Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[kyleb]

The yes or no CR quoted Hobbs being asked lack details which would aid in recollection if what was asked actually occurred, that's a fact.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The yes or no CR quoted Hobbs being asked lack details which would aid in recollection if what was asked actually occurred, that's a fact.

Sorry. There is no way to get around it. They were yes or no questions. He danced all around them. The truth is the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

You're the one dancing around the fact that yes or no questions can be vauge, and in the case of questions like "Did you ever tell anybody" they are very vague.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You're the one dancing around the fact that yes or no questions can be vauge, and in the case of questions like ""Did you ever tell anybody" they are.

Sorry no. Yes and no questions deserve yes or no answers. It's simple. Dancing is not my thing.
He either told someone or he didn't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ausgirl]

He should have been instructed to answer truthfully. A lawyer is not supposed to encourage their client to lie under path.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

..........srs.

I think that in reality, countless lawyers around the world, every day of every year, tell their clients how NOT to incriminate themselves. Whether the client did it, or not.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

..........srs.



I think that in reality, countless lawyers around the world, every day of every year, tell their clients how NOT to incriminate themselves. Whether the client did it, or not.

Well I was deposed a few times. I was told to tell the truth. If I did not know to say I did not know and not guess. But if I did to state the answer truthfully.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ausgirl]

I am confident that Hobbs was told the same thing.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I am confident that Hobbs was told the same thing.

That would be an assumption. We don't know. But he is lying. He knows whether he discussed these things or not. One would not forget discussing the deaths of three little boys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ausgirl]

That would be an assumption. We don't know.

And you're assuming the lawyer told him to lie.

 

[Ausgirl]

I'd never thought about it that way, but I agree. When I was a teenager, I lived with a bunch of friends in a big apartment that ended up burning down because our landlord was a neglectful slumlord. We did nothing to cause the fire. I almost died as a result, along with two of my roommates. A fireman did die. Even though we did nothing wrong, our lawyer instructed us to respond to any question we weren't sure of the answer with "I don't recall" or "I can't say for sure" during the lawsuit depositions. It's pretty standard. Although, I will say I'd be surprised if TH truly didn't recall the answers to some of those questions. And anyway, his answers to other questions are much more telling. And I'll never forget the creepy laugh when asked about back handing his wife.

Yeah, he's a real piece of work.

Wow, so sorry to hear about the fire, and the poor fireman! So glad you and your roomies made it out.. jeez.

Anyway, the "I don't recall" thing seems pretty standard. You can see it in several witness statements in the trials. The softball girls, for one example.

I do think Hobbs used this standard tactic, and used it to avoid answering some very pertinent questions, also. Bit of both, so to speak. But the tactic itself seems pretty standard, and IMO it's probable it was on his lawyer's advice.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And you're assuming the lawyer told him to lie.

In assuming a lawyer acted in adherence to the law. That is what is supposed to happen. Difference.

This man is a liar and a viable suspect. The fact that the da has not pursued this is ludicrous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Compassionate Reader]

My problem with his faulty memory is that he was being asked questions about the death of a stepson who he professed to love. Other parents have made consistent and detailed statements about the events of May 5, 1993, even years later. TH, however, seems to have a faulty memory about those events. That, IMO, is very suspicious - which, IMO, makes him a viable suspect in the murders.

 

[C_G]

My problem with his faulty memory is that he was being asked questions about the death of a stepson who he professed to love. Other parents have made consistent and detailed statements about the events of May 5, 1993, even years later. TH, however, seems to have a faulty memory about those events. That, IMO, is very suspicious - which, IMO, makes him a viable suspect in the murders.

You ask me what i had for dinner three weeks ago and I could probably be not 100% sure. You ask me where I was and what I did the day my child was murdered 20yrs ago and I would know every detail.

 

[EntreNous]

My problem with his faulty memory is that he was being asked questions about the death of a stepson who he professed to love. Other parents have made consistent and detailed statements about the events of May 5, 1993, even years later. TH, however, seems to have a faulty memory about those events. That, IMO, is very suspicious - which, IMO, makes him a viable suspect in the murders.

:loveyou:

 

[reedus23]

That would be an assumption. We don't know. But he is lying. He knows whether he discussed these things or not. One would not forget discussing the deaths of three little boys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scarlett, the simple answer to the debate over vagueness is that Hobbs' attorney could have made a simple objection "Objection. Vague and ambiguous." The fact he didn't make such an objection should give you your answer. A couple will disagree with me, but that is the simple answer.

As for Hobbs tone throughout his deposition, yes, he was extremely evasive in his answers. Yes, lawyers can and do instruct their clients how to be evasive without blatantly telling them not to answer any questions or to lie. And yes, in my eyes, his evasiveness and refusal to answer questions in a straightforward manner casts some suspicion on him. Doesn't establish guilt by any means, but does cast suspicion IMHO.

 

[OEJ]

Terry Hobbs has been a destructive force his entire adult life. He should be and should have been thoroughly investigated for the murder of those boys. I'll never forget John Douglas saying the person he met before his interview was completely different from the person he discovered Hobbs to be after investigating every thing he had to say. It even seemed to have surprised Douglas, and I can't imagine much surprises him anymore.

Hobbs' hair being tied into the knot that bound one of the boys is bad enough, but to have Jacoby's hair nearby strengthens that evidence to me since Hobbs had been at Jacoby's house that evening.

 

[LordYAM]

see, this is why wm3 truth is full of crap. Any evidence that dares contradict their narrative; that hobbs was a vicious *******, and that he wasn't investigated, is dismissed and ignored. Anything that rumbles their assumptions (like that people can be tricked into confessing multiple times simply because THEY THOUGHT THEY DID IT) are completely ignored. Most of the times, they also shoot down any new evidence that arises. Jivepuppi acknowledges possibilities even though it thinks they are innocent. The fact remains that Hobbs was a violent *advertiser censored* who was never investigated until dna turned up. Even then they asked softball questions and failed to accept that they were contradictory even when people usually remember traumatic events. WM3 truth refuses to acknowledge that hobbs was pinned not just by the two but by his own friend david jacoby. The supporters are more willing to examine new facts that pop up; the nons are "LALALALALALALALALALAL THEY ARE GUILTY LALALALALALALALALALALA IDONTCAREABOUT ANYUNEEVIDECNELALALALALALALALALLa" I'll admit sometimes supporters whitewash the more unfortunate and unpleasant aspects (I didn't know Damian had mental issues till I read trenchrenyolds and even though I think trench is a complete idiot he still was sort of not entirely wrong when he brought it up.) But at the same time, it's an ugly murky situation. Oftentimes life can't be so neatly tied up.

On the confession; I looked over it and listened to it. It did not strike me as natural. Also, the gaps implied the police had something to hide.

The police made a mistake. It's more comforting to think they didn't. You can be the biggest ******* ever and still be framed for a crime you didn't do.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't know if the Michelle Lawless murder (Josh Kezer was wrongfully convicted - based on lying jailhouse snitches and a bogus "identification" - and served 11 or 12 years, but was eventually exonerated by the work of a dedicated sheriff and an intelligent judge) is discussed here, but I just saw the "48 Hours" show about it. There are a lot of similarities to the WM3 case, and anyone who investigates the Kezer case will continue to be appalled by the injustice in our justice system. The original sheriff still claims that Josh is guilty! There are a couple of viable suspects, but no arrest as of yet. Sound familiar?

 

[primitivefuture]

I don't know if the Michelle Lawless murder (Josh Kezer was wrongfully convicted - based on lying jailhouse snitches and a bogus "identification" - and served 11 or 12 years, but was eventually exonerated by the work of a dedicated sheriff and an intelligent judge) is discussed here, but I just saw the "48 Hours" show about it. There are a lot of similarities to the WM3 case, and anyone who investigates the Kezer case will continue to be appalled by the injustice in our justice system. The original sheriff still claims that Josh is guilty! There are a couple of viable suspects, but no arrest as of yet. Sound familiar?

I haven't seen that one, but I'll definitely look into it. Did you see the recent Dateline episode about the David Camm case? The interview footage of Charles Boney blew my mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LordYAM]

Has anyone seen the short lived show injustice? It's kind of cheesy but it does make some good points about how the system can fail. One episode involves a man convicted of killing a priest. Over the course of the episode the circumstantial evidence is shot down (they prove that the witness who allegedly identified the suspect would have been unable to see a clear view because of a tree in the way, and because he left for ten minutes it was more than enough time for someone else to leave and the suspect to enter. The other witness who claims the guy confessed admits that he lied to get less jail time.) The team stumbles and makes a faulty accusation (they accuse a man, but during the motion they're told yeah we know the guy was in police custody at the time) and in the end they find out that it was actually the church president who killed the priest (long story short, the president was beating his wife, the priest tried to stop him, and the president killed him when he took her to a shelter). In spite of the evidence (they can prove the guy had a motive and opportunity) the judge doesn't grant a stay because they can't put the president at the scene, and they had 8 years. The guy is executed but its ambiguous if they actually nail the real killer.

On one hand, yes they made a mistake, and no they can't put the guy at the scene. On the other hand, they can prove he deliberately lied to the police about his alibi and that he had a motive for carrying out the crime.