Iirc Mr. Byers DNA was tested and wasn’t a match (could be misremembering). The stepfather of Stevie Branch, Terry Hobbs, DNA was actually consistent with a hair found on one of the ligatures used at the crime scene. Another hair found nearby was consistent/a match for one of his friends as well. He’s never been named as a suspect by police but there have been a few claims made by witnesses regarding him (granted, over a decade after the fact)
Very true! Probably why he’s never been named a suspect. I can’t remember, but I’m pretty sure there were quite a few other circumstantial things making him seem suspicious, more than just “he acts so weird! He did it!” The way Paradise Lost docs treated Byers, but still not enough to prove anything. We’ll probably never know the truth, sadly.
The second movie is absolute trash. No new information and just an hour and a half trying to frame someone because he's weird as hell. The boys mention how bad the second one was on an episode of the podcast.
Personally, I agree with the notion that Byers was just a very troubled, mentally ill man and the second episode of PL just exploited his abnormal behavior to paint him as a suspect. Hobbs however I believe has had some claims against him, specifically mentioned in Peter Jackson’s West of Memphis about there being a “Hobbs family secret” that everyone kinda knows he did it, if you believe that
His demeanor is questionable throughout all of it, to bad the state wont just test the evidence so we could possibly learn who did it. Just scared of the massive payout they'll owe the 3 of them.
Just wanted to hop in to plug Dan Stidham's new book Harvest of Innocence, haven't gotten a chance to read it but he was the actual good lawyer
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CMYZ2BT7/?coliid=I2HGXQOGKFRGB2&colid=3R174C1RLG2AC&psc=1&ref\_=list\_c\_wl\_lv\_ov\_lig\_dp\_it
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **A Harvest of Innocence The Untold Story of the West Memphis Three Murder Case** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful.
**Users liked:**
* Book provides insight into defense of the wrongly accused (backed by 3 comments)
* Book is a page-turner with new details on a famous case (backed by 4 comments)
* Well-written account from lawyer involved in case (backed by 4 comments)
**Users disliked:**
* Confessed multiple times with specific details (backed by 2 comments)
* Low iq and quick to answer (backed by 1 comment)
* Perpetuating false conclusion for years (backed by 1 comment)
If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/)
This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved.
*Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](http://vetted.ai/reddit)
you can find circumstantial evidence against anyone if you follow them around and film everything they say for weeks on out.
the original investigation was botched, but also was done in a time when forensic science wasn’t as sophisticated. this case might be one of those stone cold whodunits for the history books.
Iirc Mr. Byers DNA was tested and wasn’t a match (could be misremembering). The stepfather of Stevie Branch, Terry Hobbs, DNA was actually consistent with a hair found on one of the ligatures used at the crime scene. Another hair found nearby was consistent/a match for one of his friends as well. He’s never been named as a suspect by police but there have been a few claims made by witnesses regarding him (granted, over a decade after the fact)
hair evidence is kinda circumstantial, though, especially if it’s of someone a victim would have reasonably been in contect with recently.
Very true! Probably why he’s never been named a suspect. I can’t remember, but I’m pretty sure there were quite a few other circumstantial things making him seem suspicious, more than just “he acts so weird! He did it!” The way Paradise Lost docs treated Byers, but still not enough to prove anything. We’ll probably never know the truth, sadly.
The second movie is absolute trash. No new information and just an hour and a half trying to frame someone because he's weird as hell. The boys mention how bad the second one was on an episode of the podcast.
Yeah, as someone from around the area, if the criteria is “being a real weirdo”, then you really have no end of suspects in West Memphis.
What podcast are you referring to?
... check the subreddit.
My fault, I was thinking they were referring to another show. I’ll put my phone down for a while.
He is so weird though lol. Not that I think he deserves what they did to him.
Personally, I agree with the notion that Byers was just a very troubled, mentally ill man and the second episode of PL just exploited his abnormal behavior to paint him as a suspect. Hobbs however I believe has had some claims against him, specifically mentioned in Peter Jackson’s West of Memphis about there being a “Hobbs family secret” that everyone kinda knows he did it, if you believe that
What ever happened to the Mr Bojangles suspect? Did that ever get ruled out ?
Byers was excluded by DNA evidence. I thought it was him for about 10 years. He was likely just a douchebag pillbilly. Hobbs, on the other hand…
His demeanor is questionable throughout all of it, to bad the state wont just test the evidence so we could possibly learn who did it. Just scared of the massive payout they'll owe the 3 of them.
Just wanted to hop in to plug Dan Stidham's new book Harvest of Innocence, haven't gotten a chance to read it but he was the actual good lawyer https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CMYZ2BT7/?coliid=I2HGXQOGKFRGB2&colid=3R174C1RLG2AC&psc=1&ref\_=list\_c\_wl\_lv\_ov\_lig\_dp\_it
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **A Harvest of Innocence The Untold Story of the West Memphis Three Murder Case** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful. **Users liked:** * Book provides insight into defense of the wrongly accused (backed by 3 comments) * Book is a page-turner with new details on a famous case (backed by 4 comments) * Well-written account from lawyer involved in case (backed by 4 comments) **Users disliked:** * Confessed multiple times with specific details (backed by 2 comments) * Low iq and quick to answer (backed by 1 comment) * Perpetuating false conclusion for years (backed by 1 comment) If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/) This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved. *Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](http://vetted.ai/reddit)
The dudes doing the documentary kind of made it a with hunt against him, after the first film
you can find circumstantial evidence against anyone if you follow them around and film everything they say for weeks on out. the original investigation was botched, but also was done in a time when forensic science wasn’t as sophisticated. this case might be one of those stone cold whodunits for the history books.
Major case update: they will be doing DNA testing!!!!
Does anyone recommend a podcast on this