Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[Compassionate Reader]

I have a theory about Ryan being at school on May 6th. I don't think he went to school that day. I think he went by school after the bodies were found and talked to some friends, including the neighbor girl (JB) who gave an affidavit.

I tend to believe that the times aren't "set in stone" - except for the neighbors' sighting. Those girls picked up a ride to church every Wednesday night at 6:30 pm. That's an event that, because of its consistency, fixes an actual time, IMO, better than the other sightings, which could have been off by 15 minutes or more.

As to why they waited to come forward, they have explained that, until the day they called, they hadn't realized that TH had not told the police that he saw the boys at 6:30 pm. When they heard him interviewed, claiming that he had not seen the boys at all that day, they felt the need to come forward. Remember, TH wasn't interviewed until 2007.

 

[Aynia]

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

Zen believe me I hate to "disagree " with you, TH is the first on my list but thinking from a defense point of view, they could answer to those points:
1- it's just mtDNA and secondary transfer is a possibility, even with a hair inside a knot,
2-the whiteness are mistaken in day / time or outright lying
3- it's not a bite mark, it was caused by animals or the butt of a knife or whatever they can come up with,
4- They'll find alibi whiteness or claim Amanda was with him trough the times they cannot account,
5- the only thing I believe they can refute.

So strictly thinking about proving guilty without a reasonable doubt, I'm sad to say IMHO a jury would have a lot of thinking to do. Unfortunately.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't think they'll be able to refute the bite mark so easily. We'll just have to see. The important thing is to reopen the case!

 

[zencompass]

Hey Aynia, no worries

Since this is the "T.H. viable suspect" thread I noted my top five reasons why I believe T.H. is a viable suspect.

Would be very interested in hearing others' top five! Thanks in advance!

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

A case that took place in Germany.

A family moved from a place called Iserlohn, to the city of Essen. About 4 weeks later the 12 year old daughter was abducted. The kidnappers contacted the parents, but did not demand ransom money for her. The Police believed she was homesick and had decided to return to Iserlohn. During the 12 day period that she was abducted, tied to a bed, and locked in a service tunnel under a highway bridge near Essen, she was sighted over 300 times in Iserlohn. (Population about 90.000).

So much for eye sightings of missing persons.

I think the Clark-Ballard / Moyer /Clark-Williams sightings are very plausible for a number of reasons.

http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/affidavit_deborah_moyer.pdf
http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/affidavit_brandy_clark_williams.pdf
http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/affidavit_jamie_clark_ballard.pdf

1. It was the recurring attendance of a church youth club on a Wednesday night.

2. I would imagine it was a traumatic experience for all living in WM, thus many will remember those days well.

3. The Dana M. sighting at approx. 6 o'clock is not so far away, three boys at that age get about at an amazing speed, they are here, there and everywhere, especially on bikes.

4. At the age of 13 you are in a very aware state of mind.

The question why the girls only came forward in 2007 ?

Lets face it, in 1993 the WM3 were suspected, later, convicted of the murders. For all people who did not follow "all" proceedings on this case, this situation continued through until 2007. Only then did TH become a suspect. The police interview in 2007, was the first time TH claimed to have "not seen the three boys all day". Only after this, will there have been anything in the general media, that brought TH in connection with the murders. Why on earth should these three girls get in touch with the police before then, TH was never questioned, was not a suspect, the WM3 were convicted of the murders, the sighting of TH with the children on that day, was nothing special for them. Living in the direct vicinity of TH, they will have often seen TH, PH and the children.

As far as these three girls wanting "there 15 minutes", I don't think they are that type honestly. JMO.

 

[Userid]

The problem I have with her coming forward 14 years after the fact is that, quite honestly, this could very well be a false memory or even a dream that she thinks is real. Or if this event actually did occur, it could have occurred a week before; or two. The fact she came out 14 years after, for me, is a problem. Also, this is the only witness that puts these boys anywhere in that area. We have multiple witnesses who put them heading into the RHH around 6 pm; and we have Cindy Rico who puts them on the other side of the Ten Mile Bayou near the service road in the East Field at 6:30 pm. We even have Posey sighting of CB at 6:45 (maybe later) of CB alone, who was a good friend of the entire CB family and would know the victim well; he even reported interacting with him (CB said he was running away). This Ballard sighting stands completely alone, as putting the boys anywhere in that area, 14 years after the fact. There isn't just the discrepancy of the 6:30 time; Ballard also puts these boys playing in her backyard within an hour before 6:30 also. This is in direct contrast to MM's sister (in addition to MM's own mother), who puts him and the boys at the entrance of RHH at 6.

I guess it's just a matter of playing "Who's Right, Who's Wrong" as far as witnesses go. We don't have much to go on, but I find the more credible witnesses are the ones who came forward right when the crime occurred -- their memories would be less tainted.

Does anyone know if Ballard came up with this sighting unprompted? Meaning, did she call in to the tip line unprompted? Or did she give this account only when she was questioned by the defense and/or the film makers of West of Memphis?

 

[zencompass]

Hey Cher Lockhomes!

Thanks so much for pointing out the reasons why the witnesses' statements are the most solid (Clark-Ballard / Moyer /Clark-Williams). It is certainly not a rare occasion when witnesses come forward years after when they realize the information they know is important. I personally think it was quite commendable for them to do so.

 

[zencompass]

I wanted to add that a high percentage of people couldn't be bothered to share pertinent information or do not "want to get involved" so when people do come forward to help that is indeed commendable. :star2:

 

[zencompass]

I wanted to ask if anyone had been in contact with "Paid"? I wish I could have had discussions with him or just read all he posted. By the time I was aware of the blackboard site - it was closed. Was he ever on Websleuths or only on the blackboard site? Wouldn't it be great if he came on to this forum? It must have been great to have such intelligent and respectful discussions with him. I know I always look forward to reading everyone's helpful and friendly posts on this site even while discussing such sad topics. I guess this post turned into a thanks guys!! post. Thanks guys!!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

"Paid" posts primarily on Facebook now. I've invited him here on several occasions, but he's not interested in joining another discussion board. If you join the WM3 Friends Facebook page, you can talk to him all you want!

As to the Ballard sighting, IIRC, it began as an unprompted call to the tip line, after they had heard that TH stated he didn't see the boys on May 5, 1993. From Jamie Clark Ballard's affidavit:

"Terry Hobbs' claim that he did not see the boys on May 5, 1993 simply was not made public in the news reports or papers that I read. Had I know that Terry Hobbs had claimed that he did not see Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, or Michael Moore at all on May 5, 1993, I would have stepped forward immediately to provide the above information."

http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/affidavit_jamie_clark_ballard.pdf

The document online is not dated, except for the year, which is 2009. So, I believe that the Clark girls simply didn't know that TH had stated that he hadn't seen the boys until around this time. The memory problem is, to me, a non-issue because we all tend to remember critical events in detail. In West Memphis, Arkansas, this was a critical event, and especially to this affiant because she was good friends with CB's half-brother, RC.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

If RC would be able to confirm that Ballard had told him this the day after the murders, I will believe this sighting. But for now, there are just too many things about the sighting that don't add up for me, JMHO. Yes, they may have assumed that TH had told the police that he was with the boys at 18:30, but didn't they think it was odd that all the papers (like this West Memphis Evening Times article: http://callahan.8k.com/images/eveningtimes/ETMay693.jpg ) were reporting that DM was the last one who saw the boys, and that that was around 18:00? I guess it's possible that they never read the news or something, but still..

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I doubt that the teens (at the time) read the newspaper. As to RC, he hasn't spoken about this case since his 2007 declaration in connection with the Pasdar case. I'm not absolutely certain why he has remained silent, but I think I heard once that it was simply too painful for him to discuss it.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Something I didn't know until today, is that Gary G was actually asked in the Pasdar lawsuit (http://archive.thv11.com/news/PDF/wm3_deposition.pdf) why he didn't investigate TH back in 1993. His response was 'no comment', because he didn't want to say something that would grant the WM3 a new trial (this was two years before they were released). But now that the WM3 are free citizens, and the case is pretty much closed, perhaps Gary G can finally reveal the answer to the million dollar question? I'm really curious what his explanation would be :thinking:

 

[Userid]

Something I didn't know until today, is that Gary G was actually asked in the Pasdar lawsuit (http://archive.thv11.com/news/PDF/wm3_deposition.pdf) why he didn't investigate TH back in 1993. His response was 'no comment', because he didn't want to say something that would grant the WM3 a new trial (this was two years before they were released). But now that the WM3 are free citizens, and the case is pretty much closed, perhaps Gary G can finally reveal the answer to the million dollar question? I'm really curious what his explanation would be :thinking:

That would be something, wouldn't it? I won't hold my breath though.

Another thing I wanted to bring up about Ballard: just because she herself didn't read the newspapers, does that mean her entire family didn't read them also?

She would no doubt tell her family at the dinner table/etc. about the fact that she saw these boys go with TH just before they all left for church.

If I'm a Mom or Dad in this immediate area, I'm reading the newspaper and gluing myself to the TV every waking minute.

My daughter tells me she saw these boys go with TH at a time after every single other witness has claimed.

What do you think I'm doing next? Not only next, but immediately?

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Yeah it doesn't make sense to me either. I could imagine this triple homicide was the biggest thing that happened to West Memphis since its founding and every detail about the case would have been repeated on the news over and over again. I just don't understand why neither Ballard, her mother, her father nor any of their friends who may have heard their 'story', didn't feel the urge to inform LE about it.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Something I didn't know until today, is that Gary G was actually asked in the Pasdar lawsuit (http://archive.thv11.com/news/PDF/wm3_deposition.pdf) why he didn't investigate TH back in 1993. His response was 'no comment', because he didn't want to say something that would grant the WM3 a new trial (this was two years before they were released). But now that the WM3 are free citizens, and the case is pretty much closed, perhaps Gary G can finally reveal the answer to the million dollar question? I'm really curious what his explanation would be :thinking:

This really astounded me the first time I read it. Here we have a former member of the state justice system, who is supposed to be neutral, expressing a biased opinion in public! He didn't want the WM3 to get a new trial ? Is that in anyway serving justice ? IMO that is an obstruction of justice. No consequences ? This just goes to show how "untouchable" the authorities in Arkansas feel they are.

Whatever it is that he doesn't want to comment on, it's obviously something that would have dis-burdened the WM3. Disgraceful, IMO.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I'm pretty sure, that if the Police had investigated TH in '93, and his statement, that he had not seen the three boys on this day, had been made public, the members of this family would have come forward. There are a lot of people (me for instance), who do not read newspapers at all. If you don't get a newspaper delivered on a daily basis, do not watch TV every day, these details can pass you by. I had never heard of the WM3 until a year ago. Why should they think that the sighting of parents with their children should be relevant. Especially considering the fact that the WM3 were the main suspects almost from the word go. The three girls were also at an age where other things are more important (boys for instance). JMO.

 

[Userid]

You wouldn't have had to watch the TV everyday or even have a subscription for the paper (they never picked one up at the store? for a murder that occurred a stone's throw away?). Everyone in the neighborhood would be talking about this. The town was paralyzed with fear. You, and everyone in your family, who you've talked to about the case, would have to be both deaf and blind to not know every detail; simply from word-of-mouth alone -- I mean, I know you heard about it just a year ago, but this is ground zero, at the exact time the murders occurred. And they should think it's relevant because the boys ended up dead and all the known last sightings the whole family were no doubt in the know about were all before this one. The WM3 weren't arrested until June, which would have given the family an entire month to come forward.

I don't want to come off as combative, so this will be the last I'll say on the matter. I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

One thing that must be remembered is that TH didn't make a statement until 2007. No one knew that he was claiming he hadn't seen the boys until then. That statement wasn't made public. It was available on the Internet pretty quickly, and people who are obsessed with this case could watch it, but I doubt that most people were aware of it until much later. So, the neighbor girls could very easily not have known about TH's erroneous statement until years later. No matter how much the town talked, no one would have known that TH was claiming to have not seen the boys until his official statement was made and made public. IMO, these neighbor girls simply didn't know that what they knew was important. As soon as they realized differently, they came forward. JMO

 

[Aynia]

My point is, give me something that can't be refuted in court.
To me as far as this discussion goes, if I was in a jury what would get me was the hair in the binding being TH (and not just MTdna ) because we all know money can buy the best experts to try and dispute that, creating reasonable doubt. I don't really go with that "we can't really test the dna any further "thing, science is pretty good these days. So if could be proven the bindings of MM contained a hair of TH and those bindings didn't came from the shoelaces of the kids but of the killer shoes, to me, case closed.
I can't put my hope on the bitemarks, ok yes I've seen the video and yes they seem to match TH but that X in the middle just isn't right for me.
Definitely not playing devil's advocate here, TH is up on my list but based on testimony inconsistencies and statement/ behavior analysis and that's something that wouldn't be admissible in court I think. Hope you all know what I mean.