Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[sloane7777]

Some good points you made here!

Justiceseeker wrote:



Agreed!

Mr Paid did an excellent job.
This is damning evidence IMO. I wonder how TH is going to talk his way out of this one."It wasn't me, it was the partials"

My partials haven't bitten anyone lately, but then again I don't let them out on their own.

YES BUT THE QUESTION IS : Is anyone going to act on the info? do any of you think there will ever be an arrest?

 

[sloane7777]

If the partial can be matched 100% up to evidence at the crime scene -- why isn't Hobbs sitting in prison already? Serious question.

Has this partial been given to a forensic dentist for comparison to crime scene pictures? If not - why not? If such evidence turns up, would the WMPD be forced to reopen the case as if it is "unsolved"? Would they allow such an investigation, even with new evidence of the sort?

It just seems like a rather massive bit of incriminating evidence, if the teeth match up. Even partially. If someone with some clout in the courts could analyse it -- then added to the hair, added to circumstantial evidence, that could be more than enough for a conviction, no? Or at least, an arrest...

ha!I read this after my comment , there would have to be a giant amount of crow consumed on this one , so unless its pushed by someone WMPD will not backtrack on it, I doubt anyone will ever be convicted.

 

[sloane7777]

Of interest to me is that, along with the partial, the necklace with the rather telling coin from 1984 and the marble!

yuck creepy trophey!

 

[Ausgirl]

I have to admit, those are some odd things to keep hidden away in a lock-box. As a parent (with a mild propensity for hoarding things sometimes), I have boxes in storage with all kinds of random crap in them. But a lock-box? Hidden away? Very strange.

Can someone tell me the significance of the coin?

 

[Miranda!]

If the partial can be matched 100% up to evidence at the crime scene -- why isn't Hobbs sitting in prison already? Serious question.

1. In many parts of the USA, positions such as Sheriff's; Police Chiefs; Prosecutors; District Attornies; Judges mostly get their positions dependent on popularity. That is, they are voted in, NOT by their peers but by the citizens. It makes no difference if the electorate have no clue as to how the law works or how good, honest and competent the candiates are.

2. The state of Arkansas NEVER has had, nor will have, wrongful convictions. [According to an AG who had an inappropriate reationship with a Defence Attorney. After said affair was over, a man was found 'dead' in her drive. The case apeared to go straight into 'cold' storage, then her brother was interviewed as well as her. The dead guy was, I believe, a drug dealer. I have no idea where the case is now. The AG's hopes to go on to being Governor, then even the White House, were derailed by this!]

3. Just as there appears to be a degree of corruption in the higher echelons of the State so, too, in the lower ranks. The CCDTF was investigated by the FBI. Some of the individuals during that time did NOT lose their jobs. It is alleged that former Judge Burnett even 'acquired' the odd 'goodie' from the evidence room! A member of the CCDTF was murdered in January of 1993 - he was a cross dresser - in the Bible Belt this would be a situation open to bribery or threats. Also possible exposure.

4. Over the years certain things have come up more than once. Was there an active 'gay' clique among men in positions of authority and power. If so, then all to vulnerable to bribary and threats! Or was there even some sort of paedophile network among a simiar group? None of those involved would want this in the public domain!

5. Why did the DA stay at that level right up until Sudbury 'retired'? His assistant moved on to be a judge way before he did! Come to that, why did Davis give so much time under the spot light to his side-kick?

6. Is it normal for public defenders, the prosecutor and one of the victim's father to appear to have quite so many possible 'connections'? Why did both Echols' and Baldwins' public defenders do so little to help their clients? Or, put it another way, why did they do so much to help the convictions? (Calling Echols to the stand; Failing to call character witnesses for Baldwin?). remember the Hobbs comment that 'they have to protect me'!

7. Was there something going on around the time of the murders and the investigation that caused certain people to want to focus all attention of the media and the public AWAY from? If so, this case landed in their laps from the heavens. Something diverted what should have been done in terms of investigating the crime in to what actually then happened. Why was Hobbs never interviewed until 2007?

8. After the positive outcome of the oral plea by Riorden to the Supreme Justices, (the first time in all the years when Burnett was not involved and the ruling was favourable) why did the Alford Plea suddenly magic out of no-where? In a case where the State already had successful convictions. Why did the state want this case 'to go away'?

9. Why did Echols fail to stand by his word in terms of being able to 'fight for justice' more easily from the outside than in? Was there some secret deal between Echols' attorney and the State that exoneration would not be campaigned for? To me, that is the only possibe answer to why no-one seems to be doing anything about getting this case resolved.


If the truth ever does come out, and I have not given up hoping yet, then a lot of worms are going to emerge from a great number of cans.

The case went wrong just as Clinton moved into the White House; The appeals process ground to a halt (with the Alford Plea and releases) just as another Clinton is possibly about to start a campaign to get in to The White House.

What is especially sad is that both Clintons are attornies and should have a very strong sense of justice. did they loose it on the way to The White House?

 

[Miranda!]

Can someone tell me the significance of the coin?

It was the year of the birth of all three boys. I should also have added that in the same box Stevie Branch's pocket knife was found I believe... Or it was found in another box at the same time!

And yes, the work that Mark Cowart did has been circulated to various eminent forensic odontologists. Including the expert called by the prosecution at one of the appeals! The consensus was that Cowart's work was very good.

However, were Hobbs to ever be indicted, we, as supporters, have pretty well served him up all that would have been kept under wraps until the discovery phase.

My biggest regret today is that supporters in Arkansas did not do more to question candidates of both parties in the weeks leading up to the elections. A perfect opportunity was missed to maybe make it a minor campaign issue! Just maybe the new Governor might consider taking a look at this case, if enough 'noise' is made.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

It was the year of the birth of all three boys. I should also have added that in the same box Stevie Branch's pocket knife was found I believe... Or it was found in another box at the same time!

And yes, the work that Mark Cowart did has been circulated to various eminent forensic odontologists. Including the expert called by the prosecution at one of the appeals! The consensus was that Cowart's work was very good.

However, were Hobbs to ever be indicted, we, as supporters, have pretty well served him up all that would have been kept under wraps until the discovery phase.

My biggest regret today is that supporters in Arkansas did not do more to question candidates of both parties in the weeks leading up to the elections. A perfect opportunity was missed to maybe make it a minor campaign issue! Just maybe the new Governor might consider taking a look at this case, if enough 'noise' is made.

Ok so creepy- the necklace was the year of birth for SB (might have even belonged to SB like a baby necklace or something), the marble might have been the very same marble that David Jacoby talked about in West of Memphis when TH stated he was going to "bust SB's a$$ if he threw it against the wall one more time" and the partial belonged to TH. I believed this box symbolized TH's feelings of rage he kept locked up inside towards his family, his stepson and his situation in 1993. We have the necklace, the knife, the partial, the marble- all either having belonged to SB and taken away or items that inflicted pain on SB. Come to think of it... all of those items have inflicted either emotional or physical pain on him. I have a sinking feeling that was an abusers trophy box. And a sickening feeling that the authorities had at least a good idea who did this but swept it under.

 

[Miranda!]

Ok so creepy- the necklace was the year of birth for SB (might have even belonged to SB like a baby necklace or something)

Something tells me that were it a 'baby' necklace on a fine chain (as in weight and size of links rather than in worth) we would know that. There is nothing to suggest that this was an item once owned by SB or either of the other two. We can speculate, but no more than that!

The marble might have been the very same marble that David Jacoby talked about in West of Memphis when TH stated he was going to "bust SB's a$$ if he threw it against the wall one more time"

Again, speculation only and, furthermore, on hearsay!

And the partial belonged to TH.

This was confirmed by him when shown photographs during his 2007 wmpd interview or during the Pasdar deposition!


We can, I agree, speculate that it might well have been some sort of sick 'trophy box'. BUT we cannot assume this as a fact. Granted it is, all in all, a rather odd collection of items to be put in a box and kept!

I have a sinking feeling that was an abusers trophy box. And a sickening feeling that the authorities had at least a good idea who did this but swept it under.

You could well be right in your opinion. This, and other things, all add up to the big question we are asking which is:- 'Why wasn't Hobbs interviewed during the investigation?' He needs to either be ruled in or to be totaly excluded. The situation, as it currently stands, is totally unsatisfactory!!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

First, let me apologize for my absence of the last few days and express to Ausgirl my hopes for her daughter's speedy recovery. Occasionally, I have to "get away from it all" in terms of this case. My blood pressure elevates when I have to deal with some of the fools that tend to populate some places (not this site, BTW) related to this case.

I'm not going to burden this post with a bunch of quotes. I believe everyone will be able to tell what I'm discussing without that. If there is any confusion, please let me know and I'll be glad to elaborate. (I'm good at that - as you all know!)

I'd like to say that the politics involved in this case are horrendous! It's one of the shortcomings of my country and my region, I'm afraid. Because of political aspirations, much of the "new" information meticulously ferreted out in this case has not come to light. I agree that, if the bite mark evidence of Dr. Cowart could every see the inside of a courtroom, I think this case would be solved. However, Ellington is the only one who can bring it forth. I thought he was up for re-election, however I can't find any results about his election. So, AFAIK, he's still in charge. He is the Prosecutor for the Second Judicial District (or something like that).

Arkansas did elect a new Attorney General, however. Dustin McDaniel didn't seek re-election. I believe he was unable to do so due to term limits. (For the non-Americans, some States and some offices are limited in the number of times an individual can be re-elected.) The new AG is a Republican. McDaniel is a Democrat. I hope that might help our case, but I don't know. However, there is a new man in the AG's chair, and he's not beholden to the party that was in power. Likewise, as Miranda said, Arkansas has a new governor, and he is also a Republican, replacing a Democrat. Again, that might help our cause. Only time will tell. These newly-elected people don't take office until January - a little quirk in our Constitution!

As I've said many times, I want to see a true and honest investigation into this case. Personally, I'm convinced that TH is the killer, but I want to see a proper investigation, ending with a fair trial, so that justice can finally be done for all involved. I feel strongly that, because of all of the politics involved, this must be initiated by the people of Arkansas. Kicking out the Democrats may be a step in that direction. Again, time will tell. Let's see what happens in January. Patience, patience, patience - that's the key!

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Something tells me that were it a 'baby' necklace on a fine chain (as in weight and size of links rather than in worth) we would know that. There is nothing to suggest that this was an item once owned by SB or either of the other two. We can speculate, but no more than that!

Again, speculation only and, furthermore, on hearsay!

This was confirmed by him when shown photographs during his 2007 wmpd interview or during the Pasdar deposition!


We can, I agree, speculate that it might well have been some sort of sick 'trophy box'. BUT we cannot assume this as a fact. Granted it is, all in all, a rather odd collection of items to be put in a box and kept!

You could well be right in your opinion. This, and other things, all add up to the big question we are asking which is:- 'Why wasn't Hobbs interviewed during the investigation?' He needs to either be ruled in or to be totaly excluded. The situation, as it currently stands, is totally unsatisfactory!!

Absolutely,
At this point I am speculating but from PH's declaration she states

"Terry also had a strong fireproof lockbox which he locked and kept at the top of our closet. On one occasion in 2004, a boy Jo Lynn was dating pried open the box. The only thing in the box was Terry's partial denture, a little bitty necklace that had a 1984 penny on it, and a marble."

Taken individually they might not have meaning but I have to ask myself why would TH's keep his partial in a fireproof lock box? if they didn't mean something real important to him or something that incriminates him such as the partial. A little bitty necklace to me would mean it belonged to a child. The only child in his house who has a 1984 birth year was SB. It could also be possible that one of the children who died could have owned that necklace. No one has come forward... And I'm pointing out that the only reference to a marble I've found was in West of Memphis. But I think we are on to something here. I think the necklace with the penny is important. It's been implied or theorized by PH that the pocket knife was taken from SB during or shortly after the murder occurred. Isn't it possible other items were taken from him or the other children as well ..the necklace with the penny or the marble?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Im just going to say that it is an outright crime that the one person that there is viable real evidence against has never been really investigated. That whole law enforcement office should be ashamed.

 

[grace60]

Absolutely,
At this point I am speculating but from PH's declaration she states

"Terry also had a strong fireproof lockbox which he locked and kept at the top of our closet. On one occasion in 2004, a boy Jo Lynn was dating pried open the box. The only thing in the box was Terry's partial denture, a little bitty necklace that had a 1984 penny on it, and a marble."

Taken individually they might not have meaning but I have to ask myself why would TH's keep his partial in a fireproof lock box? if they didn't mean something real important to him or something that incriminates him such as the partial. A little bitty necklace to me would mean it belonged to a child. The only child in his house who has a 1984 birth year was SB. It could also be possible that one of the children who died could have owned that necklace. No one has come forward... And I'm pointing out that the only reference to a marble I've found was in West of Memphis. But I think we are on to something here. I think the necklace with the penny is important. It's been implied or theorized by PH that the pocket knife was taken from SB during or shortly after the murder occurred. Isn't it possible other items were taken from him or the other children as well ..the necklace with the penny or the marble?

BBM I believe he thought the metal was worth something. IMO he went to a full denture from that partial. There would be no reason for him to keep it once all his teeth were extracted the partial would not have stayed up in the mouth. I can explain this further if anyone wants me to. The only other thing I could think of is his Dr thought he may be involved in the murders and told him to keep it for a few years.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

TH may be under the false impression that the metal in the partials was valuable. However, it's not. Also, TH got the partial before the murders, so I don't think that the dentist told him to lock them up. Personally, I think the partial was added to the lock box when the suspicion of a bite mark was first discussed - which wasn't until after the first documentary was released, IIRC. The necklace and the marble were probably Steven's. The pocket knife was found in a collection of knives - not in the same lock box with the necklace, the partial and the marble. Just wanted to clear that up. The knives may have been found at around the same time, however. I don't recall off the top of my head. It's probably in Pam's declaration.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

I just wanted to throw a thought out there that it could have been CB's necklace he had on him as a good luck charm the day of the murders and that's why it was hidden in a lock box with partial. PH did not ID the necklace as SB and MM's family did not ID the necklace as his but CB's mom was deceased by the time the necklace was found, JMB the step Dad might not have known of its existence.

 

[Miranda!]

As Pam Hicks (formerly Hobbs) and JMB are in contact I am sure we would have heard were the necklace to have possibley been Chris Byers'.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

TH may be under the false impression that the metal in the partials was valuable. However, it's not. Also, TH got the partial before the murders, so I don't think that the dentist told him to lock them up. Personally, I think the partial was added to the lock box when the suspicion of a bite mark was first discussed - which wasn't until after the first documentary was released, IIRC. The necklace and the marble were probably Steven's. The pocket knife was found in a collection of knives - not in the same lock box with the necklace, the partial and the marble. Just wanted to clear that up. The knives may have been found at around the same time, however. I don't recall off the top of my head. It's probably in Pam's declaration.

I would be extremely interested to know when TH got all his teeth pulled and got new dentals. That's the point in time when the partial went in the box. If its shortly after the children died and he left town or even during that summer that points to consciousness of guilt. My new working theory is that the items in the box were from the kids taken out of pockets at the time of the murders (if he took the knife then he was in the kids pockets). Those are all items that small children keep on themselves (I'm including the knife even though it wasn't in the box, it was in the knife collection) think back to when you were 6, 7, 8 years old. Kids keep items on them that are lucky (marbles, rocks, pennys, birthstones, rabbit feet, pocket knives) The box is a psychological trick that TH used on himself. A way of compartmentalizing the murders, a way of hiding shame (he said so himself, shame), and every time he opens the box and the items are still in there he hasn't been caught.

 

[Userid]

Just a quick question, here: has TH ever been asked about the items in the safe, and if so, what did he say about them?

 

[AGettler]

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

Great video, thank you for sharing. I wish the dentist would have addressed the other "teeth", however, instead of just one cluster of three. There is another cluster of three and a single. The other cluster was touched upon, but I feel his analysis is incomplete.

 

[grace60]

Great video, thank you for sharing. I wish the dentist would have addressed the other "teeth", however, instead of just one cluster of three. There is another cluster of three and a single. The other cluster was touched upon, but I feel his analysis is incomplete.

Those teeth are molars so they would not have left any marks. The best way I can explain it is the boy had anterior bite marks above the eyebrow area and below the eyebrow according to the video and I agree with that. When the killer bit him he bit into the skin and pulled it to bite into it. The molars would never have been able to reach that area. Your molars are what grinds your food up when your chewing it. If you took a piece of steak or a sandwich and put it on your mouth as far back as your molars and bit it off you would probably choke on it. The killer bit into the bony eye socket area there is no way he could have gotten his molars back they far. Dr Cowart also put a pic in his video that showed TH missing the canine a few months after the murders. It's arounf the 23:05 mark. So if PH or someone else could come up with a pic of him missing that tooth before the murders that would be great.

 

[AGettler]

Those teeth are molars so they would not have left any marks. The best way I can explain it is the boy had anterior bite marks above the eyebrow area and below the eyebrow according to the video and I agree with that. When the killer bit him he bit into the skin and pulled it to bite into it. The molars would never have been able to reach that area. Your molars are what grinds your food up when your chewing it. If you took a piece of steak or a sandwich and put it on your mouth as far back as your molars and bit it off you would probably choke on it. The killer bit into the bony eye socket area there is no way he could have gotten his molars back they far. Dr Cowart also put a pic in his video that showed TH missing the canine a few months after the murders. It's arounf the 23:05 mark. So if PH or someone else could come up with a pic of him missing that tooth before the murders that would be great.

There is a pic of th (I will not capitalize his name/initials) smiling in the video we are talking about. An arrow points to his mouth where there is a void when there should be a tooth.

Thank you for the explanation of the molars.