Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[Userid]

^ I don't know, it just seems like this guy can do no right.

He was with PH when she fainted and when she started "convulsing," and like someone mentioned, we don't know how much time had elapsed until when we see TH next (alone and smoking). Either way, I can understand TH taking a minute to collect himself while PH is being comforted by other family members momentarily (pretty sure she had multiple present, including her Dad there). Also, people smoke to calm themselves down, just in case it appears to someone that smoking, in and of itself, is non-sympathetic. I am not a veteran, but I'm sure veterans know this all too well.

I guess my main point is, if you think TH is guilty, that's fine; but be careful not to let your opinion taint relatively innocent observations and not read into these little things too much.

Aynia, you're right, it is quite surreal. It's also surreal to see the boys' homes now; and just the area in general, compared to the documentary footage. CB's and MM's homes are abandoned. CB's backyard/pool area/pool house is overgrown with weeds, bushes, and debris. On MM's old fence, "Beware of Dogs" is spray painted in big blue letters; but if you look on the other side of the yard, there is no fence on that side to contain any animals. The stop sign at McCauley is falling off and dilapidated. The Mayfair apartments are abandoned and awful looking. Catfish Island and Blue Beacon are both gone entirely, as is the Robin Hood Woods. When I see the area now, it's almost like time stopped completely when those murders occurred in that town, in comparison to what it looks like now. It's all so eery to say the least.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

^ I don't know, it just seems like this guy can do no right.

He was with PH when she fainted and when she started "convulsing," and like someone mentioned, we don't know how much time had elapsed until when we see TH next (alone and smoking). Either way, I can understand TH taking a minute to collect himself while PH is being comforted by other family members momentarily (pretty sure she had multiple present, including her Dad there). Also, people smoke to calm themselves down, just in case it appears to someone that smoking, in and of itself, is non-sympathetic. I am not a veteran, but I'm sure veterans know this all too well.

I guess my main point is, if you think TH is guilty, that's fine; but be careful not to let your opinion taint relatively innocent observations and not read into these little things too much.

Aynia, you're right, it is quite surreal. It's also surreal to see the boys' homes now; and just the area in general, compared to the documentary footage. CB's and MM's homes are abandoned. CB's backyard/pool area/pool house is overgrown with weeds, bushes, and debris. On MM's old fence, "Beware of Dogs" is spray painted in big blue letters; but if you look on the other side of the yard, there is no fence on that side to contain any animals. The stop sign at McCauley is falling off and dilapidated. The Mayfair apartments are abandoned and awful looking. Catfish Island and Blue Beacon are both gone entirely, as is the Robin Hood Woods. When I see the area now, it's almost like time stopped completely when those murders occurred in that town, in comparison to what it looks like now. It's all so eery to say the least.

I guess it all just goes down the line of problems I have with his behavior
1. The Mildred French incident
2. The allegations of abuse against his wives and children.
3. The kissing the mexican incident weeks before the murders and the fact that PH states TH just gets even.
4. TH further isolates his wife by insisting on driving her to and from work even though they have more than one car.
5. He states they had a household phone but PH said they didn't and had to call people and police from neighbor's houses and work.
6. TH has no concrete alibi for the night in question.
7. TH lights a cigarette instead of comforting his wife after they find out about the kids.
8. TH is cold and distant with the family in the house during the night and morning of the search for finding the kids.
9. TH leaves town two weeks after the murders because he just can't handle PH anymore.
10. TH has in his posession SB's knife and other strange items (children's items) including his partial denture in a locked box.
11. TH shoots his brother in law when confronted about the abuse of PH and the murder of the children.

There's countless other things but it's these items taken in with some concrete evidence that points me towards him being the guilty party. At this point I'd love the state to reopen the case and gets more dna evidence.

 

[Aynia]

Agree with everything on the post above except the cigarette. Smokers calm down by smoking (or they think they do ). In a stressful situation I smoke almost non stop. Just MOO.
ETA: to point 9 couldn't handle PH nor the excessive sympathy of co workers and clients

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Ok so whether or not he is guilty, he and PH did have some responsibility for the children's safety. MM did come over to their residence play with SB and ride bikes which he was given permission by PH. PH told the kids to be home by the time she went to work but when she goes to work TH assumes the responsibility. At that time as the responsible parent it is his duty to find SB and the other child with him. Instead he went to play guitars at a friends house. Is that considered child endangerment? In my book yes. And when they told CB to see if he can catch up to the other children are the adults responsible for his welfare as well?

 

[Userid]

I guess it all just goes down the line of problems I have with his behavior
1. The Mildred French incident
2. The allegations of abuse against his wives and children.
3. The kissing the mexican incident weeks before the murders and the fact that PH states TH just gets even.
4. TH further isolates his wife by insisting on driving her to and from work even though they have more than one car.
5. He states they had a household phone but PH said they didn't and had to call people and police from neighbor's houses and work.
6. TH has no concrete alibi for the night in question.
7. TH lights a cigarette instead of comforting his wife after they find out about the kids.
8. TH is cold and distant with the family in the house during the night and morning of the search for finding the kids.
9. TH leaves town two weeks after the murders because he just can't handle PH anymore.
10. TH has in his posession SB's knife and other strange items (children's items) including his partial denture in a locked box.
11. TH shoots his brother in law when confronted about the abuse of PH and the murder of the children.

There's countless other things but it's these items taken in with some concrete evidence that points me towards him being the guilty party. At this point I'd love the state to reopen the case and gets more dna evidence.

There are a few inaccuracies there; one being there was a legit reason he drove PH to work that day (car trouble, if I remember right), but you're entitled to your opinion. Just trying to give some advice; people tend to blow things way, way out of proportion. Some of these points are good points, I agree; but some of them are either inaccurate or common among the many suspects in this case (leaky alibis, strange behavior, etc); not just TH.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

The reason TH had for driving PH to her work, was that PH had her driver's license temporarily revoked due to a DWI-incident (PH states this in her interview with the WMPD). That was also the reason that PH had to walk to Weaver Elementary to pick up SB, rather than go there by car. I listened again to the clip in PL3, and I have to admit that I was mistaken earlier when I said: 'If you listen closely to the part where TH lights his cigarette, you can hear that PH is still sobbing in the background.' It turns out the producers of PL3 let the audio of PH's sobbing continue over TH lighting his cigarette. So it's possible I guess that TH lighted his cigarette after PH had stopped crying.

 

[zencompass]

T.H.'s behaviour in entering a neighbour's home and assaulting her as she came out of the shower demonstrates T.H.'s feelings of "entitlement" and is such shocking behaviour but not from a person who is narcissistic and feels "entitlement". When T.H. is questioned about this under oath in court even while looking at the police report - he denies it! Classic text book narcissism.

Just the fact that T.H. would invade someone's home and assault them gives me shivers!

 

[Userid]

The reason TH had for driving PH to her work, was that PH had her driver's license temporarily revoked due to a DWI-incident (PH states this in her interview with the WMPD). That was also the reason that PH had to walk to Weaver Elementary to pick up SB, rather than go there by car. I listened again to the clip in PL3, and I have to admit that I was mistaken earlier when I said: 'If you listen closely to the part where TH lights his cigarette, you can hear that PH is still sobbing in the background.' It turns out the producers of PL3 let the audio of PH's sobbing continue over TH lighting his cigarette. So it's possible I guess that TH lighted his cigarette after PH had stopped crying.

That's it -- knew it was a legit reason. I mixed up PH with MB -- MB was having car trouble that day.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'm a smoker. I understand about smoking to relieve stress. (When the UK Wildcats lost in the Final Four, I must've smoked a pack!) However, given the other things we know about TH, this is just one more example of his narcissistic and unsympathetic behavior. If it were just this one incident, I would agree that it's not that big a thang. However, as I said, IMO, with everything else, it looks suspicious. If he were trying to release stress, could it be the stress of possibly being found to be the murderer? JMO

 

[Aynia]

To me, his Pasdar deposition is the smoking gun. His body language, statements, pretty much damning. JMHO

 

[Userid]

To me, his Pasdar deposition is the smoking gun. His body language, statements, pretty much damning. JMHO

Yes -- this is a logical, understandable item to draw upon in arguing guilt.

But some of this other stuff, like whether he dropped/didn't drop his cigarette, is over-analysis and somewhat silly. I don't mean to be mean-spirited in saying that; I just want to prevent people from seeing things that aren't there, because it's a slippery slope, and then everything TH did, no matter how miniscule or insignificant, make look him suspicious. Not only that, actions on his behalf that are completely innocent (like him driving PH to work) are misinterpreted along the same lines (i.e. that he was a "control freak," when in reality, there was a very legitimate reason why he drove her that day).

 

[zencompass]

I agree about the Pasdar deposition especially when he denies his invading his neighbour's house (M.F.) and assaulting her even while looking right at the police report and M.F.'s statement.

It is this very incident and how T.H. dismisses the assault as a joke that is extremely telling of his personality and behaviour. This extreme behaviour is scary to say the least.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Userid:

But some of this other stuff, like whether he dropped/didn't drop his cigarette, is over-analysis and somewhat silly.

OK, so you draw the line to where over-analysis begins ?

userid:

I just want to prevent people from seeing things that aren't there, because it's a slippery slope, and then everything TH did, no matter how miniscule or insignificant, make look him suspicious.

You also draw the line to what is significant, or not.

Userid:

Not only that, actions on his behalf that are completely innocent (like him driving PH to work) are misinterpreted along the same lines (i.e. that he was a "control freak," when in reality, there was a very legitimate reason why he drove her that day).

A "Control freak" is a conclusion that is drawn from a sum of actions, or general behaviour. To dismiss TH as being a "Control freak" because he "couldn't" control this one situation, is misleading. Though PH could not drive a car on this day, TH's comments in his police interview, could suggest that he usually "controlled" this situation.

Officer: Is there any particular reason you had to take Pam to work?

Terry Hobbs: I don't know if there's a particular reason, I just did it, just the way we did things

Officer: Ok, and

Terry Hobbs; I'd take her to work and pick her up from work

As I said, this "could" be a sign. Whether it is "significant" or "over-analysed" is subjective. Something that does not appear to be "significant" on it's own, may become significant in relation with other things. JMO.

 

[Aynia]

I agree about the Pasdar deposition especially when he denies his invading his neighbour's house (M.F.) and assaulting her even while looking right at the police report and M.F.'s statement.

It is this very incident and how T.H. dismisses the assault as a joke that is extremely telling of his personality and behaviour. This extreme behaviour is scary to say the least.

Oh to me it was the drugs conversation, his repeated denial /admission about those go on and on forever.

 

[Userid]

Userid:



OK, so you draw the line to where over-analysis begins ?

userid:



You also draw the line to what is significant, or not.

Userid:



A "Control freak" is a conclusion that is drawn from a sum of actions, or general behaviour. To dismiss TH as being a "Control freak" because he "couldn't" control this one situation, is misleading. Though PH could not drive a car on this day, TH's comments in his police interview, could suggest that he usually "controlled" this situation.




As I said, this "could" be a sign. Whether it is "significant" or "over-analysed" is subjective. Something that does not appear to be "significant" on it's own, may become significant in relation with other things. JMO.

Answer to Q1: Yes, when the line is obvious enough. I have the right to voice my opinion here, as do you.

Q2: Yes, as you are exactly doing in this case also (as evidenced by this very post I'm responding to). In my previous post, all I was trying to do was give a friendly word of advice/warning of caution while advocating objectivity in this case. I never said I was the "Ultimate Decider of What is Significant in this Case" and why you chose to interpret my post as such is beyond me. I can post it; and you (and others) can take it or leave it.

Statement 3: I'm not necessarily ruling out TH as being a control freak -- I'm ruling out that this one reason people are citing as proof that exhibits such behavior is completely false (her license was suspended) and really shows nothing that proves this point. I could just as easily say that TH drove PH to work because he was a good husband and wanted to make sure she arrived at work safely, but I won't, because A) I don't believe that, B) there's nothing to prove that, and C) because we know the fact of the matter that her license was revoked -- nothing more, nothing less.

Statement 4: When there are concrete facts behind certain positions, those facts must be allowed to squash subjectivity; otherwise, what good are facts?

It's a fact her license was suspended. The statement from a deposition you posted of TH years later doesn't change that. If I posted every statement that was falsely remembered, inaccurate, or slightly askew, we'd be here for eternity, and they'd be from every single person who was questioned in this case (especially JMB. I'm not convicting him, I'm just saying).

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

In no way did I address the relevance of your opinion, solely the substance of your opinion. I'm trying to see the motive why you constantly discourage people to (over)analyse, or investigate TH, after all, this is a "Crime discussion board", TH has been declared a person of "public interest", and he has not been analysed in any appropriate way by the authorities.

IMO it's not possible to analyse TH enough, as it now stands, he is the major suspect in this case. Some members on this board (or other boards) may have trained capabilities that you and I don't have, may have other ways of thinking, or just more experience in life. Some people suspect JMB, I don't. If they want to discuss JMB they should go ahead and do it. Perhaps they will see things that I don't, why should I hamper their discussion and constantly discourage them to analyse details ?

There are no concrete facts that PH did not have her driving license (at least not at callahans), just PH's statement. I have no reason "not" to believe PH, but perhaps this is something that the wmpd should have looked into, because if she had lost her driving license, there is no way she would have told the police that she was driving on that day. Again I don't see how you can declare the Police interview of TH 2007, as " falsely remembered, inaccurate, or slightly askew" it was a taped, signed, official document, who am I to declare that his statement does not bear "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". If the wmpd did not believe his statement, why did they not take it apart ?

I also found the discussion about the cigarette very interesting, and there were some good points made, for and against TH. In TH's subject description at callahans, he is noted as being "left-handed", in this scene he holds his cigarette in his right hand. In the scene near the car, he holds his cigarette left-handed. He plays guitar right handed, IIRC, he signed the documents in his police interview with his left hand. Being left handed or right handed, could always interest the authorities in connection with the victims injuries. Also in his subject description, his birthplace (Tennessee ?) is different to his birthplace (Omaha) in the arrest papers in connection with the Mildred F. assault. At Jivepuppi, he again has a different (North Arkansas) birthplace.

http://callahan.8k.com/images3/t_hobbs/t_hobbs_subject_description.jpg
http://callahan.8k.com/images3/french_hobbs/french_hobbs_report.jpg
http://www.jivepuppi.com/Terry_Hobbs.html

 

[zencompass]

Yes I still believe that T.H. is a viable suspect. The concrete facts that I cannot argue against are:
1) the hair that matches T.H.'s mtDNA
2) witnesses placing T.H. at the last known sighting of the boys, calling to them
3) the partial denture of T.H. matching the bitemark on S.B.'s forehead
4) no alibi for crucial times when the boys were attacked/moved
5) demonstrated violence of T.H. as evidenced by police reports

I cannot argue with the above facts. I strongly believe that T.H. is the only viable suspect. JMO

 

[Userid]

In no way did I address the relevance of your opinion, solely the substance of your opinion. I'm trying to see the motive why you constantly discourage people to (over)analyse, or investigate TH, after all, this is a "Crime discussion board", TH has been declared a person of "public interest", and he has not been analysed in any appropriate way by the authorities.

IMO it's not possible to analyse TH enough, as it now stands, he is the major suspect in this case. Some members on this board (or other boards) may have trained capabilities that you and I don't have, may have other ways of thinking, or just more experience in life. Some people suspect JMB, I don't. If they want to discuss JMB they should go ahead and do it. Perhaps they will see things that I don't, why should I hamper their discussion and constantly discourage them to analyse details ?

There are no concrete facts that PH did not have her driving license (at least not at callahans), just PH's statement. I have no reason "not" to believe PH, but perhaps this is something that the wmpd should have looked into, because if she had lost her driving license, there is no way she would have told the police that she was driving on that day. Again I don't see how you can declare the Police interview of TH 2007, as " falsely remembered, inaccurate, or slightly askew" it was a taped, signed, official document, who am I to declare that his statement does not bear "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". If the wmpd did not believe his statement, why did they not take it apart ?

I also found the discussion about the cigarette very interesting, and there were some good points made, for and against TH. In TH's subject description at callahans, he is noted as being "left-handed", in this scene he holds his cigarette in his right hand. In the scene near the car, he holds his cigarette left-handed. He plays guitar right handed, IIRC, he signed the documents in his police interview with his left hand. Being left handed or right handed, could always interest the authorities in connection with the victims injuries. Also in his subject description, his birthplace (Tennessee ?) is different to his birthplace (Omaha) in the arrest papers in connection with the Mildred F. assault. At Jivepuppi, he again has a different (North Arkansas) birthplace.

http://callahan.8k.com/images3/t_hobbs/t_hobbs_subject_description.jpg
http://callahan.8k.com/images3/french_hobbs/french_hobbs_report.jpg
http://www.jivepuppi.com/Terry_Hobbs.html

So, my opinion is relevant, but you'd rather I not express it? Otherwise, why do you have such an issue with it? If I can "discourage" people from over-analyzing (and, "over" should not be in parenthesis in your previous post; I never, not once, said TH should never be analyzed or investigated and I don't appreciate the accusation. there is a difference between over-analyzing and analyzing) -- then you can "encourage" them. If I see something as BS, I'm going to call it BS. Yes, this is a discussion board, and people can express anything here as long as they are within the rules, even "discouraging" remarks, which I would rather call "simple suggestions" that you, for some reason, have so much of a problem with.

The depo was in 2007, 14 years after the fact. That alone should put a red flag as far as "the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

The information that her license was revoked would have been immediately known at the time of the initial investigation. I will try to find the document if I can, but it's common knowledge that this is a fact that her license was revoked and this is the reason why she wasn't driving. Period.

I agree, the different birth places are shady. The fact he didn't drop his cigarette, however, is not.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Yes I still believe that T.H. is a viable suspect. The concrete facts that I cannot argue against are:
1) the hair that matches T.H.'s mtDNA
2) witnesses placing T.H. at the last known sighting of the boys, calling to them
3) the partial denture of T.H. matching the bitemark on S.B.'s forehead
4) no alibi for crucial times when the boys were attacked/moved
5) demonstrated violence of T.H. as evidenced by police reports

I cannot argue with the above facts. I strongly believe that T.H. is the only viable suspect. JMO

I've said this before, but IMO anything short of reopening the case and properly investigating TH is not going to lead us to justice.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Yes I still believe that T.H. is a viable suspect. The concrete facts that I cannot argue against are:
1) the hair that matches T.H.'s mtDNA
2) witnesses placing T.H. at the last known sighting of the boys, calling to them
3) the partial denture of T.H. matching the bitemark on S.B.'s forehead
4) no alibi for crucial times when the boys were attacked/moved
5) demonstrated violence of T.H. as evidenced by police reports

I cannot argue with the above facts. I strongly believe that T.H. is the only viable suspect. JMO

I agree with all above points, except #2. I have several problems with the affadavits of Moyer, Ballard and Williams:
- there are several eyewitnesses who place the victims at different locations than these three claim. Supposedly, the three kids were playing in Moyer's backyard between 17:30 and 18:30. However, Melissa saw CB entering her kitchen several times between 17:30 and 18:00. Dana saw the three boys riding on their bicycles on N 14th Street shortly after 18:00. There are multiple other witnesses (Woody, O'Tinger, Rico, another Williams et al), some of them credible and others not, who place the kids around Robin Hood Woods between 18:00 and 18:30, and not near SB's house
- why didn't this family come forward with this information in 1993? Unless they were living under a very large rock, they must have known that the press reported that Dana's 18:00 sighting was the last time a family member saw the three. Why didn't they think: wait a minute, we saw them at 18:30 and they were with TH!? Granted, the WMPD didn't go door-to-door in their street, but it would have taken just a minute to pick up the phone and call the police. But no, they didn't come forward with their info until TH was suing the Dixie Chicks. I hate to say it, but I think they were seeking their 15 minutes.
- some details don't make sense. RC supposedly showed up next day at his school and talked to Ballard. This is difficult to believe for several reasons: 1) the bodies of SB and CB weren't found until 14:56 and 14:59 resp. I find it hard to believe that RC, after hearing that the bodies were found, went to school. 2) we have this statement from Britt S, Ryan's best friend:
'I stayed home from school the next day and helped Ryan look for Chris'.
My point is that I really hope that the prosecution will not call these three 'witnesses' if it ever comes to a trial, because TH's defense is going to tear them apart.