Viable Suspect: Terry Hobbs - #2

[HarmonyE.]

My favourite part of the dimension interview, beside TH revealing his unharmonious relationship to little CB, is this tasty bit:



It seems even PH was hearing this story for the first time.

It may have been the first time Hobbs told that story. He's the sort of liar who makes things up on the spot.

 

[zencompass]

I have to say that your attention to detail in this case is meticulous, Cher.

It truly is.

 

[zencompass]

It may have been the first time Hobbs told that story. He's the sort of liar who makes things up on the spot.

Hi HarmonyE ,

You can say that again!

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Thanks CoolJ and Zen, your support is greatly appreciated :cheers: Keep your passion candles burning!!

It may have been the first time Hobbs told that story. He's the sort of liar who makes things up on the spot.

Yes, I've heard other people say this about Mr Hobbs. I wonder if he was excelled by the money. It was certainly new for PH.

 

[MSC]

I joined WebSleuths last week, and I was amazed at how polite and friendly everyone was here, compared to every other forum on the Internet. It quite literally amazed me.

Then I found this thread. THIS is the Internet I'm accustomed to.

 

[U2forever]

I joined WebSleuths last week, and I was amazed at how polite and friendly everyone was here, compared to every other forum on the Internet. It quite literally amazed me.

Then I found this thread. THIS is the Internet I'm accustomed to.

:wave: Ello MSC, :welcome: to Websleuths!! :wave:

:cheer: WS is a great place and we are glad you are here. :cheer:

 

[Userid]

Userid, you remind me of wine dealers in the '80s and '90's in France. They used to put up diversion signs to force people off the main road into a lay-by where their wine could be tested and purchased. This could happen every 5 miles and was very annoying for people who had a destination and a schedule A local advised me to get out of the car, push the diversion sign aside and just carry on with my journey.

Your expertise in semantics is quite exceptional but in general it's not very constructive. In fact I can't remember any constructive posts on your behalf in the two or more years I've been on this, and an adjacent board. You generally just feed on other peoples creativity and efforts to be constructive, or you work on dismantling the credibility of people who have been teaching, supervising the mentally handicapped, have knowledge in psychology or criminology, or simply have other virtues from which we all can maybe learn from. Where is the viable suspect Otto B. thread ?

There are quite a few posters on this board and the adjacent board who have different opinions to my own, some who believe the WM3 are guilty, others who believe in the four perp theory, and others who lean towards Byers. Although I think it's preposterous to believe the WM3 are guilty and that a lot of the beliefs concerning their guilt are due to a lack of emotional scope (Jessies confessions a smoking gun LOL), that's just my opinion. I respect, and sometimes admire their passion on what they believe to be right.

I have no respect for 2nd generation trolls, disinfo agents, or posters who constantly pull other people into their lay-by, just to get their rocks off and fulfil their need for endless bickering, all of this is going to put this case to sleep, and it appears you follow that mission, if in a very subtle, methodical way.

As for concern for the disinformation of newbies, no reason for concern, your immediate attacks frighten most of them away, at least the ones who are sensitive.

I have no problem saying I was wrong, when I feel I'm wrong. Yes I am lashing out. I don't enjoy it, it's probably an oddment of my bad upbringing. I'm protecting my passion for this case until I've thrown all my Hobbs cards on the table, and I feel I've got to do this to stop you blowing my candle out.

To get this back on topic, asking the parents if they can think of anyone who would have reason to murder their children, is not an investigative question in the direction of TH, it's a general question. My general rhetorical question was, is there a sign of a personal questioning of TH in the dimensions interview, and I can't see one. Let's face it, if TH had been questioned in '93, why the police interview in 2007 ? You paradoxically mention the time of the fingerprinting.

Hairs ? Big question mark. Mitchell says no, other sources say "not omitted for serology". Blood, Mitchell says no. NCIC, Mitchell says no. Hobbs will lie about anything if you give him the opportunity., PH either keeps her mouth shut when Hobbs is around, or says something in agreement, for reasons that Zencompass recently explained. Right, I'm out of the bickering lay-by.

If I remind you of a wine dealer, you remind me of a politician who resorts to personal attacks and diverts away from the argument. Just saying.

I didn’t read this whole post because I saw where it was going from the get-go.

Also, it’s not really “an argument on semantics” when I use your exact wording – that’s the point of why people quote people. I’m sorry if I offended you by correcting your notion that TH “was never interviewed , questioned, or investigated.” I’m also sorry if I offended you by correcting the false assumption that “nowhere in the Dimension Interview does it prove he was” (I provided the section on the previous page).
Whenever you want to get back to the argument and not personal attacks and childish name-calling, you know where to find me. If not , no worries.

 

[LordYAM]

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.

Damian was a troubled teenager but Jerry Driver openly exagerated many of Damian's problems (in some of the allegedly violent incidents he actually came quietly) and he was on a drug that causes hallucinations in teenagers. Hobbs violently beat his first family and attempted to rape his neighbor when she reported him to the cops (and in fact got as far as groping her in the shower). The "dog" was an unproven rumor. Damian was a troubled brat but Hobbs was a vicious monster.

Nons toss away real incidents of violence in Hobb's past while blowing up unproven rumors or ignoring that Jerry Driver was a craven liar.

You seem to be rather eager to trust the cops

 

[zencompass]

I still find it incredulous that Steve Jones not only was in the exact place to spot the shoe but the first words out of his mouth were to incriminate Echols.



Sent from my SM-G530W using Tapatalk

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Damian was a troubled teenager but Jerry Driver openly exagerated many of Damian's problems (in some of the allegedly violent incidents he actually came quietly) and he was on a drug that causes hallucinations in teenagers. Hobbs violently beat his first family and attempted to rape his neighbor when she reported him to the cops (and in fact got as far as groping her in the shower). The "dog" was an unproven rumor. Damian was a troubled brat but Hobbs was a vicious monster.

Nons toss away real incidents of violence in Hobb's past while blowing up unproven rumors or ignoring that Jerry Driver was a craven liar.

You seem to be rather eager to trust the cops

I'm so with you here! I'm still hanging around but I've reached a impasse with this case as no new information has been uncovered.. I'm really saddened that they won't open back up this investigation.
I still feel like TH is the most viable suspect I believe he did have some role to play here.

 

[zencompass]

Hi Justice Seeker!

I still consider Hobbs a top viable suspect.

It is sad that the investigation wasn't reopened.

Sent from my SM-G530W using Tapatalk

 

[zencompass]

I still think of those three little guys. Rest in Peace guys.

Sent from my SM-G530W using Tapatalk

 

[dogmatica]

Damian was a troubled teenager but Jerry Driver openly exagerated many of Damian's problems (in some of the allegedly violent incidents he actually came quietly) and he was on a drug that causes hallucinations in teenagers. Hobbs violently beat his first family and attempted to rape his neighbor when she reported him to the cops (and in fact got as far as groping her in the shower). The "dog" was an unproven rumor. Damian was a troubled brat but Hobbs was a vicious monster.

Nons toss away real incidents of violence in Hobb's past while blowing up unproven rumors or ignoring that Jerry Driver was a craven liar.

You seem to be rather eager to trust the cops

You're only referencing Jerry Driver and completely sweeping the 500 and all the Psychiatrists' analysis under the rug. I didn't even mention Driver. I'm not "eager" to trust anyone. I am, however, compelled to follow the evidence. More than one doctor labelled Echols a violent psychopath. You can choose to ignore this, but it doesn't make it go away.

 

[LordYAM]

Echols was on drugs that would influence hallucinations.

My point was that a large part of 500 was Jerry Driver exaggerating key details (in some of the supposedly violent incidents cited Damian went quietly). You are NOT compelled to follow evidence. You ignored that it would be literally impossible for the crime to have occurred the way it did if they were drunk; you ignored that Jessie has people placing him in the park at 6:30. You ignore that the prosecutors met with Jessie after he was convicted and may well have manipulated him into confessing by offering a chance to see Daddy and Suzie again. You ignore that Frank Peretti was an incompetent *advertiser censored*.

Damian had issues; however that alone doesn't make him a killer. Hobbs the child beater/would be rapist is still more plausible

 

[Userid]

"You are not compelled to follow evidence." He could probably say the same about you. Like there were no tire tracks found at the dump site, which indicates that it wasn't just a dump site.

There was never any prosecutor misconduct ever reported in this case; and JM met with prosecutors at his request, against his own lawyers wishes. Not only were the prosecutors ever reported for misconduct in this case, but any case they were ever involved in. Ever.

DE's report doesn't prove he's a killer, but it does paint the picture of a teen that wasn't "just another teenager." He was heavily medicated and he was into some weird zit, worse than your typical goth kid. He'd go around sucking other people's blood for crying out loud; he admitted this himself. Does it make him a killer? No, but nonetheless, he wasn't just your typical goth kid. The truth is in the middle.

 

[bravos4evr]

If you so trust the psychiatrist's opinion on Echols, do you also trust John Douglas's assessment of the crime scene ? I mean his extensive knowledge and experience in dealing with crime scene analysis overshadows the number of psychiatrists who have actually even met one person who fits the "psychopathic" designation. He looked at the crime scene and said that unequivocally that it was not and could not have been done by 3 unexperienced teenagers. That it had al the markings of a rage killing done by a parent or close relation who had the power to control the children .

Or does psychology only work when it backs up your "side?"

 

[dogmatica]

If you so trust the psychiatrist's opinion on Echols, do you also trust John Douglas's assessment of the crime scene ? I mean his extensive knowledge and experience in dealing with crime scene analysis overshadows the number of psychiatrists who have actually even met one person who fits the "psychopathic" designation. He looked at the crime scene and said that unequivocally that it was not and could not have been done by 3 unexperienced teenagers. That it had al the markings of a rage killing done by a parent or close relation who had the power to control the children .

Or does psychology only work when it backs up your "side?"

Did John Douglas, a TV celebrity, spend countless hours personally with Echols, observing, analysing, testing and studying him? Or did he simply observe some photographs and express his opinion about a crime scene he was nowhere near at the time of the murders?

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?

 

[dogmatica]

If you so trust the psychiatrist's opinion on Echols, do you also trust John Douglas's assessment of the crime scene ? I mean his extensive knowledge and experience in dealing with crime scene analysis overshadows the number of psychiatrists who have actually even met one person who fits the "psychopathic" designation. He looked at the crime scene and said that unequivocally that it was not and could not have been done by 3 unexperienced teenagers. That it had al the markings of a rage killing done by a parent or close relation who had the power to control the children .


Or does psychology only work when it backs up your "side?"

Douglas didn't do his homework at all, did he? So no, his "conclusion" means nothing. He couldn't even be arsed to look into Echols' actual history.


Douglas's "Behavioral Backgrounds of the WM3":
"Damien and Jason had no indicative violence in their pasts; and while Jessie was known for a hot temper, he channeled his aggression into pursuits such as wrestling. He was also known to be very gentle with children and often babysat in the neighborhood. Though the three were raised in a culture in which corporate punishment was common, none were abused... In sum, I found...nothing in the behavioral backgrounds of the Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley to suggest that any were guilty of murder."


Contrary to Douglas' findings, Damien Echols had documented violence and alarming behavior in his recent past, to the point where his parents at one point refused to have him in their household, for fear of what he might do. Jessie Misskelley was known for fighting, including a couple of alleged violent acts against younger children reported in the months leading up to the crimes on May 5, 1993. As far as having been abused: Jason Baldwin was, by his own account, physically abused by his stepfather in his later childhood and as recently as a few weeks before the crimes; Damien has detailed an assortment of physical mistreatment by his own despised stepfather, who was also accused of sexually abusing his sister; and we may wonder, too, about possible rough physical handling in Misskelley household.
I. DAMIEN ECHOLS
June 1992 ... ... ... hospital reports
- "[A]dmits to having been suspended 7x this past semester for inciting fights at school, starting small fires, cussing."
- "States in one fight he almost gouged out the victim’s eyes.”
- "Damien admits to a history of violence. He said prior to admission he did attempt to enucleate a peer’s eye at school. He was suspended subsequently from school."
Sept 1992 ... ... ... hospital / juvie hall reports
- "[F]amily members...state that he made it quite clear that he had thoughts of harming other people, i.e. was going to cut the throat of his mother and has said so in the past and also apparently made some verbal threats to his father here at St. Vincent Hospital even."
- "Because of the circumstances that precipitated the hospitalization and Damien’s threats, particularly towards his father and of course his mother, both parents do not feel that they wish to have him return to their home. They are frightened of him and what he can do, not only to them but to other children that reside in the home (2 others)."
- "He also told staff he had threatened to kill his father and eat him."
- "One of the boys [at the detention center] had scraped his arm a little, and it was bleeding some. Without warning, Damien grabbed the arm that was bleeding, and began to suck the blood from it. The boys all stated he had been saying he had not taken his medication the night before, and he was about to 'go off on them'. Damien was asked why he did this, and he stated 'I don’t know.'"
Oct 1992 ... ... ... eye-witness account of peer (arguable)
- "I was at Lakeshore Trailer Park with Damien Echols when he killed a Black Great Dane. The dog was already sick and he hit the dog in the back of the head. He pulled the intestines out of the dog and started stomping the dog until blood came out of his mouth..."
January 1993 ... ... ... counselor's report
- "He does not get along with step-father. Reveals a history of Abuse as he talked of how he was treated as a child. Denies that this has influenced him stating “I just put it all inside.” Describes this as more than just anger — like rage. Sometimes he does “blow up”. Relates that when this happens the only solution is to “hurt someone”.
1991-1993 ... ... ... peer accounts
- In addition to reportedly threatening his parents, Damien allegedly issued Death Threats to ex-girlfriends Deanna Holcomb and Laura Maxwell and their families, and to romantic rival Shane Divilbiss and his family, as well as allegedly yelling death threats outside the window of teen Jennifer Ball. (See their respective statements to police.)
II. JESSIE MISSKELLEY
1986/1987 ... ... ... reports from the book, Blood of the Innocents
- "Once stabbed a fourth-grade classmate in the mouth with a pencil”
- Allegedly hit a girl in the head with a rock or brick, during an altercation with her boyfriend. The girl “fell down and couldn’t get up,” according to the complaint by the girl’s mother.
- "He gets so mad, he’s capable of hurting someone…I don’t think he can control it...He needs some help." - Shelbia Misskelley, Jessie's stepmother, as quoted in a social worker report
1992 ... ... ... police reports
- "He said that Jessie put a knife to his throat and threatened to kill him. He hit him at least once." - John Perschke, police report
Early 1993 ... ... ... peer report
- Allegedly struck a 6-yr-old girl in the head with a rock and laughed, per the recollection of his friend Dennis Carter
March 1993 ... ... ... police report
- Charged with punching 13-yr-old Tiffany Allen in the face
May/June 1993 ... ... ... employer report
- “He whipped a grown man right out there the other day... If it hadn’t been for Big Jessie stepping in to stop it, he would have hurt that man bad.” - Garage boss Jim McNease
Since 2011 ... ... ... peer report
- Was accused of physically abusing his girlfriend Susie Brewer and her kids, by the girlfriend's sister, Audrey G’Fell
III. JASON BALDWIN
Remember, Douglas concluded that "none [of the WM3] were abused."
And yet Damien "reveals a history of abuse" to a counselor in January 1993, and in his memoirs frequently refers to frustration with his supposedly hateful stepfather Jack Echols, who reportedly sexually abused his sister, per her own written account as well as Damien's. And Jessie, I think it might be fair to speculate, may have been sternly handled by his reportedly hard-drinking, roughneck father. But what of Jason?
In DARK SPELL Jason talks openly about the physical abuse doled out to his mother, and "later on," to himself and his younger brothers, by stepfather Terry Grinnell, Sr. It all culminated in April, 1993 -- mere weeks before the crimes -- when 16-yr-old Jason retaliated against his and his mother's abuser with a baseball bat and chased Grinnell from the home: "I didn't want to hit him with the bat, but this had been going on ever since I was eight years old and had to go running down the street, getting the neighbors to call the cops on him. It was crazy."
Any abuse of children is of course sad, and sadly too common. But by asserting "none were abused," Douglas is completely contradicting Jason's history.
As for Damien, his own memoir sheds light on the "history of abuse" alluded to in his counselor's notes. LIFE AFTER DEATH details an assortment of physical mistreatment from his stepfather, Jack Echols: "Jack only ever committed two acts of undisguised violence against me... he shoved me across the kitchen and into the refrigerator door... [and] he grabbed me and slammed me down on the bed with such force that I bounced off and landed on the floor...and began hitting me with rage.... He did so many other things [though] -- pinched me until I turned purple with bruises, bent my fingers backwards, jerked on my arms, twisted my ankles -- but all of these activities were only 'playing' with me... Over time I became crafty and learned to avoid him altogether." Additionally, one cannot discount the potential effects of dealing with the knowledge of his sister's reported sexual abuse at his stepfather's hands.
To return to Jason, there is not much information about Jason being violent, outside the report of a fight (after which it was noted that Damien licked the blood that had dripped from Jason's bloodied nose). Additionally, one of Jason's school essays recounted an incident where he put a younger brother in a choke hold:
"I am usually a calm person, and can take mostly of anything. But sometimes I get angry, when I do get angry it is usually not a pretty site... I grabbed [my younger brother Matt] into a choke hold and held him there till his face turned a bright red and let him go. I said mess with me again and it’ll be worse."
While it's documented that Jason collected/traded knives and bladed weapons, there is very little report of any violence from him until the alleged group attack on Chris, Michael and Stevie, on May 5, 1993.
IV. CONCLUSION
Regarding the behavioral backgrounds of the WM3, John Douglas is pretty obviously off-base. To me, this is one more indication that his investigation of the West Memphis case was geared very much to his own generated perp profile, while being quite inattentive to the convicted.

 

[bravos4evr]

moving the goalposts logical fallacy

he isn't a "celebrity" he's one of the founders of the Behavioral Science wing of the FBI and consulted on thousands of cases. He studied the crime scene files, and used his experience to come to the most logical conclusion based on said experiences. You little weasels keep throwing around that Echols was a jerk of a kid and his psyche profile around as if that's evidence for murder. It isn't.

I am particularly amused by the hand waving and hilariously inept "detective work" you've done. Is this place just for people who watch too much true crime TV to come and show off how they have no idea about crime investigation or something?



crime scene evidence does not match 3 teenage strangers, it DOES match an adult family member who was enraged and killed one which forced him to kill the others to hide the evidence. This is my determination, it matches Douglas's determination and pardon me if I go with what I know and an expert in the field of crime scene analysis over some biased yahoo on the internet.

 

[Userid]

moving the goalposts logical fallacy

he isn't a "celebrity" he's one of the founders of the Behavioral Science wing of the FBI and consulted on thousands of cases. He studied the crime scene files, and used his experience to come to the most logical conclusion based on said experiences. You little weasels keep throwing around that Echols was a jerk of a kid and his psyche profile around as if that's evidence for murder. It isn't.

I am particularly amused by the hand waving and hilariously inept "detective work" you've done. Is this place just for people who watch too much true crime TV to come and show off how they have no idea about crime investigation or something?



crime scene evidence does not match 3 teenage strangers, it DOES match an adult family member who was enraged and killed one which forced him to kill the others to hide the evidence. This is my determination, it matches Douglas's determination and pardon me if I go with what I know and an expert in the field of crime scene analysis over some biased yahoo on the internet.

Werner Spitz has just as much of a resume' as a forensic pathologist. Guess what his opinion was? That the injuries to the boys were caused by dogs whacking them against trees. Yes, seriously.

Point being: experts aren't always right, and can be cherry picked.