Terry Hobbs - My Story

[reedus23]

Yet one doesn't rightly have to ever go to an area for their hair to wind up there. Do you not comprehend this fact, or are you simply intent on ignoring it?

It sounds like I comprehend the significance of the hair more than some. You can hold steadfast to your opinions, I really don't care because your's will never change no matter what evidence is discovered. Your refusal to acknowledge that that hair and the findings relative to that hair justifies a further investigation into Hobbs is mind boggling. You act as if I'm saying that's enough to convict on. I'm not. It is enough to justify a further look however. Continue to twist and ignore all you like.

I contend the effort would be better spent getting mDNA samples from the other parents of the boys along with their friends, teachers, and others who traveled in the same circles as them. At least a couple of those people likely have mDNA consistent with some of other hairs recovered from the scene, perhaps even other hairs from the ligatures, and that would go a long way toward taking the wind out of the sails those of you who've gotten so worked up over a hair.

Support 100%. Start with those closest and work your way out. That's how the investigation should have been run from day 1. Glad we agree on something.

Sure, but again your opinion is biased by your denial of the evidence uncovered against the three who were convicted and eventually plead guilty to the murders.

Remind me again. What evidence did LE have that the WM3 were so guilty on Day 1 that it would justify not properly investigating these crimes? Or on

Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 1000

Only by wearing blinders can one make the argument that not investigating/interviewing Hobbs right away was justified, even if there was evidence of WM3 involvement, which there was not.

Even if they had SOME evidence against the WM3, how in the hell does that justify not fully investigating the obvious? Further, you have no idea what evidence I haven't considered and which evidence I have considered. My guess is what you consider a mountain of solid evidence in my opinion is scant and flimsy...on its best day. Maybe the one here with a bias is you.

There's also a difference between investigating someone and making wildly inaccurate statements about evidence to cast suspension on someone, such as the comment which got this line of discussion started:

Reality check. If my sister's child is murdered and a hair is found and that hair matches the child's step-father, who also happens to be a seedy person, you are damn right I am going to want LE to look into him further. God help your children if you don't think the same way.

And you've seen seen other examples of outright blaming a parent, I know because I've showed examples before of Echols and Baldwin blaming Byers.

Go take it up with Echols and Baldwin. I really don't care what they say as far as blaming anyone. I wouldn't fault them for making even crazier accusations after what they went through. And no, did not click link because I didn't care enough to do so.

A good debate requires both parties to be familiar with the facts of the matter being discussed, and can't rightly occur when one party shows no interest in accurately recounting even the simplest of facts.

Again with personal bashing, which is what one has to resort to when the facts do not support their position. Carry on.

 

[Deleted member 96356]

Hello all,

I haven't had time to participate on this board for quite a while, but do drop in every now and then to see if there's a new break or development. Alas...

WRT the hair, and whether it's significant to require investigation or whether it's irrelevant, may I offer an anecdote by way of explanation? I was out the other day and a woman was brushing her golden retriever. There was golden retriever fluff in the breeze while I walked near. I said hello and kept going. Even though I didn't touch that dog, or shake that woman's hand, or even know them, or have anything else to do with them... it wouldn't be too surprising to discover that I've ended up with a golden retriever hair on my shirt or pants. And it would be chalked up to daily life, the way we end up carrying all sorts of microscopic hairs and pollens and what-have-you on our clothes or even our skin. BUT, now suppose that woman met foul play (god forbid) and an eyewitness saw me pass near her in the park and thought there was something odd, or I'm the only other person who was noted in that park. And the police came to question me, and discovered I had golden retriever fluff on my clothes. Does the golden retriever hair make me guilty? No. It could have got there by proximity. It could be from another golden retriever altogether. BUT would it behoove them to take a closer look at me? I think so.

That's how I see the issue of the Hobbs hair. Does it make him guilty? Does it automatically mean he was at the crime scene? I don't think so. But I absolutely do think it means he needs a second look. I don't think the presence of that hair is insignificant until it's proven insignificant.

JMO

 

[reedus23]

Hello all,

I haven't had time to participate on this board for quite a while, but do drop in every now and then to see if there's a new break or development. Alas...

WRT the hair, and whether it's significant to require investigation or whether it's irrelevant, may I offer an anecdote by way of explanation? I was out the other day and a woman was brushing her golden retriever. There was golden retriever fluff in the breeze while I walked near. I said hello and kept going. Even though I didn't touch that dog, or shake that woman's hand, or even know them, or have anything else to do with them... it wouldn't be too surprising to discover that I've ended up with a golden retriever hair on my shirt or pants. And it would be chalked up to daily life, the way we end up carrying all sorts of microscopic hairs and pollens and what-have-you on our clothes or even our skin. BUT, now suppose that woman met foul play (god forbid) and an eyewitness saw me pass near her in the park and thought there was something odd, or I'm the only other person who was noted in that park. And the police came to question me, and discovered I had golden retriever fluff on my clothes. Does the golden retriever hair make me guilty? No. It could have got there by proximity. It could be from another golden retriever altogether. BUT would it behoove them to take a closer look at me? I think so.

That's how I see the issue of the Hobbs hair. Does it make him guilty? Does it automatically mean he was at the crime scene? I don't think so. But I absolutely do think it means he needs a second look. I don't think the presence of that hair is insignificant until it's proven insignificant.

JMO

I don't think anyone is saying it makes him automatically guilty, or at least I'm not. Let's turn those facts around a little bit to fit. Let's say you were brushing your hair as you went by and one of your hairs transferred to the lady who later fell victim. Let's say that mDNA tests indicated it was likely your hair. Would it be proper for LE to disregard that hair all together and not question you? Or would proper procedure be to interview you and determine that you were at work all day that day and could not have committed the crime? The question isn't if it 100% makes him guilty. I get secondary transfers. I get it's not 100% certainty whose hair it is. I think the point simply is that it is beyond negligent to at least not follow up on such evidence.

ETA - I do respect and appreciate you point of view. You state it in a very reasonable and coherent fashion. Thanks.

 

[Alyssa2013]

I don't think I would be as suspicious of Terry Hobbs if he was more cooperative and helpful to police. Actually, when the Paradise Lost crew tried to get his dental records, he refused them access. He didn't even think twice and he still thinks that the boys are guilty...even after all of the evidence points against it. These might be irrelevant points but it's not like he was a saint. All I'm trying to say is that he really deserves to be investigated thoroughly..and if he's cleared, that's fine. It's just not fair to say that everything has been done to find the truth because it hasn't. And it's frustrating because he was there all along and the police didn't even try to investigate him.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

For the record, just so no one thinks otherwise, I agree that the hair alone is not enough to convict Hobbs. However, with all of the other circumstantial evidence against him, for LE to have not questioned him until 2007 is simply beyond negligent. It's criminal, IMO.

Yes, I know that the mtDNA results weren't reported until 2007 and that that report is finally what forced the wmpd to question Hobbs. However, even then, they eventually assured him that he was still not a suspect. Simply put, they didn't "interrogate" him like they did JMB, they "questioned" him, gently! How lame is that? And again, what "hold" does Hobbs (who I call "Teflon Terry") have over the wmpd and the State of Arkansas that allows him to escape suspicion? Does anyone have a clue?!

 

[Deleted member 96356]

I don't think anyone is saying it makes him automatically guilty, or at least I'm not. Let's turn those facts around a little bit to fit. Let's say you were brushing your hair as you went by and one of your hairs transferred to the lady who later fell victim. Let's say that mDNA tests indicated it was likely your hair. Would it be proper for LE to disregard that hair all together and not question you? Or would proper procedure be to interview you and determine that you were at work all day that day and could not have committed the crime? The question isn't if it 100% makes him guilty. I get secondary transfers. I get it's not 100% certainty whose hair it is. I think the point simply is that it is beyond negligent to at least not follow up on such evidence.

ETA - I do respect and appreciate you point of view. You state it in a very reasonable and coherent fashion. Thanks.

Oh-oh, we're agreeing on this point but I'm afraid I didn't make myself very clear... Like you, I was trying to say that just as it doesn't make him guilty de facto, it is certainly something that should prompt due diligence, just as if in my analogy the dog's hair was found on my clothes, or in your analogy my hair was found on the woman's. (That poor woman who was brushing her dog - look what I've dragged her into and I don' even know her! lol) Due diligence. I think people (not here) may construe my thoughts on this as me saying Hobbs is guilty because of the hair. No, I'm saying do what you need to do to rule him out. Like I said, it's not an "insignificant" finding until LE proves it's insignificant. Or at least until they do what is necessary to satisfy a reasonable level of investigation. IMO

 

[kyleb]

Yet one doesn't rightly have to ever go to an area for their hair to wind up there. Do you not comprehend this fact, or are you simply intent on ignoring it?

It sounds like I comprehend the significance of the hair more than some.

In reality you're just dodging a fact which undermines your "only hundreds in the West Memphis area, if that" argument.

I contend the effort would be better spent getting mDNA samples from the other parents of the boys along with their friends, teachers, and others who traveled in the same circles as them. At least a couple of those people likely have mDNA consistent with some of other hairs recovered from the scene, perhaps even other hairs from the ligatures, and that would go a long way toward taking the wind out of the sails those of you who've gotten so worked up over a hair.

Support 100%. Start with those closest and work your way out. That's how the investigation should have been run from day 1. Glad we agree on something.

Do you not realize how flagrantly you're twisting my words here and throughout the rest of your post, or do you just not care?

I don't think the presence of that hair is insignificant until it's proven insignificant.

Do you believe all the hairs are significant until proven otherwise, and how do you suppose one could ever rightly go about proving such a negative?

I don't think I would be as suspicious of Terry Hobbs if he was more cooperative and helpful to police.

When and how exactly was ever Hobbs notably uncooperative to police?

Actually, when the Paradise Lost crew tried to get his dental records, he refused them access.

It's actually Mark Byers who was hounded by the Paradise Lost crew for his dental records, not Terry Hobbs. Furthermore, what the Paradise Lost crew didn't show you is that the wounds they mistook for a bite mark are actually consistent with the knife recovered from the lake behind Baldwins house:

Of course the Paradise Lost crew didn't bother to show the consistency between the knife and other wounds either, such as those presented here:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnLXRJnVA9c"]Scrape Marks and the Survival Knife - YouTube[/ame]

Nor did they mention the fact that Deanna Holcomb testified to having seen Echols in possession of such a knife, and that's just a tip of the iceberg regarding what evidence points to the three who were convicted of and eventually plead guilty to commuting the murders.

He didn't even think twice and he still thinks that the boys are guilty...even after all of the evidence points against it.

Hobbs is far from the only one who still considers the three guilty, parent and otherwise, and have you ever thought twice about the possibility that some of us are far more familiar with the evidence than you are?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Any wounds that you purport might have been caused by the knife weren't stabbing wounds. So, do you contend that the boys were scraped to death?!

I could give you other, much more detailed, explanations for those wounds that you insist were caused by anything other than postmortem animal predation. However, you would refuse to accept my explanations.

For those of you truly interested in some astounding new information, I invite you to the Blackboard. One of the posters there (someone who has actually been "on the scene" and works closely with the defense) has been reexamining the "bite mark" and has reached some astounding conclusions.

 

[reedus23]

Do you not realize how flagrantly you're twisting my words here and throughout the rest of your post, or do you just not care?

You're opinion. Do I not care that you think I'm flagrantly twisting your words? To put it politely, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Don't accept your premise, so no, don't care.

 

[reedus23]

Do you believe all the hairs are significant until proven otherwise, and how do you suppose one could ever rightly go about proving such a negative?

So you're suggesting a "bury your head in the sand and ignore any potential evidence approach because it might fly contrary to your theory" approach? Not surprised. Of course each of the hairs are POTENTIALLY significant and YES each of them should be followed up on, INCLUDING the one that is more than likely Hobbs' hair.

 

[reedus23]

When and how exactly was ever Hobbs notably uncooperative to police?

Know you're not serious now. You had me going for a bit.

 

[Cappuccino]

When and how exactly was ever Hobbs notably uncooperative to police?

Its more true to say that the police were uncooperative to Hobbs. They questioned Damien on May 7th 1993, they questioned Hobbs in 2007. And yet Damien had no connection to the victims, and on May 7th 1993, he had no evidence against him either. Terry Hobbs was the stepfather of one of the victims, and should have questioned on that basis alone.

Two days on the basis of nothing vs. 14 years too late despite an obvious basis for questioning.

Whatever the defense or the various supporters groups may have gotten wrong over the years, they were definitely right about one thing - the police investigating this case had tunnel vision about Damien.

 

[reedus23]

Furthermore, what the Paradise Lost crew didn't show you is Kyleb's opinion that the wounds they mistook for a bite mark are actually consistent with the knife recovered from the lake behind Baldwins housethat has no established ties to this case and could have belonged to anyone

I felt it was best to make that statement more accurate by indicating that you think Paradise Lost should have interviewed you about your opinion that it's consistent because that's all it is, your opinion and to further make sure it is clear that there is absolutely zero evidence that that specific knife had anything to do with anyone even remotely attached to this case. Hell, a knife found in a lake in North Dakota has as much to do with this case as the knife you talk about, it just wouldn't inflame passions if you tried to use the North Dakota knife.

 

[gheckso]

Is the implication from the above diagrams to suggest that the killer first butted the end of the knife to Steve's forehead and then scrape him under the brow with it?

IMO The wounds appear to be from a single source with perhaps the only irregularity being the center wound.

TBH I don't see the consistency between the knife and the wounds and find it a stretch to think the killer/s were scraping them.

 

[reedus23]

Deanna Holcomb

Ahhh, the bitter ex. Lots of credibility there with that gal.

Echols in possession of such a knife,

Are you saying that that is, in fact, his knife? Or are you speculating that it is. I'm going to guess you are guessing. Not very convincing evidence when one is left to guesswork. I would bet no one else in West Memphis owned knives either.

that's just a tip of the iceberg

The only thing that an iceberg and the evidence against the WM3 have in common is that no one has seen any of it.

Hobbs is far from the only one who still considers the three guilty, parent and otherwise,

And entitled to their own opinions.

and have you ever thought twice about the possibility that some of us are far more familiar with the evidence than you are?

God, what a #($*. At least you don't confuse familiarity with the case with reasoning and understanding. Despite your familiarity with the evidence, as you said, have you ever thought twice about the possibility that some of us have a much better understanding of the evidence than you and it's significance to the case?

 

[reedus23]

Any wounds that you purport might have been caused by the knife weren't stabbing wounds. So, do you contend that the boys were scraped to death?!

I could give you other, much more detailed, explanations for those wounds that you insist were caused by anything other than postmortem animal predation. However, you would refuse to accept my explanations.

For those of you truly interested in some astounding new information, I invite you to the Blackboard. One of the posters there (someone who has actually been "on the scene" and works closely with the defense) has been reexamining the "bite mark" and has reached some astounding conclusions.

Will check it out.

 

[gheckso]

Will check it out.

Link for anyone interested.

 

[Cappuccino]

Kyleb - tell me more about the knife. For example, what percentage of the population had a knife consistent with the shape of that knife, and how many of them were in West Memphis at the time of the murders?

The mtDNA is consistent with 1.5% of the population from which Terry Hobbs cannot be excluded. And according to you, that makes it too ridiculous to even be considered. So let's examine the same statistics about the lake knife.

What percentage of the population owned a knife consistent with the lake knife?

 

[21merc7]

Reading about the teeth -

Did anyone every compare Hobb's teeth? Did anyone ever get any dental impressions from previous dentist or xrays?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Reading about the teeth -

Did anyone every compare Hobb's teeth? Did anyone ever get any dental impressions from previous dentist or xrays?

The partials used in the link to the BB are Hobbs' partials from 1993. Hobbs has steadfastly refused to grant access to medical records, DNA, etc. The wmpd has not ordered him to cooperate in any way, as a responsible police force would have done, given that he is the step father of a victim.