JOHNNY DEPP: SOMEONE FLYING UNDER THE RADAR

Categories: Uncategorized
Written By: Billy Sinclair

Recently I came across a video interview featuring Johnny Depp and Damien Echols of the West Memphis Three fame. The video pique my interest for two reasons. First, I was slightly amazed that Depp, without a prepared script, found it difficult to articulate two or more thoughts in a coherent manner. Second, despite the difficulty in getting his point across as to why he elected to get involved in the West Memphis Three case, Depp made this point that I will paraphrase. He said he viewed the documentary about the case—and this was probably the first “Paradise Lost” documentary—and it convinced him that once you got past the occult/Satan aspects in the case, you had to believe that the West Memphis Three were innocent of killing the three 8-year-old Cub Scouts and that the real killer was “someone flying under the radar.”

That’s a significant observation: one that has actually led me to draw a conclusion completely opposite to Depp; namely, that the West Memphis Three are real killers of the boys. First, as to the other suspects linked to the case by WM3 supporters, “Mr. Bojanles” and John Mark Byers (the father of one of the slain boys) did not stand up long after serious scrutiny. The third suspect, Terry Hobbs, also the step-father of one of the slain boys, ultimately became the primary target of WM3 supporters as the “sure enough” real killer of the boys.

I have dealt with the Hobbs-as-suspect issue in several prior posts, and will not rehash the evidence, or lack thereof, against him as a “suspect” in this post. But there is one thing that must be said here: It is undisputed that Hobbs got home from work sometime between 4:00 and 4:30 on the afternoon the boys were slain. He then drove his wife, Pam, to a local restaurant where she worked between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. They had their daughter Amanda in the vehicle with them. When Stevie, his stepson, did not show up at home by 7:00 p.m., Hobbs reportedly joined the search for him and the other two boys—a search triggered by Mark Byers who reported to the authorities that his son, Christopher, was missing. That left Hobbs with a two-hour window of opportunity—between 5:00 (when he dropped Pam off at work) and 7:00 p.m. (when he joined the search party)—to find the boys, strip them naked, tie them up with different shoe laces, inflict horrific injuries to them, and throw them into a creek still alive. And all this done with Amanda still in the his vehicle. And he then would have had to leave the crime scene, drive home, clean up, and start washing clothes as Pam’s sister said she saw him do.

To my knowledge, Amanda has never implicated Terry Hobbs in the killings. They apparently still have a relationship because Hobbs speaks fondly of her on his official website. Hobbs would have been bloody and muddy after inflicting such horrific killings, and Amanda would have seen this evidence on Hobbs, and even as a young girl, she would have been able to recollect it under questioning, either by Pam, Pam’s sister or the authorities. So the timeline, and the lack of evidence, simply do not support Hobbs-as-the-killer theory.

So this brings us back to “someone flying under the radar” as the real killer: Depp’s theory. For the life of me, I do not understand why Pam Hobbs and others almost immediately seized on the theory that one or more (and perhaps together) of the boys’ fathers killed the children. I don’t know what kind of water they drink in West Memphis, Arkansas, but apparently it is contaminated with some kind of toxicity that produces delusions as rational thought. So with Bojanles, Byers, and Hobbs out as suspects, that leaves us with “someone flying under the radar” who killed the boys and remained under the radar?

A serial killer did not kill those boys. There were no similar crimes in the West Memphis area before or after the boys were murdered. So whoever killed the boys was from West Memphis and was not only familiar with the isolated area where the boys were killed and their bodies dumped but knew the boys would be in that area that particular day. Not likely. Why would some West Memphis resident suddenly decide to brutally kill three 8-year-old kids? No one has ever answered that question, or even really given it much thought—except perhaps Johnny Depp who knows nothing about West Memphis, Arkansas.

Thus, absent a serial killer or a psychotic resident, we come back to all the original players: Bojanles, Byers, Hobbs and the WM3. The horrific nature of the crimes, and the opportunity in which they were committed, pretty much eliminates Bojanles, Byers and Hobbs as the killers. The murder of those boys was either ritualistic or psychotic. Neither Byers or Hobbs have ever exhibited, either before or after the crime, the kind of psychosis necessary to kill those boy in the manner in which they were killed/tortured. And as for old Bojanles: assuming a strange black man stumbled upon the boys and wanted to sexually assault them, why would he kill them in the manner in which they were killed: tying them up with different shoe laces and disposing of the bodies in the manner in which they were disposed? There may have been a real Bojanles, but he didn’t kill those boys.

That leaves us with the West Memphis Three. Assuming the killing of the boys had nothing to do with the occult/Satanism, Damien Echols had a long history of mental illness as well as some peer/psychological control over Baldwin and Misskelly. To say that all three were social misfits would be putting it mildly. Each, in his own way, was spinning out of control, especially for a community like West Memphis. Thus, of all the named suspects in the case, the WM3 trio had motive, means, and opportunity to carry out the horrific murders.

The murder of those three boys, I believe, was a spur-of-the-moment thrill killing, probably not intended as such in the early stages of the confrontation between the WM3 and the Cub Scouts but escalated to the point of no return as Echols’s psychosis spun out of control. And I know a lot of people disagree with this theory, but it is much more probable than Depp’s “someone-flying-under-the-radar” theory.

36 Responses to “JOHNNY DEPP: SOMEONE FLYING UNDER THE RADAR”

  1. SpaceLord Says:

    I’m not sure who killed the three boys. I believe the WM3 are innocent, but I’m still not entirely convinced. But you need to look at the other suspects. John Mark Byers could have killed the boys. He kind of dwells on the excuse that he is ‘a very holy man’. But he has a history of theft and other things and doesn’t the bible say “Thou shalt not steal”? So I guess he is not all that good. Also, whilst watching Paradise Lost 1&2, he was acting incredibly strange. You can’t blame him all that much considering he had just lost his son, but I think there was more to his strange behavior. Also whilst watching Paradise Lost, Damien said that he thinks John Mark Byers committed the crimes and got his wife to cover it up, which I think is a possibility.
    As for ‘Mr.Bojangles’, well, how could you just say that this man didn’t kill those boys? The WM3 left no evidence, but this strange man in the restaurant did.

  2. Greg Day Says:

    Bojangles and Byers are red herrings Billy, so you should really stop bringing them into the mix. It just confuses things. I agree that the odds are against Terry Hobbs being the killer, though you have a couple of facts wrong/missing. Hobbs, according to David Jacoby, left Jacoby’s house at 6:00 or 6:30 to see if Stevie was home yet. That is nothing in and of itself, but Hobbs neglected to mention this to anyone – nor did Jacoby – for 14 years. Hobbs also said that he met Mark Byers at 6:00 or 6:30, when it is a bona fide fact that it was after 8:00 when Hobbs joined Byers at Byers’s house, where Byers and Dana More had just finished giving a report to WMPD officer Regina Meek. It isn’t Hobbs timeline that should give one pause, but his inability to tell the truth about his whereabouts. If you superimpose what we know the facts to be, over Hobbs’s deposition in the Natalie Maines defamation case, you can see what I’m talking about.

    This was no thrill kill; it was a criminally sophisticated act. The crime scene was virtually spotless and the method used to secret the bodies was the act of someone possessing more maturity than three teenagers.

    Although I have always had trouble coming down on one side of the issue or the other, I have always had trouble believing these three could have pulled off the crime. Not to say that it’s impossible, but you have to acknowledge the problems with the state’s case.

  3. Greg Day Says:

    I forgot something. You made this statement:

    “That left Hobbs with a two-hour window of opportunity—between 5:00 (when he dropped Pam off at work) and 7:00 p.m. (when he joined the search party)—to find the boys, strip them naked, tie them up with different shoe laces, inflict horrific injuries to them, and throw them into a creek still alive. AND ALL THIS DONE WITH AMANDA STILL IN THE VEHICLE. [my caps].

    Neither Jacoby nor Hobbs has been able to consistently state whether Hobbs had Amanda with him the entire time between 6:00 and 7:00. It is entirely possible, as either of them readily admit that Amanda stayed with Jacoby while Hobbs went out.

    As far as the “inflicting [of] horrific injuries goes”, most of the lacerations on the boys’ bodies were superficial, and could not have been inflicted with the knife that the state claimed was the murder weapon (the “lake knife”) nor is it likely that the “John Mark Byers” knife that the defense preferred caused the injuries. The causes of death were “multiple injuries” including basilar skull fractures caused by blunt force trauma, injuries that would most likely have caused death in and of themselves. Stevie and Michael were still alive when they were placed in the ditch as indicated by the presence of water in their lungs. This was not the case with Christopher Byers who died prior to being placed in the ditch.

    You may or may not choose to believe Drs. Spitz and Baden, along with Richard Souviron (who identified Ted Bundy’s bite mark on the left buttock of University of Florida co-ed Lisa Levy) when they say the marks on the boys were “animal product.” I’m not sure myself. I’m not an expert on animal predation, but I also don’t believe that whoever killed those boys would have bothered to inflict scores of small cuts if they were just going to cave in their skulls with a blunt object (the butt of a pistol had been suggested at one time.)

  4. Billy Sinclair Says:

    GREG: Thank you for the the factual clarification about whether Amanda was with Jacoby or whether she was with Hobbs during that two-hour opportunity window. But here is this issue that stumps me, Greg – did Hobbs (and possibly Jacoby) set out to kill the boys? Not likely. Most believe Hobbs was mad at Stevie for not coming home on time, so he beat him, and in the process accidentally killed him, and killed the other two boys to cover it up. C’mon Greg. That’s pretty far-fetched.How many men, no matter how bad, would kill two innocent kids to cover up an accidental killing of a third. That theory defies everything we know about about human behavior.l No one kills kids to “cover up” a mistake. Anyone who kills a child a sick motherf … He stalks the child, kills in a specific manner, and derives some perverse psychotic satisfaction from it. Niether Hobbs nor Jacoby are cut of that cloth. So I can’t buy that Hobbs set out to kill the boys between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. for some unexplained psychotic reason. He would have to find them and then kill them them in a methodical, deliberate manner. Granted, he may have the time to do it, but absent a showing that Hobbs is sick psycho capable of killing three kids, why would he? Give me any logical motive. Believe me, Greg, people do not die easily. I saw dozens killed in prison. And while I have never seen a child killed, it would take some time to beat, strangle, hogtie, and drown three kids. I can’t even fathom how one man could do it – physically or psychologically. But I can easily imagine three screwed up teenagers (one with serious psychological problems) committing this kind of crime. Their brains are not even developed enough to comprehend the gravity or enormity of carrying out such a dastardly deed. A pissed off stepfather is not psychologically capable to killing three children. Finally, as for as the “forensic evidence,” I work for a criminal defense attorney – I do legal research every day, and the cases are legion about flawed forensic evidence. The fact that some “experts” say the bite marks were “animal product” does not impress me. I believe that some of the physical injuries may have been caused by some animal predation. But those boys bodies were not decomposing – and what animals in that area were human flesh eating creatures. No, Greg, this horrific crime begins and ends with motive and opportunity. The WM3 had both in spades.

  5. Heather Says:

    What motive did they “have in spades”?

  6. Billy Sinclair Says:

    HEATHER: Damien had/has serious psychological problems. He wanted to exert control over others. All three teens, in one way or another, had a “drop out of society” mentality. They were at odds not only with society but themselves. Damien at his trial hissed, smiled, and licked his lips at the victim’s family. He, and his supporters, dismiss these sick antics as being juvenile. That’s just my point: a teenager capable of mocking not only the deaths of three boys but their grieving parents as well is more than capable of committing murder. I don’t believe the murder of those boys was a planned, premeditated crime. What I believe is that the path of the boys and teenagers crossed that day–and hassling and harassing by the teens got out of hand and murder of the boys ensued. That same “juvenile” disrespect for the death of three boys and their grieving parents could–and I believe did–lead to the horrific murder of the boys. Juvenile/teenagers can be extremely violent, utterly callous toward death. Countless studies bears this out. So the primary motive was having “the power of life or death.” Damien chose death. Baldwin and Misskelly never would have “acted out” alone; they needed a leader, an instigator–and they had the psychologically deranged Damien ready to provide it. Damien not only implied in front of others prior to his arrest that he was involved in the murders but toyed with the police indicating knowledge about details of the crime which had never been made public. This behavior culminated with his courtroom antics. WM3 supporters may dismiss this behavior at “juvenile” but I cannot–it was the manifestation of a serious psychotic disorder. It reflects such a casual disregard for death, even three young children. No one has ever pointed to a “motive” some other person would have had to kill those boys–not Hobbs, Jacoby, Byers or Bojangles. Hope this answers your question.

  7. Greg Day Says:

    BILLY: I agree with you completely. Hobbs’s irritation over Stevie wandering doesn’t constitute motive, any more than a spanking given to Christopher moved Mark Byers to commit murder. I have always had a couple of unanswered questions which have prevented me from buying into the Free the WM3 hype.

    • Where was Echols’s trench coat? He allegedly wore it everywhere, all year. Why wasn’t it recovered during the search? He testified that he thought that “his parents had it.” But they didn’t and it was never produced (he may have had more than one, but none were recovered).

    • Where are the alibis? The WM3 had none. One, even two of them without an alibi, perhaps. But all three? Paul Ford (Baldwin) testified at the Baldwin/Misskelley Rule 37 hearing that he could come up with NO alibi witnesses for Baldwin. Misskelley’s alibi “witnesses” were shredded on cross. Echols didn’t present any alibi defense, except to say that he was on the phone at his house . “When we were in trial I realized that Echols’ alibi defense was “not very, very strong”, Ford said. Ford was concerned that his “alibi witnesses would [not] hold up under cross examination” , and indeed they wouldn’t. When you consider that the first thing an attorney does in putting together a defense is to try and put his client somewhere else at the time of the crime, missing or faulty alibis for all three are extremely important.

    A couple of other things that supporters should consider. Misskelley gave a very specific description of his apprehension of Michael Moore:
    “Michael Moore took off running, so I chased him and grabbed him and hold him, until they got there and then I left.”

    Definitely a strange detail to fabricate. He also described the drowning of one of the boys.

    Brent Davis: Where you there when the three boys were killed?

    Misskelley-Yes I was there

    (attorney) Joe Calvin-I would like to ask a question if I might, when they threw them in the water were any of them screaming or kicking or were they all unconscious or do you know?

    Misskelley-They were not hollering they was, one of them was just moving

    Joe Calvin-When you say moving what do you mean?

    Misskelley-He was moving like a worm [emphasis added]

    “Moving like a worm.” Sure sounds like someone who was there, someone who saw what happened. And you’re right, Billy; people do not die easily. Two of the victims were still alive when they were tossed in the ditch, even after receiving mortal wounds to the skull.

  8. Billy Sinclair Says:

    GREG: You gave me more information and food for thought than I had. Circumstantial evidence is often more convincing than overwhelming evidence. Viewed in a sanitized vacuum, it is easy to make case of innocence for the WM3, but you have to ignore a slew of circumstantial evidence that, when cobbled together, makes a convincing case of guilt. Take the Misskelly confessions, for example. Beyond the inconsistencies, there is simply too much accurate information to explain away. You nailed when you referred to Misskelly’s use of “moving like a worm.” A “false confession” does not normally contain that kind of information, and it’s not the kind of information the police would supply. WM3 supporters, and Echols himself, casually dismiss Damien’s pre-arrest statements implying guilt as some sort of “juvenile play.” No one, not even “confused teenagers,” boast of being involved with the horrible murder of three kids–if you are “confused” enough to do that, you are “confused” enough to kill the boys. I am a criminal behaviorist – I spent forty years in the worst universities not only surviving but studying criminal behavior. I know a pathological liar when I see one; I understand the ways a guilty man tries to clothe himself in innocence. Everything about Damien Echols’s behavior–from the interrogation interviews, pre-arrest statements, trial conduct, death row behavior/interviews, and post-arrest actions–convinces me he is guilty; and if he is guilty, so are Baldwin and Misskelly. And that’s why the attorneys worked out the “Alford plea deal.”

  9. Billy Sinclair Says:

    GREG: You gave me more information and food for thought than I had. Circumstantial evidence is often more convincing than overwhelming evidence. Viewed in a sanitized vacuum, it is easy to make case of innocence for the WM3, but you have to ignore a slew of circumstantial evidence that, when cobbled together, makes a convincing case of guilt. Take the Misskelly confessions, for example. Beyond the inconsistencies, there is simply too much accurate information to explain away. You nailed when you referred to Misskelly’s use of “moving like a worm.” A “false confession” does not normally contain that kind of information, and it’s not the kind of information the police would supply. WM3 supporters, and Echols himself, casually dismiss Damien’s pre-arrest statements implying guilt as some sort of “juvenile play.” No one, not even “confused teenagers,” boast of being involved with the horrible murder of three kids–if you are “confused” enough to do that, you are “confused” enough to kill the boys. I am a criminal behaviorist – I spent forty years in the worst universities not only surviving but studying criminal behavior. I know a pathological liar when I see one; I understand the ways a guilty man tries to clothe himself in innocence. Everything about Damien Echols’s behavior–from the interrogation interviews, pre-arrest statements, trial conduct, death row behavior/interviews, and post-arrest actions–convinces me he is guilty; and if he is guilty, so are Baldwin and Misskelly. And that’s why the attorneys worked out the “Alford plea deal.”

  10. 2012 Says:

    Im guessing the highest level of math in Ark is 3rd grade lol. What a joke that whole place and justice system made of itself. Ohhh look at the spooky eyes LOL, friking hicks.

  11. Stanley Says:

    Come on Billy – and you too, Greg. If the WM3 did kill the boys like they said, their DNA would have been all over the place. Nothing, nada, ZERO. How do you explain that? You can’t. Hobbs had plenty of time, he’s a liar and has lied numerous times about that evening. Why would he say he never saw Stevie? His neighbor; who has no reason at all to lie and is an honest person said she saw him calling to him that evening. It was Terry Hobbs and perhaps Jacoby knew and helped him.

  12. Lisa O'Brien Says:

    By your own standard, Stanley, Hobbs must be innocent, too, since his DNA is not “all over the place.” A single hair that may or may not belong to Hobbs (it was not a perfect MtDNA match) was found on a shoelace that may have belonged to Steve. That’s not “DNA all over the place.”

  13. Big Al Says:

    First and foremost, people who believe OR don’t believe in God doesn’t automatically prevent them from being sinners, or being free from all temptation. I am tired of people saying that because JMB claims to be such a holy man that he wouldn’t be able to resist temptation and not steal? Don’t utilize the word of God to pervert your idea of what a man should be.

    Everyone’s past is littered with mistakes, but it seems we forget that when it is someone else.

    In its very existence this is a perfect example of what is wrong with the world today. People are so quick to judge others and scoff at their mistakes when we all have committed mistakes at one point or another in our lives. No one is perfect, and although I would like to see the murderers of these poor children brought to justice, I do believe in the end the truth will be discovered.

    No one crowned you judge and juror.

  14. Heidi Says:

    My heart tells me the west memphis 3 are guilty, though I wish to god they weren’t having been a misfit and social pariah myself as a teen. But no matter how much I’ve tried to believe in their innocence, I just can’t do it. I really think they did it. I just can feel it.

  15. distantobserver Says:

    @Lisa O’Brien

    Re: DNA all over the place. The boys (i.e. the West Memphis Three) had not vehicles so the murder had to have taken place where the boys were found. If you commit murder at a place you are VERY likely to leave at least some DNA there.
    Terry Hobbs, on the other hand, did have a vehicle (which I understand he sold a week after the murders). If the murder took place elsewhere (the boys, according to new testimony, were headed towards his house where nobody was at home), you can dispose of their bodies without leaving much trace. Hobbs had many windows to do that.
    Having a vehicle and killing the boys in a place other than where they were found makes the whole difference.

    (As to the motive: it may not have been disciplining gone out of hand, it may have been a long-suppressed grudge (Pam favouring Steve over Tedd) finally turning into rage. In an enclosed space the other two may well not have been able to escape).

  16. Katie Says:

    Heidi, when I first heard of this case, my skin crawled. Even before I saw the first documentary: Paradise Lost, my instict said these three individuals were guilty of the murders. Call it intuition, that’s fine. I spent a year riding with police officers in North Carolina and that gave me a different view of life. I began to think like a cop. It taught me to be more aware of my environment. I am not quick to judge, not at all, but in my heart and soul I know these teens did this crime. Why there was not more DNA evidence escapes me. I have read the entire (I mean entire) Misskelly confession, and he stated that the teens had been engaged in ritualized killings of dogs in those woods. Granted, he is mildly retarded, but so is my sister-in-law and she would not be apt to make up a detail like this. It is based in reality. All investigators and cops know that sick killers of animals often graduate to killing human beings. Also, I am always amazed at how calm, soft, and innocent a viscious killer can make himself/herself appear. These types of people are not like us, so we cannot apply logic alone. I am so sorry that this happened, and very sad that the perps are now on the street because of media propoganda. Shame!

  17. sharon ashman Says:

    I read the autopsy reports and two boys drowned and one bled to death. If they were murdered somewhere else and their bodies dumped at the crime scene they would not have water in their lungs! The supporters of the wm3 constantly say there was no blood at the crime scene. What they don’t mention is the fact that the area was later sprayed with a chemical called luminol which turns white when in contact with blood. For some reason luminol evidence was inadmissible at the time of the original trial. The areas where Miskelley said the crimes occurred were covered in white. To discredit Miskelly’s confessions they point to a few inconsistencies but he said there was a whiskey bottle that had been broken and it was found just where he said it was. In one confession he correctly stated the type of injury that matched the three boys. He said specific things that had not been released to the public. The term psychotic means you are not in touch with reality. In fact most people who suffer from psychosis are not dangerous. I believe Damien is an extremely sadistic psychopath. It is a crime that Arkansas released him.

  18. Crossball Says:

    He also said they used ropes when the killer used their shoelaces. Massive inconsistency and a hair of maybe Hobbs was stuck in a shoelace. Also, first Terry said that Stevies grandfather gave him a knife, then he said he didn’t know if he owned a knife then the knife was found with Hobb’s other knives.
    Too much back and forth evidence to convict. You know it, the State knows it and the killer(s) know it.

  19. Billie Says:

    distantobserver Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:42 am

    …Terry Hobbs, on the other hand, did have a vehicle

    …Having a vehicle and killing the boys in a place other than where they were found makes the whole difference.

    “““`
    It just adds to it even more that, the “stepfather” did not do it.

    Besides the fact that, murdered victims’ bodies ARE “part of the evidence”,

    why in the world would a “stepfather” (family member), dump the murdered bodies at this place:

    -Place that they were known to go to.

    [They were "last (known to have been) seen", heading in the direction of there.]

    And, would more than likely go some distance (to elsewhere), to dump these bodies.

    (Yes, it might leave some evidence in your vehicle,
    however, had a parent done this case, they would KNOW that the victims WERE going to be found, and pretty darn soon, since they were KNOWN to go to this area),
    and it is again stressed that: a victim’s body, IS part of the “evidence” in a case.

    It is ridiculous to believe that a family member,
    took the bodies to this area (after, according to your possible ‘theory’, all of this occurred somewhere else),
    a place where these children were known to go to

    (and then, made an effort to “hide” the bodies and the bicycles.)

    After “putting” them at place, that they were KNOWN to go to.

    A family member did not kill those young boys.

  20. Billie Says:

    (Also, where “else” do you think a “stepfather” would have killed them at, anyway???
    Noone has mentioned that one, in that crazy “theory”, put out there by supporters.

    And, there are other children at home,
    and, they have “neighbors” all around them.)

    The young boys went to this “remote area” (WOODS).
    They were killed in this “remote area”.

    (and their dead bodies and their bicycles were found in this “remote area.)

    Them being in this “remote area”, is part of the reason that they were killed.
    (The killers thought the remoteness (woods) would hide them, from being seen.)

    (And, if they went there with the intention of “trying” to find someone to kill,
    it looks like they picked a pretty good place to do it at.
    They may have even known that children did go there to play.)

  21. Billie Says:

    These young boys were at “the wrong place at the wrong time”. (as the saying goes)

  22. Billie Says:

    (Of course, those who lived in the neighborhood, would know that children went there to play.)

    (If WM3 did this case,
    then you have three “big” kids playing in the woods,
    and you have three “little” kids playing in the woods.)

    A case of “opportunity”,
    and this case has always looked to me to be, one that started off with,
    “bullying”.

  23. Billie Says:

    (If that is the case,
    it could be possible that they may have done a little playing with the bicycles, that belonged to the young children victims, too.
    It wouldn’t be surprising.

    Although they were rather small bicycles,
    it was something that THEY owned.

    Killers (if “poor” teenagers) possibly didn’t have a bike.
    (or a skateboard) They never did find that skateboard, did they?

  24. Billie Says:

    (Among the interests stated of Damien Echols, is:
    ….,skateboarding, ….)

  25. Billie Says:

    If I remember correctly, wasn’t the child who had a skateboard, Chris Byers?
    And sometimes he would get in trouble (by stepfather, John Mark Byers) for riding it in the street, and would sometimes take it away from him.

    I think I saw it stated that, they never did find that skateboard.
    Is that correct?

  26. Billie Says:

    (In regard to those statements made by the woman and her two daughters – who came out many years later and stated, these young boys were playing in their backyard, on day that they disappeared.)

    (They were found dead the next day),

    You notice that they “stated”:
    blonde-headed one (who they said was Steven Branch) was on a bicycle,
    and that “the other two were running behind him.”

    And said that, on THAT day
    (which seems to possibly NOT have been the day that they disappeared on),
    that they saw a guy (who they knew as the father of the blonde-haired boy) (Terry Hobbs), to get back down to the Hobbs house.

    “““““`
    But on the day that they went missing, it was stated that they were “last (known to have been) seen” at,
    heading in the direction of Robin Hood Hills.

    “““““
    My question is:
    Had the mother and daughter’s statement been correct,
    they only mentioned ONE bicycle.

    (TWO were found at the crime scene.
    So in regard to their “story”, I would then wonder, when did the other child get his bicycle.)

    “““““
    And from what I read, in regard to statement (or statements) regarding seeing them heading in direction of Robin Hood Hills,
    someone stated that they saw “four” children.

    (Maybe it was someone who just “embellishes” a “story”/or like many there, makes one up.)

    geesuz, who would even want to be a cop in Arkansas.
    (I guess if that is where they live at, they don’t really have a choice, do they.)

  27. Billie Says:

    Crossball Says:
    February 26th, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    He also said they used ropes when the killer used their shoelaces.

    “““`
    Actually, shoelace (the material cord) is considered to be, “rope”.

    Also, if someone was “binded” with shoelaces,
    some people may refer to it as, “rope”.

    http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/shoelace-rope.html

  28. Billie Says:

    Misskelley was not exactly “incorrect”, when he said, rope.
    (If he said, rope.)

    Perhaps, instead, you might should ask:
    Was Misskelley shown a crime scene photo that showed a victim with (what looked-like, rope) around the ankles and wrists?

    If you notice, in the crime scene photos,
    (I can see it in the crime scene photos of victim that is wearing the green t-shirt, that looks like it has been cut with a knife),
    you can see that the bindings are still on him.

    I am not saying that it isn’t shoelaces, but what I am saying is, looking at that photo, you might think it is rope (that is not of “shoelaces” type rope)

    Just from looking at that photo, I can tell that there is binding around the wrists and ankles, and that it “looks like” rope.
    (but, I cannot tell, just by looking at that photo, what type of rope it is.)

  29. Billie Says:

    It looks like the binding is around his wrists and ankles.

    (But I cannot tell if that is actually the binding, or if they have possibly already cut the binding off, and that is the marking on the skin, where the binding had been.)

    I have tried to resize/enlarge that photo, using Irfanview,
    but the more you enlarge it, the fuzzier the photo gets.
    (So, I cannot really tell.)

  30. Billie Says:

    It seems that these children had played in these woods before
    (and wasn’t it stated that they had some type of clubhouse there),
    it was stated that one of the father’s had told child, that he was not to go to that area.

    In reading about this case, it is obvious that these children did not mind their parents, though.
    (Which would also mean, the parents were pretty used to it, that these children did not mind their parents. I know that they tried to displine them, but what I mean is, surely they were used to this scenerio, of them not minding.)

    (And, they were possibly not the only children in the neighborhood, who didn’t mind their parents.)

  31. Billie Says:

    Little boys like to play anyway (ride their bikes around together, etc.),
    but these three also seemed to be pretty adventureous.
    (and they were all three boy scouts)

    It is understandable that they would like to go to this area.

  32. Billie Says:

    (At nighttime, however, this is a heck of a place to try to find three missing children.)

    (Even with a flashlight in my hand, I wouldn’t go to this place at nighttime, myself.)

  33. Billie Says:

    I would if I was trying to find my missing child,
    but other than that, I wouldn’t.

  34. Billie Says:

    Greg Day Says:
    October 9th, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    …Brent Davis: Were you there when the three boys were killed?

    Misskelley-Yes I was there

    (attorney) Joe Calvin-I would like to ask a question if I might,
    when they threw them in the water
    were any of them screaming or kicking
    or were they all unconscious
    or do you know?

    Misskelley-They were not hollering they was,
    one of them was just moving

    Joe Calvin-When you say moving what do you mean?

    Misskelley-He was moving like a worm [emphasis added]

    “Moving like a worm.” Sure sounds like someone who was there, someone who saw what happened.

    And you’re right, Billy; people do not die easily.

    Two of the victims were still alive when they were tossed in the ditch,
    even after receiving mortal wounds to the skull.

    “““““
    I keep wondering, did the mortal wounds to the skull BEFORE they were put in the water, or AFTER.

    And remember the sticks, that had the clothes wrapped around the bottom of it,
    and the stick was “stuck down in the mud”.

    (To put a stick down in the mud, in the water,
    it seems that a person would have to be right there, at the waterside, or, standing IN the water.)

  35. Billie Says:

    One more question:

    Between the time they were last seen, and when they were found the next day

    had it rained?

  36. Billie Says:

    Never mind, I found that answer.

    (Yes, it did rain.)

Leave a Reply