Question about Terry Hobbs

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
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.

It isn't possible that Jamie remembers Ryan being in school the next day because that was the next time she saw him? So she's off by a day or two. That wasn't the day the children were killed, so perhaps it wasn't as memorable as the day the trio went missing.
 
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.

So this mother and her two daughters, seeing the boys in their backyard minutes before they were murdered, didn't think it was important enough to report to the police in 1993, even though LE was pleading for any information about the boys' movements that night.

Riiiiight.

One other point. Chris's brother, Ryan, was questioned by the police a few days after the murders. He never once mentioned this supposed conversation with Jamie Ballard, in which she claimed to have seen the three boys right before they were murdered.

It's bogus. Never happened.
 
So this mother and her two daughters, seeing the boys in their backyard minutes before they were murdered, didn't think it was important enough to report to the police in 1993, even though LE was pleading for any information about the boys' movements that night.

Riiiiight.

One other point. Chris's brother, Ryan, was questioned by the police a few days after the murders. He never once mentioned this supposed conversation with Jamie Ballard, in which she claimed to have seen the three boys right before they were murdered.

It's bogus. Never happened.

Since they saw the boys with Terry Hobbs, I guess they thought he would tell the police. It was only after they found out that Terry Hobbs denied seeing the boys that day that they realized that they had important information. When Ryan saw Jamie Ballard, he had just learned that his brother was dead. He might not have thought his conversation with Jamie was important as she probably also told him that the boys were with Terry at the time she saw them. Ryan, as a child, was probably not aware that Terry had claimed no contact with the boys.

It all goes back to Terry Hobbs. Did he see the boys that day? The neighbors say that he did. David Jacoby even mentions seeing the boys going down the street when Terry was coming over to play guitars. I believe that Jacoby thought that the boys had been with Terry right before Terry went into Jacoby's house.

Consider this scenario. Terry and Amanda come back from taking Pam to work to find Stevie and his friends at Terry's house. Stevie is eating his supper, at least he's eating his green beans. (This would account for the green vegetable matter found in Stevie's stomach at autopsy.) Stevie begs Daddy Terry to let him play with his friends just a while longer. Terry gives in because he wants to go to Jacoby's to play guitars. He tells Stevie to be back home in an hour. The boys go off and Terry goes to Jacoby's taking Amanda with him. Jacoby sees the boys in the street when he opens the door to let Terry and Amanda into the house. This is about 5:15 or 5:30 pm.

Terry plays guitars with Jacoby for about an hour and then tells Jacoby that he wants to go check to be sure Stevie came back home. The boys are returning to the Hobbs house at about the time that Terry (and Amanda) gets back. This is when Jamie and her sister (is her name Brandi?) see them. Terry shouts at the boys to come home, and they appear to go in that direction. Jamie and her sister get in the car to go to church. The boys, however, ride past Terry which enrages him. (I have a theory that the reason that they ran from Terry was that Stevie, having finally had enough abuse at Terry's hands, had decided to run away and was planning on staying in their "secret hideout" [a manhole] until his maternal grandparents could be contacted to come and get him.) Terry is aware of the RHH woods as a play area (although he denies it, but then admits it during his 2007 deposition), and he thinks that that's where the boys are going. He takes Amanda back to the Jacoby's and tells David that Stevie is not home. David insists on helping him search. They take a cursory (15 minute) look around the neighborhood. Terry takes David back home, saying he's going to look one other place. He follows the boys to the manhole, intending to punish Stevie for his disobedience. The punishment gets out of hand, and he has to eliminate the witnesses.

He hides the bodies in a convenient manhole (or perhaps murders them in the manhole), but he returns to the manhole during the searching (remember, he was the only one who admitted to going into the BB woods, which are adjacent to the RHH woods and which is where I believe the manhole to be) to check on things, and he returns in the wee hours of the morning to remove the bodies (believing that there might be some evidence of him on the bodies or in the manhole). First, he tries to put Stevie's jeans on him (since Pam told the police he was wearing jeans, but he is actually wearing red shorts according to one person's sighting). When he can't get the jeans on Stevie, he undresses all of the boys so that Stevie won't look different from the others. (Remember, Stevie's jeans were not inside out, but the other clothing was.) He "buries the bodies underwater" (as he tells his girlfriend, Sharon Nelson, later), puts the bikes in the bayou, puts the clothes into the ditch (securing them with sticks) and waits for the bodies to be found.

Now, consider this scenario. Three devil worshiping teens happen upon the boys playing in the RHH woods when they go there to swim and possibly have sex in a dirty drainage ditch. They decide to kill them because it's almost a full moon and it's close to a Wiccan holiday (even though Wiccan holidays have nothing to do with devil worshiping). They just happen to have some Visqueen handy to put under the bodies so there's no blood left at the scene. They hit the boys with their fists and big ol' sticks, all the time managing to keep all activity on the Visqueen (even though one boy runs off and has to be brought back), but no evidence of these blows appears on the boys or the teens. The teens are drunk, yet they leave the scene so clean that there is absolutely no physical evidence that the teens were ever there. They dump the bodies in a handy ditch and go on about their lives. One of them even goes to school the next day.

Which scenario seems more plausible to you?
 
I will give them a pass because of their ages, but why wait 16 years if you have info that is that important? (if in fact this actually happened).
 
I will give them a pass because of their ages, but why wait 16 years if you have info that is that important? (if in fact this actually happened).

Mrs. Ballard was an adult with two adolescent daughters.

At the time of the murders, the police were begging for any information about where, when, and with whom the boys were last seen. No suspects mentioned. Not TH, not JMB, not Echols, Baldwin, or Misskelley.

But this mother and her two daughters, who saw the boys playing in their backyard minutes before they were murdered, didn't report it until sixteen years later.

Something stinks in Wisconsin, and it ain't the cheese.
 
Makes me wonder if the defense team let it be known they were paying for additional information concerning the case, and that's what got the three Ballards off their duffs to come forward.
 
To my knowledge, they received no compensation. I just think that they heard that Terry was claiming no contact with the boys and, being good Christian women, they decided they needed to set the record straight. It's as simple as that.
 
Why didn't Todd Moore tell the police that he saw Damien Echols walking near the woods that day?

I'm sure all you nons visit the Hoax board so I'm sure you saw his post...
 
Anyone?


There are a lot of liars out there, but usually when people talk to the police they try to tell the truth.

Todd Moore (or his father, whoever posts at the Hoax) wouldn't want to lie to the cops now would they? It's a lot easier to lie over the internet on a message forum so they can gain more respect....
 
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.

You may be right that Jamie is mistaken, but the fact that you accuse her of being a liar says more about you than it does about her. It's been 16 years. She couldn't be off by a day or two? No, she must be a liar, in your view. Jessie's father can't be mistaken about time, he too must be a liar!

That sort of name-calling makes an intelligent discussion more or less impossible, but it does seem typical of those who continue to insist the WM3 are guilty despite the lack of evidence.
 
Nova,

What I believe happened is that Ryan went by the school that day, maybe to get his assignments, maybe just to reach out to friends, and he saw Jamie at that time, on the school grounds. He had just found out that Chris and the other two boys were dead. To me, it seems reasonable to believe that he was distraught and sought solace from friends. For some people, however, anyone who defends the WM3 is just a big liar or an idiot. I'm really looking forward to December; I have high hopes that many questions will be answered by the information presented at the hearing.
 
Nova,

What I believe happened is that Ryan went by the school that day, maybe to get his assignments, maybe just to reach out to friends, and he saw Jamie at that time, on the school grounds. He had just found out that Chris and the other two boys were dead. To me, it seems reasonable to believe that he was distraught and sought solace from friends. For some people, however, anyone who defends the WM3 is just a big liar or an idiot. I'm really looking forward to December; I have high hopes that many questions will be answered by the information presented at the hearing.

That makes perfect sense to me, CR. But as I said, I also think it's possible that after a decade and a half, Jamie's next meeting with Ryan is remembered as "the next day" as long as it took place within a few days of the murders. To me, that is consistent with how the mind works.

Of course, my explanation is dangerous here because some argue that if Jamie could be wrong about when she saw Ryan, then maybe she is wrong about when she saw the three kids with Hobbs. (Or as Mary prefers: "She's lying!") But as you've already pointed out, Jamie had very good reason to remember that she saw three kids shortly before they were horribly murdered. She had less reason to recall the exact day she next saw Ryan.
 
Nova,

I agree that Jamie's meeting with Ryan could have been any time after the bodies were discovered, even the next week. I don't think that Ryan would have been in school until after the funerals. However, since some people try to impugn Jamie's recollection by stating, correctly, that Ryan was not in school on May 6, 1993 so Jamie couldn't have seen him there, I simply wanted to offer a logical explanation for how Jamie could have seen Ryan at school but that he wasn't really in school that day.

Like I said, to me it's not really important when she saw Ryan and that conversation took place. The important thing, as you pointed out, is that she and her sister saw all three boys in their backyard on May 5, 1993 at about 6:30 pm and they have a very logical explanation as to how they could remember that it was that specific date and time, even 17 years later.
 
Like Casey Anthony, TH is guilty of accidentally killing his own step son (with Casey it was her own daughter). Casey's jury found her not guilty, except of the cover up, basically. TH may not ever face a jury trial, but, if he does, he has the added crime of allowing three young men to spend over half of their lives (to this point) in prison for his crime. So, hopefully, his jury won't be so forgiving.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
230
Guests online
285
Total visitors
515

Forum statistics

Threads
608,542
Messages
18,240,862
Members
234,392
Latest member
FamilyGal
Back
Top