Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[Userid]

Actually, there were two cops that searched the area around 5:30 or 6 am, I believe (can't remember their names now; perhaps someone can help; the report is on callahn's). They even stated that, if the boys were in the ditch at the time they searched it, they most definitely would have spotted them, as they were actually shining their flashlights in the discovery creek and had a bit of pre-dawn light to work with. I never really brought that they would have definitively been able to spot them, necessarily; just reporting what they said.

So thinking about it this way, the search ended around 3 am; the cops searched it around 5/6 am; then the searched resumed in a couple hours later that same morning. Those are only two, 2-3 hour spans. I don't know, to me, that is extremely risky. The killer would pretty much be going out of his way to specifically dump them here, or he has impeccable timing to make multiple trips in these extremely short time spans. The search continued with the WMPD from shift to shift throughout the night/morning.

 

[anastacia]

I've followed this case from the beginning. At one time I was kinda on the JMB did it, then began to wonder about TH. Now, I'm thinking we're never going to know for sure probably, but the best suspect is the Bojangles man. I mean, here we have a wet, bloody, homeless looking man washing up inside Bojangles. Then we have 3 children who were murdered, and their beaten bodies thrown into a drainage ditch. What are the odds that these 2 things AREN'T connected?

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I've followed this case from the beginning. At one time I was kinda on the JMB did it, then began to wonder about TH. Now, I'm thinking we're never going to know for sure probably, but the best suspect is the Bojangles man. I mean, here we have a wet, bloody, homeless looking man washing up inside Bojangles. Then we have 3 children who were murdered, and their beaten bodies thrown into a drainage ditch. What are the odds that these 2 things AREN'T connected?

There are a few problems if Bojangles is the killer. First, the bodies showed dual lividity. That means that since their deaths, the bodies had been moved, and the move must have been made at least a half hour after death, otherwise lividity couldn't have set in. Why would Bojangles move the bodies? Second, Bojangles had no motive. Third, there is no evidence linking Bojangles (or any black man) to the crime. There is, however, at least one hair of TH that was found at the crime scene. That may have gotten there through secondary transfer (which I don't think), or it means that TH was the perpetrator. My personal take on mr Bojangles is that he either witnessed the crime and was shot/stabbed, or that he had nothing to do with the murders and may have been involved in some car accident or gang-related business.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Actually, there were two cops that searched the area around 5:30 or 6 am, I believe (can't remember their names now; perhaps someone can help; the report is on callahn's). They even stated that, if the boys were in the ditch at the time they searched it, they most definitely would have spotted them, as they were actually shining their flashlights in the discovery creek and had a bit of pre-dawn light to work with. I never really brought that they would have definitively been able to spot them, necessarily; just reporting what they said.

So thinking about it this way, the search ended around 3 am; the cops searched it around 5/6 am; then the searched resumed in a couple hours later that same morning. Those are only two, 2-3 hour spans. I don't know, to me, that is extremely risky. The killer would pretty much be going out of his way to specifically dump them here, or he has impeccable timing to make multiple trips in these extremely short time spans. The search continued with the WMPD from shift to shift throughout the night/morning.

I don't think two hours is an 'extremely short time span' to get rid of the bodies, especially not if the perp had tied them up earlier. All he had to do was to transport the bodies and the clothing to the discovery ditch, put the bodies in the water and get a stick to push down the clothes. Then he had to throw the bikes in the bayou. I think he probably used a car for the transport, so all in all it would take maybe an hour to get it done. I'm not sure if PH was ever asked if she knew where TH was between 3 AM and dawn, but I would sure like to know the answer to that question!

 

[anastacia]

Okay, in response to your first question: He could have moved the bodies, ie thrown them into the drainage ditch either to remove physical evidence, or more likely, to delay discovery of them for as long as possible to give him more time to get the heck out of Dodge.

As far as motive goes, who knows? We're talking the murder of 3 little boys here, it was senseless, whoever did it. Perhaps Bojangles was camping there and they came across his camp and were bothering his meager possessions, who knows? In any event, I believe he lost his temper and struck them with some type of branch or something. They weren't dead, but he might of thought they were and he put them in the drainage ditch to conceal them. (Remember water was found in their lungs) After he cleans up his camp and prepares to leave, perhaps he notices the bodies weren't concealed as well as they might be, and at that time he repositions them and leaves.

It just seems like the only person reported to have been seen wet and with blood on them in close distance to 3 little murdered boys shouldn't be dismissed out of hand like he has been.

None of the other suspects were seen in wet, dirty clothes that night by a reliable witness. Bojangles was.

ETA: As far as no Negroid hairs being found, the bodies were found in water...which could have washed any evidence away. Yes, a hair matching the mitochondrial dna of TH was found in the shoelace biding one of the boys, but that could have come from the home of TH from innocent transfer...or not come from him at all. Mitochondrial dna isn't conclusive in ruling IN suspects, only in ruling them OUT.

 

[Userid]

I guess it would depend on how many trips the killer made to the dump site; what type (how big) his vehicle was; if the killer was alone or had help; and where the murder site was located in relation to the dump site. Driving to and fro would take time, especially considering if the killer is taking back roads to avoid other cars. Loading and unloading would take time. Cleaning the scene of footprints/blood would take time. Jamming the clothes would take time.

Without knowing these factors, it's impossible one way or the other to know if a 2 hour span would be sufficient. It could be, if the killer had help. If he was alone, I don't see it.

 

[Userid]

Okay, in response to your first question: He could have moved the bodies, ie thrown them into the drainage ditch either to remove physical evidence, or more likely, to delay discovery of them for as long as possible to give him more time to get the heck out of Dodge.

As far as motive goes, who knows? We're talking the murder of 3 little boys here, it was senseless, whoever did it. Perhaps Bojangles was camping there and they came across his camp and were bothering his meager possessions, who knows? In any event, I believe he lost his temper and struck them with some type of branch or something. They weren't dead, but he might of thought they were and he put them in the drainage ditch to conceal them. (Remember water was found in their lungs) After he cleans up his camp and prepares to leave, perhaps he notices the bodies weren't concealed as well as they might be, and at that time he repositions them and leaves.

It just seems like the only person reported to have been seen wet and with blood on them in close distance to 3 little murdered boys shouldn't be dismissed out of hand like he has been.

None of the other suspects were seen in wet, dirty clothes that night by a reliable witness. Bojangles was.

ETA: As far as no Negroid hairs being found, the bodies were found in water...which could have washed any evidence away. Yes, a hair matching the mitochondrial dna of TH was found in the shoelace biding one of the boys, but that could have come from the home of TH from innocent transfer...or not come from him at all. Mitochondrial dna isn't conclusive in ruling IN suspects, only in ruling them OUT.

Here's the thing about Bojanles:

Bojangles restaurant was right by an overpass that was frequented by many bums at a time. It was not a rare occurrence in the slightest for bums to enter the restaurants near this overpass to wash up.

Also, the 10 Mile Bayou ran all the way behind this very Bojangles restaurant. In other words, the bum simply could have gotten muddy by crossing 10 Mile Bayou directly behind Bojangles restaurant, as the water levels of the bayou would drastically change depending on the time of day.

In addition, I can't really understand why -- if he was involved -- why he'd be bleeding profusely. He didn't just "have blood on him." He, himself, was bleeding. Could 3 eight year old inflict that amount of damage? Moreover, could a guy in a sling (even if he had help) be effective at all in a murder like this? Now, people say he could have been a witness to the murder, but this doesn't add up for me. There isn't anything that bum could have been doing, that would have been worse that what he saw, to keep him from coming forward.

 

[anastacia]

http://wm3truth.com/alternative-suspect-bojangles-man/

You can bleed profusely from a slight nick if it's in the right place. I would imagine if 3 children were fighting for their lives they would pick up whatever was handy and strike out with it, the assailant would throw up his arm to deflect the blow, and possibly receive a wound.

I've read most of the theories over the years, and this one makes more sense to me than any of the others. If the police were involved in some massive coverup for whatever reason, by now someone would have talked. If there was more than 1 person involved in the crime, by now someone would have talked. In just about any other scenario I can come up with, someone by now would have talked.

The fact that no one has come forward and said anything about this crime tells me that only person was involved, and again, bojangles was the only wet, dirty, blood covered person seen that night.

Also, there isn't mention of a sling that I've seen, only of a cast, and when one of my daughter's had a cast on her arm, she used it quite effectively to whop her sister on the head. Just sayin.

 

[zencompass]

I believe that the killer wanted the bodies to be discovered because then his house/property or perhaps a vacant house would not be searched where the killer committed the initial attack on the boys. With all of the emphasis of investigating focused on the discovery site then that would allow more time for the killer to remove traces of the boys from the actual crime scene.

We know from the dual lividity that the bodies were moved and we also know that there was not a lot of blood around the discovery site. This could not have been the initial crime scene. The bodies were moved there and they were placed there so that they would soon be discovered.

I am well educated in narcissistic behaviour and extreme risk taking is well entrenched within this personality.

When an attack is "personal" meaning it involves family members or neighbours then it usually always occurs on "home turf" as CherLockhomes posited. If the "perceived injustice" is from someone other than in his buffer zone then the narcissist will travel any length of distance.

If it wasn't for the match of his tire tracks, narcissist serial killer, Colonel Russell Williams, who was the Commander of Canada's largest military base would never had been caught. He left evidence at the scenes of his crimes but being a narcissist, he was enveloped in a belief that he would never get caught. Extreme risk-taking and belief that they could do anything and never get caught are trademarks of a narcissist and T.H. fits this mode as other posters have stated.

I agree with everyone who state that whoever moved the bodies to that ditch had to have been part of the search.

I do wonder where the initial attack took place and the theories of a manhole or closer to home make sense. There were vacant houses in that vicinity and I often wonder about the house Aaron and his family moved from. I do believe it was somewhere close to where T.H. lived as there is a pattern with narcissists committing murders in their home turf. Moving the bodies gave the killer more time to remove all evidence from the initial attack area. That is why I believe the killer wanted the bodies to be discovered on May 6th - he needed time to "clean up". JMO

 

[zencompass]

Welcome Anastacia!

Somehow I think Mr. Bojangles fits into this but my feeling is that he was more of a "witness" and was harmed possibly shot at but got away from the killer. That's also why I believe there was only one killer because if there were two then I believe that Mr. Bojangles would have been caught and killed there in the woods. This is just my opinion of course.

I just love how you are developing theories. All are welcome! It's so nice to have someone new who is "thinking" all of this out! I look forward to more of your posts! Namaste,

 

[anastacia]

I just keep remembering back in the day when everyone, myself included, was so quick to point the finger at JMB. Now, it feels like we're doing the same thing to TH.

I agree that TH isn't going to win parent of the year by any means, and if his step-son was the only victim then yeah, I'd be on the TH did it team as well. As a parent myself now, I just don't see any circumstance where he would have "lost it" with all 3 boys. I just can't. Well, wait. I can see one. If he walked in on any of the boys molesting AH, then yeah, I can see him losing it and striking out at all 3. But I don't feel that happened. For one thing, AH herself would have remembered something that traumatic happening.

IMO, there's no believable scenario where TH would "lose it" and kill all 3 boys. There just isn't. I'm open to suggestions, but at this time I don't see it.

I think it was just a random attack by a mentally deranged individual. Which bojangles appears to have been.

I'm not saying he killed them right there on the bank, he could have killed them a short distance away and then brought them to the ditch.

 

[Userid]

http://wm3truth.com/alternative-suspect-bojangles-man/

You can bleed profusely from a slight nick if it's in the right place. I would imagine if 3 children were fighting for their lives they would pick up whatever was handy and strike out with it, the assailant would throw up his arm to deflect the blow, and possibly receive a wound.

I've read most of the theories over the years, and this one makes more sense to me than any of the others. If the police were involved in some massive coverup for whatever reason, by now someone would have talked. If there was more than 1 person involved in the crime, by now someone would have talked. In just about any other scenario I can come up with, someone by now would have talked.

The fact that no one has come forward and said anything about this crime tells me that only person was involved, and again, bojangles was the only wet, dirty, blood covered person seen that night.

Also, there isn't mention of a sling that I've seen, only of a cast, and when one of my daughter's had a cast on her arm, she used it quite effectively to whop her sister on the head. Just sayin.

You're right, there wasn't a sling. From what I recall, the description of the "cast" sounded more like an air cast to me. I could be wrong, though. But I don't believe it was a typical "plaster" type cast (which, yes, could very easily be used as a weapon to an extent; but beating (repeatedly) to death 3 boys, would be extremely painful for the person wearing the cast).

For me, the biggest mystery behind Bojangles isn't the fact that he was bleeding and/or muddy -- it was the fact that the blood samples were simply "lost." For all we know, the guy was simply jumped. He'd be an easy target with the cast.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I just keep remembering back in the day when everyone, myself included, was so quick to point the finger at JMB. Now, it feels like we're doing the same thing to TH.

I agree that TH isn't going to win parent of the year by any means, and if his step-son was the only victim then yeah, I'd be on the TH did it team as well. As a parent myself now, I just don't see any circumstance where he would have "lost it" with all 3 boys. I just can't. Well, wait. I can see one. If he walked in on any of the boys molesting AH, then yeah, I can see him losing it and striking out at all 3. But I don't feel that happened. For one thing, AH herself would have remembered something that traumatic happening.

IMO, there's no believable scenario where TH would "lose it" and kill all 3 boys. There just isn't. I'm open to suggestions, but at this time I don't see it.

I think it was just a random attack by a mentally deranged individual. Which bojangles appears to have been.

I'm not saying he killed them right there on the bank, he could have killed them a short distance away and then brought them to the ditch.

I have a question, though. Do you see a mentally deranged individual taking the time to tie the victims up, moving them to a ditch (more than a half hour after he killed them), sticking their clothes in the mud with a stick and throwing the bikes in the bayou? To me, that suggests a perpetrator who is very cunning and knew what he was doing, not some confused homeless person who then ran to some public restaurant to smear all his blood on the toilet.

 

[Userid]

Agreed. Along those similar lines, for someone (assuming it was Bojangles) that was so meticulous as to not leave a drop (exaggeration) of blood, and all but one footprint, at the murder site, he sure as hell was messy in that bathroom; and left without even attempting to take the soaked toilet-paper roll with him, clean up the scene at all, and leave sunglasses in the toilet.

The most fascinating thing about this case, in my view, is that it was either done by someone extremely cunning, or incredibly stupid/lucky. At first glance, it seems so makeshift, unplanned, and spur-of-the-moment (shoelaces as ligatures? clothes driven down with sticks? bikes thrown in the bayou that's overlooked by an apartment complex? etc); but on the other hand, it's almost brilliant in the effectiveness and confusion it created. I've been studying this case for decades, and in all honesty, I still have absolutely zero idea which category the killer(s) fall in, to this day.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Once again, I'll state my case. For those of you who've heard it all before, I apologize. This is for anastacia, primarily. Welcome to the board!

First, I believe the initial attack occurred in the woods somewhere, not necessarily by the discovery site. I believe that the original intent was to punish or discipline. I believe that the initial attack got out of hand and the other two boys were killed to eliminate witnesses. Horrid, I know, but there it is. I believe the initial attack occurred in the 6:30 pm to 7:30 pm time frame. I believe that the killer(s) originally secreted the boys (who he thought were dead but weren't yet) in a manhole or drainage pipe in the area and came back later (either alone or with help) and moved the bodies.

Second, I believe that the killer(s) participated in the search and were well aware that the parents and all other searchers had gone home around 3 am. I believe that it was in the 3 am to 5 am time frame that he moved the boys (who weren't dead yet) and placed them in the ditch. I believe that Slater and Boskey (the two cops in question) overlooked the boys in the murky water. I don't believe that the shoe and Scout cap that later alerted the authorities to the presence of the bodies had surfaced when they searched. Even with flashlights, in that murky water, the cops could have overlooked the bodies.

There's a lot more that "I believe" but I'll stop for now. I've researched/discussed this case since 1996. Although I often state things "off the top of my head" (as now), I can find links from Cally's when pressed, at least for most things.

 

[anastacia]

Thank you for the welcome Compassionate Reader!

The scene in the bathroom has always bothered me too, tbh...I couldn't quite reconcile that with, as you say, the meticulousness at the dump site. (I don't think the boys were killed there either.)

I have kind of reasoned it this way: Things tend to get exaggerated in memory. The scene in the bathroom was possibly not as bad as the employees who had to clean it up remembered it as being. Then, too...had bojangles attacked and killed 3 little boys and moved their bodies at least once, finally dumping them into a drainage ditch, that he most likely slid into himself, then I imagine he would be pretty dang filthy. So even though I don't believe he left a mess quite as bad as described, it still would have been pretty bad.

I also didn't mean to imply that his cast would have been the only weapon he used. I thought that he might of used it at least a couple of times due to the strange wound pattern on one (?) of the boys.

As far as the bodies being moved, I believe he left them there while he "cleaned up" ie, removed whatever belongings he had there, then when he had finished, he came back and threw them into the drainage ditch.

I don't see anyone leaving the scene, going to join in the search, and then returning to the scene to move the bodies after they were reported missing. Just too risky.

I also don't see TH attempting to discipline the other 2 boys. If he knew anything at all about JMB he knew that wouldn't be tolerated.

I've followed the case since the beginning and this is probably the 50th version of events that I've come up with, so I'm always open to other ideas and suggestions. I love calm and respectful debate!

Look forward to hearing from all of you.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I've followed the case since the beginning and this is probably the 50th version of events that I've come up with, so I'm always open to other ideas and suggestions. I love calm and respectful debate!

Look forward to hearing from all of you.

I love that too! Thankfully, most discussions here are respectful and thoughtful, so you came to the right place
You raise a valid point about TH: why would he punish MM and CB? My theory is that SB tried to run away with MM (CB joined them after he had cleaned the carport), and that he left a note behind for TH to read when he came back from DJ's house. In that note, SB may have written that he ran away with MM, and perhaps he wrote some things that infuriated TH. I think TH then went to the hideout with the intention of not just punishing SB, but also MM (since he was in on SB's plan to run away). When he got there, CB and MM may have said some things that further infuriated TH. I think the situation completely escalated from there. IMO, this was a crime of rage, and not a sex crime or a random act of violence.

 

[anastacia]

It still doesn't explain why TH would attempt to punish the 2 boys who weren't his. From what I've read of TH, (and forgive me, it's been awhile so I might be wrong) he wasn't big on confronting men hand to hand. He shot his own brother in law, after all. Most southern boys would have just taken it to the backyard hand to hand, if it even got to that point. He was free with his hands on women and children from what PH says, but I don't remember any real tales of his confronting grown men. Now, do any of you here believe that JMB would have let someone else putting their hands on his son, or even yelling at him really go? I don't think TH would have done something that would have put him in conflict with JMB to that extent, so to me that rules out the discipline that went too far theory.

When you take the discipline that went too far away, what other motive remains for a grown man to kill 3 boys?

I can think of 2...and I'll lay them out, but I don't really believe in either one of them.

There's the AH being molested and him 'losing' it I've already outlined that one.

And there's the possibility that he was molesting SB, and SB told the other 2 boys (or TH was molesting all 3) so TH felt that all 3 had to be gotten rid of to keep the secret safe. I don't really believe this because pedophiles don't just stop, so there would have been other children over the years to come forward. None have. (Yes, I know AH said it at one point, but she has since retracted it.)

I just can't make TH losing it for whatever reason and going into a rage and killing 3 little boys make sense to me.

 

[zencompass]

The motive is narcissistic rage.

The reason I believe that T.H. is the most viable suspect is because of T.H.'s narcissistic behavior which included high risk-taking and violence (M.F. assault, BIL attack, the way he physically disciplined his stepson, continuous domestic violence) and this is a motive that many killers share. Family members have been murdered by persons with narcissistic rage, one example being Jeff Macdonald.

Macdonald believes in his "innocence" because he doesn't believe he did anything "wrong". When narcissists perceive that they have been "wronged" they can act out in an extreme rage and afterwards they believe that they are the "victims" because they didn't plan to do this - their "victims" "wronged" them!

Domestic violence and attacks on familiar people to them defines narcissistic rage. It is evident that T.H. had these traits whenever he was violent towards family members and he clearly demonstrates more traits during the Pasdar Deposition when he denies knowing M.F., the assault on M.F. even when the lawyer is holding the police report in front of T.H. Belief that they will never get caught, they have feelings of grandiose, demonstrate high risk behavior, denial and superiority are traits of someone with narcissistic rage. There is no remorse and they do not believe that they did anything "wrong". Anyone who injures their sense of grandiose can expect rage from them and, unfortunately, sometimes murder.

John Douglas profiled this case and believes one person did this and it was someone the boys knew.

This is just my opinion and I have been following this case as well since it happened and I have heard all of the theories and have read everything on Callahan's site and no matter which path I follow it always ends up with only T.H. having the motive (narcissistic rage) and opportunity as well as no alibi during critical times of the murders.

 

[primitivefuture]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk