Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[Graznik]

I will. Thank you very much for posting it!

 

[Graznik]

Okay, so I just watched the whole video, and WOW. The attention to detail is impressive to say the least. Even that teeny tiny angle! I'm not an expert, but that looks very convincing and very thoroughly and professionally conducted. Massive credit to the "author".
Anyone who haven't watched it yet, definitely do!

It never fails to amaze me that there are supporters out there who are able to not only come up with thorough theories about how the crime was really committed, but do things along the lines of this too.

Has the video been provided to the defense teams? This is too good to just be left "floating around" on the internet.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It is my understanding that it was provided to the defense team. However, since nothing happened, Dr. Cowart has put it on youtube in the hope to get wide circulation and eventually action. Only time will tell . . .

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Compassionate Reader:

I think also of Lindy Chamberlain, the Australian woman who served multiple years at hard labor and had a baby in prison - all because (IMO) the authorities didn't want Ayers Rock to get a bad reputation. So, they ignored the mother's insistence that a dingo took her baby away and relied instead on faulty forensics and religious prejudice (plus the fact that Lindy didn't act like they thought she should during the trial). So much injustice in this world! Thank goodness Lindy was finally exonerated - but it took years!

Wasn't that the story of that excellent film "A cry in the dark" ? I don't like Meryl Streep usually, but in this film she was superb.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

In my next post I will try to further substantiate my theory from post #461 (this thread) by adding my analysis. It’s also aimed at trying to create a better understanding for those who are curious but not acquainted with a psychological approach. May I again state, I am just trying to interpret this situation. I’m not trying to sell anyone a donkey for a horse, and if the horse does turn out to be a donkey, I’m not going to accept any legal liability for it.

This theory is based on, like nearly everything concerning this case, an equation with a certain amount of variables in it. Some aspects of this case have so many variables in them, that it is almost impossible to get a reasonable outcome. Take the TOD (Time of death) for instance. LE could have taken a lot of variables out of the equations in ’93 but they, for some reasons unknown, didn’t. This is a bit like the story of the „teeth marks“. If you are trying to interpret the marks from a 2D photograph, the amount of variables is higher than trying to read it from a 3D body. I have only very limited background information about TH, although I did find one reference to abuse here:

http://callahan.8k.com/hobbs_pasdar/hp_38/hp_38_7.pdf page 125

More background information would have taken out some more variables.

The biggest variable in this situation is whether TH is sexually abusing his daughter or not. In my mind there is no doubt, other people might think differently. BTW, psychology is a science, my approach is based on causality, people who believe that we do, or say things without any reason, are not going to get any joy out of it. If you think TH does and says things without a goal, he’s just gonna remain „average Joe“.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

OK for better understanding, I will repeat the excerpt from the Dimensions interview in post #461 (this thread) with an analysis.

PH. Well, I wouldn't think five minutes had passed by the time
Christopher was knocking on the door. And he asked about Stevie a
lot, and I told him, "Well, you just missed him. They just left to go to
Michael's house." And he said, "Well, can I come in and see Amanda
for a little bit?" And I said, "Yeah, that'd be fine." So, they sat in the
den and watched the Muppet Babies, and when the Muppet Babies
went off he left. So…

PH had no problem making this decision, maybe because TH wasn’t at home?

Q. How much older -- or Amanda was a little younger, right?

PH. She was 4.

Q. Four. So, he had a little crush on-on Amanda?

The questioner did not seem to have a problem with it.

PH. Yeah.

TH. Four years older.

PH. Melissa had told me that after they were murdered, that, urn,
Christopher came home one day and said, "[I'm going to have a]
girlfriend." And she said, "Uh, who?" And he said, "Yeah, but she's
younger than me." And she said, "Well, how old is she?" And he told
her, "She's 4, and she's [who is she?] Stevie's sister [Amanda]."

<snipped>

TH. [Crosstalk] hung out with Mike, or Chris come over and I got him [not
wanting to] kiss Amanda.

PH. And he was just [over-abused] in that day. And, uh, he'd come in, and
I asked Terry if he could tell Amanda, "Bye." And Terry said, "Well,
tell her bye," and Christopher shyly put his hands in his pocket and
told her, "Bye," which Stevie was out on the car fort laughing, because
he knew Christopher wanted her to come out there so he could give
her a kiss bye. And Terry [got him], "Tell her bye now."

TH. I said, "You tell her in here, boy.“

Why does PH ask TH if CB can tell Amanda bye?

Doesn't this suggest tension, uncertainty on PH's part, about how TH will react?
Does PH have reasons that prevent her from making the decision?

What is wrong in an eight year old boy wanting to give a cuddly little girl who he find's sweet a goodbye kiss?

If there are any thoughts of sexuality, danger, or just "hold on, there is something weird here", those thoughts are in the heads of the adults and not the children. If children at the age of 4 and 8 years old, are sexualised, the adults might "know it" or "see it" but the children are not aware of it. A sexually abused child is the only child that is sexualised at these ages. A sexualised child only reproduces the sexual abuse that he/she has experienced, it's not their creation.

"If" TH has a sexual relationship with his four year old daughter, he knows it is wrong.There are paedophiles who have the serious opinion that it's ok. TH denies all sexual allegations made against him, thus he knows it's not right. He brings the age aspect into this. He is suggesting it's not right for an eight year old boy to give a four year old girl a kiss. I can't see any reason why he should bring the subject of age into it. What I can see is, TH trying to find a reason to stop CB kissing Amanda because he is a predator, and Amanda is „HIS“ prey. What I can see is, his subconscience dropping in to let him know, if it's wrong that a 35 year old man has a sexual relationship with a four year old girl, then it is wrong that an eight year old boy has a sexual relationship with her too.

Stevie laughing could be very dangerous. TH might have perceived this as „Humiliation“.

Q. Who was -- who was Stevie better friends with, Christopher or
Michael?

PH. Michael.

Q.They were -- were they like best friends, the two of them?

PH.Yeah.

Q. They were -- they did everything together. But they hung out with
Chris quite a bit?

PH. Uh, Chris and Stevie were in the same [group]. So, I would say
probably, uh, about a month before the murder was when Chris really
started hanging around them both.

<snipped>

Q. Yeah. What about Chris?

PH. Michael spent more time -- Chris, uh, he was just a little shy little boy
then. Started coming over right before they died.

I get a bad feeling here. It seems as if PH is also putting something into this fact, maybe it’s just the word „right“. The word „just“ might have been less significant.

BTW, this same story also appears in JMB’s statement, which gives a time frame for the event:

Ridge- I know these kids get started a lot earlier than what I did back when I was kid. Did he have any girlfriends or anybody that he considered himself close to?

Mark- well this is going to be kind of funny sounding. He told us like on sunday or monday night before that wednesday. He was getting ready to go to bed and he told us, his mom and I, he said, I got a girlfriend. And I said, well, who's your girlfriend. He said amanda. I said, well, how old is Amanda. He said 4. I said, aww, I said who is Amanda. He said Stevie's little sister.

JMB and Melissa didn’t appear to think it was strange.

Ridge- you know so that...

Mark- and then I didn't...well that came out in talking to Terry. Terry had told me something about once Christopher was down there and wanted to say goodbye to her. And he said well you can say goodbye to her now, you know. And he said, he told, that Christopher told Stevie that he wanted to give her a little kiss goodbye. That's why he wanted her to come outside, you know. Cause that's the only girlfriend, just kids stuff.

TH doing his „average Joe“ stuff.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmb1.html May 19, 1993: Statement

All JMO.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

zencompass wrote:

I just read S.N.'s affidavit wherein she swore that TH told her that he found the bodies "buried in water" that day but did not want to tell P.H. when he went to pick her up. I hadn't read that before. S.N. had only been dating T.H. for four months but swore he told her that more than once. Very revealing. JMO

Justiceseeker35 wrote:

how odd, it was like a round about confession. So I just read a quote that TH feels a lot of "shame" over the death of SB. Msg board readers are actually creeped out by his use of the word shame. So here's a wild thought. It was mentioned about about multiple personalities. The lit on that is the true diagnosis is extremely rare. But what if its like the normal human condition where something just pops out of your mouth or you do something without thinking and regret it tremendously afterward. It could go back to impulse control. Something comes over TH that night where he commits the murders and afterward is disassociated from it? Doesn't quite remember committing the acts is in denial that he did them? Someone who has a long history of domestic abuse likely has to have a well practiced ability to deny, cover up, self justify actions and even lie to themselves.

I was thinking along the same lines. This is heavy stuff:

Narcissistic personality disorder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Dissociative identity disorder:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

http://www.merckmanuals.com/profess...disorders/dissociative_identity_disorder.html

http://www.dissociative-identity-disorder.net/wiki/Alter

NPD, seems to fit well, but DID with a NPD alter could explain the finding of the bodies as zencompass described, amnesia and time lapses on the evening of the 5th, different alters at different times on the two days, and also the complete amnesia of DJ and the guitar session.

JMO

Now I’ll have to look at that video CR posted.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

zencompass wrote:


Justiceseeker35 wrote:


I was thinking along the same lines. This is heavy stuff:

Narcissistic personality disorder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Dissociative identity disorder:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

http://www.merckmanuals.com/profess...disorders/dissociative_identity_disorder.html

http://www.dissociative-identity-disorder.net/wiki/Alter

NPD, seems to fit well, but DID with a NPD alter could explain the finding of the bodies as zencompass described, amnesia and time lapses on the evening of the 5th, different alters at different times on the two days, and also the complete amnesia of DJ and the guitar session.

JMO

Now I’ll have to look at that video CR posted.

So I just had this really creepy feeling reading all this. So apparently when TH finds out Sharon Nelson's son aka AH's boyfriend is much older than he was told or knew, he went ballistic. Could he have had the same reaction when learning CB an 8 year old (older child) was interested in his little daughter? Honestly I think he liked her more because she was a little like him in that she too was a victim of the paternal figure in her life and he developed what you could say was a soft spot for her. JMB didn't do this crime but I believe he was rough with CB, rougher than your typical 8 year old gets from a parent just what I've gleaned from the statements made. The creepy-ness comes though from the pattern of behavior towards AH's "boy friends". On another note I've tried to find some kind of reference to the statement "buried under water" (its just an odd way of stating the condition of the victims at the discovery site) I can't find anything. I was hoping it had some kind of symbolism in the Pentecostal church.

 

[Graznik]

It is my understanding that it was provided to the defense team. However, since nothing happened, Dr. Cowart has put it on youtube in the hope to get wide circulation and eventually action. Only time will tell . . .

Oh wow. I've always believed that things were happening in the background. We might not hear or see anything, but the defense teams were still working on exonoration to some degree. For there to be no response at all... That's a bit disheartening to be honest.

Why does PH ask TH if CB can tell Amanda bye?

Doesn't this suggest tension, uncertainty on PH's part, about how TH will react?
Does PH have reasons that prevent her from making the decision?

This is a bit far out (and a somewhat ideological/philosphical intepretation) but that could be something along the lines of the old patriarchal notion that the man is the "head of the family". The rest of the family is "his" and it is he that calls the shots, unless he has given others the responsibility to do so, so to speak. Hence, the asking for permission about something the man would consider "his". This is of course a very short version of a much more complicated theory, but this is not the forum to elaborate on that particular idea or consequences of it.

I am not saying this to discredit anything you've written, but rather to add another aspect to it. There are of course degrees to what I mentioned above. In this case, we know that we are talking about a man that does not shy from harrassing and abusing women. One could call it psychopathy/sociopathy (and not necessarily be wrong) but whatever way you choose to look at it, he does consider it well within his rights to take "liberties" against women. That would support my little ramble above and make it another aspect of your analysis.

However, I would be very careful with attempting any kind of physchological analysis unless qualified to do so.

Keep going CL, it's very interesting to read what you've got to say.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Compassionate Reader:



Wasn't that the story of that excellent film "A cry in the dark" ? I don't like Meryl Streep usually, but in this film she was superb.

Yes, it was!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Oh wow. I've always believed that things were happening in the background. We might not hear or see anything, but the defense teams were still working on exonoration to some degree. For there to be no response at all... That's a bit disheartening to be honest.

The problem is that we just don't know for sure what the defense is doing. What I suspect is that the defense passed the bite mark information and video on to Ellington, and he is sitting on it. I think Dr. Cowart is trying to stir up some interest - to get the State of Arkansas off of their duff. That's what has to happen now. The State is the entity that can reopen this case - no one else. Patience is required in this case, but it's getting harder all of the time. I just wish that someone in Arkansas would get to Ellington's opponent, show him/her this video and make this case an issue in the upcoming elections! IMO, that's the way to get some action. The thing I'm worried about is the possibility mentioned in the email - that divulging this information in the wrong way might make it inadmissible as evidence in a trial. We'll just have to wait and see . . .

BTW, stay tuned! Someone is supposedly posting all parts of TH's Pasdar deposition on Facebook. I'll get a link when it's all up!

 

[Graznik]

Well, no wonder nothing has happened if it has ended up at Ellington's desk. He ain't gonna do nothing.
And yes, realistically speaking, the action must come from within Arkansas just like you say. This case is just such a massive can of worms that for anyone to open it up, take it on and make it an issue in the elections, it would really have to be worth their while. Or, it would have to be part of tackling a more general issue, like corruption. But whatever way you choose to look at it, the support of the voters and general public would be necessary. Any work done, such as Dr. Cowart, that really stresses how much reasonable doubt there is in this case, is IMO really really important.

 

[Ausgirl]

wtf, now he's not just running a pedo ring in conspiracy with LE while being a big ole murdering liar (which I am actually not very disinclined to believe because hey, he did actually kill a person).. he has DID now too? ... .. it is all starting to read like some very bad 1980's fiction to me.

And I am among that *very* small percentage of people that actually have the disorder. Like for real. Not for show.

OFC, it's not utterly impossible he has it, but it's not impossible anyone you'd care to poke a stick at has it -- it's just extremely unlikely. You could say just about anyone has it, about whom you know very little and then argue there's no proof they don't have it. When being high as a kite on meth or even just a plain old lying-*advertiser censored* liar (and there''s a pile of evidence for either of those ...) is the 99.9% more probable cause for things like Hobbs' handy dandy memory lapses, IMO.

I'd have to see some way more convincing evidence of DID before jumping aboard that particular theory.

 

[Ausgirl]

^ sorry if that sounded crankier than i meant it to.. spent most of today in the emergency room & i'm just wiped.

all's well, but sooo tired

 

[Graznik]

^ sorry if that sounded crankier than i meant it to.. spent most of today in the emergency room & i'm just wiped.

all's well, but sooo tired

Hey, don't worry about that. I'm sure no one took offense.

I hope that you, or whoever you had to take to the emergency, is doing better.

Also, I'll just state again, that we should be very careful when it comes to speculation regarding mental illness or disorders of any kind. It's a very tricky topic, and many people can manifest symptoms under certain circumstances or during certain periods in their lives without having a disorder or disability. Even if there was an expert amongst us, she or he probably wouldn't be capable of doing it for certain based on the information that we have.
Furthermore, one simply can't say who's going to read it, and who may or may not have a disorder/disability themselves.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Ok I just wanted to clarify. I'm not ready to put TH in a psychiatric disorder box but there's something about the way he behaved that day from his and other's accounts that if he did the crime he dissociated from the events. It could have been due to adrenaline or hormones or drug induced or stress induced or a mental disorder. not excusing the lack of impulse control just trying to understand how 3 children could die at the hands of one adult.

 

[zencompass]

What I believe most people here want is for the West Memphis police to really have a good hard look at TH. Open some files, interview him again, interview the witnesses who placed TH at the right place and time that this horrible crime was initiated. It is obvious that TH exhibits/exhibited behaviour that falls across many psychological profiles and disorders. Does the exact category matter? Maybe not but it is certainly a way that people are struggling with as we cannot imagine what goes on in the mind of a murderer because we are not capable of thinking that way. We are simply not wired to do so. However we can "fear" what may have triggered someone to commit this horrid act as Compassionate Reader states. The bottom line in my opinion is that we desperately want the West Memphis police to consider TH as a very possible suspect as so much evidence and behaviour points his way. The three victims, those little boys deserve at least that. At least that. JMO

 

[Xara]

I was going to start a new thread with this video, but it fits here quite well. It's about 28 minutes long and is a revision of an old video. The "author" is a general dentist, and I believe you'll find it interesting. Enjoy! (Yes, I have his permission to share!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08g7evIHbJI

Thank you for posting this video.
Very compelling IMO.
Any idea how long the defense has known about this?

 

[LisaB]

I understood that she hadn't been at work very long and he was just looking for the boy.

When it got serious she was notified.

Where does it say that he played guitar for an hour - fact or rumor?

I believe he said this himself and was supported somewhat by a friend (with whom he played) whose hair was ALSO (I believe) found in the bindings. I think there was a discrepancy in the time Terry gave and that his friend gave.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

OK Graznik, Bashing!! :tantrum:

Graznik wrote:

Some of the stuff about TH is just disturbing beyond belief. It does make sense, but it's hard to wrap your head around how someone could be that sick (that is, if there's any grain of thruth to the theories posted here).

The perceived truth lies in the "Eye of the beholder".
The judicial truth is in the hands of LE, and they are qualified personnel.

Graznik wrote:

This is a bit far out (and a somewhat ideological/philosphical intepretation) but that could be something along the lines of the old patriarchal notion that the man is the "head of the family". The rest of the family is "his" and it is he that calls the shots, unless he has given others the responsibility to do so, so to speak. Hence, the asking for permission about something the man would consider "his". This is of course a very short version of a much more complicated theory, but this is not the forum to elaborate on that particular idea or consequences of it.

I personally concluded that TH's patriarch was self-evident. I was playing on the fact that PH knew of the alleged sexual abuse in TH's previous marriage. Even if she ignored it consciously, it could well have been present in her subconsciousness. Sometimes the meaning is not in what's said, but how it's said. Sometimes the meaning is in what's not said.

12." In contrast, Terry was very close to Amanda and favored her. He was protective of her but not close to Stevie. Terry acted like he resented Stevie or considered him a rival."

21." Terry has been violent and abusive to people outside my family as well. Prior to our marriage, Terry was married to Angela Timms. I saw the divorce papers in which Angela accused Terry of sexually molesting their son, Bryan Hobbs."

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/p_hobbs_declaration2.html

Graznik wrote:

I am not saying this to discredit anything you've written, but rather to add another aspect to it. There are of course degrees to what I mentioned above. In this case, we know that we are talking about a man that does not shy from harrassing and abusing women. One could call it psychopathy/sociopathy (and not necessarily be wrong) but whatever way you choose to look at it, he does consider it well within his rights to take "liberties" against women. That would support my little ramble above and make it another aspect of your analysis.

Sorry, i've got the feeling you are belittling TH's hostility towards women. Psychopathy/sociopathy are two words devoid of expression nowadays IMO.

Graznik wrote:

However, I would be very careful with attempting any kind of physchological analysis unless qualified to do so.

Also, I'll just state again, that we should be very careful when it comes to speculation regarding mental illness or disorders of any kind. It's a very tricky topic, and many people can manifest symptoms under certain circumstances or during certain periods in their lives without having a disorder or disability. Even if there was an expert amongst us, she or he probably wouldn't be capable of doing it for certain based on the information that we have.
Furthermore, one simply can't say who's going to read it, and who may or may not have a disorder/disability themselves.

It all seems very sensible and plausible what you're writing Graznik, but I'm a thick headed so and so, and I don't like to beat around the bush. I won't be diagnosing any personality disorders here, and even if I did, it wouldn't have any bearing, because I'm not qualified to do so. I however, don't see a reasonable foundation, not to discuss personality disorders, or analyse statements or evidence, after all, this is a crime discussion board. I shouldn't be doing it, for a different reason, and that is because LE should have done it. Besides that, It makes me feel far more uneasy suggesting someone is a "child killer" than suggesting they have a personality disorder. If I go over the top, I will rely on an Admin to coach me. As far as I am concerned, someone who kills three boys will have a severe disorder, not just &#8222;the psycopath next door&#8220;.

Ausgirl wrote:

I'd have to see some way more convincing evidence of DID before jumping aboard that particular theory.

I too hope that you're OK.

You're right Ausgirl, I was a bit gung-ho on that one. It's a very rare disorder, and there are so many symptoms that are familiar with other disorders. Nonetheless, it is not as rare as the triple murder of three children. Of course TH could just be a pathological liar, but there are some very disturbing things about his time-lines and memory.