|
Post by kma367 on Jun 27, 2007 15:18:59 GMT -5
I'm surprised my response to Dave's post got such swift reaction from the mods. I expected them to ban me for even making it.
Did you actually get to see it? It was disgusting!
kma367
|
|
|
Post by rugstain on Jun 29, 2007 20:22:24 GMT -5
I hear Dave has been banned at the borg. Any truth to the rumour? If so, do you think it is possible he could do anymore damage to the supporter movement? There's something to be said about a guy that puts links in his posts that actually disprove his arguments.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jun 30, 2007 14:18:50 GMT -5
The ban appeared to be only temporary, because I think he had posting privileges back the next day.
It's no surprise to me, since Destini and Sea used to do it all the time.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2007 21:37:19 GMT -5
Sorry, just now seeing this. As far as Dave, I have received numerous emails from posters over there (supporters) who could not stand his stupid (and damaging) posts.
I even got emails from some of the mods, saying they were trying to calm him down.
As far as I know he has not returned to posting under his old nick, although this latest post by "Steve Branch's Mom" sure sounds like him.
rh
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jul 5, 2007 19:11:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I wouldn't put it past him, but the way the mods are addressing the poster, I think they've checked and confirmed that it's not him.
It's too bad Riordan hasn't filed the "significant" DNA evidence yet. She wouldn't have to wonder if they're guilty or not.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by rugstain on Jul 6, 2007 2:39:07 GMT -5
Jules told me that she checked IP's and actually phoned her. It is her apparently.
kma, what's your recollection of the Rollins show at the New Daisy Theatre? Pam posted at the borg that she did not ask for an autograph from Rollins.
I was chatting with someone else who was there (you may know him, hehe) and he tells me she not only requested an autograph but a look at his tattoos.
Now, I have the greatest sympathy for all the parents of the boys but Pam comes across as a bit 'flaky'.
I mean, being smitten by a guy who is trying (not through his knowledge of the case from what I can gather) to free the convicted killers of your son?
Hmm.
|
|
|
Post by baddie76 on Jul 6, 2007 14:16:42 GMT -5
Whatever it is, I'm sure she feels strongly in her convictions (no pun intended). I don't think she is stupid or a rube.
Sorry if what she is saying makes you unhappy in anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2007 14:55:31 GMT -5
Actually, I am afraid Ms. Hobbs may be being manipulated. According to the KAIT report, she is involved with a movie. One can assume by the production company mentioned that it is the Devil's Knot film.
Also, let's not overlook her passion for her religion. As everyone will agree religion requires a blind faith and thus you must go on "impulse" as Ms. Hobbs admits.
Finally, and I have considered this theory long before her Statement, the supporter movement has a brainwashing effect.
To explain: Steve, Michael and Christopher were killed 14 years ago, yet books are being written about or by the convicted. T-shirts abound displaying the convicted. Movie stars, rock stars, TV producers all line up to support the convicted.
For many (and this could include a divorced mother of a victim), one way to get close to the case (or to keep your child's memory alive) is through the only Worldwide vehicle to do that in....the Supporter Movement. Think about it. There isn't a Remember the West Memphis Victims benefit album, there aren't WAD rallies for the victims, or stars lining up supporting the victims families. There aren't documentaries or books profiling the victims lives. There are no Amazon.com wishlist for people to send gifts to the victim's families.
As sad as it sounds, perhaps the only way for some to deal with this tragedy is to keep the book open.
Also, there are rumors flying around some boards about DNA matching "one of the fathers" (not Byers). Since DNA testing has not been released (unless the victims' parents are privy to something the general public isn't), I would assume it is just rumor. However, if Ms. Hobbs has been told this as fact (regardless of its validity), perhaps that has swayed her opinion.
I do know that as of this posting, wm3.org has not mentioned anything about Pam's declaration (which is odd) and Pam's Myspace Page (which someone was logged onto today) still states her previous opinion and questions the wm3.org's profit making off her son's murder.
rh
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jul 6, 2007 19:53:47 GMT -5
I don't really remember. She was very sweet not to mention that I monopolized Rollins as much as PENU did.
And you all should give her credit where credit is due, it was Pam who went down to Beale Street and got me and PENU there to protest outside Rollins' show.
Pam's always had a lot of things going on in her life and it's been a tough one for her, especially with Steve's murder. She has good days where she's satisfied with the outcome and knows who killed her son, and she has bad days where she wonders if the right people are in prison.
As I said on the other thread, there are a few things going on that I can't talk about publicly. As soon as I can, I promise I will.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by abs on Jul 18, 2007 1:05:30 GMT -5
You have no right to say what you say. You are saying that you have sympathy for all the parents except Pam ( the "flaky" one). Hello. Pam fought to have the pictures of the boys removed from the documentaries. She felt offended that her son and the other boys could be viewed by everyone in their deaths. You, me, everyone. I don´t like it either. I like Pam. And what do you mean when you call Pam "flaky"?
|
|
|
Post by abs on Jul 18, 2007 1:24:41 GMT -5
Only now read your post, Randy. As a mother, father, a parent, wouldn´t you crave the truth about what happened to your child? I strongly dislike what you say about Pam. I do believe she just wants the truth. And nothing else. Stop this gossip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2007 13:33:57 GMT -5
abs,
Yes as a parent I would only want the truth about who killed my child. Hell, as an outsider on these discussion boards that is all I want.
I've had a couple people say I was too harsh on Ms. Hobbs. I disagree. I have been respectful to her while first rightfully questioning her identity, and then discussing this sudden change of opinion with her. She chose to announce her opinion on a "discussion board". Did she or anyone else expect there to be no discussion?
I once was a supporter and Ms. Hobbs once called me a baby-killer lover. Although at the time, I neither loved the three convicted or thought they were baby killers. Despite that, out of respect for the victims parents (which I have always tried to show) I accepted her label and understood her sentiment. Other supporters would fight back with her and call her a "whacky" drunk or worse. Amazing what agreeing with some people will do!
I think she wants the truth. I just happen to also think that she, along with others misinterpret things and are told things that are exaggerated and that blurs those people's opinions.
Her response has changed subtly since she made the first MAD ICONED declaration that mimicked almost verbatim DaveNJesq's recent rants about DNA and how the WM3 didn't touch her son and that meant they were innocent. Over the short course of her posting, she has retreated back to a "I'm not sure and I want to be sure" opinion. What does this tell us?
That leads me to believe that she made this "blockbuster" declaration that Kathy Bakken suggested was "shaking the house of cards that the nons had built", as a spur of the moment, emotional reaction to something that she has now either reconsidered, was not as significant as she believed, was better explained to her or was false to begin with.
rh
|
|
|
Post by rugstain on Jul 18, 2007 20:56:17 GMT -5
abs,
I most certainly do have that right. Maybe read what I wrote again...
Now, I have the greatest sympathy for all the parents of the boys
See that asta? ALL.
I mean precisely that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2007 21:03:03 GMT -5
Well now that it is posted on the supporter board , I guess we can discuss the rumor that has been flying around for over a month?
Terry Hobbs (ex husband of Pam) is the new suspect based on unreleased DNA evidence that suggests his hair is under one of the knots.
That is the type of thing that I was talking about that could emotionally cause Pam's new declaration. In the story over there she admits not knowing if it her anger towards him that makes him believe he had something to do with it or not.
This is going to get interesting, especially watching Larner backpeddal on secondary transfer.
rh
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jul 18, 2007 22:06:28 GMT -5
Yes, Randy, that's going to be an interesting thing to watch. Although, unfortunately, Larner will rely on the "DNA" part and ignore the secondary transfer part, or the fact that the presence of that hair is probably not related to the murders, since Mr. Hobbs lacked the opportunity, means and/or motive to commit the murders.
The supporters will also not cease their accusations against Mr. Byers, even though the absence of evidence even after "2006/2007" technology has been brought into the case.
Also, did you see Wolf's "bolded" statement about Mr. Hobbs not being home. How much do you want to be that he/she/it is going to claim that Pam was saying Mr. Hobbs wasn't home at the time of the murders, rather than that he wasn't home at the time Burch talked to Pam?
kma367
|
|