe that the victims’ had been murdered in the area where their bodies were located.” However, police and searchers noted the ditch bank looked “slicked off”, like someone had used ditch water to clean off the area.

So a week after the murders, on May 12 and 13, investigators returned and sprayed the area with Luminol, a chemical which can reveal blood traces not visible to the naked eye.

The Luminol testing showed blood traces in eight spots. After eliminating spots created during recovery of the bodies, investigators isolated two concentrated areas of blood which “indicate activity prior to recovery of the victims and relate to activity to the victims when perhaps they were being attacked”. Luminol reports and photos.

The Luminol testing left little doubt that the killings took place in the woods very near where the bodies were found.

Even though the evidence overwhelmingly points to “crime scene”, WM3 supporters have proposed “dump site” theories over the years in order to cast doubt on the WM3′s guilt. Jessie Misskelley’s many confessions all have the WM3 killing the three boys right where the bodies were found. If the boys were killed elsewhere and the ditch was just a dump site, then Misskelley must have been lying and the prosecution’s case falls apart.

Luminol test results were not admissible in court in Arkansas in 1994. This gave defense lawyers for Misskelley, Baldwin and Echols a wedge to propose “dump site” alternative scenarios at trial. In a Luminol hearing on 3/7/94, the judge allowed defense lawyers and witnesses to mention “no blood was found at the crime scene”, but disallowed the prosecution from mentioning the blood revealed by Luminol. (WM3 supporters often argue that Judge Burnett was biased for the prosecution, but this ruling clearly favored the defense.)

Paradise Lost includes several scenes of defense representatives citing the supposed lack of blood at the crime scene or proposing “dump site” scenarios. The film never mentions the Luminol testing or the fact that blood was indeed found at the crime scene, right where Jessie Misskelley’s confessions and the prosecutions’ theory indicated it should be.

Paradise Lost 2 continues pushing the “no blood at the crime scene” misinformation and the “dump site” theory. One scene (around 0:48:00) shows Dan Stidham and Brent Turvey (a freelance “criminal profiler” who had joined the pro-WM3 movement) walking through the (now dry) ditch where the bodies were found. Turvey smugly laughs off the idea that the killers could have washed away blood by splashing ditch water. “There would have been so much more blood than that . . . This is only a disposal site.” Turvey offers no reasoning or evidence, just assertion and chuckles. The film makes no attempt to address the evidence against the “dump site” theory.

It’s understandable that defense lawyers took advantage of the judge’s ruling to push the “no blood at the crime scene” misinformation and “dump site” theories. It’s a defense lawyer’s job to generate reasonable doubt. But for the Paradise Lost filmmakers to do so is willfully deceptive.

[Susan]

9.)How have you become so knowledgeable regarding this case?


Maybe, just maybe, I work on one of the main website regarding this case, I won't say which one.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

And regarding the physical evidence:

1.)The blood on Echols' necklace was just as inconclusive a sample as the blood on Byers' knife. So how can Byers be cleared on one hand, and Echols convicted in the other? Byers' innocence was presumed to the point of zero investigation, but Echols' wasn't despite his constitutional rights as a defendant? Very much a double-standard.

2.)The simple fact that there were three victims points to multiple killers. Three different knots suggests AT LEAST three killers, but it could just as easily have been more. Why did it mean that it HAD to be the three suspects in custody? Again, no presumption of innocence.

3.)Wouldn't candle wax be just as common as fibers? Also weak evidence there.

The point I'm driving at: even if they did in fact do it, the case was so weak that it never should have been brought to trial; let alone resulted in conviction. Misskelley's confessions are all they really had to go on, and he could have just as easily been pissed at Echols and Baldwin for simply being implicated in the case regardless of whether or not any of the three of them were involved. The fact that he's mentally deficient and made his initial statements in the absence of legal counsel and with very little (if any) understanding of his rights should have rendered those statements inadmissible.

Basically, the WM3 weren't named as suspects based on the merits of the investigation; they were named as suspects because of community hysteria and public pressure.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

And if that's how you became so familiar with the case, you should name it. It can only help your argument. I, for one, am curious to know.

[Susan]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

Excellent reply, susanmarie. I'm still not convinced of their guilt, but it shows why the waters are so muddy with this case.

I still find it odd that if the case against them was so solid, why were they released after only 18 years? Why the Alford plea? Why did the court insist on the negation of its legal liability as a condition of their release? Why do even the parents of the victims (Byers included) now believe that the WM3 were innocent?

It still just doesn't add up. What would be your thoughts on that?

I honestly believe that the reason Mark Byers suddenly changed his mind after 10 years and now says he believes Terry Hobbs is the murderer is because he simply wants to stay in the limelight. Even when everyone was saying he was the murderer, he didnt really give a crap, as long as all the attention was on him. As for the Alford Plea and release, theres a lot of reasons for that. One of Damien Echols' attorneys approached his old law school buddy, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, about the idea of an Alford Plea in the summer of 2011. An Alford Plea allows a person to plead guilty, while claming innocence. McDaniel sent Echols' attorneys to prosecutor Scott Ellington. Ellington had been on the job less than one year when he made the call to release the WM3. In a panel discussion about the case just days after the release of the WM3, Ellington publicly admitted he did not read the entire West Memphis police case file before letting the WM3 out of prison. Ellington was, most likely, misled by slick WM3 attorneys into believing real evidence of innocence existed when it didn’t. Ellington likely thought this case would "go away" if he let the WM3 out of prison in exchange for guilty pleas.As part of the Alford Plea, the WM3 had to agree not to sue the state of Arkansas for wrongful conviction. Some have speculated that the State of Arkansas freed the WM3 for fear the WM3 might sue for millions if they were exonerated in a second jury trail. But the fact is, Arkansas is one of 23 states that does not have a statute allowing exonerated people to sue for wrongful conviction. The WM3 defense team is believed to have sent prosecutor Ellington all of the evidence that they would have presented at the 2011 evidentiary hearing. Plus, they have sent him additional “evidence” gathered by movie makers during the making of Damien Echols’ movie West of Memphis. If this evidence hasn't been sufficient for Ellington to re-open the case and prosecute Terry Hobbs, why does anyone think the "new evidence" would have been enough to win them a new trial? The evidence was insufficient to win a new trial, the defense knew it, and that's why they approached Ellington with the Alford Plea. The state of Arkansas denied justice for both the West Memphis Three and the three eight-year-old victims by allowing a new prosecutor and a bunch of defense attorneys to decide the outcome of this case. If the WM3 are indeed innocent, they now have to live as convicted murderers and felons the rest of their lives. More likely, the state of Arkansas released three child killers to walk among us in a failed effort to get rid of a complicated, expensive, politically unpopular, and time consuming case.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

And I'll admit I wasn't aware of the Luminol evidence until now.

[Susan]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

And regarding the physical evidence:

1.)The blood on Echols' necklace was just as inconclusive a sample as the blood on Byers' knife. So how can Byers be cleared on one hand, and Echols convicted in the other? Byers' innocence was presumed to the point of zero investigation, but Echols' wasn't despite his constitutional rights as a defendant? Very much a double-standard.

2.)The simple fact that there were three victims points to multiple killers. Three different knots suggests AT LEAST three killers, but it could just as easily have been more. Why did it mean that it HAD to be the three suspects in custody? Again, no presumption of innocence.

3.)Wouldn't candle wax be just as common as fibers? Also weak evidence there.

The point I'm driving at: even if they did in fact do it, the case was so weak that it never should have been brought to trial; let alone resulted in conviction. Misskelley's confessions are all they really had to go on, and he could have just as easily been pissed at Echols and Baldwin for simply being implicated in the case regardless of whether or not any of the three of them were involved. The fact that he's mentally deficient and made his initial statements in the absence of legal counsel and with very little (if any) understanding of his rights should have rendered those statements inadmissible.

Basically, the WM3 weren't named as suspects based on the merits of the investigation; they were named as suspects because of community hysteria and public pressure.

The reason Byers was excluded was because he had a clad iron alibi, it wasn't to do with any of the physical evidence, which was weak like i said. The three different knots only went to back up the fact that the wm3 were the killers, they weren't arrested based on this evidence. And yes candle wax is weak evidence, like i said. Jessie Misskelley is not mentally deficient. You really need to read up on this case. I don't mean to be rude but everything you're saying is just what is passed around by supporters.