ONE hair in a knot of a ligature found on a boy who frequented the home of Terry and Pam Hobbs. I have very long hair...do you know how many places one of my hairs has turned up? In my husbands work boots, on his keyboard at work (I've never been in his office), in a christmas package I sent my sister in Va. I've even found them in a Phoebee's nest on a light fixture on our back porch. I don't find it a stretch to think that it's possible that a single hair from Terry Hobbs found it's way to the shoelace of a boy who had been in his home. Sorry, I just don't.
I agree with you that Terry Hobbs should have been investigated properly in 1993. Same goes for Mark Byers, Bojangles, etc. etc. But they weren't. And proving a case against someone 18 years after the fact, on evidence that is scant, or lost, or degraded, or simply never retrieved...that's a mighty tall order, Reader.
JMO
Two of the WMFree also had very long hair at the time of the murders. Why was none of their hair there? With the struggle that Jessie described, one of the others should have lost at least one hair IMO. And, IMO the Jacoby hair is a lot more damning than Terry's own. The little boys didn't frequent the Jacoby house.
Also, did you know that the ligature hair (attributed to Hobbs) was a beard hair (which I believe got into the lace when he tried to bite it into two pieces)? The hair attributed to Jacoby is thought to have been a pubic hair. Suppose that, while at the Jacoby's "playing guitars," Terry goes into the bathroom. One of Jacoby's pubic hairs is on the floor, and Terry picks it up on his shoe. After he has carried the bodies from the manhole to the discovery ditch, his shoes are muddy. He begins to scrape the mud off onto the tree stump and also scrapes off the Jacoby hair. This is the opinion of another poster on the Blackboard, but it makes sense to me, too.
Please remember that there is more than the hairs. As to other physical evidence, there are footprints that are consistent with the size shoe that Terry Hobbs wears. Then, there's a ton of circumstantial evidence - far more than was presented against the WMFree. Additionally, some items are still being tested, and the results may prove very informative.
I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but I believe it's possible. Remember the three most important things necessary for an attorney to prove to a jury that a suspect is a murderer: means, motive and opportunity. (Although motive is not legally necessary, most juries want to hear it, which is why the State in the trials of the WMFree came up with the lame Satanic/cult ritual killing BS.)
The means for an adult to kill three eight year olds is pretty much a given. An adult is stronger and can easily overpower them. I realize that the same would be true of three teenagers. However, I don't believe the teens committed these murders. Besides, since almost anyone in West Memphis over the age of 12 would have the means to kill the boys, means alone is simply not enough.
The motive for Terry Hobbs is IMO one of two things:
1) He got very angry with Stevie for disobeying him and started out to discipline him. It got out of hand, and he accidentally killed him. Michael and Christopher, as witnesses to the crime, had to be eliminated.
2) He took an opportunity to "get rid" of Stevie of whom he was always resentful. He felt that Stevie was a roadblock to his total control over Pam. He waited until he knew the three boys were alone (which might partially explain the absence from work) and struck. His reasoning was that, if he just killed Stevie, attention might focus on him. By killing all three, it would lessen suspicion on him.
(Personally, I believe it was #1, but #2 is a remote possibility, IMO.)
What would be the motive for the WMFree? A thrill kill? The problem with that motive is that thrill killers are more prone to display their handiwork than hide it. These bodies were hidden, and, if the most graphic of the injuries were from animal predation, the other injuries to the bodies are simply not indicative of a thrill kill scenario.
As to opportunity, the opportunity to kill the three IMO occurred during the gap around 6:30 to 7:15. During this time, Terry stated that he was searching with Jacoby. However, Jacoby contradicts Hobbs' statements, affirming that he was not with Hobbs during the aforementioned time frame. Later, Pam mentions that Terry disappears for about an hour around 10 pm. This is a time during which he could have tried to redress Stevie (after Pam's report to the police that he was last wearing jeans) and instead ended up undressing all three boys. Finally, when everyone else had fallen into an exhausted sleep, say around 4 or 5 am, he goes back and moves the bodies from the manhole to the discovery ditch.
The WMFree all had alibis. Some people choose not to believe that they were with friends and family, but I believe they were. If Jessie's story (which is what the State hangs their hat on almost exclusively) is to be believed, they had about a one hour window (6:30 to 7:30) to walk from Marion to West Memphis, commit the murders, clean up the scene and for Jessie to walk back to Marion to be picked up to go to Dyess to practice wrestling. The walk from Lakeshore to the RHH woods is about one and two-thirds miles. It seems that people who walk for exercise walk about a mile in fifteen minutes.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070831101934AA8MnZT
These boys would not have been speeding along or walking for exercise. However, for the benefit of discussion, let's say that they were walking a fifteen minute mile. That means that a round trip from Lakeshore to the RHH woods would take one hour and twenty minutes. Even if some of Jessie's witnesses' times were off by a bit, there's no time for the murders and the clean up.
As I said, as far as the case against Terry Hobbs, it's much more than a hair, or even two hairs. It's a whole story that makes sense and that cannot be refuted by sworn testimony. In the end, I believe Terry's lies will eventually be his downfall, including the lie about being at work on May 5, 1993. Something just tells me that this nugget of information will not help Terry's protestations of innocence.
. Theories that are never challenged are rarely worth much, IMO, so I'd welcome a D***** Advocate.
