Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[Compassionate Reader]

The "x" mark could have been caused by a rock or something else that happened to be under SB's face when he was placed in the manhole/drainage pipe or even in the discovery ditch. It simply doesn't have to be made at the same time as the purported bite mark. When someone else finds something else that so perfectly matches the wound on SB's forehead, I'll look at it. Until then, it's my opinion that the wound was caused by the partial denture.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

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.

I don't know about you but it's pretty arrogent for GG to say, I don't want to say anything because it'll give the WM3 a new trial. To me that means he knows something, in fact he knows a lot about the case and its probably enough to exonerate them.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't know about you but it's pretty arrogent for GG to say, I don't want to say anything because it'll give the WM3 a new trial. To me that means he knows something, in fact he knows a lot about the case and its probably enough to exonerate them.

I definitely believe that GG knows more than has been told. Remember that he retired shortly after the convictions. Coincidence or not? You be the judge!

 

[reedus23]

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

I'm not saying he's 100% guilty, but any doubts I had as to who my #1 suspect is were eliminated with his deposition testimony. I have read/seen/taken 1000's of depositions and I quite literally never seen a person who came off as more guilty. There was no doubt that he was hiding something and guilty of something, if not the murders.

 

[reedus23]

Compassionate Reader, do you think that JKM and TH may have known each other? If he helped TH in covering the crime up, it's odd that he points to TH as a possible perpetrator in his police interview..

Has anyone ever tried to connect these two dots? I can't recall. I would be most interested though.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Check out the thread titled "Viable Suspect James Kenny Martin: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?227115-Viable-suspect-James-Kenny-Martin

 

[Userid]

The "x" mark could have been caused by a rock or something else that happened to be under SB's face when he was placed in the manhole/drainage pipe or even in the discovery ditch. It simply doesn't have to be made at the same time as the purported bite mark. When someone else finds something else that so perfectly matches the wound on SB's forehead, I'll look at it. Until then, it's my opinion that the wound was caused by the partial denture.

If it's one thing I find interesting about the bite mark video, it's the fact that the x mark has the same exact depth as one of the teeth marks. The fact that it's perfectly centered within the mark in one coincidence; the fact that it has the same depth as one of the teeth would be another.

Also, has anyone ever watched the debunking video to this video? I tried to watch it, but I couldn't because it shows some grotesque facial injuries to SB and I didn't feel right about it, so I had to turn it off -- but if anyone has, I'd appreciate a recounting of that video.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Also, has anyone ever watched the debunking video to this video? I tried to watch it, but I couldn't because it shows some grotesque facial injuries to SB and I didn't feel right about it, so I had to turn it off -- but if anyone has, I'd appreciate a recounting of that video.

Do you mean the video 'West Memphis 3 turtle bite marks (animal predation debunked)'?

 

[Userid]

Do you mean the video 'West Memphis 3 turtle bite marks (animal predation debunked)'?

No, it's called 'West Memphis 3 Bite Mark Debunked (Crime Scene Photos).'

 

[Lethalmatthew]

No, it's called 'West Memphis 3 Bite Mark Debunked (Crime Scene Photos).'

I just watched it and it's quite interesting. The person who made this video suggests that the cut on the left (the dentist claimed this was caused by TH's left natural tooth) was made by something else than the imprints on the right, because it belongs to a different line/pattern. Also, the imprints below the eyebrow continue beyond the circle. I'm not a bitemark expert, so I can't say what genuine bitemarks look like, but this video did raise some valid questions, JMO.

 

[Userid]

I just watched it and it's quite interesting. The person who made this video suggests that the cut on the left (the dentist claimed this was caused by TH's left natural tooth) was made by something else than the imprints on the right, because it belongs to a different line/pattern. Also, the imprints below the eyebrow continue beyond the circle. I'm not a bitemark expert, so I can't say what genuine bitemarks look like, but this video did raise some valid questions, JMO.

I knew it -- I always thought this, even from seeing the TH bite mark video the dentist put out. I always wondered if the sample size was too small; you can see more injuries near the bottom of the eye brow, by the temple, that I always thought could have been in conjunction with the injuries that are supposedly a bite mark. Thanks for this.

 

[Userid]

I just watched it -- it is interesting, especially considering the many very similar half-circles all over the victim's face. The dentist tries to explain away the bottom "teeth marks" as dragging, but the markings extend far further than that to be the case. Also, the line he shows from the deep mark (the supposed real tooth cut) that extends down and to the left is interesting also.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The problem with the marks below the eye socket is that they are on a different plane from the marks on the eyebrow. That was the problem with the theory that the injury was caused by the butt end of the survival knife. Because of the structure of the human face, a survival knife could not have made the wound in the manner described because it would be intersecting the face on two different planes making the mark anything but circular. IMO, that's why the marks below the brow are so different from the marks above. Since the human jaw is hinged, the bottom teeth could have made the marks below the brow, but they wouldn't be as "definitive" as the marks above.



ETA: One problem with that video is that it was trying to compare pictures in two different sizes. That's why Dr. Cowart used a Marlboro box as a scale. The grotesque picture to the right in the video (which the narrator kept using to point out all of the half-moons) is on a much smaller scale than the "bite mark" picture on the right. It is really impossible IMO to draw the conclusions the narrator did, based on pictures of two different scales.

 

[Userid]

Size doesn't matter here in terms of simply illustrating the similarities of the repeated pattern.

Size matters and then some in the Dentist's video, because obviously, he trying to fit TH's teeth in the pattern.

One thing I never understood about the teeth mark theory, is why there'd be drag marks on the bottom set, but none whatsoever on the top set. Even with the brow line in mind, it's not like the victim could move his forehead separate from his area below his brow.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

IIRC, it's because of the bony nature of the area above the brow as opposed to the soft, pliable nature of the eyelid. The supposed "repeated patterns" in the video aren't really repeated. The natural tooth mark is missing, for instance. Yes, there are any number of things that could cause a half-moon pattern on a body, but, IMO, only one thing could cause the particular wound above SB's eyebrow. That "thing" is the partial denture belonging to TH. Game. Set. Match.

 

[Userid]

"Game. Set. Match." -- respectfully disagree.

Again, I don't see how that matters. The victim is moving his entire head -- he's not moving his forehead separate from the pulpy area just above the eye. Are you inferring that the upper teeth were so entrenched into the victim's skull in his forehead that they were unable to leave drag marks? That makes no sense to me. There would still be drag marks on the forehead.

Just because the layer of skin on the forehead wouldn't be as pulpy as the area just below the brow doesn't mean in the slightest that drag marks wouldn't be present.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

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.

TH behavioral analysis would not be admissible in court but a prelimary behavioral analysis would have led the WMPD and lead investigators to place him as a viable suspect. Based on what we have now in 2015 if I was on that jury and the defense presented an alterate theory that TH was directly responsible for the murders I would have enough resonable doubt to say the teens were not guilty. And the case should be open and that TH should be investigated. The fact that he was not investigated and they are so set against reopening it makes me so question some kind of cover up.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

This dentist (that's all he is and not a forensic dental expert) is not even using the actual partial. He is merely using a picture that someone sent him. That in itself is very odd, it's like the lady above said that he's trying to make it fit and that what I got from it too.

 

[Userid]

This dentist (that's all he is and not a forensic dental expert) is not even using the actual partial. He is merely using a picture that someone sent him. That in itself is very odd, it's like the lady above said that he's trying to make it fit and that what I got from it too.

Um, I'm actually a guy -- in case you were wondering.

But yeah, I agree; it's not even the actual partial. It's a picture of the partial and he's guesstimating the size of it.

I certainly don't mean to put the profession down, but calling a dentist a "doctor" is always a little funny to me. I know it's true technically, but I can't help but think of the movie Hangover, where the one guy keeps telling everyone he's a doctor and everyone keeps telling him, "no, you're just a dentist." Anyways, back on topic....

 

[zencompass]

TH behavioral analysis would not be admissible in court but a prelimary behavioral analysis would have led the WMPD and lead investigators to place him as a viable suspect. Based on what we have now in 2015 if I was on that jury and the defense presented an alterate theory that TH was directly responsible for the murders I would have enough resonable doubt to say the teens were not guilty. And the case should be open and that TH should be investigated. The fact that he was not investigated and they are so set against reopening it makes me so question some kind of cover up.

BBM made by me
Amen to this! What on earth stopped the police from interviewing T.H. ? It makes no sense whatsoever. Whenever Compassionate Reader asks this and deems him Teflon T.H. I ask myself why, why why? The immediate answer that always comes to me is why the police immediately chose the "satanic panic" and ran with it. And they ran with it! Did they ever!! But what were they choosing to "not run with" and why? I agree wholeheartedly with everyone here - this case needs to be reopened and properly investigated!!