Exactly!! I saw these documentaries and can see through the bs! After I was supposed to be swayed to Byers as the guilty party I was supposed to be swayed to Hobbs in the next one. Ridiculous how they can just pick a new person to go with when one doesn't work anymore. Maybe the next documentary will be exclusively about Mr. Bojangles but they need to make sure they don't omit his broken arm in a cast this time! The only thing that sticks is what they already have which is three men who were found guilty, exactly like their Alford Plea states!
Wrong. Bojangles arm was NOT in a cast. That is a "non-lie" or "nonsense". It was in a fabric sling, which means nothing (Ted Bundy used to use a fabric sling to aid in murders as well). Between Terry Hobbs, The WM3 and Mr. Bojangles, Mr. Bojangles looks the most suspicious (being covered in mud and blood and what not).
Because there was no blood and they left zero evidence means what? That the kids weren't killed? So, because there isn't blood evidence there wasn't a triple homicide? Possibly the water washed away the blood/evidence but don't choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence of their guilt!
\
If you read the medical examiners reports you will see that there should be a fair amount of blood evidence from the 3 victims. Now, do a google search for the WM3 and tell me if they look like the type that would shower daily or wash their clothes regularly. Now, keep in mind that the police searched all their houses and didn't find a drop of any genetic material anywhere. That is what sends up a red flag to me.
At least someone gets it. I've heard people say that teenagers wouldn't be smart enough to leave no physical evidence at the scene, which implies it was an experienced killer. That theory is bogus to me because I cannot accept that one person killed these kids, not to mention different types of knots were used to tie them up. Now we go from one experienced killer to two or more. The odds of serial killers working together are extremely low, and even if they weren't serial killers, finding two or more men who had motive and the apparent "education" to not leave any evidence still limits your odds. The most plausible explanation is that the killers simply got lucky. Which doesn't at all rule out that three teenagers did it--one of whom confessed five times, no less, and another two who have no alibis for that night.
Well according to Jessie, they splashed water on the banks and made zig-zag patterns to cover their tracks... Luminol was used at the crime scene, which tested positive for genetic material, but it could have been anything (animal urine for example will give a false/positive) so even that isn't exact science.
If you read John Douglas (who has a stellar reputation, no matter how badly the "nons" try to smear him), it paints a different picture of the crime and what happened.
reply
share