Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[Cher Lockhomes]

Hello anastacia, welcome to the discussion. First of all, TH allegedly met JMB for the first time between 20:10 and 20:30 on May the 5th, so the attack on the boys might have taken place by then. We don’t have to believe what TH says though, he’s not honesty itself. The Hobbs knew the Moore's, and had been round their house before. The Moore's were at a few parties at the Byers, before making themselves undesirable. I think JMB’s ears would have been burning a few times. TH actually recognized JMB and Melissa driving down the service road earlier that evening, miraculously identifying them from inside the woods, although he didn’t know them.

I find it very interesting that you think fear of JMB would stop TH from touching CB. I would say fear would have the exact opposite effect on TH. I believe that CB drew more hate onto himself in TH’s eyes, because he was the son of such a big outgoing guy like JMB, which TH wasn’t. JMB was the sort of guy who would be a big rival for TH.

I also found it interesting that you opted for Mr Bojangles, although you mentioned the option that you couldn’t believe, three times(I think). Sounds like a fight between the head and heart, many have gone before you (including myself).

What was different in the days leading up to the 5th of May.

1. CB was at the Hobbs house for the first time ever, three or four days before. He wanted to kiss AH goodbye, PH wasn’t bothered, TH prevented it. (Dimensions interview)
   
2. Sb’s bike was stolen from the car port 2 weeks before the murders. Hicks snr, bought him a new bike, TH didn’t want him to.
   
3. SB asked PH to leave TH shortly before.
   
4. 5th of May. SB told PH he loved her many times on the way home from school.
   
5. SB did not come home at 4:30, he was usually a good kid, and he knew he would be grounded for two weeks.
   
6. CB came round the Hobbs house, at almost the same time as MM and SB went round the Moores house. PH told CB this, but he seemed more interested in AH.
   
7. CB watched TV with AH. Did CB make advances, kiss her, play doctor with her ? It was the first time CB was alone with AH. He was well into TH territory.
   
8. Ryan C, also stated that he saw CB playing with SB for the first time on May 5th.
   
9. TH was the last person seen with the boys.
   
10. These were the things that happened that we know about. At 21:15, PH watched TH walk past her without saying anything, pick up the phone, and ring up the police. PH says, she knows that SB is dead. Could all of this be a coincidence ? I don’t think so. JMO.

One other personal thing, when I was 22 years old, I was threatened with violence by a Father, for making advances towards his 9 year old daughter. Out of the Blue I was prompted to leave his house, not in a "please go" fashion, but in a „you go near my daughter again, and I’ll take you to pieces“ fashion. I love kids, they love me. I later found out that he had sexually abused and raped 2 daughters in his first marriage.

 

[anastacia]

Thank you for the welcome Cher! Your theory fits and makes sense...to a point...what evidence do we have that TH was a pedophile? We have statements allegedly made by AH to PH, then later retracted, (or denied). I don't remember this ever being taken to LE, which makes me discount it. After all, if one of my children had been murdered in a possible sexually motivated manner, and I suspected my ex-husband had done it, and then my daughter comes and tells me that this same man is molesting her...I would run SCREAMING to the police! I don't see where she did, therefore I discount that. With that taken away we have no evidence that TH was a pedophile. His not wanting a boy of CB age to kiss his 4 year old daughter doesn't strike me as strange, or overly possessive. Strikes me as good parenting. I would have been very bothered by a boy that age wanting to kiss one of my daughter's when they were 4! Doesn't strike me as odd that SB wouldn't want TH as a step-parent. He doesn't sound like a very nice person, and appears to have been overly harsh with SB. How reliable was the eyewitness that saw TH with the boys? There were many conflicting 'eyewitness' reports that night, that it seems like people just pick out the one that seems to suit their theory. I also don't think it so strange that PH 'knew' her son was dead when she found out he hadn't come home by 9 30pm. Death or severe injury would have been the only things to keep my girls out that late at that age.

And yes, bingo on the huge conflict between my head and my heart on this case...it is indeed huge...

 

[zencompass]

http://www.secasa.com.au/sections/for-students/the-child-abuse-accommodation-syndrome/

I find the information by Dr. Summit in the above article does an excellent job of explaining why children/teens retract their claims of sexual abuse by a parent and I believe that is likely what happened with A.H. It is so sad and confusing for the children. JMO

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Very interesting article, zen. Thanks for posting!

As to why PH didn't act if AH told her, there are two possibilities. One, it was much later that AH confirmed the abuse. Two (and more likely), PH, as a victim of domestic abuse herself, was afraid of what would happen to her and possibly AH if she went public with the information. Finally, I remember reading somewhere that a doctor confirmed that AH had a yeast infection. Wish I had a link! I'll look around for it. However, if true, doesn't that indicate at least the possibility that there's truth in the story? How can a four-year-old get a yeast infection? There's only two ways I know that could happen, and one of them is through sexual abuse.



ETA: This is from the Pasdar deposition:

"Q It's your testimony, as you sit here today, that you were never told that Amanda had a physical examination in which the doctor opined that Amanda had been vaginally penetrated around the age of four?

A I don't recall that.

Q Is it possible that you were told that?

MR. THOMAS: Objection; calls for speculation.

A I don't recall that.

Q (By Ms. Davis) Or that she had a yeast infection. Do you recall that?

A She might have had a yeast infection. Babies get that.

Q At four years old, do you recall ---

A I don't ---

Q Let me finish my question. At four years old, do you recall being told that a doctor had examined Amanda and determined that
she had a yeast infection?

A No."

http://callahan.8k.com/hobbs_pasdar/t_hobbs_depo2.html (The above discussion starts near the bottom of p 535 or p 536)

Of course, Hobbs is denying it, and this isn't the doctor's report, but this is probably where I read it.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Zen, thank you for this link, good information. Victims of child sexual abuse have actually told me, that after revealing their secrets, „friends“ were subsequently reluctant to handshake.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Anastacia, that’s fair enough, as you said, everyone believes what they want to in this case (and in life too). I just want to take you up on one point. As far as evidence of Th’s paedophile activity goes, IMO, there is more evidence than usual. In cases of incestuous paedophilia, it’s very common that there is only one statement made, either by the victim, or a relative or friend. This would be analysed by an expert, and a probability assessment would be made. In most cases this happens years, or even many years later.

Here we have statements and depositions from no less than 5 family members other than PH, and a report of sexual abuse from Th’s first marriage. We also have the scientific evidence from Peretti’s autopsy, which was later confirmed by Brent Turvey as signs of sexualization. Finally the medical report of a yeast infection of a four-year old child, not damning, but very rare for a child at this age, if no sexual contact is made. The icing on the cake is Ah’s journal.

Anyway, let’s leave it at that, I respect your opinion, this is something no one likes to talk about, IMO, it’s a major piece of the puzzle in this case.

Sorry about repeating some of the things CR just said, CR beat me to it by a couple of minutes.:waiting:

 

[anastacia]

Actually yeast infections in little girls is much more common than you would think. How it usually happens is the child is placed on antibiotics for an infection, and as with adult women, this upsets the ph and bacterial balance in the vagina balance and a yeast infection results.

The argument that PH didn't tell out of fear doesn't really fly because she certainly told someone and it came out. We all know about it.

I agree that there is plenty to question about TH. I just still can't quite accept that he would attack all 3 boys. However, it would explain why CB seemed to get the worst of the attack.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Really, if you consider the genital injuries to be animal predation, as I do, SB got the worst of the attack. I believe he was the first to be attacked, as well. As to yeast infections, there's another way for a young girl to get them. It involves improper bathroom activities. I'll leave it at that. The antibiotic thing is true, too, but it could apply to males as well as females and isn't applicable solely to young children.

 

[JuneBug67]

In a single killer theory, has anybody ever postulated that the boys were forced to be involved in the tying up of each other as a means to control them? This would explain the sole use of a square knot (boy who used it was tied up second) and the slightly varied half hitches on two bodies (one of the boys forced to tie up one side of both other boys) and the identical knots on the last boy when only the killer was left to tie him up. Say Michael tied first by Steve and Chris, Steve tied second by Chris and killer, Chris hit hard enough to subdue him enough to be tied alone, resulting in his death before being placed in the water.

Newish to a detailed look at this case so apologies if this idea has been considered and dismissed previously.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

In a single killer theory, has anybody ever postulated that the boys were forced to be involved in the tying up of each other as a means to control them? This would explain the sole use of a square knot (boy who used it was tied up second) and the slightly varied half hitches on two bodies (one of the boys forced to tie up one side of both other boys) and the identical knots on the last boy when only the killer was left to tie him up. Say Michael tied first by Steve and Chris, Steve tied second by Chris and killer, Chris hit hard enough to subdue him enough to be tied alone, resulting in his death before being placed in the water.

Newish to a detailed look at this case so apologies if this idea has been considered and dismissed previously.

I like your thinking, JuneBug67! It's very plausible, and it explains why CB had no binding abrasions (because he was hit by the perp before he was tied up). Do you think most of the non-lethal injuries were made before the boys had to tie each other up or after?

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

In a single killer theory, has anybody ever postulated that the boys were forced to be involved in the tying up of each other as a means to control them? This would explain the sole use of a square knot (boy who used it was tied up second) and the slightly varied half hitches on two bodies (one of the boys forced to tie up one side of both other boys) and the identical knots on the last boy when only the killer was left to tie him up. Say Michael tied first by Steve and Chris, Steve tied second by Chris and killer, Chris hit hard enough to subdue him enough to be tied alone, resulting in his death before being placed in the water.

Newish to a detailed look at this case so apologies if this idea has been considered and dismissed previously.

I think it's feasible, definitely if you think of this occurring in the course of a game being played.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Yes, Junebug, very plausible. My only problem would be how they were forced to tie each other up. As Cher suggested (and as JKM, the pedophile, also suggested), it could be a game of some sort - sexual in nature. Of course, the killer could have had a weapon of some sort that he used to threaten the boys, too. Keep thinking!

 

[JuneBug67]

I like your thinking, JuneBug67! It's very plausible, and it explains why CB had no binding abrasions (because he was hit by the perp before he was tied up). Do you think most of the non-lethal injuries were made before the boys had to tie each other up or after?

Thanks! Completely speculative, but if this was a 'personal cause' homicide as has been profiled serious injuries to the targeted child may have happened before they were bound. Most of the injuries to the other children may have happened after they were restrained as staging/cover for the initial attack.

 

[JuneBug67]

Yes, Junebug, very plausible. My only problem would be how they were forced to tie each other up. As Cher suggested (and as JKM, the pedophile, also suggested), it could be a game of some sort - sexual in nature. Of course, the killer could have had a weapon of some sort that he used to threaten the boys, too. Keep thinking!

My instinct would be that they would have been controlled by fear/threat, shock and perhaps the natural authority of an adult, particularly a parent. Completely speculative though.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Thanks! Completely speculative, but if this was a 'personal cause' homicide as has been profiled serious injuries to the targeted child may have happened before they were bound. Most of the injuries to the other children may have happened after they were restrained as staging/cover for the initial attack.

BBM

I totally agree with the part I bolded! IMO, the bindings were for transport only. So, I believe that all of the human-caused injuries were before they were bound. Before someone says, "Then why was there no blood on the clothes?" IMO, the first child attacked (SB) was quickly rendered unconscious by blunt force trauma to the head and believed to be dead, which precipitated the attack (in Blitzkrieg fashion) on the other two, again, blunt force trauma to the head. This type of wound wouldn't bleed profusely, at least not externally.

I, too, believe it was originally an accidental "discipline-gone-wrong" scenario that escalated into murder when the killer thought he had killed SB. (This doesn't mean that the degloving has to be animal predation, BTW. The killer could have done that in anger over the "crush" after CB was unconscious and practically dead - some hours later - just before placing the bodies in the ditch.)

 

[JGriffith]

I think it's feasible, definitely if you think of this occurring in the course of a game being played.

This is a very interesting idea of the boys being forced to tie each other up. If this is a game, however, it would be intriguing to learn and/or postulate as to why they were found nude, because presumably this would have had to occur before being tied up.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

This is a very interesting idea of the boys being forced to tie each other up. If this is a game, however, it would be intriguing to learn and/or postulate as to why they were found nude, because presumably this would have had to occur before being tied up.

From my point of view, I was putting this thought into perspective with my own theory from posts #787 #796 #807 in this thread. I will quote part of it so you get what I mean:

My theory is based on the fact that I think the boys were swimming at the Hobbs house. This would hold up with some of the facts and rumours that exist. I think the boys would have undressed themselves (possibly in SB's room) to go swimming, CB removing his medical bracelet, SB removing his ninja watch, not needing to remove his friendship bracelet, sticking their socks in their shoes. SB in his swimming trunks, which he had available, whereas MM and CB left their underpants on, which I have often seen boys do when spontaneously swimming.

Would it be too adventurous to think they might have been nude, or maybe manipulated to take their clothes off ?

I go more for my own speculation about the bindings in post #787, but I'm open for other ideas.

BTW, I am totally convinced that the hogties served the purpose of dissociation on the part of TH. Once he came back down from his fit of hate/anger, he had the task of getting rid of the bodies. Making the naked bodies look like something familiar, (slaughtered animals) would certainly have made it easier for him to handle.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I definitely believe that an "authority figure" such as a parent could control the boys without force! Like I think I've posted before, someone from the area told me that generally speaking pools weren't opened up until Memorial Day (end of May) and specifically that the Hobbs' pool had not been opened for the year on the day of the murders. At that time, it was covered in scum and needed cleaning. However, the boys could have been swimming in another pool.

I know I'm always "full of theories" about this case. So, here's another. Let's suppose that the boys, discovering that the Hobbs' pool wasn't open for the summer, went swimming in another pool. Did the Moores have a pool? What about the Jacobys? Further, let's suppose that TH found them swimming. I'm not sure why that would have angered him. Maybe SB refused to get out of the pool. This might have precipitated the attack.

Now, to time frame. Let's start with the JCB sighting of the boys at 6:30 pm. At that time, they ran from TH. I've always believed that that was what aroused his anger. However, let's suppose that he was merely yelling at them to be back at, say 7:30 pm. If they went somewhere to swim, I don't think it could have been the Moore's. DM was actively searching by about 6:00 pm. So, again, suppose that DJ let them swim in his pool, but he didn't tell TH, sometime shortly after the 6:30 sighting. Then, suppose that TH discovers the boys about 7:00 pm. (This could explain the sighting of SB in red and white shorts, i.e. swimming trunks.) TH discovers the boys swimming and yells at them again. They get out of the pool, and MM and CB hurriedly dress while TH "disciplines" SB. SB escapes, jumps on his bike and heads for the woods with CB and MM close behind. TH, figuring out where the boys are going, follows them, attacks them in the woods . . .

It would explain why DJ is used by TH as an alibi. DJ might have some sense of being somehow responsible for it happening. Does any of this make sense? This is just off the top of my head.

 

[JGriffith]

From my point of view, I was putting this thought into perspective with my own theory from posts #787 #796 #807 in this thread. I will quote part of it so you get what I mean:



Would it be too adventurous to think they might have been nude, or maybe manipulated to take their clothes off ?

I go more for my own speculation about the bindings in post #787, but I'm open for other ideas.

Very interesting idea, I had not considered them going swimming as a possibility of how they became undressed. The issues are tough here: how did an individual (or group for that matter) strip three boys and restrain them while alive?

Forgive me if I missed this somewhere, but were they boys' clothes found near their bodies? This has been something I have wondered about, as it may help determine if they were killed nearby or moved.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Now, to time frame. Let's start with the JCB sighting of the boys at 6:30 pm. At that time, they ran from TH. I've always believed that that was what aroused his anger.

That's not what JCB said, though. She said: 'While I was out in the front yard (...), Terry Hobbs hollered at Stevie, Michael and Christopher to get back down to the Hobbs' house. (...) It looked like Terry was telling the boys to get back down to the Hobbs' house because Terry Hobbs was watching Stevie's sister play and wanted all the kids together. Then, I got in the car and went to church. (...) I am absolutely, completely and totally positive that I saw Stevie, Michael and Christopher in my backyard and headed back to Terry Hobbs' house on the evening of May 5th 1993.'
She doesn't say that they were running away from TH or anything. I'm not sure if DJ had a pool in his backyard, but why would the three boys flee to the woods instead of the Moores house? They would receive protection from DM. I think it's more likely that they went to the forest to take a swim and that the attack occurred there as well.