Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[Justiceseeker35]

So if we took things along those lines of thinking that if it was TH and if he was in the mind set that he didn't want the two remaining children, after CB died due to head trauma, to defend themselves then the stripping and binding of wrists to ankles makes sense?

 

[Ausgirl]

Nah. It'd be a lot harder to tie those kids up (especially in the manner they were tied) if they were conscious and struggling, than it would be to hold them down and hit them. Plus, there's the issue of control - how would a person control two fully conscious and unfettered boys while tying the first up? I think the children were blitz-attacked in rapid succession to subdue all of them, and I think the binding came after the head trauma, personally. I believe there'd be a lot more bruising around the ankles and wrists than there was, otherwise.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Justiceseeker35:

I always took the hands bit to mean they couldn't cover their bottoms with their hands to protect delicate skin. Hands are tougher.

Ausgirl:

I would have said the same thing - that's how it was back when beating children at school was acceptable. Hands out of the way, both to avoid cushioning the blows and the risk of broken fingers from the strap or cane. Same at home, in my case.

Sorry, I can only assume you've both missed the point I was trying to make.

Beating up a child with a leather belt, or god knows what, while at the same time getting their hands out the way to prevent injuring them, is totally schizophrenic IMO. What message is being sent to the child? Son I love you, I'm protecting you, but I've got to beat the hell out of you because you've been a bad boy!

Children do not have the intellectual tools to decipher a message like that. What children do have, which many grown ups lose contact with, is emotional intelligence. A child is completly vulnerable and relies on his/her parent/s to protect them. It's a matter of life or death for a child. So what a child does with this message is, keep the "I love you part", because he/she needs it to survive, and the beating and all the pain that goes with it are suppressed.

This constellation results in an ambivalence-conflict at the least. If the beatings are regular, possible schizophrenia, and if the abuse is regular and manifold, MPD (multiple personality disorder) or as it is now known, DID (Dissociative identity disorder).

If an individual abuses someone in this way, outside of the family, they would have to reckon with a charge for indecent assault. When this happens within a family, it's widely accepted as "domestic violence".

What xx was doing to his stepson, and quite regularly as his mother stated, is deplorable, and even more, it implicates that he has not reflected what happened to himself, and just continued to carry it over to the next generation.

For anyone who is interested, there is some good literature on this subject:

The Drama of the Gifted Child by Alice Miller.
The Body Never Lies: The Lingering Effects of Hurtful Parenting by Alice Miller and Andrew Jenkins.
For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence by Alice Miller.
Thou Shalt Not Be Aware: Society's Betrayal of the Child by Alice Miller.
The Untouched Key: Tracing Childhood Trauma in Creativity and Destructiveness by Alice Miller.

The Betrayal of the Self: The Fear of Autonomy in Men and Women by Arno Gruen.
The Insanity of Normality: Realism As Sickness : Toward Understanding Human Destructiveness by Arno Gruen.

The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog: And Other Stories from a Child Psychiatrist's Notebook--What Traumatized
Children... by Bruce Perry and Maia Szalavitz.
Born for Love: Why Empathy Is Essential--and Endangered by Bruce D. Perry and Maia Szalavitz.

I grew up in similar surroundings to West Memphis, was beaten very often as a child, and carry the scars of every single lash in my heart and soul, up until this very day. There is no way I can accept any sort of child abuse. Children are always innocent!!!

Justiceseeker35

So if we took things along those lines of thinking that if it was TH and if he was in the mind set that he didn't want the two remaining children, after CB died due to head trauma, to defend themselves then the stripping and binding of wrists to ankles makes sense?

I just wanted to suggest that the reason for the bindings might primarily be to "say" something, and not to "do" something.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

a person who beats a child and makes them hold their hands over their head to keep from defending or protecting themselves is a sadist. I have serious doubts there was love any where in the lessons being taught.

 

[Ausgirl]

Oh I haven't missedanyone's point. But MY point was, for people who do practise corporal punishment with a strap or a cane (whatever value judgements might be made of that action, in general) the fact is, it's not unusual for there to be concern with keeping the child's hands out of the way. While I do not condone corporal punishment of that kind, at all, it's my experience that a person can strap or cane a child's behind "for their own good" and also care about them, including taking care not to break or harm their hands.

In short: the backside does not break easily. Little hands do.

I must repeat, I don't agree with hitting children with a belt. But also cannot see corporal punishment as a sadistic act in itself (re Hobbs), given the context that many parents did, and many still do, choose it as a means of disciplining their kids. I also do not think requiring them to keep their hands out of the way is inherently weird or sadistic, I think it's probably to prevent damage to the hands. Which is not, as I have said, an uncommon thing to happen in this situation.

There's many reasons, IMO, to suspect Hobbs. I don't happen to think his manner of exacting punishment is one of them, however - it's not unusual at all. Many parents the world over, even to this day, do exactly the same thing.

Where 'sadism' might come into it is how hard he hit those kids, how often and what for. While some parents I know (with adult children now) used to strap their kids, their children do not remember it much nor are bothered by it as adults, as the punishment was handed out fairly and was an understood consequence of dire rule-breakage.

In my own case, I was beaten black and blue on a whim by a violent, unpredictable parent with many of their own problems. Sadistic.. Idk.. but I was a whipping-horse for all their problems and frustrations, I think.

Other parents might be true sadists indeed - and just enjoy hitting kids for no purpose than enjoyment of hitting them. But what evidence is there that Hobbs was one of those?

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

a person who beats a child and makes them hold their hands over their head to keep from defending or protecting themselves is a sadist. I have serious doubts there was love any where in the lessons being taught.

I wholeheartedly agree!

Ausgirl:

In my own case, I was beaten black and blue

I am very sorry that you got the same treatment as I did. Punishment will never, ever solve any problems. Communication is a much better alternative, so let's just keep on communicating.:fence:

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Although I don't believe that corporal punishment is always wrong, I do endorse the idea that having the child raise his/her hands above the head is at least a bit sadistic. I also agree that a parent who punishes in this way received similar punishments during his/her own childhood. Just another of the many sad aspects of this case.

 

[Ausgirl]

I think, on the other hand, it would be *more* sadistic to allow them to lower their hands and potentially get an agonising broken bone. Especially if not merely spanking, but hitting them with an object.

More than once I got the wooden spoon cracked over my butt-covering hands. Trust me, it was a lot more painful than a swipe on the bum.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think, on the other hand, it would be *more* sadistic to allow them to lower their hands and potentially get an agonising broken bone. Especially if not merely spanking, but hitting them with an object.

More than once I got the wooden spoon cracked over my butt-covering hands. Trust me, it was a lot more painful than a swipe on the bum.

Good point. It's barbaric to beat a child in the way described, IMO. I'm sorry for anyone who had to suffer such a thing.

 

[Userid]

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I always assumed that the point of making a child hold his hands up was to ensure that anyone outside the home would be none the wiser that such abuse was taking place.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Here's what gets me and I keep coming back to this. To me this shows the pattern of a person who doesn't want the people he's punishing to be able to defend themselves and just to remain helpless. Points me toward the tying up so they can drown.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I always assumed that the point of making a child hold his hands up was to ensure that anyone outside the home would be none the wiser that such abuse was taking place.

I think that could be one of the purposes, too. Abusers often are careful to strike where it doesn't "show" to the general public. As a teacher, and I taught high school, BTW, if I even suspected abuse (maybe I observed a student sitting gingerly in his/her seat, for example) it was my duty to report my suspicions to the counselor. Failure to do so could result in the revocation of my license to teach. Sometimes it was a fine line to walk, but I always did what I believed to be best for the welfare of the child.

 

[Ausgirl]

Well. Having been subjected to - and witnessed others'- corporal punishment in my own home, the homes of others and at school, all I can say is that requiring kids to keep their hands out of the way is not at all unusual -- and really, has some pretty practical reasoning behind it.

My school required kids keep their hands out of the way, and I highly doubt their motives were sinister. Just practical. The point was to punish, not cause injury.

 

[zencompass]

I have followed this story for years as well. I believe that Terry Hobbs was the actual murderer. Whenever I watch him being interviewed he uses certain words like he would like to see the Dixie Chicks 'humiliated' and I think that he had this in mind with his rage when he called for his stepson to come home as the neighbour Deborah Moyer stated along with others who placed him around 6:30 calling for his stepson to come home. He has a history of misogyny as well as documented violence against his brother-in-law and others. He has also said in an interview that 'there is a line there and you don't cross it'. I believe that he wanted to humiliate his stepson for not obeying him when he called him home and he lost control and that is when he murdered the little boys as he could not have witnesses. Terry Hobbs had the background of knowing how to 'hogtie' whereas Damien et al did not. This tragic story brings to mind a Canadian one where a young boy was tried and received the death penalty for the rape and murder of a young girl. His name is Steven Truscott. People continued to support Steven as they believed in his innocence (as did the Free WM3). Steven Truscott was released and went to live with the Prison Chaplain who always believed in his innocence. Years later it has been found that there was a man in that area at that time who had been under psychiatric care for molesting young girls who left the area right after the murder. This man had incredible rage which I find similar to Terry Hobbs and unless convinced otherwise, I believe Terry Hobbs committed the murders and that he did this on his own. This is my own opinion.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

One other thing TH said to his wife, "I don't get mad; I get even." Unfathomable as it is to consider, wouldn't killing her child be a way of "getting even" with her for kissing "that Mexican" in the kitchen?:notgood:

 

[Ausgirl]

That's a good motive, CR. People have killed kids for far less reason.

I wonder (and as y'all know I do NOT consider Hobb's guilt a concrete fact) -- what set him off that particular day, if indeed he did do it. What was coming to a head in that small cluster of days preceding the murders? For a man like Hobbs (and many other short-fused individals surrounding this case) I can see a collection of stressors pushing him over an edge, to where he'd lash out harder than usual on a child.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

That's a good motive, CR. People have killed kids for far less reason.

I wonder (and as y'all know I do NOT consider Hobb's guilt a concrete fact) -- what set him off that particular day, if indeed he did do it. What was coming to a head in that small cluster of days preceding the murders? For a man like Hobbs (and many other short-fused individals surrounding this case) I can see a collection of stressors pushing him over an edge, to where he'd lash out harder than usual on a child.

I tend to agree it wasn't one thing that set him off, it would be an escalation of disobedience shown by PH and the children. A thousand injuries if you will... leading up to one terrible day.

 

[Userid]

Personally, I don't really read too much into the language TH used in the past...."humiliate....I don't get made, I get even". They don't raise any red flags, to me, anyway. Millions of people use those expressions. It all kind of reminds me of that scene in that Pauly Shore movie "Jury Duty" when the prosecution gives examples of every time the defendant said "I'll kill you" to somebody.

That said, what does raise suspicion with me is his body language -- in videotaped interviews, etc -- the heavy gulping he does, the stiff demeanor, the fact that he just looks absolutely terrified in every single interview, and how he keeps his answers relatively short and measured. If he is guilty, I swear, that is the worst poker-face I have ever seen -- it's almost so bad, that it can't be true.

Of course, one could chalk this demeanor up to a grieving step father (just playing devil's advocate).

 

[Hez]

Personally, I don't really read too much into the language TH used in the past...."humiliate....I don't get made, I get even". They don't raise any red flags, to me, anyway. Millions of people use those expressions. It all kind of reminds me of that scene in that Pauly Shore movie "Jury Duty" when the prosecution gives examples of every time the defendant said "I'll kill you" to somebody.

That said, what does raise suspicion with me is his body language -- in videotaped interviews, etc -- the heavy gulping he does, the stiff demeanor, the fact that he just looks absolutely terrified in every single interview, and how he keeps his answers relatively short and measured. If he is guilty, I swear, that is the worst poker-face I have ever seen -- it's almost so bad, that it can't be true.

Of course, one could chalk this demeanor up to a grieving step father (just playing devil's advocate).

BBM - This is the 'man' that left town two weeks after the murders because Pam just 'couldn't get over it'. Two weeks! Grieving step father, I think not.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

It's always interesting to see, how we all focus on different aspects while communicating. Some of us relate more to body language, others to the spoken word, again others to a mixture of both. I think that's a good case for teamwork. We all have different strengths and weaknesses.

I agree very much on TH's body language, I also find his remarks very alarming. Humiliating other people is definitely a sign of sadism. Getting even with someone is something we usually get over in our adolescence. Particular scenes in the documentaries throw up major red flags for me. The scene where PH is angry and describing DE, JB, and JMK as punks, makes him laugh, the scene where DE and JB are sentenced makes him laugh, (nobody else does, someone being sentenced to death is quite a serious situation). Very sadistic!! Overall he doesn't show much emotion, but then to laugh in serious situations, BIG RED FLAG!!. May I also reiterate his overall misogyny (described by ZENCOMPASS), laughing at giving his wife a "backhander", the Mildred French assault, and so on and so on. This guy has big problems. The " Mexican drama" was of utmost importance for him, it was one of two situations that he remembered in detail, in his 2007 police interview. The other being the shooting of PH's brother-in-law. I tend to agree that the "Mexican affair" could have played a big role in lighting the fuse.