Fogleman talks Supreme Court, WM3 at Lions
Second Judicial District Circuit Judge John Fogleman spoke at the Trumann Lions Club on Jan.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truman Democrat.
#1 Jan 29, 2010
In the speech, Judge Fogelman, in discussing the West Memphis Three, said:
"They found a hair that belonged to a step-father of one of the boys and another hair belonging to a friend of that step-father," Fogleman said. "But, what is really unusual about finding a hair from a step-father on his step-son? I would think that would be something expected.
Let's break this down quickly:
1. "They found a hair that belonged to a step-father of one of the boys"
Ooops. Judge, the hair wasn't found on "the stepfather" (Terry Hobbs) son Stevie Branch. It was found in the binding of one of the other boys who was murdered (Michael Moore).
2. "They found ... another hair belonging to a friend of that step-father,"
Again, Judge -- goose egg. You raise this issue -- that a hair was found that belonged to David Jacoby, a friend of Terry Hobbs whom Hobbs hadn't seen that day until after the murders.
You then ignore it. Could that be because there is no possible innocent explanation for it?
Judge .... a man sits on death row and two others have been living in hell for 16 years. Don't you think you should have your facts straight and be able to at least address the issues you raise?
FREE THE WM3
#2 Jan 29, 2010
Another damn Monday Morning Quarterback. Were you there? Were you even born then? I didn't think so. so shut up.
I've got a new slogan for you
FRY THE WM3!!!!!!
#3 Jan 29, 2010
Yeah, big surprise thee ...... I talk about evidence, you throw around "shut up." I guess when there's no way to defend the convictions by logic and reason and sanity, well.... there's always "shut up!"
#4 Jan 29, 2010
No, I get sick of you bleeding heart liberals who don't know shit from shinola about the case other than reading through "the devil's knot" or watching some other slanted/biased HBO documentary.
#5 Jan 30, 2010
Yah. You don't even see the pattern here, do you? I referenced evidence. Physical evidence. I talked about Fogelman's inability to "explain away" Terry Hobbs' friend's hair at the discovery site (not to mention Terry's hair being in the binding of Michael Moore). There is no explanation for this except that Hobbs is the killer. Get it, genius? The difference between physical evidence - DNA - and your name calling crap? And this is in addition to Hobbs' being found with Stevie Branch's boy scout knife that Stevie "always had with him." In addition to three witnesses who saw Hobbs with the boys shortly before they were killed (while he denies even seeing them that day), in addition to ....
Oh, never mind - you're just going to respond with name calling again, because you got nothing else. Your mind is made up - no sense confusing you with the facts. So I guess I oughta jump down to your level and remind you that you're a happy fucking moron and that it was backwoods ignorant redneck shits like you that put the WM3 in prison and who are too prideful to admit it was wrong. Go to hell.
#6 Jan 30, 2010
Well dumbass, if you'd read into it you'd realize what I was saying. Basically, that the bullshit you're spouting is the same bullshit in the devil's knot. Almost verbatim. Besides, that hair doesn't prove shit. If the binding came from the boy then its very possible hair evidence from his stepfather could have been on his clothes, his bindings, etc. You will find your hair evidence on your children's clothes, belongings,etc if you co-habitate. So just because they found a hair matching the stepfathers in the bindings etc. does not disprove anything. Doesnt' even amount to reasonable doubt( which is what is necessary to find them not guilty.) So again, why don't YOU focus on the evidence unbiasedly instead of from that which sounds like someone slanted to their innocence.
You're the hardheaded media spoonfed idiot who has his mind made up. Why not try examining the evidence and maybe coming up with an original thought instead of regurgitating the same tired bullshit.
oh,and as far as going to hell, you go first idiot.
#7 Jan 30, 2010
Hey, super-genius -- Devil's Knot was published in 2002. The DNA that clears the WM 3 was discovered in 2007. In 2008 the hairs were shown to be Hobbs. In 2009, the witnesses stepped forward and proved that Hobbs was the last one seen with the kids before they were killed.
So .... how did this come out of a 2002 book or 1997 movie? DUH.......
YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING FOGLEMAN DID -(A) LYING THAT HOBBS' HAIR WAS FOUND IN *HIS* STEPSON'S BINDING - IT WASN'T. IT WAS FOUND IN MICHAEL MOORE'S BINDING. AND, LIKE YOUR BUDDY FOGELMAN, YOU ARE IGNORING COMPLETELY THE HAIR FROM HOBBS' FRIEND JACOBY ... WHO HOBBS HADN'T SEEN ON 5/5/93 UNTIL AFTER THE KIDS WERE MURDERED.
I don't know if you followed it, but the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled last month that it does not constitute slander to say publicly that Hobbs did it ... think about that. And -- the same judge who said it will be ruling on Damien's habeas corpus later this year.
#8 Jan 30, 2010
Hey yourself. The fact is there is no "DNA evidence" that clears them. Just because a hair was found that belonged to a friend of one of the suspects doesn't mean anything. The defense Is trying their damnedest to point fingers. They pointed them at one parent previously and when that didn't work now they're trying for the otehrs. Fact is, If I come over to your house I could possibly pick up hair evidence from you, your boyfriend, and whoever else has been over there. When you find me dead does that mean you, your boyfriend, or whoever else did it? NO, dumbass.
Fact is your all up the defenses ass and on their bandwagon. You go right ahead. Matter of fact, I'll play your game. Tell me exactly what your evidence proved? This was all introduced and failed to get them a new trial.
Hmmm, guess the judge wasn't buying into the blanket bullshit evidence.
one final note, Fogleman isn't my buddy. He's a damn good attorney and a damn good judge. A bit anal, but hey, thats a good quality in a judge.
#9 Jan 31, 2010
First off, the HBO movies (not documentaries) did not persuade me - not even close. I thought the WM3 could well be guilty - in spite of the circus of a trial ("8 is witches number" from a mail-order Phd .... in modern courtroom??) I got interested in the case in law school in a criminal law class (via a prof who never revealed his position, but a vote after reading Jessie's statements, etc, was 22 - 3 in favor of not guilty).
Okay, I'll put aside for the moment the issue of Terry Hobbs' hair somehow ending up in Michael Moore's binding (not, as Fogelman incorrectly said, in Hobbs' stepson's binding)- we'll say it magic'ed itself there.
The bigger point you continue to ignore is how David Jacoby's hair ends up at the crime scene, the fact that he was the last one seen with the boys before they were killed, Hobbs' former girlfriend's statement (and other evidence, but I'll limit it for now). The following is not disputed by anyone:
1. Terry Hobbs was with David Jacoby from around 5:00 to about 6:05 - not before then on 5/5/93.
2. Hobbs was seen by three independent witnesses with the boys at about 6:30. Hobbs denies under oath (Pasdar deposition) having seen the boys at all that day.
3. We know where Jacoby was all evening by multiple witnesses - he had nothing to do with the crime. Yet his is hair is found at the discovery site. PLEASE GIVE ME AN INNOCENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS. Secondary transfer to Hobbs to discovery site, unless you got a better idea.
4. Hobbs' ex girlfriend gave an affidavit in 2006 wherein she says that Hobbs told her, while intoxicated, that he had found the boys "buried underwater" during the night of 5/5 - 5/6/93 but "didn't tell anyone because he was afraid they'd say he did."
5. The affidavit remained under seal when Hobbs was (finally... 14 years too late) interviewed by the WMPD in 2007. During the interview, Hobbs uses the bizarre phrase "buried underwater" -- same phrase Sharon Nelson quoted him as saying. Affidavit with this phrase was made before the interview .... SO PLEASE GIVE ME AN INNOCENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS.
6. Hobbs has told repeated lies (massive inconsistencies) trying to create an alibi for himself between 6:05 (leaves Jacoby's) and about 8:05 (seen by Dana Moore) on 5/5/93.
Once again, your whole "ooh, you accused the wrong stepfather for 15 years" is a nonsense avoidance of the evidence as we now know it to exist. Yeah, the Kershaw knife (which Mark said was never used and then turned out to have blood on it) and Mark's behavior and the fact that, sadly, kids are most often killed by a family member was more evidence than ever existed against the WM3. I personally defended him and never accused him, but that's hardly the point.
Let me ask you something - is the Earth flat? I mean, that's what they said at first .... then they said it was round ... now they say it's an oblate spheroid...?! Why can't they keep their theories straight??
The point is that the evidence - physical, witnesses, and circumstantial - is strong against Hobbs and essentially nonexistent against the WM3.
And Fogelman .... I think he believed what he was doing in 1993 / 1994. That doesn't bother me, in spite of the utter absurdity of Jessie' statements which he might have seen through, and his mail-order PhD to scare the jury with Satanic Panic nonsense.
But for Fogelman (et al) to continue to refuse to look at the facts today (as you're doing) and to avoid the logical conclusions (as you're doing) is what makes me now come to question his character today. He's putting pride and politics above truth and justice ..... and that's a pretty damned scary thing, especially for a potential ASSC Justice.
He has a choice - man up, admit the undeniable facts point to innocence, or keep lying about where a hair was found and ignoring the Jacoby hair and Hobbs evidence.
#10 Jan 31, 2010
Okay, put aside for the moment the issue of Hobbs' hair somehow ending up in Michael Moore's binding (not in Hobbs' stepson's binding)- we'll say it magic'ed itself there.
The point you continue to IGNORE is how David Jacoby's hair ends up at the crime scene, the fact that he was the last one seen with the boys before they were killed, Hobbs' former girlfriend's statement (and other evidence, but I'll limit it for now). Not disputed:
1. Hobbs was with Jacoby from around 5:00 to about 6:05 - not before then on 5/5/93.
2. Hobbs was seen by 3 witnesses with the boys at about 6:30. Hobbs denies under oath (Pasdar deposition) having seen the boys that day.
3. Jacoby's hair is found at the discovery site. PLEASE GIVE ME AN INNOCENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS.
4. Hobbs' ex gave affidavit in 2006 - saying that Hobbs told her, while intoxicated, that he had found the boys "buried underwater" but "didn't tell anyone because he was afraid they'd say he did it."
5. The affidavit remained under seal when Hobbs was (finally... 14 years too late) interviewed by the WMPD in 2007. During it, he uses the phrase "buried underwater" -- same phrase Nelson quoted him as saying. PLEASE GIVE ME AN INNOCENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS.
6. Hobbs has told lies (massive inconsistencies) trying to create an alibi for himself between 6:05 (leaves Jacoby's) and about 8:05 (seen by Dana Moore) on 5/5/93.
The evidence - physical, witnesses, and circumstantial - is strong against Hobbs and essentially nonexistent against the WM3.
And Fogelman .... I think he believed in what he was doing in 1993 / 1994. That doesn't bother me, in spite of the absurdity of Jessie's statements which he might have seen through, and his mail-order PhD to scare the jury with Satanic Panic nonsense.
But for Fogelman (et al) to continue to refuse to look at the facts today (as you're doing) and to avoid the logical conclusions (as you're doing) is what makes me now come to question his character. He's putting pride and politics above truth and justice ..... and that's a pretty damned scary thing, especially for a potential ASSC Justice.
He has a choice - man up, admit the undeniable facts point to innocence, or keep lying about where a hair was found and ignoring the Hobbs evidence (Jacoby etc).
#11 Jan 31, 2010
(First post didn't show - I thought it was too long and edited it down ... then 1st showed up)
#12 Jan 31, 2010
David P. Davis, you have some good points, but you're missing a few facts. If you'd read the eye witness reports themselves, not a one of those women stated that Hobbs was with the 3 boys, only that he was calling them to come to his house. One of the three used the expression "come back down here."
Hobbs's hair could actually have been transferred to little Michael Moore from Stevie Branch's clothing by one of the perpetrators of the crime.
#13 Jan 31, 2010
Satanic Panic. Oh yeah, then why was Pamela Hutchison complaining to one of the mental hospitals that she was afraid of Damien and thought him involved in satanism one year prior to the murders.
You need to read before buying all the defense bs.
#14 Feb 2, 2010
truth .... thanks for your responses, but:
STILL, no response from anyone on how Jacoby's hair gets there via any method except secondary transfer from Hobbs, who hadn't seen Jacoby on 5/5/93 until after the boys were missing.
Yes, I have read the affidavits. Seriously... you seem intelligent, so I'm surprised: you really think there's a difference between seeing Hobbs with the boys and seeing him yell to them "come back down here"? It's not like they said he was just yelling to boys' names as in looking for them, he was yelling to them "come back down here."
What abut the other affidavits and witnesses to Hobbs' statements (Sharon "buried underwater" Nelson, the ones made to Mark Byers - trying to create alibi for himself btwn 6:00 and 8:20, ETC)
You're pulling out a few issues, but ignoring the vast majority of them.
And, I wouldn't debate that Damien was one ill cookie. But Jerry Drive and Steve Jones (juvenile officers) had has psych records before the crime. Driver said, at the crime scene, "it looks like Damien Echols finally killed someone" and the rest of the "investigation" was "get Echols", not "who did this?"
#16 Feb 8, 2010
When was the Jacoby hair found? At the time of the crime scene investigation or much later? Who said Michael Moore was tied with his own shoe laces?
#17 Feb 8, 2010
Sallyann - the link to the above website (wm3blackboard) is a group of people (including Mark Byers and Pamela Hobbs, parents of the murdered children who support the West Memphis Three) who discuss the case on a regular basis. You can join anonymously - plenty of folks around to answer any questions you might have.
The Jacoby hair was actually found at the murder scene in 1993 (2nd or 3rd day of the investigation)- it wasn't until 2007 that the technology existed to match it to him (by mtDna, color and length).
The laces used is one of the big issues discussed - they were abnormally long. I don't remember which boy was tied with which boy's laces.
But, the relevant piece here is that Terry Hobbs' hair was found in Michael Moore's binding (Hobbs was Stevie Branch's stepfather, and [although witnesses have now stepped forward to call him a liar on it] Hobbs denied seeing the boys at all the day they were killed).
#18 Feb 9, 2010
What is the source of your claim the jacoby hair was found on the 2nd or 3rd day of the investigation? I do not find that.
#20 Feb 10, 2010
What I found was the hair was not found until about a month later? To me that makes a lot of difference.
#21 Feb 10, 2010
Not that Dave Pervie Davis is a pathological liar or anything but:
[b]"The laces used is one of the big issues discussed - they were abnormally long. I don't remember which boy was tied with which boy's laces."[/b]
Actually dave here knows full well that Moore wasn't tied with his own laces - the color was wrong.
He's known this for two years now.
He's just doing what he needs to do in order to avoid admitting that the lace the hair was recovered from was in all likelyhood Hobb's son's.
And the hair wasn't found "in a binding", it was just a fragment found ON a shoeleace 15 years ago.
Dave knows this as well, but it doesn't work into his argument, so he "embellishes".
And last but certainly not least, dave's somewhat less than honest about the actual DNA findings.
Here, you can read the Defense's own expert report on the hairs:
[b]Thomas Fedor: "The two hairs that I know about – the one that could have in fact come from Mr. Hobbs and the one that could have in fact come from David Jacoby – constitute what I call weak evidence. Because there are other people it could have come from and there isn’t any way to really prove our selection of possible sources for that hair. I don’t think – my personal opinion – I don’t think that that hair evidence would be enough to convict Mr. Hobbs or Mr. Jacoby or anyone that would be in a similar situation because it’s simply not strong enough. The percentages I gave of people who could be the source of those hairs are 1.5% of the population in the respect to one hair and 7% in respect to the other hair. That’s not particularly strong evidence and especially in the context of what most people are accustomed to with DNA testing. These odds are considerably weaker than what we would call an STR DNA test that virtually provides a source."[/b]
Not quite as compelling as dave here would have you believe, huh?
Again, I'm not calling him a pathological liar - because he makes it so obvious that my pointing it out would be redundant.
#22 Feb 11, 2010
I find it to be both strangely interesting and completely frustrating that some people will go above and beyond in the search for reasons why the ONLY pieces of actual evidence that were found during the initial police investigation (which lasted for three months prior to any arrests) could have been deposited there by any means other than transference from the most likely of all people. No one has bothered to take into account that Terry Hobbs was the only person amongst all possible suspects that was in the presence of David Jacoby on the evening of March 5, 1993. The only way that Jacoby's hair could've made its way to the crime scene via secondary transfer would've been through Hobbs. Secondly, the ligatures on each of the three boys were a mix of laces. No single pair of matching laces was found on any one boy. Along with this, one of a pair of ligatures were cut on one end and matched as two halves of one very long lace (such as a boot lace). Therefore, the probability of Michael Moore having been tied up with at least one of Stevie Branch's laces is about 33%. In and of itself, this does allow a fair chance and an explanation of the existence of the Hobbs hair. However, logic begs that we consider all available evidence when attempting to piece together the portrait of a perpetrator.
When you consider the laundry list of possible evidence against Terry Hobbs; the DNA evidence found at the crime scene and on Michael Moore, Hobbs’ continual inability to produce a solid or believable alibi for various periods of time on the night of the murders (this can be found in the sworn testimonies of Pam Hicks, John Mark Byers, Dana Moore, David Jacoby, etc.), his extreme tendency toward violence (based on his personal history including police reports), documented sexual abuse by Hobbs against his daughter and a former female neighbor, documented drug abuse, Hobbs’ actions and demeanor on the night of the murders and since (including leaving Pam Hicks for a period of two weeks just after), the sworn testimony from three neighbors who said they saw Hobbs yelling to all three boys to come back to the house on the evening of the murders, the discovery of Stevie’s prized pocket knife amongst Hobbs’ personal belongings around 2003 (Pam believed this to have been taken by whoever killed Stevie because he always kept it in his pocket), and the fact that Hobbs was never interviewed and never provided DNA samples until 2007, one would be hard pressed to not feel there is likely some strong connections here.
If you contrast the doubt that is beginning to pile up against Terry Hobbs with the fact that there is no single item of tangible evidence to tie either of the three convicted to the crime, how could you not question the reliability of the verdicts that were passed 16 years ago. You can easily find articles and statistics that show the high incidence of false confession by even the most competent of persons when placed under sustained duress. There are documented cases of individuals who have come to believe they were guilty (even of committing murder) when the evidence comes to show there was no way that person could have committed the crime. This problem is severely compounded when you put a juvenile and a person that is borderline mentally retarded into the equation. We all have access to virtually all of the original items obtained for evidence by the WMPD as well as the trial transcripts. If you take the time to read the “confession” by Jessie Misskelley, it becomes immediately obvious that the officers led him into the proper answers. His initial replies were so “off” that the judge denied a warrant for arrest.
Add your comments below
|del hillis||10 min||obviously||12|
|Did you vote today? (Jun '10)||24 min||Reality Check||38,156|
|Ashley Gosa William Williams Williams||1 hr||Amy Tucker||3|
|wolf talking||1 hr||get real||16|
|Gary anderson||1 hr||sadly||11|
|Lazy people||2 hr||Well||3|
Find what you want!
Search Trumann Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC