Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[reedus23]

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.

That's kind of demeaning. All a forensic dental expert is is a dentist who just happened to testify in court. Do you believe this dentist's qualifications would change with the snap of a finger if he were called to testify just one time in court?

Using the actual partial is obviously preferred. It can be done without it, but it is preferred. Beyond that, I would guess that no one is saying that the work done is enough to convict anyone on. That would probably be pretty extreme. However, I think that what it does indicate is a reason to open the investigation and at least look more thoroughly.

I cannot think of one negative to actually investigating it further to rule it in or rule it out. I am certainly open to listening to reasons why someone would not want it at least thoroughly investigated.

 

[reedus23]

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....

My sister in law always wanted to be called doctor. She was a pharmacist. She did have a PHD but it always seemed odd to me too.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

There seems to be different areas of dentistry. And I seriously think that testimony from a general dentist wouldn't really meet the qualifications that it takes to be considered a Forensic Dentist. It may be the first step to getting there, but aren't we talking about someone who would be qualified for testifying in court as an expert? And he does not have the actual partial in question, it's just a photo someone sent to him and we don't know how that part would play out either.

Oh, UserID, sorry for that. I didn't even realize I had done that.

adding the educational criteria here:

Forensic Odontology

A forensic odontologist must first earn a Doctor of Dental Science (DDS) or Doctor of Dental Medicine (DMD) degree to become a dentist. Extensive additional training is required in the techniques and methods of forensic odontology, along with hands-on experience, often by shadowing a more senior professional.

To become board certified by the American Board of Forensic Odontology of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the forensic odontologist must work 25 cases, accumulate 350 qualification points by attending meetings and other professional development programs and pass a qualifying exam.
http://explorehealthcareers.org/en/Career/126/Forensic_Odontology#Tab=Requirements

 

[Userid]

^ Yup, posted this is the thread about TH.

To claim a dentist is practically the same as an FO is disingenuous and inaccurate.

"A forensic odontologist must first earn a Doctor of Dental Science (DDS) or Doctor of Dental Medicine (DMD) degree to become a dentist. Extensive additional training is required in the techniques and methods of forensic odontology, along with hands-on experience, often by shadowing a more senior professional."
http://explorehealthcareers.org/en/C...y#Tab=Overview (above quote from the academic requirements tab).

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Yet the judge didn't have any trouble qualifying someone as a Satanic "expert" without any schooling whatsoever - by his own admission! So, if DG is an "expert" on Satanic ritual sacrifices, the dentist is an "expert" on bite marks. However, as I've stated elsewhere, I seriously doubt that this dentist would be the "expert" called to testify were this bite mark evidence to ever see the inside of a courtroom. I'm sure that the prosecution would call on a forensic odontologist for that. Conversely, giving no weight to the bite mark information is, IMO, simply ridiculous! As others have said, reopen this case! Have all (and all means all) suspects, especially parents, properly investigated. AFAIK, there is only one parent who would object to such an investigation - and that speaks volumes!

 

[zencompass]

I absolutely agree. There must be some way to have T.H.'s partial tested against the bite mark by an expert in order to have T.H. investigated and this case reopened. I'd like to get in touch with Jason's lawyers as that may be one way to get this started. JMO

 

[Userid]

Yet the judge didn't have any trouble qualifying someone as a Satanic "expert" without any schooling whatsoever - by his own admission! So, if DG is an "expert" on Satanic ritual sacrifices, the dentist is an "expert" on bite marks. However, as I've stated elsewhere, I seriously doubt that this dentist would be the "expert" called to testify were this bite mark evidence to ever see the inside of a courtroom. I'm sure that the prosecution would call on a forensic odontologist for that. Conversely, giving no weight to the bite mark information is, IMO, simply ridiculous! As others have said, reopen this case! Have all (and all means all) suspects, especially parents, properly investigated. AFAIK, there is only one parent who would object to such an investigation - and that speaks volumes!

Griffis should have never been deemed an expert at the trial -- agree -- but two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[zencompass]

Hobbs is a great suspect for some very good reasons, and while there's already several threads here regarding him, I thought it would be good to include him in this little series of posts outlining who the best suspects are and ---why exactly-- these people are still relevant as suspects in these murders.

PLEASE NOTE: It's not really the place for hot debate and endless quibbling -- there's many other threads for that. I am after here, a collection of reasons why Hobbs IS a good suspect -- please refrain from derailing it. I also ask folks to stick to known facts and logical conclusions drawn from evidence.

Anyway, I realise there's people here who have researched Hobbs far more deeply than I have, so to them I give the floor, except for this brief, initial list that, IMO, makes him a good suspect:

-- Terry Hobbs is, indisputably, capable of inflicting extreme violence on the people around him.

-- Hobbs' alibi is not a strong one.

-- The hair in the knot of a victim other than his own step-son.

Hey Ausgirl! bbm by me. I'm not much of a quibbler - don't believe in it much as it is a waste of people's time and it is mean-spirited. However I have quibbloed and I must say I much prefer that!!

Back to topic of T.H. being a viable suspect.

1. The lack of alibi during crucial times is a huge red flag, especially with T.H. stating that he was with D.J. at various times in various places and D.J. has denied most of what T.H. said.

2. T.H.'s history of violence especially when he invaded M.F.'s home and assaulted her when she was coming out of the shower. That shows how over the top violent he can be and more importantly, he is a huge risk-taker. Because of his personality as a violent risk-taker, and of course having a narcissistic personality, it was more probable that it was T.H. who moved the bodies from the manhole to the discovery site. The officers had left the area after 6:00 a.m. and there was no one else in that area. With his strong belief that he was above the law and also that he was too clever to get caught that scenario fits right into his personality.

3. He had the opportunity as he was witnessed being in the same area and calling to the boys. Sightings of the boys varied around the neighbourhood but the last known area the boys were spotted were within his vicinity.

4. The hair in the binding of a victim who was not his step-child.

5. The constant lying and denying of facts, for example when the Pasdar lawyer showed him the police report and statement from M.F. regarding his break in to her home and subsequent assault, he denied it.

6. The locked box containing his partial denture, a marble and a 1984 penny on a thin chain.

7. T.H. was in possession of Stevie's knife which Stevie up until then carried it with him.

8. He not only did not alert Pam to the fact that Stevie was missing but as other posters have brought up - he never went to the other parents' houses to see if Stevie was there when he knew that Stevie had been with the other boys. He did not go to their houses or even phone the other parents because he knew where the boys were. It is the only thing that makes sense. Why would a person drive around streets looking for a child when that parent knew where the child's friends lived. It makes no sense - unless T.H. already knew where the boys were and what happened to them.

JMO

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Back to topic of T.H. being a viable suspect.

1. The lack of alibi during crucial times is a huge red flag, especially with T.H. stating that he was with D.J. at various times in various places and D.J. has denied most of what T.H. said.

Exactly! And what concerns me as well, is the fact that TH is lying about his whereabouts that evening. He's lying about the time he spoke with Dana M, about the time he spoke with MB, about the time he phoned police (he said in the Dimension interview that he called at about 17:00, total BS), and he's lied that he did not play guitars at DJ's house. Now why would he be lying? The only reason I can think of, is that at the time that he himself claims that he was with Dana and MB, he was in fact murdering SB, MM and CB.

 

[zencompass]

Wow Lethalmatthew great catch about T.H. lying about being with Dana and M.B. !!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Something else about TH that I don't think has been discussed is his Saturday excursions. I believe that PH has stated somewhere that TH went to yard sales every Saturday but never bought anything. IMO, that's a bit suspicious. I wonder what he did on Saturdays. Specifically, I wonder who he was with on Saturdays - and what they might have been planning.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Something else about TH that I don't think has been discussed is his Saturday excursions. I believe that PH has stated somewhere that TH went to yard sales every Saturday but never bought anything. IMO, that's a bit suspicious. I wonder what he did on Saturdays. Specifically, I wonder who he was with on Saturdays - and what they might have been planning.

Do you know if that was in the months leading up to the murders? Did he continue these excursions after the murders?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Good question! I'll see if I can find an answer.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I must admit, I can't figure out the reactions to one of the most remarkable developments in this case, and that is the TH police interview in 2007.

For his part, Terry Hobbs said he’s not worried and that he has nothing to hide. With regard to the retested DNA, he said, “I’ve been told that nothing that’s going on right now is going to change a thing.”

Asked who’d given him that assurance, he replied, “Brent Davis,” the prosecuting attorney.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/new-evidence-in-west-memphis-murders/Content?oid=868140&storyPage=3

Question 1: If the above citation is correct, why was he even interviewed ?


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

Officer: Did you go into the woods before you picked up Pam?

Terry Hobbs: Sure

Officer: You did,

Terry Hobbs: nods yes

Officer: You remember about what time that was?

Terry Hobbs: 6 - 6:30

Officer: K, who was with you at that time?

Terry Hobbs: David

Officer: David Jacoby. Anybody else?

Terry Hobbs: Just alot of neighbourhood people. Cause there was people on 3 wheelers, 4 wheelers, motorcycles, bicycles, on foot. That was you know, help calling, us, helping us look for 3 kids.

Officer: Is there anything that you saw that you uhh, was it daylight or dark when you all went out there the first time?

Terry Hobbs: Daylight

Officer: Daylight? Was there anything out there that that struck you as unusual or odd that you saw?

Terry Hobbs: Nothing other than I wouldn't have been out here, this is not a place I hang out, No. And we were told at one time that there was something that covered up a hole or something and they thought they mighta been in that hole so some of them little kids that knew where that place was at said that they'd go check it. I think uhh, that little Byers boy. The one that was alive. There's another one alive. I can't think of his name, but I think he was gonna go with some of the people that was there and check, but I don't know what they's talking about.

Officer: Was that suppose to be out there in the wooded area also?

Terry Hobbs: Uhh hmm

Officer: Ok, Ok. Umm, so when you, how long you think you stayed out there in the wooded area the first time? Robinhood area?

Terry Hobbs: I don't know cause we would drive around looking and then go down the service road looking up in there and walk in out there from both sides.

Officer: Did you see anybody uh hanging around that area that, that. Well you said that people were looking, I mean, if you had, your best guess I guess Terry umm. How many people do you, your best estimate of how many people do you during this first time your out there do you think are out in that area loooking?

Terry Hobbs: 20 to 40

Officer: 20 to 40, ok so that's a good number, thats a large amount of people

Terry HObbs: uh hmmm

Officer: Umm, were any of them police officers at that time? Or were they just citizens?

Terry Hobbs: Just Regena, and, after shift change another officer came out, but he aint go in the woods. He stayed in his car.

Officer: k, When you get done, is this the first time your out in the wooded area? Or the

Terry Hobbs: Probably

Officer: Ok, when you get, when you leave there, when. How long after you leave there did you go to pick up Pam?

Terry Hobbs: I picked Pam up at 9 o clock, uh, you know not only are we looking in the wooded area but people keep saying well there's 3 boys riding a bike over here, we seen 3 boys over here, someone said 3 boys so we would go everywhere we heard

Six seconds of silence

Terry Hobbs: I know I did

Officer: Yep, yep

Terry Hobbs: I don't know what, you know there was a time I was in the woods I seen Mark and his wife Melissa drive down the service road, looking, you know looking in the woods.

Question 2: If the statement that TH made is true, he and 20-40 other people were in the woods at the time, the WM3 were convicted of murdering the boys, in exactly the area (not much bigger than a football field) where the WM3 were said to have murdered the three boys, how was this possible ?

Question 3: If the statements in the TH interview are true, why were the WM3 not released from prison in the same year ?

Question 4: TH says the WM3 are guilty up until this very day, yet he himself made the statement that makes it impossible that the WM3 were responsible, how does TH explain this ?

Question 5: How do the Moores feel about the TH statement, do they believe TH or not ?

Question 6: If the TH statement is not true, why is it not true ? Is he lying ? Has he got a bad memory ?

Question 7: How do the wmpd feel about the TH statement ? If it's true, then the wrong men were convicted, or the circumstantial evidence on which they were convicted was wrong, if the TH statement is false, are they not interested in asking TH about why it does not fit in with the conviction of the WM3 ?

Question 8: Why is there not one single person can confirm TH's statement ? Not one single person from 20 to 40 people ? On the other hand, Regina Meeks, DM, DJ, PH, JMB,and JCB contradict his statements.

Question 9: How do we explain that a person can remember situations prior to the murders very well, knows where he bought a car, yet is not sure what colour or type it was, and does not even mention the other car he owned at the time, yet a highly traumatic situation that lasts almost 2 days skews his memory so badly ? I have talked to hundreds of people about traumatic experiences, those that wanted to remember, knew every detail. A traumatic experience that is not totally suppressed, is re-lived for many days just after it happens. Every minute is reconstructed for days on end (take a look at PH), and though minor details may be forgotten or mixed up after a long time, the major events remain very vivid, almost too vivid for many peoples comfort.

IMO, TH is consciously lying, or he's suffering a selective amnesia, either way you look at it, they are both not good signs. He is certainly not interested in the truth, because if he's telling the truth, he contradicted his views that the WM3 did it, and if he's not telling the truth, he is not helping find justice for SB.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Cher,

Those questions have been pondered for years!

Q1: IMO, the wmpd only interviewed TH to cover their a$$es! By the time this interview was conducted (and, unlike the interrogation of JMB, this interview was a very "softball" interview), the mtDNA revelations had been made. Maybe the wmpd suddenly realized that they'd never interviewed TH, and it was a rush to "fix" the oversight.

Q2: The simple answer, of course, is that it's not possible. If TH is telling the truth, this statement should have been enough to exonerate them. That it didn't, IMO, shows one of two things. Either the wmpd knew that TH was lying, or the wmpd were just going through the motions in the interview, maybe weren't even really listening to his responses. I think it is the former, and that the wmpd were protecting TH, as he claimed.

Q3: It's called the "good ol' boy" network. As I've stated on numerous occasions, IMO, the wmpd were protecting TH because of something he knows. What, I don't know, but I believe that, if we can ever solve that riddle, the case will break - wide open!

Q4: IIRC, he has said that the boys were silenced in some way. Of course, that doesn't make sense, nor does it agree with JM's statements, but, again, good ol' "Teflon Terry" seems to get away with a lot - even murder! There simply is no explanation for this quandary, IMO.

Q5: TM and his then-wife have been unusually quiet about this over the years - at least publicly. I know that TM posted for a while on another board (The Hoax) and continued to assert that Damien, Jason and Jessie were guilty. IIRC, he finally got angry at some people and left. After the Alford pleas, that board shut down. AFAIK, neither TM nor DM have made a statement of any kind since the rant against the Oscar nomination that the third documentary movie received. They refused to attend the preview offered by the defense team before the mtDNA revelations (both JMB and PH attended) and have rejected the evidence presented out of hand.

Q6: Again, the simple answer is that he's lying. As you stated, people remember traumatic events, with unquestioned clarity. All Americans remember, vividly, where we were in great detail as the events of September 11, 2001, unfolded. Likewise, those of us old enough to remember the Challenger explosion and the JFK assassination remember those with equal clarity. Those in Australia, no doubt, remember the Ayers Rock situation; those in the UK remember the subway bombing (and any number of similar disasters). I'm sure that other countries have equally devastating shared experiences that are remembered in vivid detail. More importantly, these National disasters/occurrences weren't necessarily personal to us! As the (supposedly loving) parent of one of the murdered children, TH should remember everything. JMB's story has been consistent over the years, as has PH's story. TH was lying - pure and simple.

Q7: To the last part of this question, I'd say that some may wonder, but most are probably too scared of losing their job that they don't want to rock the boat. I remember some time back that SJ (JD's partner in the juvenile devision) had made some sort of statement about the case, implying that he now believed it possible that the wrong people were convicted, but I don't think that there's any documentation of that (unless maybe in either PL3 or WofM). Personally, I believe that there may be some who doubt the veracity of the convictions but are simply too afraid (maybe because of who is being protected by the wmpd's protection of TH) to say anything. Some people in Arkansas (and Washington, DC) have died because they tried to expose the secrets of certain powerful people

Q8: Exactly! That, IMO, is just further proof that TH was lying through his teeth! If anyone else has a more logical explanation, I'd like to hear it.

Q9: Again, the only logical explanation is that TH is lying, just like he lied about the "black bum" he purportedly saw - months before that he somehow managed to remember!

Or were these questions rhetorical?

 

[Xara]

CR- if you don't mind, could you refresh my memory on a couple things?

What year was it that TH shot Pam's brother? And where did the shooting take place? Was it at the house in West Memphis? Also, what was his punishment for doing so?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Here is an excerpt from PH's second declaration:

"When my family arrived, there was a fight between Terry and my brother, Jackie Hicks, Jr. As they were fighting, Terry pulled out a gun and shot Jackie in the abdomen. He was moving to again shoot Jackie and my father started walking toward Terry. At that point, Terry pointed the gun at my dad and said "You'd better not go any farther; I'll shoot you, too, you fat mother****er." My father, Jackie Hicks Sr. was able to grab the gun from Terry's hands. My brother was severely injured as a result of the gunshot. He had to have over ten surgeries. The doctors first decided to leave the bullet where it was lodged because they thought it would kill him to remove it, but later it caused a bowel obstruction, so they removed the bullet. After that surgery to remove the bullet, Jackie developed a blood clot and died from an aneurysm." http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/p_hobbs_declaration2.html

The only date she gave was 1999 and the place was the driveway of their residence. As to punishment, I don't know if I can find any corroboration, but IIRC, TH was charged w/aggravated assault w/a deadly weapon, but he never served time. I'll look around a bit more to see if I can find the police report, but I don't think it's on Cally's.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

PH was mistaken about the year: the shooting actually took place in 1994, on November 6th to be precise. This Arkansas Times article talks about it: http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/th...hobbs-and-john-mark-byers/Content?oid=2091927

Btw, this article is written by Mara Leveritt, who would later write Devil's Knot. She makes a rather bizarre statement in this article: 'The assaults are but another twist in a tragic saga. And here is another: A year and a half ago, it was Jackie Hicks who, as part of a search team scanning West Memphis for the missing children, was the first to discover the bodies of young Steve Branch and his two murdered playmates.'

Cher,

Q3: It's called the "good ol' boy" network. As I've stated on numerous occasions, IMO, the wmpd were protecting TH because of something he knows. What, I don't know, but I believe that, if we can ever solve that riddle, the case will break - wide open!

Usually, I'm not a strong supporter of coverup-theories, but I agree with you. I mean, how is it that GG said (I believe just after the murders) that in his eyes 'everyone in West Memphis' was a suspect, and that RC, CB's 13-year old brother, had to be cleared as a 'suspect', but that they let a stepfather with a criminal record off the hook!? I think that TH may in fact have known something about the WMPD that they didn't (and still don't) want to come out.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think it may go higher than the wmpd! Thanks for the Times link! Wikileaks said 1994, too, but I don't believe everything I read on a wiki page! I think Mara was wrong on one count. SJ (JD's partner w/juvenile) found the shoe first and called MA of the wmpd. Then, BR got into the water and found the bodies. Although JH, Jr. may have been at the scene, he didn't actually get into the water and find the bodies. The police did that.




ETA: I got an answer about the assault on JH, Jr., but I can't post a link. You'll just have to trust me! TH was arrested for aggravated assault, but the charge was reduced to simple assault. He received probation. He never served jail time. JH, Jr. didn't die until 2009, much more than a year after the assault. Because more than a year had passed, TH wasn't charged w/murder - even though JH, Jr. died as a result of the wound received. He died, as PH said in her declaration, of an aneurysm after surgery to remove the bullet TH fired because it had caused a bowel obstruction. The law states that, if someone dies a year or more after an attack, the attacker cannot be charged w/the murder, even if the death was caused by the attack. Go figure.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I think you mean he died in 2006, like this Find a grave-page says: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=110864638
How high up do you think this coverup was? It would be interesting to dig into TH's past and try to find out what it is he could have known!