Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[zencompass]

Yes I most certainly agree about the body language and how Terry Hobbs carried himself and seemed to be so stiff as to be holding his emotions in. During his interviews it appeared as if he thought he could 'control' his body in a rigid way then he could also 'control' his anger so that he could hide it. As for his sayings about humiliating people, someone mentioned so many things building up inside him and this would increase his rage to a boiling point. In addition to his wife kissing someone weeks before, his stepson's new bicycle was purchased very recently by the grandparents. Did Terry Hobbs resent this as well, as something the grandparents could do that he could not? Usually a person who has 'rage' problems consider every single little thing a 'slight' towards them and it builds and build. This is only my opinion.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

If someone famous came out and said I had murdered my step-son and his two friends when I had nothing to do with it, and my name was being tossed around as a murderer by the people defending who I thought actually did the crime I'd say a lot more than Terry Hobbs ever said, and no doubt I'd do my fair share of gulping and trying to hold back emotions myself .. he had a right to be furious, anyone would be.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Userid wrote:

Of course, one could chalk this demeanor up to a grieving step father

IMO, the worst of TH's "body language" evidence is in the wmpd interview (2004) and the Pasdar deposition (2007). Again, IMO, that's a bit too long to be the reaction of a grieving parent.

Hez wrote:

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.

However, IMO, this is the biggest "proof" that TH was not a "grieving stepfather."

Others have brought up interesting points, too. The misogyny mentioned even extended to one of the Pasdar attorneys, D'Leslie Davis. Note how disrespectful he is to her, even calling her by her first name and treating her with, IMO, utter contempt.

zencompass wrote:

Usually a person who has 'rage' problems consider every single little thing a 'slight' towards them and it builds and build.

This is true, too. I think TH had a lot of "issues" with his in-laws, and this could easily be a part of his rage.

Of course, as I mentioned, there's the possibility, IMO, that CB was the real target of the rage. Although I still believe that the genital injury was caused by animal predation, I can also see the possibility that TH was angry with CB because CB had a crush on AH - and, if the sexual molestation rumors are true, that could cause rage against CB. It's even possible that TH saw SB as a rival for PH's affection. (I know it sounds sick, but it's a possibility.)

Again, I've often said that it's possible that something happened at the home (SB's home) on May 4th that made SB want to run away. What that was could be as innocuous as SB wanting TH to go to a father-son Cub Scout outing or as heinous as TH wanting to use SB's friends (CB and MM) in the same way he is purported to have used SB. Of course, this is just speculation, but, again as I've often said, that's all anyone has at this point since none of us were there at the time of the crime.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Quote from webpage:http://www.jivepuppi.com/evidence_the_clothes.html

"The five missing socks and two pairs of missing underwear are suggestive that the murders were committed elsewhere and the clothes were brought to the site where the children were found. An incomplete dumping of the clothes is easier to imagine than perpetrators who chose to keep only five out of six socks and two pairs of underwear."

One thing that has caused me a few sleepless hours is the missing clothes, or if you look at it another way, the clothes that were found at the "crime scene". I am also wary that the authorities have been refusing to let PH and JMB see the clothes. I found it strange that SB's underpants were present, but MM's and CB's not. Also that the only sock at the scene, was the sock that was stuck in the shoe.

Here is my theory on how this could have come about.

The crime took place in the HO home. The boys were (made to) stripped down in SB's room. Looking at photos taken in the HO house, I see the untidy household of a family where both parents work. TH decided to stage the crime in the woods. He would have to take the clothes there too. I could imagine that SB's clothes from the day before, were still in the room.
My experience is that the majority of fathers know their childrens shirts and pants (things they are often able to see) but when it comes to underwear and socks, mothers know a lot more because they buy, wash, sort them.Now he has too many clothes in that room. He can recognise the shirts and pants, and he knows that the turtle ninja underpants belong to SB. I know from experience that the turtle ninja underpants will probably have been something special, and usually kids only have one or two specials, and the rest of the underpants are the normal cheap whites. The same with socks. So he is left with the problem of not knowing which underpants and socks belong to who. He is sure about the ninja underpants, and the sock that is still in the shoe. To take anything else other than what he was certain of, would have been fatal. He could have decided not to take any of the Underpants and socks, but I think it was a 50/50 decision. I went through this for days on end, trying to find a hitch, but it seems pretty feasible to me.

The fact that the parents never got to see the clothes is remarkable. Maybe TH did get mixed up with the shirts or pants. Imagine there are two shirts or pants from SB in there.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Quote from webpage:http://www.jivepuppi.com/evidence_the_clothes.html

"The five missing socks and two pairs of missing underwear are suggestive that the murders were committed elsewhere and the clothes were brought to the site where the children were found. An incomplete dumping of the clothes is easier to imagine than perpetrators who chose to keep only five out of six socks and two pairs of underwear."

One thing that has caused me a few sleepless hours is the missing clothes, or if you look at it another way, the clothes that were found at the "crime scene". I am also wary that the authorities have been refusing to let PH and JMB see the clothes. I found it strange that SB's underpants were present, but MM's and CB's not. Also that the only sock at the scene, was the sock that was stuck in the shoe.

Here is my theory on how this could have come about.

The crime took place in the HO home. The boys were (made to) stripped down in SB's room. Looking at photos taken in the HO house, I see the untidy household of a family where both parents work. TH decided to stage the crime in the woods. He would have to take the clothes there too. I could imagine that SB's clothes from the day before, were still in the room.
My experience is that the majority of fathers know their childrens shirts and pants (things they are often able to see) but when it comes to underwear and socks, mothers know a lot more because they buy, wash, sort them.Now he has too many clothes in that room. He can recognise the shirts and pants, and he knows that the turtle ninja underpants belong to SB. I know from experience that the turtle ninja underpants will probably have been something special, and usually kids only have one or two specials, and the rest of the underpants are the normal cheap whites. The same with socks. So he is left with the problem of not knowing which underpants and socks belong to who. He is sure about the ninja underpants, and the sock that is still in the shoe. To take anything else other than what he was certain of, would have been fatal. He could have decided not to take any of the Underpants and socks, but I think it was a 50/50 decision. I went through this for days on end, trying to find a hitch, but it seems pretty feasible to me.

The fact that the parents never got to see the clothes is remarkable. Maybe TH did get mixed up with the shirts or pants. Imagine there are two shirts or pants from SB in there.

BBM- This is exactly to the point! I will admit that your theory has merit, but I don't believe that the murders took place in the house. I think that would have been too risky - and I don't believe that the killer was that stupid - but it's possible!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Since I can't edit reply #383, I'll correct my mistake here. Both the Pasdar deposition and the wmpd interview (I won't dignify it by calling it an "interrogation" because it wasn't) occurred in 2007, making the "grieving father" idea even more unlikely, IMO.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Compassionate Reader:

I don't believe that the murders took place in the house. I think that would have been too risky

I think killing three children is always going to be a risky business. In a premeditated crime the risk aspect would certainly be considered. I was thinking more about a crime "on impulse". I honestly don't think someone who can't control their overwhelming impulse, would worry about any risk at the time. He would only start thinking about risk, after realising what he had done.

Looking at a lot of men who have a history of domestic violence, child abuse, child sexual abuse, most of this is done at home (I think that is why it's called domestic violence). If it started off as a beating that got out of hand, we would then have one case of manslaughter, and two cases of premeditated murder. In the time after the manslaughter, that's where things like risk and many other things would have came into consideration.

Compassionate Reader:

and I don't believe that the killer was that stupid - but it's possible!

As far as being stupid, not being able to construct a decent alibi, does not indicate a high IQ. On the other hand it doesn't appear to be stupidness in this case. The person who we are talking about, has in many examples displayed signs of being untouchable, even maybe signs of megalomania. If he did do it, it's worked out fine for him so far.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't believe it was a crime of impulse but of discipline gone too far and then having to eliminate witnesses. I do agree that child abusers do most of their dastardly deeds in the home, and I believe that some of that type of abuse happened in this case, too. However, I believe that the killer was angered by disobedience (a blow to his ego, for sure) and went to "teach [a] lesson" to the disobedient child. It went too far, and he believed the child was dead when he was only unconscious. Then, the other two were killed (or, more precisely, rendered unconscious) as witnesses.

Yes, the killer shows definite signs of megalomania or maybe even psychosis. I wonder if we'll even know for sure. I sure hope we do, and I continue to hold out hope that this vicious killer (who killed again but couldn't be charged with the crime because his victim lived over a year after the act) will eventually be caught and punished.

 

[LordYAM]

He still made an *advertiser censored* of himself on the stand, when directly questioned he made himself look guilty, he still had a history of violence. You really do seem desperate to downplay anything that makes him look guilty

 

[Ausgirl]

I don't see anyone 'downplaying' anything, really. No-one here appears to be claiming Hobbs is a great guy, or even incapable of murder.

If something is pulled up as 'evidence' of guilt, though, I think it's a good thing for people to examine the idea critically, as very well might NOT be proof at all. It's very easy to get to seeing 'inkblots' in cases like this, I've done it many times myself.

I think there's no need to attack other posters.

 

[LordYAM]

UBDCrazy criticized the idea of going after Hobbes simply because he's the stepfather. KyleB has downplayed Hobb's history of violence as well. I'm sorry but from what I've seen they do willingly ignore information that disagrees, as well as recite stuff that has been debunked many times, and ignore testimony from experts, actual evidence etc.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

So I just had a weird and kind of sick thought. Remember how PH stated that TH would force SB to lie on his back with his arms and legs raised like a dead roach and hit him if he grew tired. http://www.jivepuppi.com/Terry_Hobbs.html So the whole stripping the kids and tying them up thing was just so odd. They were never tied in any normal way. Not traditional hog tying and then other threads went and pretty much proved they weren't secure enough to really hold them struggling for long. What if there really was no functional need for the bonds other than to ensure drowning in the end but if they were just for humiliation and punishment al la the dead roach game. TH must have found it amusing to do to the kids or why else would he do it. Also PH knew about his game and would find it a sick message to her.

 

[zencompass]

I keep coming back to the question of why these three boys and why that particular day. These questions keep leading me back to the witness stating that she saw Terry Hobbs around 6:30 that particular day calling to Steven to come home. The boys were together at that time and they were not listening to Terry Hobbs. Given his history of violence and strong tendency to humiliate I find that Terry Hobbs had the opportunity as he was there and the motive was to humiliate the boys as his rage would have been simmering over the past few weeks. I believe he followed those boys to humiliate or teach them a lesson as he was feeling lack of control in his life and his rage took over. I believe he did this on his own and after humiliating the boys he lost control and finally killed them so there would be no witnesses. This is my opinion.

 

[zencompass]

I also have a question - were all of the drain pipes which they could have been playing in checked thoroughly as well as other areas in the woods nearby for evidence?

 

[sloane7777]

probably not we are talking WM!

 

[Graznik]

I also have a question - were all of the drain pipes which they could have been playing in checked thoroughly as well as other areas in the woods nearby for evidence?

I believe one drain pipe was checked. That was where the police retrieved a bag with BIC-razors amongst other things.
Did they thoroughly search the whole area including all the manholes?! I believe they didn't.

 

[Ausgirl]

So I just had a weird and kind of sick thought. Remember how PH stated that TH would force SB to lie on his back with his arms and legs raised like a dead roach and hit him if he grew tired. http://www.jivepuppi.com/Terry_Hobbs.html

It was Sheila Hicks who said that, in 1997. If this is indeed true, this *would* be an act of sadism. Well above and beyond anything remotely 'normal' re corporal punishment. (never mind the allegations of sexual abuse, which - if true - are ofc beyond heinous..)

The Hicks family had every reason to throw TH under a bus, though - he shot Jackie Jr.. in 1994. If there wasn't such a powerful reason for hatred there, I would be all in the "TH did it" camp, no question, on reading those statements. But the fact is, he shot and ultimately killed, a member of their family, so there *was* a strong motive there to cast TH in as bad a light as possible. Unfortunately.

I'd be more inclined to take for granted any reports of abuse coming from outside the family -- hospital records, teachers, people with no reason to hate TH. If there was ongoing abuse, I am betting *somebody* noticed something 'off' about those kids.

Someone please remind me -- did Sheila Hicks call the cops on Terry when this abuse came to her attention? It was pretty serious stuff, I would expect any family member to dial 911 on the spot. If she did, why was nothing done? If she didn't - why not?

 

[claudicici]

I think one of the reasons TH has the website is to keep Amanda quiet.He's sort of giving her the same treatment as the "beating with the hands above the head" He's letting her know he loves her but keeps humiliating her by bringing up her drug addiction,jail sentence etc.How long has he been sober? He doesn't mention his own struggles.He makes himself sound perfect and Amanda is the screw up who better keep her mouth shut.Same with Pam.Mentioning her hospital stay and how HER side of the family is stressing her out.IMO he wants the public to know that in case they ever say anything negative about him they are not to be believed......

 

[claudicici]

It was Sheila Hicks who said that, in 1997. If this is indeed true, this *would* be an act of sadism. Well above and beyond anything remotely 'normal' re corporal punishment. (never mind the allegations of sexual abuse, which - if true - are ofc beyond heinous..)

The Hicks family had every reason to throw TH under a bus, though - he shot Jackie Jr.. in 1994. If there wasn't such a powerful reason for hatred there, I would be all in the "TH did it" camp, no question, on reading those statements. But the fact is, he shot and ultimately killed, a member of their family, so there *was* a strong motive there to cast TH in as bad a light as possible. Unfortunately.

I'd be more inclined to take for granted any reports of abuse coming from outside the family -- hospital records, teachers, people with no reason to hate TH. If there was ongoing abuse, I am betting *somebody* noticed something 'off' about those kids.

Someone please remind me -- did Sheila Hicks call the cops on Terry when this abuse came to her attention? It was pretty serious stuff, I would expect any family member to dial 911 on the spot. If she did, why was nothing done? If she didn't - why not?

Doesn't that fact in itself cast TH in a bad light? There is just so much that casts him in a bad light and too many people would have to be liars ,what about Mildred french? What about Amanda's diary?
It does not surprise me that nobody called 911 when it happened ,I am so sorry about the abuse you went through yourself but did anyone call 911 in your case? When you grow up around abuse it becomes norm IMO

 

[Miranda!]

I also have looked through the case that had been available on the internet. Narrowing search engine times to before the date of May 5th, 1993 and until the trial was over. I found a few news articles that state the boys were last seen going into the RH woods with two MEN. (not teenagers).[emoji47] whoa!!

Hi Angeleyes. It is worth remembering that most of the media coverage at the time of the murders tilted heavily towards the guilt of the three. Then, as awareness of the case grew in the age of the internet, so too did lots of sites emerge. But is is worth remembering that most sites do have some degree of bias! Some more extreme than others.

The best place to read up on the case is here at Callahan's.. But you do need to have a basic grasp of the case and the people involved!! It is now more common that court filings, trial transcripts and other documents pertaining to a particular case, are posted on-line. This case was, I believe, the first to ever build up a resource like this.