by Compassionate Reader » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:33 pm
decepta scott,
Yes, I joined this site, at the request of another WM3 supporter, just to discuss this case. In fact, I joined primarily to refute the supposed "facts" that you originally posted. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it is the truth.
However, I don't appreciate being misquoted. I think you need to get your facts straight. I said that my HUSBAND bought "The Satanic Bible" but I never said that I read it, and this was YEARS AGO, in the late 1960's when we were in college. Also, I said that my SON listened to metal music. I may hear it, but I'm certainly not a fan. Again, my son began listening to heavy metal when he was eight years old, in 1983. So, neither of these things (which, in fact, were not things that I did directly) have anything to do with me being a "blind follower" of the WM3.
The Hobbs' hair, again, was NOT found in the binding of his step son, but in the binding of another victim, Michael Moore. It was found under the ligature, and the ligature used to bind Michael Moore was NOT one of the boys' shoelaces but a "foreign" lace, originally about 60" in length, which was cut in half. Innocent transfer simply will not work. This hair, if on the lace previously, would have remained there throughout the day of an active eight year old boy, whose shoes would have become untied and been retied numerous times and then the lace was pulled through the eyelets, yet the hair remains. It is simply not logical that the hair was on the lace previously.
The fiber evidence is simply not conclusive. In fact, it was recently revealed that a fiber, found in the hinge of a knife belonging to Terry Hobbs, was an EXACT MATCH (not microscopically similar) to the shoelace under which the Hobbs' hair was discovered. THAT is conclusive evidence, and it was recently turned over to Scott Ellington. Hopefully, he will do the right thing and reopen the case. Time will tell.
You're right about the hearsay evidence. It needs to be verified. Remember, however, they arrested and convicted Damien and Jason on other people's (false) statements. I hope that they thoroughly investigate these statements and don't just sweep them under the rug. However, it must also be remembered that, at the time that Terry Hobbs supposedly made his confession, he was an adult and not an arrogant, sarcastic teenager. Plus there is other physical evidence that places him at the scene, and there is the FACT that he was not questioned by the WMPD until 2007, even though Gitchell, in his Pasdar deposition, stated that, in a case like this, the first thing that should be done is to clear all family members. That was not done in this case. Period.
I understand all about wanting to get away from the memories. However, that was NOT the reason that Terry TEMPORARILY left Pam. He said that she "just won't get over" Stevie's death. This was TWO WEEKS after the murders. That is not normal behavior, even for a supposedly grieving parent. Then, on top of that, he quits his job because he was getting too much sympathy from his customers. Sorry, that is not normal, either. I don't question but that the death of a child can cause divorce. In fact, that was probably the contributing factor in the Moores' divorce. I just don't think it was the case in the Hobbs' divorce. Terry was abusive to Pam (and probably Stevie and Amanda). His abuse was why Pam's brother came the day Terry's gun shot Pam's brother. I have a feeling that Terry's abuse was the primary factor in the divorce, not Stevie's death.
I agree that it is weird to collect skulls. Damien was a weird teenager. However, although many murderers begin by torturing animals, not all people who torture animals end up being murderers. It is not a cause-and-effect relationship. Also, there is no real evidence (only the testimony of one preteen who did not appear at the trial) that Damien tortured animals. Having skulls does NOT mean that he killed the animals whose skulls they were. Weird, yes, but not proof that he is a murderer.
No proof of Satanic worship was presented at the Echols/Baldwin trial. There is just the testimony of "Dr." Dale Griffis, he of the mail-order doctorate, who said that the murders, in his opinion (which is worthless with no real education or expertise in the field), showed trappings of the occult. Some witnesses, not presented at trial, insisted that the devil worshipers (who they supposedly heard in the woods before the murders) were Hispanic. Jerry Driver and his pal, Steve Jones, had been looking for devil worshipers in West Memphis for over a year before the murders and had come up empty, until the murders gave them the change to throw Damien under the bus because he was weird and sarcastic and, in short, a teenager.
I taught teenagers for 25 years. They DO say things for "shock value." Damien is no exception.
During his trial, Damien was taking a drug, Imiprimane, which has since been counterindicated for teenagers. It made him sleepy and inattentive. Also, he was naive enough at the time to believe that a person cannot be convicted of a murder which he didn't commit. Yes, the boogey man comment was sarcasm. I'm sorry that you don't recognize it.
I look at these three INNOCENT MEN and, back in 1993, I see three teenagers who were scared. Of course, being male, they won't display their fright in public, hiding behind sarcastic statements and stoic or arrogant looks. Were they wise? Of course not! Everyone knows that teenagers often say stupid things BECAUSE THEY ARE TEENAGERS and don't know any better.
Yes, I know all about circumstantial evidence. I know that was what was used in this case. As I said, there was no hard evidence. However, the Satanic panic of the time colored the opinions of the juries and possibly even LE. Why don't you look at the increasingly large amount of circumstantial evidence (plus some physical evidence) now piling up against Terry Hobbs? That evidence is much greater than any against Damien, Jason and Jessie.
No, I'm not saying that you must join a coven in order to practice witchcraft. However, most people who are serious about it do. I agree that often mean people get together and do mean things. However, in order to convict someone of a crime, an honest court and judge needs more than someone's acquaintances and weird behavior as evidence.
You can argue all you want about what constitutes "Satanic worship," but there is no evidence of such in these murders. If the children had been killed in a satanic ritual, their hearts or other organs (not body parts) would have been removed. They weren't. Investigate the REAL Satanic cults (there was one in Matamoros, Mexico, that actually killed people in the late 80's, but it was related to drug traffic) and you will see how ridiculous it is to call these murders Satanic sacrifices.
My son had a friend who went by Lucifer. He liked it better than the name he was given by his parents. In fact, "Lucifer" originally meant "light bearer" or "Morning Star" and only later became associated with Satan. Look up Father Damien, a Catholic saint who ministered to the lepers on Hawaii. I have no trouble believing that Damien got his name from the priest. If you choose to place a lurid, evil meaning to his name change, that doesn't make it the reason he changed his name or the reason he chose "Damien" either.
I hope that not ALL judges are corrupt. That would really be a sad commentary on the American justice system, if it were true. However, I AM convinced that the justice in small towns around this country is seriously compromised. This case is just one example.
I'm glad that your aunt wouldn't budge in her statements. However, many people do when being interrogated by the police. The young and the mentally challenged are simply two groups that are very susceptible to the interrogation techniques. Poor people are also easily manipulated by the police oftentimes. Jessie hit the Trifecta! However, the most important thing about Jessie's statements is that they simply aren't supported by the evidence.
I think I've said this before, but if not, I'll say it now. I totally understand Damien being a suspect as a result of his mental history and "weird" behavior. Questioning him but not questioning one of the step parents is what I find totally unbelievable.
I didn't say that I necessarily heard threats against parents and other similar statements on a daily basis. However, I DID hear them quite often, and NONE OF THE STATEMENTS EVER LED TO A VIOLENT ACT. It was just teenagers "acting out" or "venting" so that they wouldn't become violent. If I had EVER FOR ONE MINUTE believed anyone was in danger, I would have acted. I never felt anyone, including myself, was at risk from the kids who said the bizarre statements. The gang bangers were the ones to fear, and they were usually angels in class, acting out only between classes, at lunch or after school. They were usually very careful in class to follow the rules. If they got suspended, they would lose their customers. I'm not denying that West Louisville and Beuchel are high crime areas. I'm just saying that there ARE cities with much higher crime than Louisville, and I taught in one of those cities.
I was not trying to nit pick about Mississippi vs. Arkansas or the names. IIRC, in your first post, you admitted that you didn't know everything about the case. I just like to make sure all the facts are accurately stated. It's a result, I guess, of 25 years of teaching mathematics to high school students, just like Damien, Jason and Jessie. And I simply wanted to let you know that I was a female. I didn't mean to imply that you are a misogynist. Sorry if you misunderstood.
I am very passionate about this case. When I see someone, who admits that he has not read all of the documents, stating the things that you have said, it angers me. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to an uninformed opinion. However, I also have a right to my informed opinion. I suggest that, with more information, you might change your opinion.
