TERRY HOBBS: VICTIM OR MURDERER?

Categories: Uncategorized
Written By: Billy Sinclair

The one thing that never ceases to amaze me about West Memphis Three supporters is their hypocrisy in trying to shift blame for the horrific murders of the three 8-year-old Cub Scouts—Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore—to other people. First, there was the bloody black man dubbed “Mr. Bojanles” reportedly seen near the crime scene on the evening of the murders. Second, there was John Mark Byers, the father of Christopher and the first person to report the boys missing, who became a suspect after he gave a bloody knife to Paradise Lost filmmakers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky. Byers was ultimately ruled out as a suspect by most WM3 supporters after he joined their ranks in calling for the release of the WM3 while pointing an accusatory finger of guilt at Terry Hobbs.

That’s why WM3 supporters finally settled on Hobbs as the prime suspect in the murder of the three boys. Hobbs was the stepfather of Stevie Branch. The finger-pointing charge against him was led by his disgruntled ex-wife, Pam Hicks. Her suspicions against Hobbs was fueled by the alleged discovery of a knife in Hobbs’ nightstand. The knife belonged to Stevie and was always carried by the child, according to Hicks. The knife was discovered by Hicks and her sister, Jo Lynn McCauhey. Apparently at some point after the knife discovery, McCauhey told her sister that she had seen Hobbs washing clothes, bed linens and curtains from Stevie’s room at “around the time of the murders.” There is no explanation (1) as to why McCauhey was alone with Hobbs in his residence at “around the time of the murders” or (2) why McCauhey did not question Hobbs about the “odd” clothes washing and/or (3) why she did not immediately report her suspicions to her sister. But this “evidence” was sufficient for WM3 supporters like the disenfranchised country music star, Natalie Maines, who flatly accused Hobbs of murdering the three boys before she became a virtual recluse.

The trumped-up case against Hobbs escalated after the WM3 defense team had two strains of hair found at the crime scene DNA tested. The hairs did not match any of the WM3. Test results of one of the hairs confined it to 1.5% of the population. Hobbs’ hair is in that population group. Test results of the second hair confined it to 7% of the population. David Jacoby’s hair is in that population group. Although not close friends, Hobbs and Jacoby worked together and sometimes socialized together. Law enforcement has ruled both men out as suspects in the murders.

The suspicions against Hobbs reached a crescendo of hysteria earlier this year after New Zealand filmmaker Peter Jackson released his documentary, “West of Memphis.” Jackson, a longtime WM3 supporter, presented “three new witnesses” who claim that Terry Hobbs’ nephew, Michael Hobbs Jr., told them “my uncle Terry murdered those three little boys.” One WM3 attorney, Stephen Braga, disgracefully charged that the double hearsay statements by the three witnesses pointed to Hobbs as the real killer. The basis for Braga’s unsupportable assertion is that the three “so-called” witnesses passed polygraph tests.

First, polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable. Courts, for very good reasons, rarely allow the admission of such tests results into evidence. Second, what is so outrageous about attaching credibility to the positive polygraph results of the three witnesses is that Damien Echols failed a polygraph test after his arrest for the murder of the three boys. Thus, WM3 supporters want the public to accept the preposterous notion that the polygraph results of the three witnesses are credible while the negative result of Echols is not. Finally, assuming Michael Hobbs Jr. told the three witnesses that his “Uncle Terry murdered those three boys” does not make it a “fact” and would be inadmissible in any court in the land. That’s because the statement came from Michael Hobbs Jr.’s father, Michael Hobbs, the brother of Terry, who reportedly told his son that “Uncle Terry murdered those three boys.” It should be pointed out that the three witnesses, as admitted by Braga, did not come forward with their assertion until after Michael Hobbs Jr. “snitched” on them to the police about some matter.

Peter Jackson apparently got so consumed producing the fantasy “Lord of the Rings” that he can no longer separate reality from fantasy, fact from fiction. Braga, of course, has self-serving reasons for doing a Tiny Tim “tiptoeing through the tulips” jig in the public square because he would love to see the WM3 exonerated for the horrific murders they in fact committed. It is shameful, shocking that any criminal defense attorney would attach public credibility to such flimsy, unsupportable evidence that Terry Hobbs killed those three boys based on the statements of three vindictive, self-serving witnesses.

Terry Hobbs is a bad person. He has few, if any, redeemable qualities. But he did not kill Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers on May 5, 1993 in West Memphis, Arkansas. Those boys were murdered by Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelly. They all confessed to the murders under various circumstances and finally pled guilty to the crimes. Any objective analysis of the evidence indicates overwhelming evidence of guilt against the WM3 when compared to the flimsy evidence against Terry Hobbs.

48 Responses to “TERRY HOBBS: VICTIM OR MURDERER?”

  1. Greg Day Says:

    Rather than take issue with the entire article, as it has many errors, I would simply ask where you got the impression that Echols and Baldwin “confessed to the murders under various circumstances and finally pled guilty to the crimes.” Baldwin “confessed” to Michael Carson, who allegedly passed a polygraph prior to testifying, but since you pooh-pooh polygraphs, Carson’s must be tossed as well, even more so since he now recants his testimony against Baldwin. I have no idea where you get Echols confessing to anything, unless you are referring to those “softball girls.” The Alford pleas were just a way to get out of prison, and no reasonable person would see them as anything else.

  2. Billy Sinclair Says:

    GREG DAY: I do not think polygraph results should be used in criminal trials, but they have value as an investigative tool. I don’t think the polygraph results given to Echols, Carson, or the three “new” witnesses should be considered credible evidence. And there is good reason why recanted testimony is considered highly suspect by the courts. Echols made admissions of guilt to or around others prior to the trial. Witnesses to those admissions have been recanted. Just as Carson recanted about and Misskelly recanted his numerous confessions. The point is they all admitted to knowledge and involvement in the crime whether you believe the admissions were credible or not. But each stood in open court, plead guilty, and accepted punishment. While an Alford plea is not per se an admission of guilt, it is an admission by the defendants that the State of Arkansas had sufficient evidence to convict them at trial, including Misskelly’s confessions. Put simply, an Alford plea attaches credibility to the State’s case. An Alford plea is a criminal conviction. Thus, as I said, all three have “confessed” or admitted involvement in the killing of those boys under different circumstances. You may not give weight to those admissions; I do. And, as I said, there is more evidence that the WM3 killed those boys than any offered against Terry Hobbs–the WM3 admitted to as much when they plead guilty.

  3. Thomas Rykala Says:

    Texas has scheduled the execution of a female offender Kimberly McCarthy -http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/dr_scheduled_executions.html

    Last Texas execution of a female took place in 2005 and since then the state re-sentenced a very violent female Chelsea Richardson to LWOP and is dregging its feet on other female death row inmates (baby killers most notably). This addition to the execution schedule is a worthwhile to monitor. Will McCarthy actually be executed or will the state “make an exception.” Stay tuned…

  4. Greg Day Says:

    Billy Sinclair: Please do not misunderstand me. I am not an apologist for the WM3 nor am I out to get Terry Hobbs.

    What I AM saying is that the state did NOT believe they had enough evidence to convict the WM3 at a new trial. Scott Ellington acknowledged this when he offered the Alford plea to begin with. The juror misconduct issue by itself would have forced Judge David Laser to re-try the case, and Ellington admitted that it would be “impossible to put on a proper case against the defendants,” given eighteen years of “extended litigation,” as well as the fact that “two of the victims’ families [had] joined forces with the defense.” [Byers and Pam Hobbs]

    So yes, the Alford plea is a pro forma admssion of guilt, but one has to wonder what would have happened if Damien Echols was not under a sentence of death, and felt secure enough to force the state’s hand at a new trial. I guess we’ll never know.

  5. Billy Sinclair Says:

    GREG: You’re mistaken about the Alford plea – the only way the court can accept such a plea is if there is an “on-the-record” admission that the State had sufficient evidence to convict. That is what an Alford plea is – a conditional admission that the State has sufficient evidence of guilt were the case to go to trial. I have no doubt that the WM3 would have received a new trial, and I wholeheartedly supported as much, and you may be right that a jury would not have convicted them. So why accept an Alford plea in August when a new trial probably would have been ordered in December. The fact that John Byers and Pam Hobbs joined the defense is meaningless as to guilt/innocence. Both of them had a dog in the fight – Hobbs a hatred of Terry, and John a desire to deflect any suspicion of guilt from himself. The WM3 did a disservice to all those who believe in their innocence by copping out to the Alford plea.

  6. Greg Day Says:

    I know what an Alford plea is. I am quoting Ellington in saying that he did not believe they could convict the three, a reality that is obvious to almost anyone. Yes, their official position has to be, as you noted, that they have enough evidence to convict, but they don’t believe it, and Ellington was the one who called out Byers and Hobbs as being problematic at a new trial. It sounds naive to say that three were not blackmailed into accepting the plea.

    Also, please visit my website and see what I have written about Mark Byers. Mark was never a “real” suspect. Gullible watchers of the “Paradise Lost” movies and the book, “Devil’s Knot” swallowed the theatrics acted out by Byers, but neither the West Memphis police, the prosecutors, or, later, profiler John Douglas, ever suspected Mark of complicity in the murders. He was wrong for the profile for many reasons, and the WM3 supporters wanted an alternate suspect. That this is true is made evident by the abandonment of Byers as a suspect as soon as they got Terry Hobbs.

    I have an interview upcoming with Echols’s lead attorney Stephen L. Braga, and I will certainly ask him for clarification on the plea.

    By the way, do you think the WM3 are innocent?

  7. Billy Sinclair Says:

    GREG: I agree – there is more than a reasonable probability that, as Ellington said, the WM3 would have been acquitted on re-trial. So why accept the Alford plea? They plead in August 2011; they had an evidentiary hearing scheduled for December 2011 (four months) based on the “new” evidence. The trial court probably would have reversed their convictions, and the State would have a few months later elected to dismiss the charges. They had been locked up 18 years–Damien was not sick or dying. Baldwin and Misskelly were doing okay in prison. A dismissal or an acquittal on re-trial would have given credibility to their claims of innocence. Yes, I do believe the WM3 are guilty as I have said in numerous posts here, outlining in some detail why I have this belief. And I will again make my case for guilt in an upcoming post based on a recent statement made by Johnny Depp. When you speak to Braga, ask him who initiated the Alford plea deal. I doubt that Ellington called Braga and said “let’s work out a plea deal.” I strongly suspect the plea deal was instigated by Braga and other members of WM3 defense team. This deal did not happen in a vacuum. So if the WM3 defense team suggested the plea deal, why? A fighter who has won 10 of the first 12 rounds would not tell him opponent, “let’s call it a draw.” We will never know what the defense team has in its files–that’s privileged. But just as Ellington was not confident of securing a conviction, Braga and others were not confident of an acquittal either. Neither side has any real “bragging rights” – and at the end of the day, the WM 3 plead guilty. Greg, I spent more than 40 years in prison, and I met many inmates who I believe were innocent–and not one of them, not one, would have entered an Alford plea, especially to a crime of killing three children. Michael Morton, the Texas inmate declared innocent last year, had an opportunity to plead guilty and go free. He turned the State’s offer down. Why? Because he was truly innocent. He spent 25 years in prison before being declared actually innocent. I will most definitely this day visit your website.

  8. Greg Day Says:

    Billy – Great question: Why accept the plea? Baldwin says he did it for Echols. As for who initiated the plea, the official story is that it was mutual, and I doubt whether Steve Braga is going to tell me any different. Mark Byers believes that the state would never have agreed to an Alford plea if the truly believed they had enough to convict them. Patrick Benca was the attorney who attended the University of Arkansas Law School with AG Dustin McDaniel, and it was through that relationship that a meeting with Ellington was set up . . . at least that is the official story. Braga told me that it was a “coincidence” that Benca went to school with McDaniel. I can’t comment either way.

    I can’t imagine Johnny Depp saying anthing of substance, but I’m most anxious to read your post.

  9. Lindsay Says:

    Sorry to interject but I found your website and was shocked by your article.

    Billy, you are failing to understand Alford Pleas. If the court has enough evidence to convict somebody for a crime, but chooses not to, doesn’t that raise questions for you? Why wouldn’t the courts convict somebody who is truly guilty, especially if they have enough evidence to do so? Alford Pleas are offered when the court knows it has made a mistake. It’s a tactic to save face. If anyone really believed those three were guilty, they wouldn’t have been released.

    In my opinion, your premise is wrong — you have started with the assumption that the criminal justice system is fair and just, when in fact it is not. Accept the fact that three people (and many more) were wrongly accused and convicted. I know that shatters your illusion of safety, justice and fairness but that is the reality of the world we live in.

  10. Lindsay Says:

    Oh sorry Billy I didn’t read your whole comment about you being in jail, so my comment was obviously mistaken. Should have read the whole thing before commenting. I may be out of my depth too cos I only just heard about this case today (i am not american).

    A lot of people won’t accept Alford Pleas out of principal. But it depends on how much you are willing to fight for a principal — some people would rather just be done with the whole thing, I get that.

  11. BradO Says:

    Lindsay,

    Your question about why wouldn’t a court convict someone they have enough evidence to convict:

    Basically, this happens as a plea deal. Emphasis on the word DEAL. A retrial takes much money, time and effort. It’s easier for the lawyers to cut a deal than actually go through a trial – especially a media circus trial like the WM3 inevitably would be.

  12. Lisa O'Brien Says:

    Greg, the alleged juror misconduct would only have benefitted Echols and Baldwin, if Judge Lazer found the claims to be credible. Based on the prior rulings of the ASSC with regard to Echols two prior attempts to raise the misconduct issue, I think the defense knew that the juror misconduct issue was a great PR tool, but one that would lack merit in a court., due to the fact that the three jurors who submitted affidavits in Echols’ 2nd incarnation did not cite any undue influence or pressure from Arnold during deliberations.

    It was also the defense that came up with the Alford Plea, according to statements made by Patrick Benca and Stephen Braga. Again, if they were sure to win retrials, then why even consider entering into a plea agreement to obtain immediate release? Had new trials been granted, the state would’ve had to dismiss the charges, unless subsequent forensic testing found new evidence linking the three killers to the murders.

    Frankly, Ellington was an idiot for putting the cart before the horse and worrying about retrials that hadn’t been ordered.

  13. LM Says:

    Billy: were you on death row too?

  14. arnhand Says:

    http://www.jailbase.com/en/arrested/ar-bcso/2012-09-12/cody-gott-20120912-20122478

    This is one of the three “witnesses.” The others also have been arrested, and at the time they were filmed two were either facing charges or on probation. This isn’t mentioned in the movie.

  15. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Yes – for nearly six years.

  16. Evelynn Says:

    Hi there,

    I have become so obsessed with the WM3 case since I had seen Damien on The View. I had never heard of the WM3 as I am only 25 and I live in Canada. I have watched all 3 Paradise Lost documentaries and am waiting to watch “West of Memphis”. To me this case is so crazy, it makes you want to read everything you can and watch everything you can on it. I truly believe that these 3 guy are innocent. In my opinion, there is no way that these 3 guys could have done these murder and leave no DNA what so ever on the boys. They do say the boy’s we not killed in the Robin Hood hills, that was just the dump site. Damien and Jason as well as Jesse would have had to find a “kill” spot which his highly unlikely as these are teenage boys. It had to be some one older who could have done this. How would the WM3 lour the boys without anyone noticing? It had to be someone the boys knew. If you look at all the new evidence it does look like the WMPD didn’t do their jobs. I mean come on who looses evidence in a high profile case like this one?? And the fact that the Judge for the Alfred Plea also made the WM3 say they would not go after the State of Arkansas, looks to me like they knew the wrong doing of the case and wanted to stay face and make sure everything stays under control. Just my opinion and wanted to put it out there.

  17. Jessie Says:

    I have watched the media coverage, the documentaries and the movies, and I’ve read several articles about the WM3 on the Internet. My question is, if the victims were beaten to death by blows to the head, how is that satanic? The scrapes and demasculation did appear to be done by animals. If the murders were not satanic in nature, what would have been the motivation of the WM3? Also, as a criminal investigator and a polygrapher, I have seen many crimes, and the timing of the murders seems odd, if it was the WM3 that committed the offenses. It’’s pretty brazen to committ the crime so early in the evening, with so much traffic a people nearby. The murders also have the feel of being a crime of opportunity, as opposed to premeditated. If the WM3 did commit the murders, it’s somewhat odd that they picked three eight year olds, when they themselves were not that far off in age. Their victim selection (and number of victims, as in more than one), doesn’t seem to fit with the nature of the situation being constructed bt attorneys. I agree that if the WM3 did not do the crime, it was committed by an older male (or more than one), not necessarily by someone they knew. One man could have scared them all into submission. … Anyone with knowledge, please weigh in on my WM3 question about motivation. I’m curious if it had been addressed previously or elsewhere. Thank you.

  18. vance c Says:

    Hobbs will get his comeupance soon, the authorities got it wrong . Really, do we think a man on deathrow can be realeased for time already served. Hillbilly american cops who couldnt do their job right. . http://www.jivepuppi.com is the best site ever, every bit of evidence even the new stuff. Well documented and easy to follow.

  19. XXOO Says:

    “Also, please visit my website and see what I have written about Mark Byers. Mark was never a “real” suspect. Gullible watchers of the “Paradise Lost” movies and the book, “Devil’s Knot” swallowed the theatrics acted out by Byers, but neither the West Memphis police, the prosecutors, or, later, profiler John Douglas, ever suspected Mark of complicity in the murders. He was wrong for the profile for many reasons, and the WM3 supporters wanted an alternate suspect. That this is true is made evident by the abandonment of Byers as a suspect as soon as they got Terry Hobbs.

    So did Byers, Mr. Day!

  20. XXOO Says:

    And Byers abandonment of the WM3 as soon as he flipped on HObbs, taping conversatioons that they had and posting them on his discussion board. What happened to Jackie after that fiasco?

  21. Brit Says:

    Your essays are chock full of errors. I truly hope no one takes any of this as fact. It is utterly ridiculous to say supporters are “quick to” accuse Hobbs. Actually no, it took decades, the lack of evidence against three teenagers, and both physical and circumstantial evidence against HOBBS to accuse him. Naysayers are constantly ignoring blatant facts. It’s very frustrating to those of us with decent reasoning skills, logic and sense.

  22. physsie2002 Says:

    I to live in Canada and have followed this case for years. Although many of the comments above all have insight and pose questions that I do not know the answer to I would like to add a few of my own. In Canada we do not have the death penalty it was abolished long ago. I believe it is better for many guilty men to go free than one innocent man be put to death. Would the fact that Damien received the death penalty have changed the course of this case. Would he have been to life without parole would he have had the access to retrials and evidentiary hearings in essence keeping the case alive? Since the Alford agreement included a plea of guilty will a new suspect ever be charged since the WM3 have already plead guilty is that possible without exoneration.

  23. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Physsie2002: Had Echols receoved a life sentence, he probably would have just disappeared into the woodwork of everyday prison life. I agree with your view about the death penalty. I personally, and very strongly, believe the WM3 killed those boys. But I also believe that they all deserved a new trial because of the constitutional, not factual, errors committed at their first trial. Finally, why should West Memphis investigators keep an “open file” on the case? When the WM3 accepted the Alford plea, they had to admit that the State had enough to convict them at any retrial. That admission is a condition of an Alford plea. Put simply, their guilty pleas put an end to the case, and the brutal irony is that they probably would not have been convicted at a retrial. I’m convinced the WM3 and their attorneys wanted the case swept under the proverbial rug–both sides walked away saying they won. Nobody won. But the public lost.

  24. physsie2002 Says:

    thank you it is as i suspected that the state shot itself in the foot by giving Echols the death sentence i too thought this would have been swept under the rug and not heard from again. There is a process of appeals for those given the death sentence am i right in assuming that and if Damien had been given the sentence of life then these processes do not kick in. I too agree with your view billy that they probably would not have been convicted in a retrial due to lose of, recanting of and degradation of evidence over the years. I am not convinced of their innocence and nor am I convinced of their guilt. i do believe that many do believe that if a movie star and singer say he is innocent that he (they) must be. I look at the life Echols lost and the one he has now and can not get my head around the unbalanced irony of it all. But as you answered if they were indeed innocent they are not looking for anyone else, and if they did stumble on the murderer they could not charge him because the fact that the WM3 plead guilty the case is “solved”. Again i found your article convincing and raised many issues that made me think about this case in a new way.
    Thank you and keep up the good work :)

  25. susan Says:

    Physical evidence is in, Terry Hobbs is the murderer, you can try to make the plea agreement into whatever you want, but these people would do anything to get out of that prison as soon as possible. A step Dad killing step son in a fit of rage and then unfortunately taking out the 2 other boys in the wrong place at the wrong time makes sence, nothing new here. Judges and cops willing to twist facts and deny reality in order to first get the guilty conviction their narrow minds have decided is just, ignoring the reason we have a set system for conviction is to avoid the jump to rash conclusions from falsely convicting the innocent. Second to refuse to accept responcibility for their mistake and consider the blatant new evidence and miss-use their power to continue the torture of the innocently convicted. Maybe they justify their behavior by saying to themselves, “well, if our corruption of the system is reveiled, it will make it harder to twist the evidence for the next guy, who will likely be really guilty and will get away with it if we are compromised” or, their are just too arrogant to accept the responcibility of being wrong, or the final motivation, they are trying to avoid paying up on the justified lawsuit to follow, without which money, the young men, robbed of their opportunity to make a life for themselves and permanently marked in scarlet, would be unable to have a decent and well earned retirement into obscurity. The bigger picture is that most of the case was based on the confused rantings of a vulnerable adult “Misskelly” has an IQ of 72. His mind could be easily confused and or convinced and his confessions should not even be repeated or considered in the least bit. Considering their willingness to go along with the Alfred plea as”a confession” just shows you’ve had a fairly charmed life and are unable to understand why they would be willing to confess to anything to escape 20 years of unjustified bondage, torture, mental and physical abuse, oh and death row. Stating that they confessed without specifiing that your referring to the Alford agreement and calling it a confession (rather than a submission) shows that you are willing to manipulate details, and self justify, in order to make your case. But when you have to take those steps, you should learn to consider that you may need to be open minded to the possibility that you’re mistaken.

  26. distantobserver Says:

    @Billy Sinclair

    You were asked you about the “damning statement” by Johnny Depp (”And I will again make my case for guilt in an upcoming post based on a recent statement made by Johnny Depp”). That was September, we are now in January. So what was this statement, after all? Where is the upcoming post?

  27. Reddy Says:

    Terry Hobbs is guilty. We can discuss this minutia until the end of time, but nothing will change that fact.

  28. Crossball Says:

    I have read all the comments on here. Susan you nailed it squarely.
    One more thing, could someone explain to me why Terry said he did not SEE the boys that day when WITNESSES said they saw him SEE THE BOYS. Someone is lying…..No shat Sherlock.

  29. Crossball Says:

    one more thing, after watching Purgatory….damn that Byers has got conviction. Near the end of the film he states “the WM3 did not kill my son and the real killer is walking free”. Damn.

  30. Crossball Says:

    Three individuals claiming to be eyewitnesses have stepped forward after 16 years and have provided sworn statements saying they saw Steven Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore with Terry Hobbs, Branch’s stepfather, during the early evening on May 5, 1993, shortly before the three boys disappeared.

    One witness said Hobbs was calling the boys loudly to come back to his house. Those connected to the case say the new evidence shows who was the last person to see the three boys before the trio of youngsters vanished was Hobbs.

    According to news releases, Jamie Clark Ballard, who lived only three doors down from Terry and Pam Hobbs, has supplied a sworn affidavit, as have both her mother and her sister.

    Because of the new evidence, a motion was delivered to the Arkansas Supreme Court requesting the court order the matter to the Circuit Court to permit further factual development of Echols’s claims of actual innocence.

    In her sworn affidavit, Ballard states that, “Between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., I saw Stevie Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers playing in my backyard. I am absolutely, completely and totally positive that I saw Terry Hobbs hollering at Stevie, Michael and Christopher to get back down to the Hobbs house at approximately 6:30 p.m. I know for a fact that Terry Hobbs saw, was with and spoke to Stevie, Michael or Christopher on May 5, 1993.”

    Hobbs has repeatedly denied that he had any contact with the three boys the day they were killed. During a civil deposition of Hobbs on July 21, he stated under oath, that he never saw his stepson, Steven Branch, at any time on May 5, 1993.

    Hobbs was never questioned during the original investigation, but his DNA was found at the crime scene in 2007. He was questioned by West Memphis Police Department on June 21, 2007. In that interview he stated numerous times that he did not see the boys at any time that day.

    The DNA evidence is said to link Hobbs to the ligature used to bind Michael Moore.

    The eyewitnesses, who saw the boys in their backyard prior to returning to the Hobbs home, were never questioned by the police on the day of the murders. Ballard told news reporters that police never came to her house to question her or anyone in her neighborhood about the murders. At the same time, Ballard never went to the police with her story and has waited 16 years to come forward with her statement.

    West Memphis Police Assistant Police Chief Mike Allen said after this length of time, the “evidence” was hard to believe.

    Damien Echols case is currently under appeal in the Arkansas Supreme court seeking a new trial based upon new evidence. Some DNA evidence found at the crime scene show that no DNA matches Echols or the other two men.

    In addition, scientific evidence from leading forensics experts demonstrates that most of the wounds on the victims were caused by animals at the crime scene, after their deaths, not by knives used by the perpetrators. Also, some reports state that a knife recovered from a lake near one defendant’s home caused the wounds was completely discredited by the pathologists

  31. Crossball Says:

    Please someone tell me why he said “HE DID NOT SEE THE BOYS THAT DAY”.
    I am confused>/o?

  32. Crossball Says:

    Explain Mr. Sinclair, why he said he didn’t see the boys. While you are at it, explain some of these stats:

    http://www.jivepuppi.com/Terry_Hobbs.html

  33. Crossball Says:

    “Terry Hobbs is a bad person. He has few, if any, redeemable qualities. But he did not kill Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers on May 5, 1993 in West Memphis, Arkansas. Those boys were murdered by Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelly. They all confessed to the murders under various circumstances and finally pled guilty to the crimes. Any objective analysis of the evidence indicates overwhelming evidence of guilt against the WM3 when compared to the flimsy evidence against Terry Hobbs.”

    This paragraph is completely backwards
    I am an unbias Canadian WEIGHING the evidence before me.
    Again, Mr. Sinclair, why did he say “he did not see the boys” that day?

  34. Crossball Says:

    “Some DNA evidence found at the crime scene show that no DNA matches Echols or the other two men.”

    The investigators found DNA. None of it matched the WM3. Case closed. Innocent.

  35. Crossball Says:

    Actually case isn’t closed. Still have to find the murderer. ….One day.

  36. Crossball Says:

    “There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. ”

  37. redent Says:

    well you cannot judge a book by the cover when i so the movie i sad they did it but you know what they say the oil will come up in the face of water.hope one day the the truth comes up

  38. David Williamson Says:

    “The investigators found DNA. None of it matched the WM3. Case closed. Innocent”

    Crossballs, If this is your standard for declaring guilt, you’re going to free about 95% of convicted killers in prison. DNA evidence is presented in a small fraction of murder cases, it was virtually unheard of in 1994.

  39. Crossball Says:

    “it was virtually unheard of in 1994.”
    Who cares if the test was not available in 94. The DNA samples were tested with present day technology. I don’t know anything about this 95% admission.
    We can banter back and forth about this and that. I am going to go away and get on with my life like the WM3. I will return when the real murderer is found.
    Best of luck to everyone.

  40. Annie Says:

    Hobbs was never interviewed about where he was and his home was not searched at the time. If we believe the neighbours testimony and that of his family members years later then he should be investigated.

    I find it hard to believe that 3 kids, 1 who is slightly retarted, 1 who is 16 and never been known to be violent and 1 who was weird ( was he mentally ill or just doing things for shock value) killed 3 kids, took them to the hills and made sure all the evidence was washed away and no trace of dna??? teenagers!!! really?? these kids are not that smart – the confession was dubvious. The top FBI profiler said that the crime was personal based on the evidence of the bodies and the teenagers did not do it. Pity he could not have been involved from the start. This crime was just too much for this small town and the police work was very sloppy. It happens far too often that when the police are too busy focussing on stupid ideas, the real killers go free. This has happened in many cases where innocent people are locked up because of police wanting a quick arrest due to pressure from the public. I really don’t know as there have been many different stories about evidence on different sites and there seems to be so many armchair detectives out there for and against the convictions. The jury misconduct – the foreman introduced the confession when it was not allowed into evidence. The Alford Plea – well I don’t know about that one either, I think the state believe in their case but if they did – why let them go???? and if they are innocent – why not take it to trial??? although Jason did not want to take the deal. If Damien was really mentally ill, the jail stopped his meds when he was convicted as he was in death row – he would have got very sick and most likely told everyone he did it or attacked someone. He actually started to feel better so maybe he wasn’t mentally ill at all. Either he did it and bragged about it as teens do or he was innocent and stupidly tried to scare a bunch of young girls because he had the bad reputation. Most innocent people go along with the police theory because they think that the truth will set them free, someone will notice the mistake and they can go home. Notice the police did not interrogate Damien and Jason like they did Jesse??? hmmmmmmmm.

  41. sarafin Says:

    When I first saw “paradise lost 3″ it was my first time of hearing of WM6 and was so horrified of the pictures of those poor boys. They break my heart, they suffered so much and this is where I will put my opinion, by the hands of one of the step parents which is horrendous because they would have felt an implied trust.

    I believe completely that it was Mark Byers for all of the following: firstly he admitted to belting his step son just before they disappeared. He was the last to see them and see where they went. It also answers how one person could have committed this, a parent who would not be a threat of death to the children but feared as an angry parent. The other two children were drowned and did suffer injuries I believe from the photos resembles a metal belt buckle and the other two boys had defensive wounds, yet Mark’s stepson did not. The Byers boy received the most injuries and no defensive wounds. It was only his bike that was not at the scene. Also, important to be noted was that Mark Byers had a brain tumour at the time which is well known to affect behavior and his ongoingtemper was obviously shown in all aspects to the media. He apparently had an alibi, but for when as only he can provide because no one else saw the boys going into the woods. As for a knife, I have read the coroner’s reports and knife injuries were not even noted, his “son” was the only one who succumbed to the extreme beating injuries, viewing the photograpsh of the boys injuries could easily be from a metal belt buckle. There was no rape or sex according to the coroner’s report. It looks like an adult the boys feared as they knew him, complied in the humiliation of undressing and were subsequently beaten. The boys death looks like a punishment that went too far.

    I have seen Damien Nichols at trial and was suprised at his flat affect, until of course it was documented that he was on anti-depressants. I myself took them for post partum depression and know others who take them and they do create a flat affect as well as a slowing of the brain and talking. Had he stopped taking them I believe you would have seen a different witness. In terms of devil worship, it is like any religion that it must be done in a correct way, by rules so to speak. Ie. on certain moon phases of certain months, an alter, even a large boulder would have been the alter, with a pentagrm drawn upon the rock and bloodletting would have been a necessity. None of that was present in this situation.

    So in summary I absolutely agree with you that Hobbs did not do this but instead Mark Byers, brain tumoured, angered to just moments before taking a belt to his stepson (his testimony), the only one who knew where they went but did not advise the police of this at that time, the first to call that Christopher was missing before nightfall when the boys regularly returned, able to control all three boys as he was a known parent (implied trust) and when the tides turned to reveal the unfortunate three boys were indeed innocent, he changed his mind, way to keep the investigators off the trail.

    I feel Mr. Byers should turn himself in and and his brain tumour is by far a factor of him committing these horrendous crimes

  42. Crossball Says:

    Excuse me Sarafin, when you were typing out this well thought out assertion, did it cross your mind that investigators with years of forensic etc experience are not interested in Byers as a suspect…….I was just wondering….carry on, if you must.
    This case, and of course the people following it , is simply mind bending.

  43. sarafin Says:

    really crossball????

    1) They sentenced boys to life in prison and death row.
    2) Then HBO does “paradise lost” documentary revealing a shockingly poorly constructed trial.
    3) It was also revealed that the justly selected jurors knew about the case and lied to be part of the jury to make sure those boy were found guilty.
    4) All appeals were heard by the same judge who refused to recuse himself and all were denied.
    5) Celebrities start bringing further media attention to the boys and the injustice.
    6) The boys sign the Alford Plea in which they must admit it was them so they can be released, therefore the case is closed.

    They will NEVER NEVER NEVER charge anyone else because they have the confessions on a now closed case but the biggest reason is that the police have made it clear that they caught the right people and the only reason the boys were released was due to the huge media frenzy. The police will not investigate anyone else because it would show that they were wrong, the police will NOT eat crow and if they prove Mark Byers did this and a guilty verdict is found, the boys have a huge civil suit based on the malicious negligance of the police.

    I hope crossball that you are not naive to the “justice system” that they would keep innocents locked up to cover their butts, especially due to the media, celebrities,and the public support, which actually made it worse because the more the police were pushed, the more adament they were in their capture. Saving face is why they did not further investigate byers after the arrest.

    Excuse me Crossball, my “assertion” is based on facts and evidence, and as far as I know from reading the evidence which all is also provided online, they spoke with byers only once in regards to a knife, which was not a weapon used in this case and he was in the witness chair only once in which he confessed to beating his son and watching the boys ride off. You are correct that it should be an expectation that he should be investigated, but the actual FACTS are that he was not.

    The fact that you are NOT getting is that this is not just about these 3 boys but a serious breach of trust in the justice system in a democratic first world country. innocent until proven guilty, lady libertly, veritas, were all missing in that court room. the truth is no longer enough to set you free. Justice is based on political agenda and wealth. This should disgust you, but carry on if you must, adding your two cents worth without saying anything relevent, just insults. Do you know that you have made 11 (eleven) different comments on this blog so again, in your words, “carry on if you must” Please add another comment to make it an even dozen. How mind bending. :-)

  44. Crossball Says:

    They will NEVER NEVER NEVER charge anyone else because they have the confessions on a now closed case but the biggest reason is that the police have made it clear that they caught the right people and the only reason the boys were released was due to ……..the huge media frenzy.

    Actually, the huge media frenzy convicted the boys also.

  45. Crossball Says:

    You are a well spoken individual, I appreciate your indepth analysis of the information provided. What I don’t appreciate is your absolution of decision. We don’t know who killed the WM3, you should appreciate that in your judgement.

    I will admit I could be wrong that the WM3 are not innocent. Can you admit Byers maybe innocent. This part:
    I feel Mr. Byers should turn himself in and and his brain tumour is by far a factor of him committing these horrendous crimes.
    He took a lie detector test, he was profiled by top notch FBI investigators etc….HE PASSED. Are you saying he should turn himself in because he did it or to be investigated?…..NO, you are obviously saying because he did the crime. Too much absolution in your post, I think you need a slice of Arkansas humble pie.

  46. Crossball Says:

    thats a bakers dozen, well it would have been if I didn’t write this.

  47. Stedge Says:

    almost all of the discussion over this case is peppered with extreme bias, whether from those who believe the WM3 guilty or innocent, including the author of this post. there is no definite and trustworthy evidence in this case, it is as impossible to fairly prove the guilt of the WM3 as it is to exonerate them. what is being lost in all this unsubstantiated hearsay and ill-informed subjectivity is that we cannot and will not ever know the true culprit. the investigation was GROSSLY mishandled from the start, the police and prosecution removed any legitimacy from their evidence by their actions during the investigation and trial, and the defense have adopted much of the same kind of tactics during their 20 year crusade to clear the WM3.

    what we must remember is that because of the actions of everyone involved regardless of stance, there will be no justice for the only three people guaranteed ‘innocent’ in this sordid situation: the three little boys who were brutally murdered – and that is frankly sickening.

  48. Deet Says:

    Who made you all judges and jurors? Where were you when the murders took place? If you were not there, then everything you say is all conjecture.

    The boys were conviced through the media, and subsequently through a jury. They were released after copping to the Alford Plea, and in my understanding this means that they are unlikely to try and clear their names, as if found innocent, the state would be forced to pay them a large sum for the time spent behind bars.

    There are rumours (just that, rumours) about Terry Hobbs and some other person being the guilty persons, but that has not been proved beyond a doubt in a court of law. So rumours they remain. There are also rumours about one of the step fathers being the murderer. All pure speculation, nothing proved.

    I do not know who killed the three young boys, and I don’t suppose I ever will. However, neither do any of you. So this backward and forwards, does nothing to bring the actual murderers to justice. It just fuels speculation, and adds more fuel to the fire.

    In conclusion, it is better to let 10 guilty men go, than to subject one innocent man to prison.

Leave a Reply