Comments on: Suing Natalie Maines, Per Usual

By: chris

chris — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:25:17 +0000

This is a free country and you can say what you wish, however, there are CONSCEQUENCES for the things that you say and do. WAKE UP JACKASS! It’s called taking responsibility.

By: Sunnyone

Sunnyone — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:41:17 +0000

Okay first and foremost this is not a free speech issue. She didn’t state an opinion she stated facts and accused Terry Hobbs of murder.

That being said her “facts” were wrong. The DNA that she stated was Terry Hobbs was in fact only consistent with the DNA that was assumed was his (the defense team took cigarette butts from his front yard). Also 1.5% of the population could also be the donor of that DNA. That totals approximately 3.5 million people.

That is the only evidence that even points towards Terry Hobbs, and the defense team and experts clearly stated it was “very weak evidence”.

Also, if you only watch the documentaries, you letting yourself be pulled into the media hype and bias.

Some facts not in the documentaries:
All three of the convicted confessed in one form or another. With Jessie confessing at least three times, including one after his conviction with his attorney present where he cleared up the inconsistencies of his first one. Even stating he did that to mislead the police.
Fibers found that were similiar to items at Jason Baldwin’s home, and Damien Echol’s home on the victims.
Blood found on Damien’s pendant that matched not only Jason Baldwin, but one of the victims.
Blood found on the shirt Jessie was wearing that matched his own and Michael Moore (the one in Jessie’s confession that he stated he hit).
All of the above mentioned evidence the defense for some reason did not test for DNA, makes you wonder why.

She not only spouted off at the rally, but she also published a letter with the same wrong “facts” on the Dixie Chicks website, hence why all the Dixie Chicks are named, with Natalie being the main focus.

As for Terry Hobbs suing anyone else.. that is false. I think you might have confused him with the other step-father… John Mark Byers.

By: ThatLisa

ThatLisa — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:42:29 +0000

After reading this, and the comments, I started really looking into the case. It is so interesting. The case had SO many flaws. At the least, the men deserve a new trial. It’s insane.

I applaud anyone who is willing to stand up and demand justice. If those three are innocent, I feel horrible for them. It’s such a crazy case. Research it if you are bored and have time.

By: Ivy Shoots

Ivy Shoots — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:45:31 +0000

Notice that all the negative comments are from people who were not familiar with this case in the first place. Ironic that so many of them discount Maines’ right to express her INFORMED opinion, while they go right ahead and express their UNINFORMED opinions.

I saw both documentaries years ago (I also think Dateline or some similar, impartial show covered the case) and there was really no evidence that the convicted teens were the murderers, and much more evidence pointing to Hobbs than the teens.

Read this:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/35197

By: Beet Czar

Beet Czar — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:54:33 +0000

OMG, enough with celebrity opinions as if they are gospel, as if their word, their thought on a subject lends it gravity. They have a talent in a particular field, I want to hear them talk about that; so about anything else, shut up. They don’t need to listen to me either.

By: Indigo

Indigo — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:53:28 +0000

She was at a freakin rally for the three convicted men/boys for god’s sake. It’s not like she spouted this off at a concert. It was an appropriate statement at an appropriate event.

By: Raye

Raye — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:43:43 +0000

“In 2007, DNA collected from the crime scene was tested. None was found to match DNA from Echols, Baldwin, Misskelley nor John Mark Byers. In addition, a hair from Terry Hobbs, stepfather to Stevie Branch, was found tied into the knots used to bind the victims. The prosecutors, while conceding that no DNA evidence ties the accused to the crime scene, has said that, “The State stands behind its convictions of Echols and his codefendants.”

By: Tracy

Tracy — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:19:00 +0000

Apparently they (the other ‘Chicks’) support her 100%. If they didn’t they could kick her out of the band and find someone less controversial. Publicity is publicity I guess.

I agree with whoever it was above that says she’s entitled to her opinion. Telling someone to shut up and sing and threatening to kill them is ridiculous for an opinion.

By: eggy weggs

eggy weggs — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:16:56 +0000

You know, that second documentary on the West Memphis Three was perhaps one of the most terrible and biased pieces of tripe I’ve ever watched. The filmmakers totally accused the step dad — who is indeed unstable, no denying that — of killing his step son. Of course, it seems these filmmakers-cum-detectives came to their conclusions based on the same reasons the jury found the West Memphis Three guilty — because he was weird and didn’t conform to their idea of the father of a boy who had been murdered.

Perhaps Natalie Maines watched the second documentary rather than the first one. Maybe she, like so many, should be a little better informed before trying this man in the court of public opinions.

By: heyhey

heyhey — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:14:53 +0000

If everyone minds their own business these three men ( who were only boys when they were wrongly arrested and locked up) will continue to serve their sentences for the rest of their lives. Its sad but sometimes it takes publicity like this for people to get involved and see the injustice that sometimes takes place in our systems.

By: Nora

Nora — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:32:31 +0000

That Natalie Maines…she’s always runnin’ her mouth.

Mind your own damn business.

By: Beet Czar

Beet Czar — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:31:14 +0000

she’s an obnoxious bore that uses her celebrity to spew her views on the public… shut up and sing. just shut up and sing. or just shut up.