Viable Suspect: Terry Hobbs - #2

[Cher Lockhomes]

I find it comical that Echol's mental health record of psychosis, violence and homicidal tendencies is completely swept under the rug by supporters, but rumors (way after the fact) of Hobb's alleged molestation is the smoking gun that proves he is the "real killer".

Which criteria should a comparison between Hobbs and Echols be based on in your opinion ? Psychological profile, Individual characteristics ? What's going to be achieved by such a comparison ? Sorry, comparing Hobbs with Echols with Byers or any other "Individuals" is none the less comical IMO.

 

[dogmatica]

Which criteria should a comparison between Hobbs and Echols be based on in your opinion ? Psychological profile, Individual characteristics ? What's going to be achieved by such a comparison ? Sorry, comparing Hobbs with Echols with Byers or any other "Individuals" is none the less comical IMO.

I made no mention of a comparison between Hobbs and Echols - that has nothing to do with what I typed.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I made no mention of a comparison between Hobbs and Echols - that has nothing to do with what I typed.

Sorry, we obviously have a different synaptic organisation.

 

[dogmatica]

Sorry, we obviously have a different synaptic organisation.

It's very simple. I am not comparing Hobbs to Echols. My point is, supporters will toss away extremely damning reports of psychosis and homicidal tendencies as observed and reported by multiple professionals in the psychiatric field, because it does not fit their narrative of what they want to believe. But they will embrace and use as an "a-ha!" "evidence" that is easily explained away, to try and prove guilt of someone they want to believe is guilty. I am not making any direct comparison of Hobbs to Echols. I never did. There's no hidden meaning to what I typed, and if you have trouble making sense of my "synaptic organization"...well, I'm not sure how to make what I'm saying any clearer or simpler for you.

 

[reintarnation]

I would hope that, had I been the aunt, I would have come forward. However, I don't know what I would have done in the identical situation. Initially, of course, SB had begged her not to tell. However, after he died, I would have thought that she would have come forward. The only reason that makes any sense to me is fear of the real killer. If my suspicions of who that person is are true, then fear of him would be justified. Plus, her sister stayed married to him for something like ten years. Maybe she feared that he would kill her sister if she told. He killed her brother, you know. Anyway, that's the only reasoning that makes sense to me!

Good points, CR. If TH was abusive, it's possible that he was not reported due to fear of retribution. She may have worried that there wouldn't be enough evidence for anything to be done and that PH, allegedly a victim of abuse herself, wouldn't have been cooperative. We have to keep in mind the events described by SB's aunt took place in the 80s and 90s, when domestic and child abuse was viewed and handled very differently than it is today (and today we are still lacking in how these incidents can be reported and treated). Plus we should remember the fact that SB's aunt was a teenager at the time, and we don't know what the family dynamics were like.

For me, of course I would report something abusive like this no matter what, but not everyone feels that way, so I wouldn't be quick to accuse someone of lying only because they didn't report the abuse sooner. Yes, she waited until after SB was killed, but perhaps because she, as an adult, felt guilt over not speaking up sooner. Yes, she waited until after TH and PH separated, but perhaps because that meant she no longer feared that speaking up would put her sister in danger. None of us know the real reasons, so if we're gong to make assumptions about her motivations, we should be open to all reasonable possibilities. Otherwise we are more likely to arbitrarily include or exclude information so that it fits in to our version of the truth instead allowing information to lead us to the truth we are all seeking: who really murdered those boys?

 

[dogmatica]

who really murdered those boys?

The 3 men who were convicted of the crime and then later also plead guilty to the crime.

 

[zencompass]

Exactly Zen. He has demonstrated violent behaviour on several occasions (and there are actual police reports to prove it) and do fall within what could be called narcissistic rage. Somebody like that, regardless of who that person may or may not be, wouldn't need a motive. Instead, the pattern of violence and rage would provide enough reason. If said person occasionally or regularly used drugs like meth or cocaine it would only further exacerbate the situation.

I absolutely agree Graznik.

With T.H.'s behavior demonstrating narcissistic rage it is easy to see him as the perpetrator of this heinous crime.

What I can't see at all is how Jason could immediately start stabbing a young boy according to Jessie's statements. Jason had never shown tendencies
like this and as a young man with younger brothers he cared for - well it just doesn't make sense.

Looking at T.H. as a viable suspect does make sense. T.H. should have been and still should be investigated.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Good points, CR. If TH was abusive, it's possible that he was not reported due to fear of retribution. She may have worried that there wouldn't be enough evidence for anything to be done and that PH, allegedly a victim of abuse herself, wouldn't have been cooperative. We have to keep in mind the events described by SB's aunt took place in the 80s and 90s, when domestic and child abuse was viewed and handled very differently than it is today (and today we are still lacking in how these incidents can be reported and treated). Plus we should remember the fact that SB's aunt was a teenager at the time, and we don't know what the family dynamics were like.

For me, of course I would report something abusive like this no matter what, but not everyone feels that way, so I wouldn't be quick to accuse someone of lying only because they didn't report the abuse sooner. Yes, she waited until after SB was killed, but perhaps because she, as an adult, felt guilt over not speaking up sooner. Yes, she waited until after TH and PH separated, but perhaps because that meant she no longer feared that speaking up would put her sister in danger. None of us know the real reasons, so if we're gong to make assumptions about her motivations, we should be open to all reasonable possibilities. Otherwise we are more likely to arbitrarily include or exclude information so that it fits in to our version of the truth instead allowing information to lead us to the truth we are all seeking: who really murdered those boys?

Excellent post!!! I completely agree with you.

 

[Userid]

Good points, CR. If TH was abusive, it's possible that he was not reported due to fear of retribution. She may have worried that there wouldn't be enough evidence for anything to be done and that PH, allegedly a victim of abuse herself, wouldn't have been cooperative. We have to keep in mind the events described by SB's aunt took place in the 80s and 90s, when domestic and child abuse was viewed and handled very differently than it is today (and today we are still lacking in how these incidents can be reported and treated). Plus we should remember the fact that SB's aunt was a teenager at the time, and we don't know what the family dynamics were like.

For me, of course I would report something abusive like this no matter what, but not everyone feels that way, so I wouldn't be quick to accuse someone of lying only because they didn't report the abuse sooner. Yes, she waited until after SB was killed, but perhaps because she, as an adult, felt guilt over not speaking up sooner. Yes, she waited until after TH and PH separated, but perhaps because that meant she no longer feared that speaking up would put her sister in danger. None of us know the real reasons, so if we're gong to make assumptions about her motivations, we should be open to all reasonable possibilities. Otherwise we are more likely to arbitrarily include or exclude information so that it fits in to our version of the truth instead allowing information to lead us to the truth we are all seeking: who really murdered those boys?

I don't buy this at all.

She could have reported it anonymously (if she was afraid of retribution, which there is zero proof of), to police, to child-protective services. You guys act like this would have been an impossible task or something. All it would have involved was a phone call for crying out loud.

 

[reintarnation]

I don't buy this at all.

She could have reported it anonymously (if she was afraid of retribution, which there is zero proof of), to police, to child-protective services. You guys act like this would have been an impossible task or something. All it would have involved was a phone call for crying out loud.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to educate about why victims or witnesses of abuse don't report. You can Google it if you're interested enough. It is sad to think people out there still think that not reporting abuse right away means the person reporting is a liar, although it would be easier if we didn't live in a world with so many gray areas.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to educate about why victims or witnesses of abuse don't report. You can Google it if you're interested enough. It is sad to think people out there still think that not reporting abuse right away means the person reporting is a liar, although it would be easier if we didn't live in a world with so many gray areas.

The answers "why" have been discussed many times on this, and other boards, even in this thread (at least in part 1 of this thread), mostly to no avail. I for one don't know why it's so hard to understand (yes I do, but explaining that would take us from the Gray areas to the dark cellars), I'm also often bewildered by the outcome of such discussion, sad, so sad. It only takes a minimum of imaginative power, but there is so much denial it's almost religious.

 

[Userid]

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to educate about why victims or witnesses of abuse don't report. You can Google it if you're interested enough. It is sad to think people out there still think that not reporting abuse right away means the person reporting is a liar, although it would be easier if we didn't live in a world with so many gray areas.

This is a gross generalization. I never once called anyone a "liar" and the fact you're choosing to put words in my mouth illustrates how misguided your argument is. It's also pathetic you would stoop that low to even suggest I was insinuating that every case of unreported abuse is the same. I simply have been saying: there is zero evidence that TH ever molested anyone. This is a fact. You supporters have no problem arguing against the soft-ball girls accusations, but you have no qualms with accepting ones taken from in-laws, years after the crime and after TH & PH separated? That's completely hypocritical, no matter which way you slice it.

I just find it ludicrous that one behave that way, particular when a love one was just murdered and that information would have been beyond pertinent. You're trying to compare this very peculiar, particular case and generalize it, because you have absolutely no answer as to why PH's aunt wouldn't come forward earlier than when PH & TH separated years after the crimes had occurred. I'm sorry, but other than the belief that PH's aunt was trying to protect TH at the time (which is absurd), there is absolutely zero reason why she wouldn't have come forward or at the very least submit an anonymous call to the numerous tip lines that were open during that time. Zero.

 

[Userid]

The answers "why" have been discussed many times on this, and other boards, even in this thread (at least in part 1 of this thread), mostly to no avail. I for one don't know why it's so hard to understand (yes I do, but explaining that would take us from the Gray areas to the dark cellars), I'm also often bewildered by the outcome of such discussion, sad, so sad. It only takes a minimum of imaginative power, but there is so much denial it's almost religious.

Everyone understands the point. Hate to bust both of your bubbles, but neither of you are breaking new ground. One can understand an opposing argument while at the same time disagreeing, which I also hate to break it to you.

 

[reintarnation]

This is a gross generalization. I never once called anyone a "liar" and the fact you're choosing to put words in my mouth illustrates how misguided your argument is. It's also pathetic you would stoop that low to even suggest I was insinuating that every case of unreported abuse is the same. I simply have been saying: there is zero evidence that TH ever molested anyone. This is a fact. You supporters have no problem arguing against the soft-ball girls accusations, but you have no qualms with accepting ones taken from in-laws, years after the crime and after TH & PH separated? That's completely hypocritical, no matter which way you slice it.

I just find it ludicrous that one behave that way, particular when a love one was just murdered and that information would have been beyond pertinent. You're trying to compare this very peculiar, particular case and generalize it, because you have absolutely no answer as to why PH's aunt wouldn't come forward earlier than when PH & TH separated years after the crimes had occurred. I'm sorry, but other than the belief that PH's aunt was trying to protect TH at the time (which is absurd), there is absolutely zero reason why she wouldn't have come forward or at the very least submit an anonymous call to the numerous tip lines that were open during that time. Zero.

I believe you misunderstood my original post - she indicated in her deposition that she feared reporting would have caused TH to retaliate against PH and/or SB, plus SB asked her not to (not because she was "trying to protect TH"). In a small town, she may have also feared that she didn't have enough evidence or other family members to support her claims and be brushed aside, as you seem to be doing. Also, I use the broad term of abuse, not specifically molestation.

You mention that she didn't bring the alleged abuse to the attention of LE when SB was murdered - maybe she thought it was irrelevant at the time, especially once they had suspects? If only SB was murdered, her perspective would have been very different. If she thought TH was abusing his wife and/or children, it doesn't automatically follow that he was a murderer of three boys. Could be too that LE never asked about it. Many people inadvertently withhold pertinent information because they aren't interviewed and assume LE are on the right track with their investigation.

Maybe TH was abusive and maybe he wasn't. There is no way for you or I to know that with any certainty. What we know is that some people say he was, and some people say he wasn't. We know that witnesses or victims can have reasons for not reporting that make sense to them, even if it's not something you or I would do. We know that sometimes people false report for notoriety or some other form of personal gain. We know that people defend abusers even in the face of indisputable evidence. All of this has to be weighed when we read the deposition and add it to the accounts of others, both contradictory and corroborating.

Since I am in no way discounting those who claim TH was not abusive, nor saying that this deposition is concrete evidence that TH was abusive, I don't see that I was being hypocritical. I was simply encouraging open-mindedess in the face of several posts completely dismissing the deposition. You, however, are discrediting the contents of this deposition because it wasn't reported sooner and is not officially corroborated by others (that I am aware of) and instead believing the comments of others that were not sworn statements given in an official capacity under threat of perjury penalties. There's hypocrisy, and then there's attacking someone because their comments don't jive with what you believe to be fact.

I am not one of "you supporters," by the way, nor do I think it's conducive to create an us vs. them argument in this scenario. This case is not clear cut in any way, or else there would be no purpose for having WS forums about it. Being so hostile and combative with people who are respectfully searching for answers, wherever that direction leads, is a disservice to these families and dishonors the memories of these departed children.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Everyone understands the point. Hate to bust both of your bubbles, but neither of you are breaking new ground. One can understand an opposing argument while at the same time disagreeing, which I also hate to break it to you.

Well you didn't understand the point for certain. My bubbles (if I ever had any) were bust long ago and if I (we) were breaking new ground then we wouldn't be so sad about exactly the reaction that you (for instance) have continuously brought forward. Understanding an opposing argument while at the same time disagreeing is no problem, as long as it's done in a respectful manner,IMO, that is where you often fail Userid, but I'm sure you will disagree with me on this subject too.

 

[Userid]

Well you didn't understand the point for certain. My bubbles (if I ever had any) were bust long ago and if I (we) were breaking new ground then we wouldn't be so sad about exactly the reaction that you (for instance) have continuously brought forward. Understanding an opposing argument while at the same time disagreeing is no problem, as long as it's done in a respectful manner,IMO, that is where you often fail Userid, but I'm sure you will disagree with me on this subject too.

Um, wow...whatever you need to tell yourself, Cher.

 

[Userid]

You mention that she didn't bring the alleged abuse to the attention of LE when SB was murdered - maybe she thought it was irrelevant at the time, especially once they had suspects? If only SB was murdered, her perspective would have been very different. If she thought TH was abusing his wife and/or children, it doesn't automatically follow that he was a murderer of three boys. Could be too that LE never asked about it. Many people inadvertently withhold pertinent information because they aren't interviewed and assume LE are on the right track with their investigation.

Seriously? I'm sorry, but it's illogical to me that any family member to refrain from bringing that up in a situation such as this. It's beyond pertinent information.

If she made the call anonymously, she wouldn't have to worry about any retribution. What prevented her from calling the numerous billboards and phone numbers that were begging people for tips, not only at the time, but in the decades that followed? It certainly didn't stop others from providing a plethora of tips, not only at the time, but in the years following the murders -- but she waits until she has a camera in her face. and until after PH/TH went through a messy split. Coincidence? Why -- all of a sudden, now -- did she find the bravery....when there's a camera in her face, on top of it? When she just could have done so anonymously (if she really was so scared)? Simply doesn't make sense no matter which way you slice it.

 

[reintarnation]

Seriously? I'm sorry, but it's illogical to me that any family member to refrain from bringing that up in a situation such as this. It's beyond pertinent information.

If she made the call anonymously, she wouldn't have to worry about any retribution. What prevented her from calling the numerous billboards and phone numbers that were begging people for tips, not only at the time, but in the decades that followed? It certainly didn't stop others from providing a plethora of tips, not only at the time, but in the years following the murders -- but she waits until she has a camera in her face. and until after PH/TH went through a messy split. Coincidence? Why -- all of a sudden, now -- did she find the bravery....when there's a camera in her face, on top of it? When she just could have done so anonymously (if she really was so scared)? Simply doesn't make sense no matter which way you slice it.

All good points that damage her credibility. Just not enough for me to totally discredit her for the reasons I mentioned, but still points worth remembering.

 

[zencompass]

The point isn't whether the caller reports as "anonymous" - the point is how long it takes for the woman to be attacked/killed. Usually not long.

Batterers don't care who called it in - they know that "their woman" told on them. It's all her fault anyway - it always is.

The world of battered women is like another dimension. Looking over their shoulder, afraid that their partner will try to pick up their child at daycare/school
for leverage. Afraid of shadows, especially long ones. And of course the batterer - perhaps biding his time - perhaps not. It is a world of fear and
there is no one who can protect her.

 

[zencompass]

People are known to look the other way or stay silent about domestic violence, especially in an area where there is poverty and/or
the working poor. There is no place that the battered woman can go to that the batterer or the small town wouldn't know about.

When domestic violence is status quo (whether physical or verbal) people are hardwired to not report -believing that it would be worse for the
woman if they reported. We all know cases where it was worse - whether fatal or not.