To my knowledge, no. He has refused to take a lie detector test, saying, "Why should I?" During the Pasdar deposition (if you haven't read that, do), he was evasive in most of his answers, saying things like "I dunno" and "I can't remember" and "It's none o' your business" and calling other depositions that called his actions into question a "bunch o' garbage" and saying that he just wanted everyone to "get offa my trail" about the case. It was a very revealing interview. But take a polygraph? He has adamantly refused to do that. Not that it would prove anything, really. As many here and elsewhere have pointed out, polygraphs are inadmissible in court for a reason. They are unreliable. Kind of like eyewitness testimony. Two people seeing the same thing can give two very different reports. That's why physical evidence linking a person to a crime is really better IMO than eyewitness testimony.
Here's the link to the Hobbs deposition: Part 1:
http://callahan.8k.com/hobbs_pasdar/t_hobbs_depo1.html
Part 2:
http://callahan.8k.com/hobbs_pasdar/t_hobbs_depo2.html
Thank you for posting this link. I found it very interesting reading. I didn't know too much about TH before this.
This guys comes accross exactly as you said above. He is saying people are making his life a misery by accusing him of being the murderer, yet quite clearly states he is not prepared to prove them wrong by taking a lie detector test or in any other way at all.
His back ground is interesting too. To briefley sumarise what I have just read, he was heard beating his first wife and son, by an older neighbour. He then goes on to, break into her house an molest her.
He backhands his wife in the face and the same day later shoots her brother in the stomach.
He as been accused of child molestation, beating stevie with a belt, and locking him in a cupboard.
He didn't call the police until 19.19 on May 5th even though he has given several different versions to different people of the time he did this. Including his own journal.
His hair was found at the crime scene (which yes, I agree totally that it could be a transferred hair) but so was mr jacobys. I found his reaction interesting, seeing as mr Jacoby had said he wasnt at the crime scene but his hair was there. The following response I just didn't think was right:-
"5 Q. Can you explain -- can you explain how DNA
6 consistent with Mr. Jacobys DNA was found at the
7 crime scene, Mr. Hobbs?
8 A. I dont think it was found at the crime
9 scene. It might have been found in the woods. I
10 dont think it was at the crime scene like youre
11 saying.
12 Q.
If it was found at the crime scene, would
13 that be a damning fact in your opinion?
14 A. No.
15 Q. No?
16 A. Because me and him never have been to the
17 crime scene. I didnt go there a long time
18 after.
19 Q. Have you ever been there?
20 A. Sure.
21 Q. When did you first go to the crime scene?
22 A. Probably a year later.
23 Q. Why?
24 A. My wife wanted me to go with her. She felt
25 like she needed to go.
If that were my child and anyone elses hair was found at the crime scene I would be demanding to know why.
In the above transcript when asked about any of the above incidents, he firstly said no, that didnt happen, then he said he didnt remember, even when confrunted with evidence, it might of happened. Or everyone else is lying. Read through it and you will see his way of answering the questions is the same everytime.
Sorry if that went a bit off this topic, I just found it interesting what I had read and wanted to share.