Exactly, and there was probably a cop in that immediate area of Catfish already, since JMB had already called. So it makes sense why TH/PH would just stay at Catfish.
Viable Suspect: Terry Hobbs - #2
- Thread starter Oliphant
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Exactly, and there was probably a cop in that immediate area of Catfish already, since JMB had already called. So it makes sense why TH/PH would just stay at Catfish.
That's the million dollar question really. It's possible it's because of the cost, but then, would the state be on the hook for the cost? I'm not sure. What I really think is this: even if Ruff gets a hold of Ellington, he still has zero new evidence as to why the hair should be re-tested, so Ellington won't give it up regardless.
I will just say here that it is possible that there is something fishy going on with the DA's office with regard to this case, but with that said, an outsider still needs to present a valid reason why the DA should give them the evidence. Any DA's office in the country wouldn't just hand over critical evidence to an outsider simply because he/she wants to re-test it -- there's needs to be a reason to do so.
I would love if Ellington released it -- and I want it re-tested more than anyone -- but Ruff needs to do a better job of making the case; he needs a stronger reason other than, "well, there's a more modern way of testing now." If that's suddenly the new standard for a DA office to release evidence, than every single piece of evidence in every unsolved case would get released -- that's unrealistic and impossible.
Ruff posits that "Mr. Bojangles" might have walked the one mile to Bojangles on the bayou side in order to avoid being seen from the highway. When Ruff's re-enactor took this route, he had to ford the bayou which washed the mud off his pants. Mr. Bojangles' pants were covered with mud, therefore he's not a suspect. QED.
But if the investigators hadn't fixed on Damien Echols, Mr. B would be the logical suspect, appearing soon after the crime wet, bloody and muddy.
I suppose there's no chance that a sub-layer of grout might retain a tiny amount of DNA that could be M-Vacced up....
But if the investigators hadn't fixed on Damien Echols, Mr. B would be the logical suspect, appearing soon after the crime wet, bloody and muddy.
I suppose there's no chance that a sub-layer of grout might retain a tiny amount of DNA that could be M-Vacced up....
Anger at Stevie for messing up his dinner hour? Wouldn't he be more likely to make Stevie go home where he could thrash him in private?
Men think twice about giving other people's children more than a quick pat on the shoulder. Stripping them naked and tying them up in a place popular with local children? Or one so thick with mosquitoes (according to Ofc. Meek) that it was almost intolerable that evening? Either way.
There really isn't one. It seems like the best motive "TH Did It" people use is from the 4-perp theory that the victims were spying on TH, DJ, LGH and BL doing drugs (and/or engaging in sexual activity) in the Robin Hood Hills -- and they killed the boys when they discovered they were spying on them.
This "theory" was produced by a neighbor of BL's who was a drug dealer and had a long history with crime (real reliable source, lol). He more than likely was simply trying to provide police "information" (however bogus) in case he ever got busted again.
The theory is utterly ludicrous because, it states that TH/DJ picked up LGH/BL -- even though the two groups didn't know each other and had never met before this day. So not only did they decide to pick up two unknown teenagers, but they also decided to commit a triple-child-homicide with them -- even though they had never met before.
And also, any drug dealer would have freaked out if one of his regular clients (in this case, BL) dropped his full name to two unknown adults who were supposedly looking for weed, because they very easily could have been undercover. This isn't even the worst hole in this theory -- there are so many. It's beyond bogus, but there are people out there who believe it as fact.
https://famous-trials.com/legacyftrials/memphis3/wm3-pam-hobbs-and-john-mark-byers-court-filing.pdf
the puzzle theory sticks out the most for me
but like you said, it doesn't make any sense why two others, who had no real relationship at all with hobbs/jacoby/or the boys, would participate in a murder with them. if hobbs/jacoby were the killers i think they abducted the boys from the woods and killed them somewhere else before dumping the bodies where they were discovered. that crime scene was far too clean for the crimes to have actually occurred there. not to mention that there surely would have been screams given that these were three young boys.
the only thing that will continue to baffle me is why all 3 boys had been stripped naked and why every item of clothing was found except for the two pairs of underwear and a number of socks
Not sure why they would bring the bodies back there, though. People would be searching the area.
what time did people start searching the woods? i think i read that some search parties the night of the 5th quickly scanned the area the bodies were eventually found but nothing more than that
the killer(s) could have dumped the bodies there later in the evening or sometime in the early AM hours of may 6. didn't RC claim he heard splashes and a gunshot? i believe someone from the blue beacon reported hearing gunshots as well
why they would bring the bodies back there? who knows? its one of those big questions like why the boys were naked and why only two pairs of underwear and socks were taken while the rest of the clothing was found
How could anyone predict when the search would be over in a particular area? I've been on searches that lasted all night.
I think it's more likely they were killed there. If there was post-mortem animal predation, there wouldn't have been as much blood as previously thought. And the Ruff program showed the famous pipe almost submerged at one point, suggesting that the water level rises and falls. A rising tide might have washed away blood.
i agree that animals were responsible for some of the post-mortem wounds (including the injuries to CB's genitals,) but obviously the head injuries to the boys were inflicted by the killer(s)
but how can three young boys be murdered in that spot and no one hears anything? i find it hard to believe that there wouldn't have been screams or any sort of noise coming from the murder scene (assuming it was where the bodies were found.) especially considering how close it was to the blue beacon/service road and not too far from people's residences. plus there still would've been daylight when the killings occurred. people would have been in their backyards or outside in general
it would've been much easier for the killer(s) to abduct the boys and murder them elsewhere as opposed to killing them at the discovery site in daylight and in close proximity to places like the BB and homes
Why assume they were screaming? They were probably whimpering. Once struck on the head, they'd be incapable of vocalizing.
The highway probably contributed some covering noise.
The murders were high risk no matter how they occurred. There's no obvious motive so it's hard to envision a logical perpetrator. But if he reasoned that he needed to commit the murders elsewhere to be safe then he is not going to expose himself by bringing the bodies back. Better dump them somewhere else where discovery will be delayed.
and that's why there had to be more than one killer. i don't see any way one killer would incapacitate all 3 boys quickly enough without audible screaming and one or two of them running off
yeah i get what you're saying about why even bother bringing the bodies back. but then it makes you wonder if the killer(s) did that to send a message. either way, that's what makes this case so unique. there are endless amounts of possible scenarios and people who were involved one way or another
And yet Libby and Abby went quietly down the hill when that's the last thing they should have done. If a third kid had been there, it would have been the same dynamic.
You comply when you think that cooperation might get you out of it.
I don't much enjoy thinking about things with endless scenarios, I confess....
Last edited:
People began searching immediately. Jive Puppi has a good time line; if memory serves, JMB was searching all over, including the woods; same with TH. Many people searched the woods and areas right near all night, like the pipe bridge -- including TH's grandpa, DJ, CB's brother and his multiple friends, etc.
To me, there is no way that someone would bring them to this site after the search had begun; and also, this is a very inconvenient dump site to begin with. You have two 24-hour establishments, an entire apartment complex that overlooks the entire site, right next to a busy highway with a ton of passing motorists, and multiple houses a stones-throw away. If a person is going to dispose of bodies, this would be the last place one would use.
Plain and simply, the victims were unclothed because there was a sexual element to the crime. That's my opinion, anyway -- sometimes, the most obvious answer is the correct one.
To me, there is no way that someone would bring them to this site after the search had begun; and also, this is a very inconvenient dump site to begin with. You have two 24-hour establishments, an entire apartment complex that overlooks the entire site, right next to a busy highway with a ton of passing motorists, and multiple houses a stones-throw away. If a person is going to dispose of bodies, this would be the last place one would use.
Plain and simply, the victims were unclothed because there was a sexual element to the crime. That's my opinion, anyway -- sometimes, the most obvious answer is the correct one.
I think this makes sense, especially in conjunction with same-side wrist to ankle tying.
true, the proximity to the BB, service road, freeway, and homes/apartments does make it an inconvenient dump site. but it also makes it an inconvenient murder site
especially when you consider there was still daylight when the boys were murdered. how long would it have taken the killer(s) to get the boys to comply, beat them unconscious, tie them up, and then dispose of their clothes and then walk to the pipe bridge to dispose of the bikes? couldn't the pipe bridge have been somewhat visible from the mayfair apartments? no way someone involved in the murders would've come that close to emerging from the woods. plus, wouldn't the killer(s) then have to come out of the woods after the murders? i know TH said he was searching the woods but are there any reported sightings of anyone coming out of the woods during the time frame that the murders took place? i know of the timothy cotton sighting but i believe that was around 10-11 PM
jivepuppi makes some excellent points as to why the boys could've been murdered somewhere else and killer(s) transported the bodies back to where they were found and disposed of the bikes at the pipe bridge in order to make it seem like the boys entered the woods on their own and were murdered, possibly by a trucker who was at the BB. the BB manager did note there was a small, white car in their parking lot that night at 10 PM with two young white males claiming they were looking for son. i know JMB and RC were at the BB that night but it was after 11 PM and the cars/description of the occupants don't match
GSK sometimes tied his victims up with shoelaces. He brought his own, though. I remember that he left something under a sofa in a pre-assault break-in which he then used during the assault. Was it shoelaces?
The perpetrator in Netflix's "Unbelievable" used a woman's own shoelaces to tie her up. He left her tied so using hers might have been strictly utilitarian. (He had brought a lot of other gear with him.)
Tying people up with shoelaces seems to be a thing. I imagine there's an erotic component. Whoever committed this crime had probably done the shoelace bit before, though perhaps not in commission of a crime.
The perpetrator in Netflix's "Unbelievable" used a woman's own shoelaces to tie her up. He left her tied so using hers might have been strictly utilitarian. (He had brought a lot of other gear with him.)
Tying people up with shoelaces seems to be a thing. I imagine there's an erotic component. Whoever committed this crime had probably done the shoelace bit before, though perhaps not in commission of a crime.
I think it still makes more sense that it was the murder site before a dump site nevertheless -- for the plain and simple fact that the Mississippi River was a couple miles away from West Memphis, if that. My point is: if one was going to dump a body, they would have done it there -- assuming they had even a cursory knowledge of the West Memphis area (which, if they knew the victims, they would indeed have such knowledge).
The boys were last seen heading into a section of the RHH. They were seen by Cindy Rico on the north side of the bayou around 6 p.m. My point is, they were all over RHH. As Fr Brown mentioned, a killer would not abduct the victims from an abduction site, only to return them to that same site to dispose of their bodies -- I mean, it simply makes zero sense to do so. If you want to conceal bodies, you wouldn't return them to where they were last seen; and you wouldn't risk returning to the abduction site and being seen yourself.
With the exception of maybe the knife/weapon wounds (which do exist by the way, even if you do think there was animal predation -- there were what appeared to be box-cutter marks on MM's scalp, etc.), everything about this crime was improvised. To me, this improvisation would also include dumping the bodies. This dump site was used because it was the only thing available at the killer's disposal -- because it was in the immediate vicinity of where the crime/abduction had occurred. The water level in this creek was a mere few feet -- again, this wouldn't have been a convenient space to hide bodies (you would want deep water) -- and it was well-known that the water level fluctuated even lower than that at times. It was used out of necessity; not by choice. The killer needed to dump the bikes in the bayou and risk the chance of being seen because they could not fit in the creek where the bodies were found -- it's just another sign that this dump site was the most inconvenient of places to willingly dump evidence; yet it was indeed used, because the killer had no other choice.
Yes, you make the point that the killer would have to be seen exiting the site all the same; I agree. That is why I believe that the killer(s?) were on foot. Remember: there were zero tire tracks found around the scene -- and being on foot would have made the killer less of a target than being in a big vehicle.
The truck theory is a good one and I can't discount it. It would explain why and how the killer was able to contain three kids (in the back of a semi-trailer); and it would explain how all these items were able to be disposed -- because the killer had a view of when the searchers were out of the area, and disposed of everything over a prolonged period of time.