I used to think they were innocent, but not any more....

If that is the case though, let's look at the flip side of the coin. Let's discuss Terry Hobbs that night (and his actions before/after the murder).

1. He claimed he was one of the last ones to see the kids alive, as well as a neighbor put witnessed him walking into Robin Hood Hills around the time of the murder.

2. He was physically and sexually abusive, as told by Pam, Amanda and Mildred French, his ex neighbor he sexually assaulted.

3. His alibi (David Jacoby) claims that Terry left Amanda at David's house and would disappear and return randomly.

4. Terry Hobbs claims that he heard a gun shot in RHH during the time of the murder.

5. Terry Hobbs was never questioned by the WMPD and in fact took off within weeks of the murders, moving away.

Now. I do not think Terry did it. But if we are going to argue about alibi's and what not, let's not forget Mr. Hobbs.

The main issue isn't just that the first confession is inconsistent. They ALL are.

A friend of mine summed it up beautifully.

1.)
Someone who supposedly admits hitting someone with a stick when it has not been shown that the victim was actually hit with a stick was probably lying when he made that “admission.”  The children were not beaten unconscious with fists or branches; they were each given a few blows to the back of the head or elsewhere on the skull with blunt objects that have still not been accurately identified, but which were not any of the sticks or club-like branches brought into court.  The thin sticks were those used to hold the clothing down in the drainage ditch, and the club-like branches were not shown to have been used in the attacks at all.  They weren’t even gathered until shortly before the trials, and had no blood, skin, brain, skull, or hair samples on them to indicate they’d been used to strike any person; and the boys’ wounds had no bark or wood fibers in them to indicate they’d been struck with anything wooden, and particularly not with rotting branches.
 
Instead of making inane rants like this, actually study the forensic reports and autopsy photos.  And actually READ all of the alleged “confessions” fully from beginning to end.  Stidham kept interrupting Jessie because the lawyer had actually understood the maps and pictures of the BB woods, the drainage ditch, and so on while what Jessie described showed he had no idea what it was really like inside the BB woods and the gully with the drainage ditch in it.  When he was finally able to get through to Jessie that he was wrong about the layout of this place you contend he “knew well” Jessie was surprised.
 
And, yes, animals could easily have investigated and tried feeding from the bodies both wherever it was they were left lying immediately after death and after they were hidden in the shallow water of the drainage ditch. Shallow water isn’t much of a deterrent to many animals such as raccoons, coyotes, turtles, and the like.  And you might read up also on how it is competent medical examiners tell that bodies were moved after death.  Lividity indicates the children’s bodies were moved after lying mostly on their backs for some time after death before they were pressed face down into the mud at the bottom of the ditch.

Jessie claimed the boys were beaten with sticks. They weren't. He claimed fists were used. They weren't. Lividity showed the boys were on their backs when they died and were there BEFORE they entered the water.

2.) "If Jessie indeed knew the area and knew it well, then why couldn’t he describe it accurately?  Why did he describe accurately buildings a half mile west of the BB woods along the highway, buildings closer to his home, but not the area where the bodies were found?  Why did he say he was looking directly across the pipe bridge and the freeway into the parking lot of the dog track which was in reality better than a quarter mile east of the BB woods?  Why did he say the pipe bridge was up by the access road and the freeway when it was south of the BB woods and well west of the drainage ditch area where the bodies were found?  Why did he say the bodies were dropped into clear, deep water when they were actually found in shallow, muddy water?  Why in the Bible “confession” did he describe at least three completely different scenes to be seen looking across the pipe bridge, none of them consistent with what could really be seen from it?  Why did he at one point indicate that the pipe of the pipe bridge was about as big around as his thigh when in other places he described it differently?"

And you know this how?  In the so-called Bible “confession” to Stidham he describes a number of inconsistent views to be seen looking across the pipe bridge, which sometimes he describes as being where the bodies were found, although the pipe bridge was invisible to anyone in the steep sided gully with the drainage ditch at the bottom where the bodies actually were found.  He also in one place describes the pipe bridge as being up on the north side of the BB woods, when it was actually southwest of the BB woods.  He says he could look across the bridge and the canal under it and see the parking lot for the dog track, which was a bit better than a quarter mile east of the BB woods on the north side of the freeway.  He describes the water in the drainage ditch as being deep, over his head, and clear enough to see bodies drifting down toward the bottom after they’d been dropped into the water.  The water in the ditch, as shown in the photos of Bryn Ridge standing in it during the recovery of the bodies, was stagnant and opaque, and barely to his knees.  The bodies were not dropped into the water, but placed there deliberately and pushed into the thick mud at its bottom, the bodies barely under the surface of the opaque, muddy water.  What appears to be the print of a shoe can be seen on the back of Stevie’s head, indicating whoever placed his body there stepped on his head to force it deeper into the mud.
 
Oh, and that drainage ditch is a drainage ditch and not a creek.  It started in the field east of the BB woods and was dug first at a southwest angle into the woods and then southward toward the canal that runs along the northern side of the neighborhood in which the victims lived at the time.  Creeks carry flowing water from a source to some larger body of water, and the water tends to be moving at all times except at the height of summer.   Drainage ditches are dug to drain water away from land where it would generally sit unmoving, making the land boggy.  Water only tends to flow in drainage ditches when there is rain or water flowing from higher ground into the ditch and through it to a larger receptacle for the water, in this case the Bayou drainage canal.  The BB drainage ditch only had water in it because it had rained several days earlier, and not all of it had dried up as yet.  The videos taken by the WMPD shows the water was covered with a yellow dusting of either dust or pollen that moves only when someone disturbs the water, which shows that the water was stagnant--unmoving.  NOT a creek.  After the ditch was pumped dry as they searched vainly for murder weapons and the like, it remained dry for at least eleven days, in spite of a light rain before they did the Luminol testing.
 
So, no, Jessie didn’t know either the drainage ditch running southward in its deep, steep-sided gully through the BB woods, or the Bayou Diversion Channel running east and west dividing the commercial land along the access road running parallel to the freeway from the Weaver Elementary neighborhood, or the lands and properties surrounding these two features.  In his initial description to Ridge and Allen as to where he was standing while the murders were taking place he said, up by the highway at the head of the ditch.  This, however, was outside the BB woods, near the corner of the field east of the BB woods.  He couldn’t have seen the place where the bodies were found or where the boys were supposed to have died.  So they pressured him to say “east” or “west” instead, which would at least have him inside the woods where he could possibly have seen what Jason and Damien were supposed to have been doing what they did to the victims.  He says that he was drinking Evan Williams whiskey and that Damien and Jason were sharing a case of cheap beer, and that the others were playing around in the water and ducking under the water to go down on one another.  But for either to have his genitals IN the water, he’d have to be sitting down and the other person lying on his belly with his head in the other’s lap.  Doesn’t sound inviting to me.  Would you allow someone to go down on you if you were sitting in mud deep enough to hold a child’s body in suction?  I can’t imagine anyone wanting to do oral sex in such a situation, either as giver or receiver of the fellatio.  Jessie describes clear, moving water of some depth; the real water was shallow, muddy, and filled with trash."

None of Jessie's descriptions were accurate or even CLOSE to the truth. That sets off massive alarm bells for me and enhances the idea the police fed info or tried to manipulate the kid.