Question about Terry Hobbs
- Thread starter missy_g
- Start date
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) the point here is, if TH is totally innocent of the murders, why conceal his interaction with the little boys?
I,too,have wondered about this and would love to know the answer.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
A followup: If Todd and Dana Moore saw Damien "in the area where the bodies were found" in the early morning hours of May 6th as they now (since 2002) claim, why didn't they tell LE?
That too. Sometimes I think they are getting desperate too, but I seriously don't know what I would do in their situation. To be told for a long time that your son was murdered by this person then be told that LE made a mistake? That's a toughie.
Puffin
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 3
When did he say that? I haven't read all of his statements so I would appreciate a link if you have one.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
Puffin,
He didn't. That's the point. Some neighbors saw him with the three little boys but they didn't tell LE until it became public knowledge that TH had denied seeing the boys. Then, they realized that they had valuable information that they needed to share. So they did. It was well after the murders, so the neighbors weren't seeking their fifteen minutes. In fact, the neighbors had no reason to fabricate this sighting of TH with the little boys. The dilemma, at least to me, is why TH would want to keep his contact with the little boys a secret. Any thoughts?
He didn't. That's the point. Some neighbors saw him with the three little boys but they didn't tell LE until it became public knowledge that TH had denied seeing the boys. Then, they realized that they had valuable information that they needed to share. So they did. It was well after the murders, so the neighbors weren't seeking their fifteen minutes. In fact, the neighbors had no reason to fabricate this sighting of TH with the little boys. The dilemma, at least to me, is why TH would want to keep his contact with the little boys a secret. Any thoughts?
Puffin
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 3
You won't get any answers from nons because none of them believe Terry Hobbs lied when he said he didn't see them that day.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
Puffin,
The reason that I can accept the Ballard/Clark affidavits is because of something that happened when my son (who is now 36) was barely two years old. We had just moved to Houston, TX, and I was selling Avon cosmetics to make a few extra bucks. I went out to deliver some orders and left my son with his father, my husband. When I came back, my husband had fallen asleep, and my son was nowhere to be found. Since a young child had just been found in a bayou a few days before, I was afraid that something had happened to him along those lines. My husband and I searched for about 20 minutes before one of my customers came walking up the street, holding him by the hand. (He had been going door-to-door asking, "Is my mommy here selling Abon?")
What does this have to do with the Ballard/Clark affidavit? I am pretty certain that the murders of Stevie, Chris and Michael were emblazoned into the memories of most of the people in West Memphis. Whenever something happens to a child or children, most people remember it vividly, especially in a small town. That's why I was so concerned about my child drowning instead of the more obvious fear of being run over (since we lived very near a very busy street). The Sherry Lynn Anderson story (that's the little girl who was drowned; I still remember her name 34 years later) made me think that way.
It is not a stretch at all for me to believe that the two neighbors remembered with clarity the events of that afternoon since the little boys were found murdered the next afternoon. What is very hard for me to believe is that the step father of one of those little boys does not have a vivid memory of the events of that day. Can you explain that?
The reason that I can accept the Ballard/Clark affidavits is because of something that happened when my son (who is now 36) was barely two years old. We had just moved to Houston, TX, and I was selling Avon cosmetics to make a few extra bucks. I went out to deliver some orders and left my son with his father, my husband. When I came back, my husband had fallen asleep, and my son was nowhere to be found. Since a young child had just been found in a bayou a few days before, I was afraid that something had happened to him along those lines. My husband and I searched for about 20 minutes before one of my customers came walking up the street, holding him by the hand. (He had been going door-to-door asking, "Is my mommy here selling Abon?")
What does this have to do with the Ballard/Clark affidavit? I am pretty certain that the murders of Stevie, Chris and Michael were emblazoned into the memories of most of the people in West Memphis. Whenever something happens to a child or children, most people remember it vividly, especially in a small town. That's why I was so concerned about my child drowning instead of the more obvious fear of being run over (since we lived very near a very busy street). The Sherry Lynn Anderson story (that's the little girl who was drowned; I still remember her name 34 years later) made me think that way.
It is not a stretch at all for me to believe that the two neighbors remembered with clarity the events of that afternoon since the little boys were found murdered the next afternoon. What is very hard for me to believe is that the step father of one of those little boys does not have a vivid memory of the events of that day. Can you explain that?
Puffin
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 3
^Nothing more than anecdotal evidence which is inadmissible and totally unreliable.
Things I find bothersome with the Ballard/Clark/Moyer affidavits:
- 16 years after the fact.
- Ballard was 13 at the time. Brandy was 11
- None of them ever bothered mentioning they supposedly had extremely important information. ie. Seeing the 3 boys playing in their backyard shortly before they were murdered. Heck, Jamie even claimed she talked with Christopher.
- When they did come forward (16 years later), Ballard sought out Echols' investigators to share this information with.
- Their statements conflict with other witnesses who saw the boys that evening. Particularly Cindy Rico's statement (oh who happened to think seeing the boys that evening was actually important so she called LE all on her own)
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/c_rico/rico_c_tipsheet.jpg
- This statement from Ballard's affidavit is inaccurate considering Ryan didn't attend school the next day per Brit Smith. "The next day, I saw Ryan at school and he was very upset. Ryan told me that the boys had never come home and that the police had found the bodies of the Stevie, Michael and Christopher. Ryan was so upset. When he told me that the boys had been killed, I said something like, "What, I just saw your brother last night playing in my backyard!" Ryan was crying and said to me, "Why didn't you tell my brother to come home?" That really upset me and I told Ryan, "I did tell him to come home!" see Brit Smith statement http://callahan.8k.com/images/brit_smith03.JPG
- This statement by Ballard:
"On May 5, 1993, I walked home from school with
Ryan Clark, like I did most days. On my way home, I passed the Byers' house. Mark Byers was in the driveway yelling to Ryan, telling him to find his brother, Christopher, and to tell him to come home. This happened at approximately 3:15 – 3:30 PM on May 5, 1993."
doesn't reconcile with what Ryan told LE:
"States he got home at exactly 3:38pm. --Chris was not @ home. Ryan had to be in court @ 4:00pm. --his dad took him. Dad dropped him off @ court"
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ryanclark.html
Now, I'm not straight out accusing Ballard and Co of perjury. I'm willing to give them benefit of the doubt on that aspect and we'll just say they are confused on their dates and times.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
As to your first bullet point, I noticed that you didn't post the last paragraph of my previous post where I point out under what circumstances I felt that someone could remember with clarity events that had transpired years earlier, which was the reason for my anecdote in the first place. If I can remember something from that long ago, it is reasonable to assume that others can, too. That is the meaning of a "memorable event." Just because Terry Hobbs can't remember things doesn't mean that others don't.
Next, you mention that the girls were young, 13 and 11, at the time. So were the "softball girls" whose testimony was accepted at the trial. IMO, they were seeking attention, but these women are now testifying from the perspective of adults about past events. I tend to believe adults over giggly tweens any day. Remember Salem, MA?
As to your next point, they didn't know until much later that TH was denying having seen the boys. They were young at the time, as you pointed out, and didn't realize that their information was important. When it became public knowledge that Terry was denying having seen the boys, they came forward with their information.
Sharing the information with Echols' investigators seems natural to me. The police were no longer investigating, and the defense team was. Who's to say that they didn't go to the WMPD, only to be shot down as Pam Hicks Hobbs was by Gitchell when he told her not to mess up his investigation when she tried to give him information that didn't support the prosecution's theory?
With the Rico statement (who, BTW, was an adult who realized immediately that what she saw was important), the time frame she gave of between 6:30 and 7:00 makes it possible for the boys to be seen by the neighbors at 6:30 and Ms. Rico at 7:00. No one was looking at a clock. The girls were waiting for a ride to church which is what gave them their time frame. I don't recall Ms. Rico citing any particular reason for her time frame. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that she could have been off by a little either way.
Just because Jamie said that she saw Ryan at school the next day doesn't necessarily mean that Ryan had attended school. He could have gone by to get his assignments. She didn't say that she saw him in class or anything that explicitly implied that he was in attendance at school. She said that Ryan told her that the police had found the bodies. Since cell phones were not that prevalent in '93, it seems to me much more logical that Ryan had come by the school after the bodies were found for his assignments and happened to see Jamie and talk to her because she was a friend and he was upset.
As to your last bullet point, I see no great conflict here. Ryan simply didn't remember Mark asking him to look for Chris before they went to court. The important thing to Ryan was his court date. Just because he didn't mention that Jamie was with him (as she says she was most days) doesn't mean that she wasn't. Basically, at least to me, they are telling the same thing.
Next, you mention that the girls were young, 13 and 11, at the time. So were the "softball girls" whose testimony was accepted at the trial. IMO, they were seeking attention, but these women are now testifying from the perspective of adults about past events. I tend to believe adults over giggly tweens any day. Remember Salem, MA?
As to your next point, they didn't know until much later that TH was denying having seen the boys. They were young at the time, as you pointed out, and didn't realize that their information was important. When it became public knowledge that Terry was denying having seen the boys, they came forward with their information.
Sharing the information with Echols' investigators seems natural to me. The police were no longer investigating, and the defense team was. Who's to say that they didn't go to the WMPD, only to be shot down as Pam Hicks Hobbs was by Gitchell when he told her not to mess up his investigation when she tried to give him information that didn't support the prosecution's theory?
With the Rico statement (who, BTW, was an adult who realized immediately that what she saw was important), the time frame she gave of between 6:30 and 7:00 makes it possible for the boys to be seen by the neighbors at 6:30 and Ms. Rico at 7:00. No one was looking at a clock. The girls were waiting for a ride to church which is what gave them their time frame. I don't recall Ms. Rico citing any particular reason for her time frame. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that she could have been off by a little either way.
Just because Jamie said that she saw Ryan at school the next day doesn't necessarily mean that Ryan had attended school. He could have gone by to get his assignments. She didn't say that she saw him in class or anything that explicitly implied that he was in attendance at school. She said that Ryan told her that the police had found the bodies. Since cell phones were not that prevalent in '93, it seems to me much more logical that Ryan had come by the school after the bodies were found for his assignments and happened to see Jamie and talk to her because she was a friend and he was upset.
As to your last bullet point, I see no great conflict here. Ryan simply didn't remember Mark asking him to look for Chris before they went to court. The important thing to Ryan was his court date. Just because he didn't mention that Jamie was with him (as she says she was most days) doesn't mean that she wasn't. Basically, at least to me, they are telling the same thing.
Mary456
Active Member
That is absolutely not true. Terry Hobbs, from day one, has steadfastly maintained that he did not see the boys that day.
Seventeen years later, the Ballards suddenly remember that they saw the boys with Terry that night. Saw the boys in their backyard, in fact, just minutes before they went missing, but didn't think it was important enough to report to the police. No big deal.
Slight problem with Jamie Ballard's affidavit, though.
The next day I saw Ryan at school...
Ryan wasn't in school the next day.
I said something like, "What, I just saw your brother last night playing in my backyard! Ryan was crying and said, "Why didn't you tell my brother to come home?"
Jamie couldn't have talked to Ryan at school on June 6th, because he wasn't there.
Jamie, her mother, and her sister are lying.
Their lies almost rival the ones told by Jessie's father and friends when they failed miserably in trying to give him an alibi. Truly pathetic.
Mary456
Active Member
And yet you trash Gloria Wilson, who was teaching her first DWI class on May 5th, 1993. The night she testified that class wasn't dismissed until 7:45, because she was being observed by her supervisor. The night three little boys were murdered. The night she had Jessie Sr., father of the defendant, in her class.
A memorable night. One of those nights that gets hot-wired into your brain.
You posted this in the False Confessions thread on this board:
I think that Ms. Wilson's supervisor (if this person was actually in the classroom) would have no reason to remember precisely when a DWI class on May 5, 1993 (almost a year later, by the time of the trial) was over, and she would rely on the records Ms. Wilson presented. I think that other students in the class probably couldn't state with any certainty when the class was over (again, almost a year later)."
Just curious. Where do you draw your very personal line on selective memory?
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
Mary,
First, I explained the reason the Ballard/Clark statements were made much later is that they didn't know until then that TH had claimed that he didn't see the boys at all on May 5th. I never said that he changed his story about that. As I said, that's the point of the Ballard/Clark statements. I also pointed out that Jamie saying that she saw Ryan at school the next day does not empirically prove that he was attending. He came by, possibly to get his assignments, was upset because his brother's body had just been found, saw a friend and talked to her because he was upset. He didn't have to have gone to classes to do this. It could have occurred in the school yard after school or during a lunch break.
As to Gloria Wilson, she didn't have selective memory. I think that she outright lied about the time she let out the class. I think that she was afraid of someone finding out that she falsified her time sheet. I think her supervisor would not have remembered specifically when the class was let out on that particular day in order to contradict her (and therefore accepted the time sheet as proof of when the class was dismissed), and I think that the other students would not have remembered it, either, as there was not something memorable to emblazon it into their memories or, if they did remember it, they would not have wanted to testify to it. They're already in trouble with the law (drunk driving), so they don't want to antagonize the police any further by contradicting the case against the WM3. Police can target you if you get on their bad side, especially in a small town.
First, I explained the reason the Ballard/Clark statements were made much later is that they didn't know until then that TH had claimed that he didn't see the boys at all on May 5th. I never said that he changed his story about that. As I said, that's the point of the Ballard/Clark statements. I also pointed out that Jamie saying that she saw Ryan at school the next day does not empirically prove that he was attending. He came by, possibly to get his assignments, was upset because his brother's body had just been found, saw a friend and talked to her because he was upset. He didn't have to have gone to classes to do this. It could have occurred in the school yard after school or during a lunch break.
As to Gloria Wilson, she didn't have selective memory. I think that she outright lied about the time she let out the class. I think that she was afraid of someone finding out that she falsified her time sheet. I think her supervisor would not have remembered specifically when the class was let out on that particular day in order to contradict her (and therefore accepted the time sheet as proof of when the class was dismissed), and I think that the other students would not have remembered it, either, as there was not something memorable to emblazon it into their memories or, if they did remember it, they would not have wanted to testify to it. They're already in trouble with the law (drunk driving), so they don't want to antagonize the police any further by contradicting the case against the WM3. Police can target you if you get on their bad side, especially in a small town.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
Remember that, at the time, they were just kids themselves, and they had no idea that TH was claiming no contact with the boys on May 5th. It wasn't until some of the Pasdar documents were made public that they knew that he was saying that he didn't see the boys that day. That is what prompted them to come forward after so much time had passed. They just felt it necessary to set the record straight, so to speak. If you found out suddenly that you had critical information about something that happened years ago that involved the false imprisonment of someone, especially someone on Death Row, wouldn't you want to tell what you knew to anyone who would listen? I know that I would.
There was a case I saw a while back on 48 Hours on ID I think where a man was falsely imprisoned for a murder that he didn't commit. The strongest witness against him at the time was the victim's best friend. When the truth came out, she had a lot of guilt about what she had said at the trial. She had placed him at the scene when he really wasn't there, and additional evidence came out that proved him to be elsewhere, but it came out years later. He was freed, and she (the witness) asked for his forgiveness. He forgave her. Evidence of exoneration coming out years later is not unheard of before this case. It is rare, but it does happen. It has happened in this case, too.
There was a case I saw a while back on 48 Hours on ID I think where a man was falsely imprisoned for a murder that he didn't commit. The strongest witness against him at the time was the victim's best friend. When the truth came out, she had a lot of guilt about what she had said at the trial. She had placed him at the scene when he really wasn't there, and additional evidence came out that proved him to be elsewhere, but it came out years later. He was freed, and she (the witness) asked for his forgiveness. He forgave her. Evidence of exoneration coming out years later is not unheard of before this case. It is rare, but it does happen. It has happened in this case, too.