Question about Terry Hobbs

[Pensfan]

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

I agree. Ask yourself why TH or MB would force two of the boys to drink urine. If TH only killed his stepson in anger and the other two boys because they were witnesses, would he torture them and make them drink urine?
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html

Ask yourself why either of these two men would do something just like Ed Gein and deglove a part of their victim, take their skin, and also keep his victims' underwear. (The penis and scrotal area of Christopher were "degloved" and two of the boys’ underwear were never found.)
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_peretti.html

Ask yourself why a turtle would only deglove one scrotal area.

Did this turtle also take the two pairs of underwear?

http://www.houseofhorrors.com/gein.htm
http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Psyc 405/serial killers/Gein, Ed.pdf

 

[Compassionate Reader]

There was no urine found in the stomachs. This inaccuracy was based on a presumption made at the discovery ditch by the WMPD. As with proving any negative, I cannot link to the proof that no urine was found. If anyone can link to a laboratory finding of urine in the stomachs, I would like to see it. The defense requesting it was to prove it didn't exist!

Peretti's information on turtles is inaccurate, too. There was a video on Youtube which I think has been taken down showing a turtle feeding under water and another one showing a turtle attacking the genitals of a man swimming in the water. I'll see if I can find the links, but I think they're down now. Remember, just because someone testifies to something it doesn't make it true.

As to why only one body was degloved, possibly it was the way the body was situated in the water. Maybe the genitals were hanging loose or moving about in the water, attracting the predating animals. Maybe it's as simple as the animals were scared away from the bodies before they could deglove the other bodies.

This was not a sexual mutilation as I feel is being implied. It was, in the opinion of several certified forensic pathologists, the result of postmortem animal predation. Since I am not an animal and therefore can't think like one, asking myself why only one body would be degloved is counterproductive. My speculation is above.

 

[Pensfan]

--------------------------------
(1) ARK CODE ANN. § 16-112-204(b)(2) provides that the court may, at any time prior to its decision on the merits, permit amendments to a motion for forensic DNA testing. The General Assembly no doubt contemplated that amendments might be necessary as examination and evaluation of the biological evidence proceeds, since it might come to light that additional evidence was collected of which the movant was unaware when he first filed his motion, or the significance of which did not become apparent until thereafter. Accordingly, although counsel assure the court that this Motion represents our best effort to identify all potentially testable biological evidence collected in this case, we cannot give equal assurances that amendments may not become necessary as events unfold.

- End of Page 1 -



-- foreign hairs recovered from the victims' bodies and clothing;

-- tissue on the ligatures used to bind the victims;

-- oral, nasal, anal, and penile swabs taken from the victims;

-- fingernail scrapings taken from the victims;

-- all hairs recovered from the crime scene;

-- urine which was contained in the stomachs of two of the victims;
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html

 

[Compassionate Reader]

As I stated before, the defense is asking for something that doesn't exist. Please link me to the laboratory report that states urine was found in the stomachs of the boys. (BTW, increasing the size of the font won't make it true. It's still a defense request for something that they knew didn't exist.)

Also, I found a video of an alligator snapping turtle eating a frog underwater. Peretti said that these turtles don't feed underwater. This video proves him wrong.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pp0xP2nYm8&feature=related"]alligator snapping turtle eating frog - YouTube[/ame]

I can't find the story about the man whose genitals were attacked by a snapping turtle, but here's a story about a teenager in Germany whose penis was bitten by one while swimming.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/877844/

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I agree. Ask yourself why TH or MB would force two of the boys to drink urine. If TH only killed his stepson in anger and the other two boys because they were witnesses, would he torture them and make them drink urine?
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html

Ask yourself why either of these two men would do something just like Ed Gein and deglove a part of their victim, take their skin, and also keep his victims' underwear. (The penis and scrotal area of Christopher were "degloved" and two of the boys’ underwear were never found.)
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_peretti.html

Ask yourself why a turtle would only deglove one scrotal area.

Did this turtle also take the two pairs of underwear?

http://www.houseofhorrors.com/gein.htm
http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Psyc 405/serial killers/Gein, Ed.pdf

1). I'm not convinced that there was urine found in any of the victims stomaches. If there WAS urine, why wasn't it in the autopsy reports?

2). With respect to Chris Byers, I'm not convinced that the injuries to his genitals were a result of castration. On the other hand, I'm also not convinced that it was a result of animal predation. I simply do not know.

Having said that, if there was solid evidence to convince me that urine was found in the stomaches of 2 of the victims, and if there was sufficient evidence to convince me that one of the victims was castrated, that would still tell me nothing in terms of who committed this crime. It would simply tell me what the perpetrator(s) DID.

 

[claudicici]

I completely agree.
I'm totally on the fence about the injuries to Chris.I guess both would be possible.

Now that's just a total guess but let's say it was done by the murderer and not an animal.
Let's also assume that Damien did kill the Great Dane (which is debatable) It would give us an idea how gory and sick Damien's killing style would be.
Now let's think of past crimes TH is accused of.There's a lot with a sick sexual twist to it.Sexual abuse of his own children? Given the motive that he may have been outraged about Chris having a crush on Amanda it may have led to the attack of that part of Chris.
TH has a history of sexual crimes.Damien has not.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I completely agree.
I'm totally on the fence about the injuries to Chris.I guess both would be possible.

Now that's just a total guess but let's say it was done by the murderer and not an animal.
Let's also assume that Damien did kill the Great Dane (which is debatable) It would give us an idea how gory and sick Damien's killing style would be.
Now let's think of past crimes TH is accused of.There's a lot with a sick sexual twist to it.Sexual abuse of his own children? Given the motive that he may have been outraged about Chris having a crush on Amanda it may have led to the attack of that part of Chris.
TH has a history of sexual crimes.Damien has not.

Well, along those lines of thinking we also have Mark Byers knife, and his contradictory statements regarding the presence of blood (type consisent with both him and Chris) on it. I don't care what anyone says...Byers is a nutcase. That doesn't make Byers a murderer, of course, but if we're simply looking at who MIGHT have committed these murders, why simply look at Hobbs? Because he's the suspect d'jour? Mark Byers sure seems pleased as punch to run in and publicly accuse Hobbs at every turn, despite what is currently some pretty thin evidence. Wonder why.

(Not that I'm suggesting JMB or Hobbs is the murderer, mind you. Just saying that I'm not prepared to discount either of them at this point.)

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Well, along those lines of thinking we also have Mark Byers knife, and his contradictory statements regarding the presence of blood (type consisent with both him and Chris) on it. I don't care what anyone says...Byers is a nutcase. That doesn't make Byers a murderer, of course, but if we're simply looking at who MIGHT have committed these murders, why simply look at Hobbs? Because he's the suspect d'jour? Mark Byers sure seems pleased as punch to run in and publicly accuse Hobbs at every turn, despite what is currently some pretty thin evidence. Wonder why.

(Not that I'm suggesting JMB or Hobbs is the murderer, mind you. Just saying that I'm not prepared to discount either of them at this point.)

I have to agree here. I am not convinced that JMB was or wasn't involved in some way. I don't think that there is enough to arrest him, or accuse him to his face. I just don't know that there is enough to clear him. The knife business has always bothered me....but I am not convinced that the injuries to the boys were from a knife or animal predation either. There is just so much sloppy work on behalf of LE that the only thing that I am convinced of is that the people who spent 18 years in prison for this crime should not have. Again, not saying that he did it, but I have considered the whole "what if he was involved with TH scenario." What better way to take the suspicion off of yourself than to jump on with everyone else saying that TH did it and the WM3 shouldn't be there. Now you have turned the WM3 supporters to stop looking at you and what would TH say? He's saying all of that to get the heat off of him, but he was there, too? That wouldn't help TH at all, so he couldn't say that. Who knows. It may have been done by someone none of us have ever considered. A complete and unknown stranger. I hope that they 3 can finally prove who did it with all of their supporters, but I don't know that it will be possible. I would love to see what hasn't been released that was tested by the defense tho.

 

[claudicici]

I am in no way saying that I know who killed the boys.My main suspect is TH.These are just theories in my head.I am not LE and in no way would I want TH to be convicted because of past crimes,his back ground or because I think he's a sick individual.
Because that would be exactly what they did to Damien.
I am only speculating on a message board so I feel like I have the liberty to use my imagination but LE does not ,they need to actually go by facts and hard evidence !!!!!

 

[jaleigh]

As I stated before, the defense is asking for something that doesn't exist. Please link me to the laboratory report that states urine was found in the stomachs of the boys. (BTW, increasing the size of the font won't make it true. It's still a defense request for something that they knew didn't exist.)

Also, I found a video of an alligator snapping turtle eating a frog underwater. Peretti said that these turtles don't feed underwater. This video proves him wrong.

alligator snapping turtle eating frog - YouTube

I can't find the story about the man whose genitals were attacked by a snapping turtle, but here's a story about a teenager in Germany whose penis was bitten by one while swimming.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/877844/

Good point making video CR.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

As to the JMB or TH or JMB and TH debate, here's my two cents.

No evidence has been found that links JMB to the discovery ditch. Evidence linking TH to the ditch has been found. Yes, JMB is a very flamboyant figure. Frankly, I don't think that the original documentary would have been nearly as popular had it not had a character like JMB in it. However, using his actions to point to him as the murderer without any independent evidence is IMO just what was done to Damien, Jason and Jessie.

TH is another story. Whereas JMB never "lawyered up," even when he was being accused by supporters, the minute the mtDNA evidence came out, TH got himself an attorney. Then, he proceeds to file a suit against Natalie Maines Pasdar and the Dixie Chicks, not JMB. Since JMB has made so many public statements blaming TH for the crime, if they had been in it together, don't you think TH would have said something?

JMB's actions, although over the top, I will agree, can be explained as extreme grief. IMO, TH's cannot. They are the actions of someone hiding from something, trying to just "blend in" with the surroundings so that no one will notice he exists - "Mr. Cellophane" from Chicago. The only thing that brought him out was the implications of the testing.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I have to agree here. I am not convinced that JMB was or wasn't involved in some way. I don't think that there is enough to arrest him, or accuse him to his face. I just don't know that there is enough to clear him. The knife business has always bothered me....but I am not convinced that the injuries to the boys were from a knife or animal predation either. There is just so much sloppy work on behalf of LE that the only thing that I am convinced of is that the people who spent 18 years in prison for this crime should not have. Again, not saying that he did it, but I have considered the whole "what if he was involved with TH scenario." What better way to take the suspicion off of yourself than to jump on with everyone else saying that TH did it and the WM3 shouldn't be there. Now you have turned the WM3 supporters to stop looking at you and what would TH say? He's saying all of that to get the heat off of him, but he was there, too? That wouldn't help TH at all, so he couldn't say that. Who knows. It may have been done by someone none of us have ever considered. A complete and unknown stranger. I hope that they 3 can finally prove who did it with all of their supporters, but I don't know that it will be possible. I would love to see what hasn't been released that was tested by the defense tho.

I'm right there with you on every score, CP.

 

[Wescott]

There was two ounces of brown liquid found in Michael Moore's lumen.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autmm.html

I think this is where the urine story may have originated. In the letter Gitchell or Ridge? wrote asking for information, he said something about "urine, if that is what it is." Suggests to me that it may have been spoken about and someone assumed it was urine.

I read on another site from a person reporting from the Rule 37 hearing in 2009, questioning by attorney Burt, that Peretti said he did not say anything about urine and he did not know where that came from. Until someone can hook me up with actual facts that urine was found I will be dismissing it as rumour.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

There was two ounces of brown liquid found in Michael Moore's lumen.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autmm.html

I think this is where the urine story may have originated. In the letter Gitchell or Ridge? wrote asking for information, he said something about "urine, if that is what it is." Suggests to me that it may have been spoken about and someone assumed it was urine.

I read on another site from a person reporting from the Rule 37 hearing in 2009, questioning by attorney Burt, that Peretti said he did not say anything about urine and he did not know where that came from. Until someone can hook me up with actual facts that urine was found I will be dismissing it as rumour.

As I intimated previously, it seems apparent that Gitchell was the genesis of this particular rumor. That's all that it was - rumor. I'm sure that the reason the defense asked for it, as I stated earlier, was to force the prosecution to admit that it didn't exist. Just another one of those "facts" that I'm sure the State of Arkansas didn't want to see disproved at a new trial. The horrific image of the killer urinating into the boys' mouths or even making them drink their own urine was simply another image that helped erroneously convict the WMFree.

 

[SheBoss]

--------------------------------
(1) ARK CODE ANN. § 16-112-204(b)(2) provides that the court may, at any time prior to its decision on the merits, permit amendments to a motion for forensic DNA testing. The General Assembly no doubt contemplated that amendments might be necessary as examination and evaluation of the biological evidence proceeds, since it might come to light that additional evidence was collected of which the movant was unaware when he first filed his motion, or the significance of which did not become apparent until thereafter. Accordingly, although counsel assure the court that this Motion represents our best effort to identify all potentially testable biological evidence collected in this case, we cannot give equal assurances that amendments may not become necessary as events unfold.

- End of Page 1 -



-- foreign hairs recovered from the victims' bodies and clothing;

-- tissue on the ligatures used to bind the victims;

-- oral, nasal, anal, and penile swabs taken from the victims;

-- fingernail scrapings taken from the victims;

-- all hairs recovered from the crime scene;

-- urine which was contained in the stomachs of two of the victims;
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html

Using Pensfan's link above, I see several things that I had no idea were at the crime scene. Urine in the stomachs being only one.


-- a knife found in the ditch where the victims' bodies were recovered;

-- cigarette butts found in a plastic pill bottle near the crime scene;

-- a cotton rope found at the crime scene;

-- the head hair fragments recovered from the handle of a knife found near the crime scene;

There was a knife found in the ditch, and cigarette butts in a pill bottle AND cotton rope found at the crime scene? Was testing ever done on any of this? I mean before the above Damien Echol's request?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Using Pensfan's link above, I see several things that I had no idea were at the crime scene. Urine in the stomachs being only one.


-- a knife found in the ditch where the victims' bodies were recovered;

-- cigarette butts found in a plastic pill bottle near the crime scene;

-- a cotton rope found at the crime scene;

-- the head hair fragments recovered from the handle of a knife found near the crime scene;

There was a knife found in the ditch, and cigarette butts in a pill bottle AND cotton rope found at the crime scene? Was testing ever done on any of this? I mean before the above Damien Echol's request?

IIRC, none of these things were tested by the WMPD. The "urine" was (obviously) not urine and the other things mentioned were discovered when they sandbagged the ditch. You would think that the WMPD would have tested them, wouldn't you?

Some have speculated as to the cigarette butts that they belonged to a transient who was living in the woods, possibly even "Mr. Bojangles" but that's pure speculation. Smokers have stated that, when down on their luck, they have been known to preserve butts in a similar fashion. The cotton rope and knife could have belonged to the transient also. The results of the ongoing testing will hopefully give us some answers.

 

[SheBoss]

IIRC, none of these things were tested by the WMPD. The "urine" was (obviously) not urine and the other things mentioned were discovered when they sandbagged the ditch. You would think that the WMPD would have tested them, wouldn't you?

Some have speculated as to the cigarette butts that they belonged to a transient who was living in the woods, possibly even "Mr. Bojangles" but that's pure speculation. Smokers have stated that, when down on their luck, they have been known to preserve butts in a similar fashion. The cotton rope and knife could have belonged to the transient also. The results of the ongoing testing will hopefully give us some answers.

Wait just a minute. There was a knife found in the ditch where the kids were, yet the WMPD DIDN'T test it knowing (or suspecting) that the kids were cut/stabbed/mutilated with a knife? What the....? Seriously? :banghead:

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Wait just a minute. There was a knife found in the ditch where the kids were, yet the WMPD DIDN'T test it knowing (or suspecting) that the kids were cut/stabbed/mutilated with a knife? What the....? Seriously? :banghead:

Seriously! Can you say Keystone Kops?!

 

[jaleigh]

Wait just a minute. There was a knife found in the ditch where the kids were, yet the WMPD DIDN'T test it knowing (or suspecting) that the kids were cut/stabbed/mutilated with a knife? What the....? Seriously? :banghead:

Sheds a new light on the inadequate investigative work preformed doesn't it?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Sheds a new light on the inadequate investigative work preformed doesn't it?

When you add this obvious inadequacy (or lack of action, to be a little more accurate) to the failure to thoroughly investigate Terry Hobbs at the time of the murders, it makes one wonder how the WMPD ever solved any crime accurately, doesn't it? Mainly, it makes me question why Terry Hobbs gets a free pass in this case.

JMB was investigated. Todd Moore was cleared as he was an OTR driver out of town until about 6 am on May 6th. Terry Hobbs was never cleared, or even questioned until after his mtDNA showed up at the scene. Even then, he was told, both before and after the interview, that he was not a suspect. Does anyone have a reasonable explanation for this, short of the "We got the right guys already" BS?