Viable Suspect: Terry Hobbs - #2

[Cappuccino]

So, it proves that the Ballards were never interviewed; not necessarily the whole neighborhood. Interesting fact: JCB's name does turn up in the WMPD's door-to-door interviews -- and it does show because either a) she was interviewed, but at another (friend's) address or b) a person at a different address gave her name to the police. I believe she actually was interviewed at the time, because if memory served, the address where her name appeared was one of a female who the same age and went to the same school as JCB; and also, police would do this with other people (who they talked to, but not at their actual addresses). I wish I could provide the source for this, but it's on an old board I'm not even sure exists anymore and it was discussed years ago. I could be wrong, but either way, JCB was on the WMPD radar at the time of the murders. Whether you want to believe they never talked to the family or not, that is a fact.

So I'm supposed to believe something posted on an old board which doesn't exist any more, with no other source. Sorry, but I don't.

And you seem to be in denial about the fact that if the neighbour's three doors down were missed, then the neighbourhood wasn't very thoroughly canvassed at the time. Which is just one of many signs that this was a shoddy investigation.

 

[Userid]

So I'm supposed to believe something posted on an old board which doesn't exist any more, with no other source. Sorry, but I don't.

And you seem to be in denial about the fact that if the neighbour's three doors down were missed, then the neighbourhood wasn't very thoroughly canvassed at the time. Which is just one of many signs that this was a shoddy investigation.

That's fine, I don't really care if you do or don't. The board is gone but the report was clearly cited and found on Cally's.

You're wrong: I've never disagreed with the notion that the WMPD could have done a better job. What I said was, the fact JCB claims she and/or her family were never interviewed, doesn't prove the whole neighborhood wasn't interviewed. There's a massive difference (which you're trying to conveniently gloss over).

 

[Cappuccino]

That's fine, I don't really care if you do or don't. The board is gone but the report was clearly cited and found on Cally's.

You're wrong: I've never disagreed with the notion that the WMPD could have done a better job. What I said was, the fact JCB claims she and/or her family were never interviewed, doesn't prove the whole neighborhood wasn't interviewed. There's a massive difference (which you're trying to conveniently gloss over).

I never claimed the whole neighbourhood wasn't interviewed and no possible reading of my posts could have interpreted them that way. If there's a record on Cally's of JCB being interviewed at the time then it should be easy for you to link me to it.

 

[Userid]

I never claimed the whole neighbourhood wasn't interviewed and no possible reading of my posts could have interpreted them that way.

Really now? I beg to differ. See this quote from you:

The only significance I would attach to the Ballard fake sighting is that it means the neighbourhood of Steven Branch's home wasn't canvassed very thoroughly at the time.

You clearly say, "neighborhood." Do you know the definition of a neighborhood?

Also, you realize Cally's has like hundreds to thousands of links, right? Without the exact thread/post, I'd have to go through each link to provide it for you, and I'm not going to do that because it's tedious and it wouldn't change your mind anyway. Take my word for it or not, but JCB was on the police's radar; her name and her street were written in the door-to-door interviews on the side of the page. It's a fact, but feel free to disregard it, as it's inconvenient to your belief.

 

[Cappuccino]

Really now? I beg to differ. See this quote from you:



You clearly say, "neighborhood." Do you know the definition of a neighborhood?

Also, you realize Cally's has like hundreds to thousands of links, right? Without the exact thread/post, I'd have to go through each link to provide it for you, and I'm not going to do that because it's tedious and it wouldn't change your mind anyway. Take my word for it or not, but JCB was on the police's radar; her name and her street were written in the door-to-door interviews on the side of the page. It's a fact, but feel free to disregard it, as it's inconvenient to your belief.

Are you for real? You have blatantly misrepresented my posts - to me, of all people - and now you expect me to take your word for it that JCB was interviewed at the time? I don't at all take your word for it, but feel free to prove me wrong by posting a link to what you claim is on the Callahan's site.

Meanwhile, other readers should note that just because I used the word neighbourhood does not mean I claimed the whole neighbourhood was never interviewed - the sentence clearly reads "the neighbourhood of Steven Branch's home wasn't canvassed very thoroughly at the time."

 

[Userid]

Are you for real? You have blatantly misrepresented my posts - to me, of all people - and now you expect me to take your word for it that JCB was interviewed at the time? I don't at all take your word for it, but feel free to prove me wrong by posting a link to what you claim is on the Callahan's site.

Meanwhile, other readers should note that just because I used the word neighbourhood does not mean I claimed the whole neighbourhood was never interviewed - the sentence clearly reads "the neighbourhood of Steven Branch's home wasn't canvassed very thoroughly at the time."

Right -- you said, "neighborhood." What does "neighborhood" mean where you come from? I'm seriously asking.

There is absolutely zero "misrepresentation" of that sentence on my part. Zero. I interpreted it as it was written. Either you don't know what "neighborhood" means or you used the wrong word.

 

[Cappuccino]

Right -- you said, "neighborhood." What does "neighborhood" mean where you come from? I'm seriously asking.

There is absolutely zero "misrepresentation" of that sentence on my part. Zero. I interpreted it as it was written. Either you don't know what "neighborhood" means or you used the wrong word.

The difference between "the neighbourhood around Steven Branch's home wasn't canvassed thoroughly at the time", and "the whole neighbourhood wasn't interviewed" is quite clear to anybody reading regardless of their definition of neighbourhood.

Here's a tip - when you're in a hole, stop digging.

 

[Userid]

The difference between "the neighbourhood around Steven Branch's home wasn't canvassed thoroughly at the time", and "the whole neighbourhood wasn't interviewed" is quite clear to anybody reading regardless of their definition of neighbourhood.

Here's a tip - when you're in a hole, stop digging.

No, it isn't. There is only one definition of "neighborhood." Look it up next time.

The "neighborhood" around SB's house consists of an area with multiple streets and multiple houses, even if you consider the area "small." Nice try though.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I'm sorry but the bolded is completely and utterly false. It's beyond opinion actually, since it's been debunked by RC himself, who had zero interactions with her (as she's falsely claimed). Nothing about her sighting is credible. There were 17 other sightings given at the time of the boys on the complete other end of the neighborhood and RC himself debunks any interactions with her in addition to being at school the next day (which some people knew all along); what else do you need? I suppose nothing will ever change your mind, even the word of RC himself.

Sorry, I can't follow your logic. How can Bob Ruff or Ryan C. debunk the sighting by the three Ballard ladies ? Are both, or one of them psychics ?

The only thing that will change my mind about the Ballard sightings is when the Ballards recant or there is "PROOF" that the sightings could not have taken place, and "PROOF" is not an opinion or a speculation whoever it comes from.

The only thing that will change my mind in believing that Hobbs was the perpetrator, is when more evidence is found against someone else.

I still find it hard to believe that people are not willing to believe the J.C. Ballard statement yet they are willing to believe something as far fetched as "Jessies Confessions", but then again, exactly that is probably the reason why the WM3 were convicted.

 

[Userid]

Sorry, I can't follow your logic. How can Bob Ruff or Ryan C. debunk the sighting by the three Ballard ladies ? Are both, or one of them psychics ?

The only thing that will change my mind about the Ballard sightings is when the Ballards recant or there is "PROOF" that the sightings could not have taken place, and "PROOF" is not an opinion or a speculation whoever it comes from.

The only thing that will change my mind in believing that Hobbs was the perpetrator, is when more evidence is found against someone else.

I still find it hard to believe that people are not willing to believe the J.C. Ballard statement yet they are willing to believe something as far fetched as "Jessies Confessions", but then again, exactly that is probably the reason why the WM3 were convicted.

Are you serious? RC can debunk it because he is specifically mentioned in the statement by JCB! He never walked home from school with her; he never saw her at school the next day (because he didn't go); he never interacted with her. All of that information is completely false, but we're supposed to believe that she did see the boys that day? Give me a break. She would get torn apart on the stand and that statement would have been made completely invalid with RC's debunking. I know delusions are nice and warm, but get real.

There already is proof of that -- 17 sightings of the boys at the same time, on the complete opposite end of the neighborhood! That didn't come out 15 years after the fact.

Nothing will ever change your mind. There will never be any "proof" that's good enough for you.

And no one said anything about JM's confessions. You're trying to change the subject, understandably.

 

[Cappuccino]

Sorry, I can't follow your logic. How can Bob Ruff or Ryan C. debunk the sighting by the three Ballard ladies ? Are both, or one of them psychics ?

The only thing that will change my mind about the Ballard sightings is when the Ballards recant or there is "PROOF" that the sightings could not have taken place, and "PROOF" is not an opinion or a speculation whoever it comes from.

The only thing that will change my mind in believing that Hobbs was the perpetrator, is when more evidence is found against someone else.

I still find it hard to believe that people are not willing to believe the J.C. Ballard statement yet they are willing to believe something as far fetched as "Jessies Confessions", but then again, exactly that is probably the reason why the WM3 were convicted.

There will always be a question mark over Hobbs' head in connection with this crime, and the WMPD are very much to blame for that. If they'd eliminated him as a suspect in the initial investigation he wouldn't be facing this lingering suspicion now, because even the defense's own expert described the hair at the crime scene as weak evidence.

As it is, they didn't interview Hobbs at the time, they didn't interview David Jacoby who was his main alibi witness, they didn't canvass the neighbourhood round the Hobbs home very thoroughly, they seem to have just forgotten Terry Hobbs existed. When the DNA results came back, I remember Mike Allen coming out with a very dismissive, contemptuous statement which included the extraordinary admission that "Terry Hobbs wasn't a suspect in 1993 and he's not a suspect now." Why the heck wasn't he a suspect in 1993? As one of the victims step father's he would have been a suspect in any thorough police investigation.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

"Terry Hobbs wasn't a suspect in 1993 and he's not a suspect now." Why the heck wasn't he a suspect in 1993? As one of the victims step father's he would have been a suspect in any thorough police investigation.

Elementary. The Hobbs house was never searched, the Byers and Moores at much later dates. It's always sad and ugly for the parents to be scrutinized in such a tragic situation, but when children are victims of a homicide the parents have to be scrutinized as soon as possible. It did not happen in this case, hence a lot of doors were left open.

Plus the fact that Pam H. brought the subject of her husband being a suspect in at a very early time in the investigation, only to hear that Gitchell "didn't want his investigation ruined". If a parent or relative suspects someone in their own family then "big red flags". No one knew the relationship between Stevie and his stepfather better than Pam H., and if she has a cause to think in this way, that's very worrying.

The aforementioned things, Hobbs attack on Mildred F. which bears the same air of humiliation as some of the aspects in this homicide, the shooting of his brother in law, which in certain aspects bears the same behaviour patterns as his confrontation with Jessie the mexican, his general demeanour and many other small things including his background, convince me even more than the DNA or the bite-mark that Hobbs may have been capable.

 

[Cappuccino]

Elementary. The Hobbs house was never searched, the Byers and Moores at much later dates. It's always sad and ugly for the parents to be scrutinized in such a tragic situation, but when children are victims of a homicide the parents have to be scrutinized as soon as possible. It did not happen in this case, hence a lot of doors were left open.

Plus the fact that Pam H. brought the subject of her husband being a suspect in at a very early time in the investigation, only to hear that Gitchell "didn't want his investigation ruined". If a parent or relative suspects someone in their own family then "big red flags". No one knew the relationship between Stevie and his stepfather better than Pam H., and if she has a cause to think in this way, that's very worrying.

The aforementioned things, Hobbs attack on Mildred F. which bears the same air of humiliation as some of the aspects in this homicide, the shooting of his brother in law, which in certain aspects bears the same behaviour patterns as his confrontation with Jessie the mexican, his general demeanour and many other small things including his background, convince me even more than the DNA or the bite-mark that Hobbs may have been capable.

The weird way the children are bound is consistent with the way animals are trussed up after slaughter and Hobbs worked in a slaughterhouse. Once you actually look at Hobbs there's a whole load of suspicious things there, none of which amount to a case against him, but they should have been looked at in 1993. The fact that they didn't even look, as Mike Allen openly admits, casts doubt on the whole investigation.

Its very hard on Hobbs if he is innocent, but I don't think he'll ever shake off the suspicion now.

 

[Userid]

Here comes the inevitable "TH Did It" schtick. If we can't witch-hunt 3 teens, we might as well witch-hunt a step-father.

Guess I'll leave you two to it.

 

[Cappuccino]

Here comes the inevitable "TH Did It" schtick. If we can't witch-hunt 3 teens, we might as well witch-hunt a step-father.

Guess I'll leave you two to it.

We're posting in a thread called "Viable Suspect - Terry Hobbs", so its entirely appropriate to be discussing Terry Hobbs as a suspect.

 

[Userid]

We're posting in a thread called "Viable Suspect - Terry Hobbs", so its entirely appropriate to be discussing Terry Hobbs as a suspect.

So just because it's a thread on a message board, the hypocrisy is appropriate? It's the principle. The same people who cast their "outrage" for the "with-hunt" against the WM3 are the same ones who are witch-hunting TH right now. Ironic.

If you want to witch hunt TH, that's fine; but don't condemn those on the other side doing the exact same thing in the same breath. That's hypocrisy.

Also, instead of the same tired documentary points, how about adding something new? Answer: there isn't anything new, except that RC debunked the one statement supporters loved to use to point the finger at TH. Let's just conveniently sweep that under the rug, though; and rehash the same old talking points that prove our illusions.

 

[Userid]

The weird way the children are bound is consistent with the way animals are trussed up after slaughter and Hobbs worked in a slaughterhouse. Once you actually look at Hobbs there's a whole load of suspicious things there, none of which amount to a case against him, but they should have been looked at in 1993. The fact that they didn't even look, as Mike Allen openly admits, casts doubt on the whole investigation.

Its very hard on Hobbs if he is innocent, but I don't think he'll ever shake off the suspicion now.

Actually, the way the children were bound was more consistent with the way POW's were tied in the Vietnam war; hence, why the WMPD investigated veterans initially.

And no, TH never served in Vietnam (he wasn't old enough).

Either way, I think the method they were tied is a bit of a red herring. The main reason they were tied that way, is because the shoelaces were the only fasteners at the killer's disposal. Shoe laces aren't thick and/or long enough to have traditionally "hogtied" each victim, in that they couldn't have held the width of all 4 limbs together without coming undone (particularly with the knots the killer used; the only ones he knew how to use); so the killer simply tied wrist to ankle so it wouldn't become undone. It was done more out of necessity than a particular method. In addition, time was of the essence obviously; this was the most expedient way to tie the victims.

 

[Cappuccino]

So just because it's a thread on a message board, the hypocrisy is appropriate? It's the principle. The same people who cast their "outrage" for the "with-hunt" against the WM3 are the same ones who are witch-hunting TH right now. Ironic.

If you want to witch hunt TH, that's fine; but don't condemn those on the other side doing the exact same thing in the same breath. That's hypocrisy.

Also, instead of the same tired documentary points, how about adding something new? Answer: there isn't anything new, except that RC debunked the one statement supporters loved to use to point the finger at TH. Let's just conveniently sweep that under the rug, though; and rehash the same old talking points that prove our illusions.

Whether you like it or not its out there that Terry Hobbs is suspected of this crime. If you think its inappropriate to have a thread discussing the subject here, take it up with the mods, but as long as there is a thread here you have no right tocriticise other posters for simply discussing the topic of the thread.

And frankly, you've taken your time complaining about it anyway seeing as this is page 12 of thread #2 on this subject.

In what way have I attempted to sweep RC's statement under the rug? As I recall my response to it was to accept Bob Ruff's assesment of JCB's statement as inaccurate but not necessarily malicious. If you have anything else you want to discuss about that, nobody's stopping you, are they?

 

[Cappuccino]

Actually, the way the children were bound was more consistent with the way POW's were tied in the Vietnam war; hence, why the WMPD investigated veterans initially.

And no, TH never served in Vietnam (he wasn't old enough).

Either way, I think the method they were tied is a bit of a red herring. The main reason they were tied that way, is because the shoelaces were the only fasteners at the killer's disposal. Shoe laces aren't thick and/or long enough to have traditionally "hogtied" each victim, in that they couldn't have held the width of all 4 limbs together without coming undone (particularly with the knots the killer used; the only ones he knew how to use); so the killer simply tied wrist to ankle so it wouldn't become undone. It was done more out of necessity than a particular method. In addition, time was of the essence obviously; this was the most expedient way to tie the victims.

Maybe. I've also seen animals tied that way, but that wasn't really the salient point of the post you're quoting anyway. The point was that if you look at TH through suspicious eyes you can find plenty of things to fuel that suspicion but not enough to make a case against him. And that, as far as I can see, is the state TH, the WM3, JMB and anybody else who crops up as suspicious in this story will have to live with because I don't think this case will ever be solved to everybody's satisfaction.

In short, I think this case is as over as its ever going to be.

 

[Userid]

Whether you like it or not its out there that Terry Hobbs is suspected of this crime. If you think its inappropriate to have a thread discussing the subject here, take it up with the mods, but as long as there is a thread here you have no right tocriticise other posters for simply discussing the topic of the thread.

And frankly, you've taken your time complaining about it anyway seeing as this is page 12 of thread #2 on this subject.

In what way have I attempted to sweep RC's statement under the rug? As I recall my response to it was to accept Bob Ruff's assesment of JCB's statement as inaccurate but not necessarily malicious. If you have anything else you want to discuss about that, nobody's stopping you, are they?

You're wrong: I have the right to comment just as much you, as long as I abide by the rules of the board. It's not about "whether I like it or not," it's about my simple observation of hypocrisy of those who criticize the WM3 witch-hunt, while conducting one of their own on TH. Nothing more.

When have I ever accused someone of "stopping me" from discussing something? No one's stopping me, nor have I accused anyone of such. I'm not trying to "stop" anyone either; simply making an observation and illustrating the irony. The "sweep it under the rug" part was for the other poster, not you.