Terry Hobbs - My Story

[reedus23]

That's not what I said.

My apologies. Let me rephrase that introductory phrase. Since no physical evidence was found to connect the knife to anybody,...

Rather, your attempt to dismiss the grapefruit demonstration is just a show, as are all the other attempts to do so without presenting the autopsy photo which the jury was asked to compare with the marks left by the knifes on the grapefruit.

My apologies again. What witness testified about the grapefruit? It has been a while since I read the trial transcripts and I may have forgotten who that was. In order for it to be actual evidence and something more than a show, it had to have been received into evidence during the trial, not in closing arguments. Since that's the case and I have a faulty memory, if you could just tell me the witness that provided that testimony or discussed that bit of evidence, I will go back and read it myself. Many thanks.

Paid said he used a Marlboro box in a photo for scale, but hasn't provided any such photo so that scaling can be assessed by those of us who do consider careful evaluation of evidence meaningful.


Well then, is there any chance you might ask him to demonstrate how the dentures could come into the contact with the skin at anything close to the angle he's comparing them at while they are actually inside someone's mouth.

I'm going to guess that Paid doesn't do what he does to placate reedus23 or kyleb.

 

[reedus23]

It's not a bite mark now, and it never was, but if it was indeed a bite mark, look at the area it covers, from the left edge of the nasal bridge to not even midway across the child's brow. It's so small, it would have to have been inflicted by a toddler.

I don't know if it is or not. What I have heard is enough for me to believe it should at least be appropriately checked and either ruled in as a possibility or ruled out. Even the prosecution's expert, Dr. Mincer, said it might be a human bite mark. So I'm not quick to rule anything in or out when it comes to finding justice for Stevie, Michael and Chris.

 

[kyleb]

It's so small, it would have to have been inflicted by a toddler.

Perhaps a toddler's teeth could reasonably account for the whole 1-1/8" semicircle rather than only the portion Paid is comparing to the dentures, but even a toddler couldn't rightly get their teeth perpendicular to someone's forehead in such a location as the face of the victim in the way of the rest of the head of the perpetrator regardless of their retaliative sizes.

So where did we get to with the lake knife?

We're at different places on the survival knife, I suggest setting it aside for a while to focus on the matter an looking back on what others have noted regarding the wounds themselves. In particular Dr. Harry Mincer noted during Echols' 1998 Rule 37 Hearing:

11 as I stated, there were many circular marks that were present
12 all over the neck, chin, cheek, above the eye, et cetera. And
13 they all seemed to me to have been made by a -- a circular
14 object that -- a hollow pipe or something that would have been
15 making such a -- such a mark on the face.

Also, whitegoddess made a similar observation on the BB regarding the one semicircle over Stevie Branch's forehead:

It's almost like you could hold a shot glass over it but the bottom part of the circle is missing

And just earlier in this thread Compassionate Reader touched on why the impact of circular surface will result in a semicircular mark:

the wound includes at least two different planes - the flat plane of the forehead and the curved area below the eyebrow which is part of the eye socket.

Paid apparently understood the issue of planes when he made this post back in 2009:

Now does anyone have a substantive dispute against any of the observations regarding the wounds which I've quoted here?

 

[Alyssa2013]

I thought it was already established that the bite marks were caused by the snapping turtles?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I thought it was already established that the bite marks were caused by the snapping turtles?

One mark on Steven, the one on the cheek, is most probably a snapping turtle. The one to the forehead/eyebrow/eye socket area is not a snapping turtle. A snapping turtle bite would be more elongated. This is the mark in dispute. Originally it was opined by Dr. Mincer that it might be a human bite mark (IOW, a human bite mark could not be ruled out) but that he couldn't be sure that it was one.

Since Jessie's wild stories didn't mention any biting, Dr. Mincer, as a prosecution witness, would not want to opine that the bite was definitely a human bite mark. However, as Paid has patiently shown on the BB, Dr. Mincer didn't have Hobbs' partials with which to compare the mark as they were not recovered until much later (2004, IIRC). So, IMO, it is entirely possible that the forehead wound might have been caused by Hobbs' partials, making it a human bite mark, I guess.







Some people need to realize that it is possible to change a previously-held opinion, especially when new information is made available.

 

[kyleb]

Originally it was opined by Dr. Mincer that it might be a human bite mark

Rather, originally the human bite mark claim was opined by Brent Turvey, and while Dr. Mincer said "if this was the only picture I had.. I could say this might be a human bite mark", that was only after he explained:

the conclusion was you would expect to see somewhere a curved pattern similar to a human bite. But with reasonable certainty to expect that all of these other wounds were made by some other instrument and that one wound was made by a human bite, would be beyond reason.

And then regarding those curved pattern wounds he went on to explain "they all seemed to me to have been made by a -- a circular object that -- a hollow pipe or something".

Dr. Mincer, as a prosecution witness, would not want to opine that the bite was definitely a human bite mark.

Huh, I figure most people want to tell the truth to the best of their ability regardless of what side they wind up as a witness for. What leads you to assume otherwise here?

Some people need to realize that it is possible to change a previously-held opinion, especially when new information is made available.

I realize this, and in that regard I hope everyone will take a close look at this autopsy photo and consider it in the context of what Dr. Mincer actually said:

 

[reedus23]

Rather, originally the human bite mark claim was opined by Brent Turvey, and while Dr. Mincer said "if this was the only picture I had.. I could say this might be a human bite mark", that was only after he explained:


And then regarding those curved pattern wounds he went on to explain "they all seemed to me to have been made by a -- a circular object that -- a hollow pipe or something".

Personally, I don't think Turvey is qualified to say what it is. He can make his personal observations, just like the rest of us, but ultimately someone with expertise in that field needs to make that determination. In much the same vain, Mincer is getting outside of his area of expertise when he is talking about things outside of bite marks/dentistry. Like Turvey, he can make his personal observations just like the rest of us, but that's all it is, a personal observation.

Huh, I figure most people want to tell the truth to the best of their ability regardless of what side they wind up as a witness for. What leads you to assume otherwise here?

In an ideal world, you are right. In reality, expert witnesses meet with the lawyers paying them and tell them to ask the question this way and I can give you the answer you want but don't ask me the question a different way because I won't be able to say what you want. So while I think they answer truthfully in most instances, the truth is carefully scripted to avoid the WHOLE truth from being discussed.

I realize this, and in that regard I hope everyone will take a close look at this autopsy photo and consider it in the context of what Dr. Mincer actually said:

Yeah, as he said, it might be a human bite mark. Regardless, test the partials. Find out one way or the other. Move forward from there either way.

 

[21merc7]

Thanks for the photo showing more marks kyleb.


From what we can see there are several more perfectly circular marks. We can't see the entire marks though. These are not caused by snapping turtles, or any turtles. Turtles have elongated mouths, beak like almost. I don't know of any other critters in woods and creeks with circular mouths. ETA Again: I found some more photos. The chunks out could be from turtles or other animals, but the circles are not.

It is sad that still, all these years later, no one can identify the marks. I am now wondering if the child's face was picked up and slammed down on something repeatedly.

ETA: The more I think about it, the more it looks like the bottom of a beer, wine, or soda bottle. Or a bottle cap, like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kronenkorken_03_KMJ.jpg

from:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottle_cap"]Bottle cap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[kyleb]

Mincer is getting outside of his area of expertise when he is talking about things outside of bite marks/dentistry.

Perhaps, but do you have any substantive dispute with his observations?

In an ideal world, you are right.

No, in an ideal world all people would want to tell the truth to the best of their ability regardless of what side they wind up as a witness for, not just the most I figure do. I've no doubt that with some people, expert witnesses and otherwise, "the truth is carefully scripted to avoid the WHOLE truth from being discussed" as you suggest. However, I know not all people are so dishonest, and best I've been able to figure most people aren't.

Yeah, as he said, it might be a human bite mark.

No, Dr. Mincer said the notion that the wounds are a human bite mark is "beyond reason", regardless of how much you'd prefer to aviod that portion of the whole truth.

It is sad that still, all these years later, no one can identify the marks.

I just started looking into this case last spring, but the source of the purported bite mark was apparently identified over a decade ago, by Dr. Homer Campbell and Dr. Peter Loomis:

I believe the injurie to the left forehead and upper lid of the left eye were produced by the knife recovered or one similar. I also sent the photos of the injuries and the knife to another for evaluation and he agrees.
Have fun with this and thank you for sending it to me.
Homer
-----------------------------------------------

Homer,

Bingo. The circular mark sure looks like the butt of the survival knife. The measurements fit. The diameter of the injury is 30mm, and the diameter of the prominent circular area of the butt of the knife is 29.8mm.

The 3 lacerations under the eyebrow look like they were made by the serrations on the back side of the knife. The measurements also fit here. The lacerations measure 11.2mm between them, and the serrated points on the knife vary between 11.1 and 11.4 mm. Of course the photo
with the wooden ruler is blurry depicting these serrations but I can still measure them.

Peter

And here's an image which demonstrates as much:

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Again, the attempt to link the mark on Steven's forehead/eyebrow/eye socket area to the butt of a survival knife doesn't take into consideration the differing planes on which the wound occurs. If it is a bite, it doesn't mean that the biter put his whole mouth into the bite. It could have just been a "nip" at the eyebrow area. That would explain why the whole complement of teeth can't be fitted neatly onto the wound.

As to the attempt to link the lower part of the possible bite to the blade of the survival knife, IMO that's just lame! It's a real stretch, at best, and smacks of desperation, IMO. If not the lower teeth, it's certainly not the lake knife of the infamous grapefruit demonstration.

As to what could have caused the more or less circular marks on Steven, I think it could be a hammer. The same hammer could be responsible for the basilar skull fracture on Michael, at least, and maybe all three (although personally I think Steven's was caused by another agent - the floor or wall of a manhole). I also think that the injuries were postmortem or at least peri-mortem, and I think that they were inflicted to insure that the already comatose victim was dead.

 

[reedus23]

Perhaps, but do you have any substantive dispute with his observations?

I'm no more of an expert in the field than Mincer was, so like him, all I would have to contribute are my personal opinions after reading and reviewing what others had opined. Do I agree with his observations? I'm open to hearing it out. But I would also take it for what it is, an area outside of his area of expertise.

No, in an ideal world all people would want to tell the truth to the best of their ability regardless of what side they wind up as a witness for, not just the most I figure do. I've no doubt that with some people, expert witnesses and otherwise, "the truth is carefully scripted to avoid the WHOLE truth from being discussed" as you suggest. However, I know not all people are so dishonest, and best I've been able to figure most people aren't.

I suppose it depends on ones definition of dishonesty. Take Mincer for example. I don't think anything he said was dishonest. His opinions are his opinions. But if you are honest but only telling half of the story is that being honest or dishonest. For example, Mincer had never been asked to compare the wound to Hobbs' partial. Hypothetically, let's say they match. By not asking him to compare the two, it allowed him to say it's not a human bite mark. So is it being honest to not make the comparison in order to avoid having to give damning testimony or is the more honest approach to have actually made the comparison, in which case, under this hypothetical, he would have to opine in favor of the WM3?

Regardless, what I believe all sides need is more transparency. In fact, with Mincer having left that door open, if indeed there is a match, I would like to know if Mincer's opinion himself has changed. He certainly left himself that wiggle room.

No, Dr. Mincer said the notion that the wounds are a human bite mark is "beyond reason", regardless of how much you'd prefer to avoid that portion of the whole truth.

I understand. While he said they "might be" human bite marks, he could not state that they were human bite marks "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty." Legalese and I can appreciate the difference. What is interesting, as I said, is if his opinion would change if they are a match. His opinion was only based on the pictures he reviewed. There were no comparisons done. He absolutely left himself an out to change his opinion if other evidence was developed. Likewise, his opinion would still be consistent with a new expert saying it is a human bite mark based on an actual comparison.

 

[kyleb]

Again, the attempt to link the mark on Steven's forehead/eyebrow/eye socket area to the butt of a survival knife doesn't take into consideration the differing planes on which the wound occurs.

Here's a diagram depicting how the knife aligns with the wounds:

And again here's one depicting the notion that the wound is a bite mark doesn't come anywhere close to aligning with the wounds:

But if you are honest but only telling half of the story is that being honest or dishonest.

Telling half-truths is dishonest, and doubly so after swearing an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", but of course one has to respect the concept of honesty to comprehend such things.

 

[reedus23]

Telling half-truths is dishonest, and doubly so after swearing an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", but of course one has to respect the concept of honesty to comprehend such things.

I agree. That's why I wish someone like Mincer would have actually looked at comparisons and then rendered his opinion. If you read his testimony, he says they might be human bite marks but he can't say that to within a reasonable degree of medical certainty because he didn't look any further by doing comparisons. By stopping short of doing a complete analysis, he was able to give the prosecution what they needed and have his opinion still be an "honest" one. Do the full review/analysis and I'll respect the opinion even more. Until then, it's an honest answer but not a full answer.

 

[kyleb]

That's why I wish someone like Mincer would have actually looked at comparisons and then rendered his opinion.

That's what he did.

he says they might be human bite marks but he can't say that to within a reasonable degree of medical certainty because he didn't look any further by doing comparisons.

Rather, Mincer said "I came to the conclusion with reasonable certainty that it was not a human bite mark"? Do you not comphrened the difference, or do you just not care?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

That's what he did.

I believe that the point here is that Mincer had not compared the bite mark to Hobbs' partials which were not available at the time Mincer made his statements. Do you comprehend the difference, or do you just not care?

 

[EntreNous]

the blade teeth i could almost see if it weren't for the fact that the ocular cavity didn't drop off so dramatically just past the bridge of the nose. for that reason i just can't make sense of the marks being in such alignment. i've tried an experiment with a similar knife on different objects like fruit, a doll, and gently on my own nose/eyelid. i just can't repeat those marks with the knife. the knife would have to bend. also, the but of the knife is plastic. not sharp like a knife blade. would the but of a similar knife be capable of inflicting the same mark with the same "clean" cuts?

 

[Cappuccino]

Terry Hobbs has been named as a suspect in the mainstream media, he has attempted to sue for libel, and had his libel case thrown out of court. If its not acceptable to discuss Terry Hobbs as an alternative suspect on Websleuths, then there is no point in this sub forum.

However, I think you'll find it is acceptable to discuss Terry Hobbs as an alternative suspect on Websleuths.

 

[Cappuccino]

Not to mention the Lisa Irwin forum. Terry Hobbs is being given an easy ride compared to Deborah Bradley.

 

[kyleb]

I believe that the point here is that Mincer had not compared the bite mark to Hobbs' partials which were not available at the time Mincer made his statements. Do you comprehend the difference, or do you just not care?

I do comprehend the difference between what Reedus said and what you believe his point was, and I care about respecting the difference between what people have actually said and what one might imagine their words to mean. In that regard, I'm still hopping you'll elaborate on your assertion here:

Since Jessie's wild stories didn't mention any biting, Dr. Mincer, as a prosecution witness, would not want to opine that the bite was definitely a human bite mark.

What leads you to believe Dr. Mincer wouldn't want to uphold his oath to tell the truth to the best of their ability regardless of what side he wound up being a witness for?

the blade teeth i could almost see if it weren't for the fact that the ocular cavity didn't drop off so dramatically just past the bridge of the nose.

Before getting into your contentions with the knife I'm curious to know, do you see any problems with the notion that the wounds might be a bite mark?

 

[EntreNous]

i do have problems with the bite mark theory which i thought had been ruled out, no?
i conducted my own experiment on the bite mark theory and posted photos somewhere on here many months ago. feel free to look for them. i cannot remember which board and since i've owned my current phone for over a year and the photo was taken with my previous phone, i wish you much luck.
i've spoken with dental professionals. a small child and my poodle has a bite mark that size. not an adult.