Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[Graznik]

Regarding the JCB-statement, if she's wrong about that one detail, is the general consensus that her whole statement should be thrown ut?

 

[Xara]

Regarding the JCB-statement, if she's wrong about that one detail, is the general consensus that her whole statement should be thrown ut?

Not in my opinion.

 

[Graznik]

Not in my opinion.

No, I'm not so sure either.

 

[Userid]

Regarding the JCB-statement, if she's wrong about that one detail, is the general consensus that her whole statement should be thrown ut?

Good and fair question -- I guess that depends. The fair answer would be, "not necessarily." I could abide by that answer, but only under the following stipulation: if she's wrong about this part of her statement (which she supposedly remembers so well), what else could she be wrong about (in that same statement)?

Also, look at it from a prosecutor's point of view, and imagine her on the stand trying to answer this in front of a jury. In my view, she'd get eaten alive on this point. Whether a jury would throw out her whole statement is an even deeper question to ask, and quite frankly, I believe a jury would....the "general consensus" of an impartial jury, that is; not this message board, of course. :crazy:

There are (at least) two major holes in her statement: saying she saw all the boys in her yard at 5:30 pm, and saying she saw RC at school the next day. Those are 2 pretty big holes for any jury to simply overlook, when examining the totality of her statement.

 

[Graznik]

Good and fair question -- I guess that depends. The fair answer would be, "not necessarily." I could abide by that answer, but only under the following stipulation: if she's wrong about this part of her statement (which she supposedly remembers so well), what else could she be wrong about (in that same statement)?

Also, look at it from a prosecutor's point of view, and imagine her on the stand trying to answer this in front of a jury. In my view, she'd get eaten alive on this point. Whether a jury would throw out her whole statement is an even deeper question to ask, and quite frankly, I believe a jury would....the "general consensus" of an impartial jury, that is; not this message board, of course. :crazy:

There are (at least) two major holes in her statement: saying she saw all the boys in her yard at 5:30 pm, and saying she saw RC at school the next day. Those are 2 pretty big holes for any jury to simply overlook, when examining the totality of her statement.

I agree, a lot of people (and possible jury) could make that assumption. Personally, I don't. She could get some minor details wrong and still be correct about seeing the boys as she claims she did - although I'm not sure that's the case here. Remember how the prosecution tried to convince NH that she'd seen JB instead of DT during the original trials?! They wanted her to be wrong about the fundamental part of her story.

IMO, the time frame of JCB's statement is not a problem. The boys were on bikes (well, two at least) and could've gotten around that neighborhood very quickly throughout the afternoon. Furthermore, even if we take most of the sightings as gospel (and I don't TBH) they might well be off by 5 minutes, and in that case the boys would've had plenty of time to get around.

JCB stated that she saw the boys around her backyard between 5:30 and 6:30 PM (I don't read this as if she saw the boys playing in her backyard for every single minute between exactly 5:30 and 6:30 PM). JMB states he caught Chris riding his skateboard on his stomach at approx. 5:20 PM, then spanked him ("2 or 3 licks") and told him to clean up the carport. Clearly he didn't remain in the carport for long. DM stated she saw the boys at 6:00 PM on 14th St. These are the only two statements I trust. Again, the boys were on bikes, they could've been all over that neighborhood and it's not unreasonable to think that they might've left and returned to the immediate area around Stevie's house throughout the afternoon. The 6:30 PM sighting by JCB as she was leaving for church is a non-issue, IMO.

 

[Userid]

Fair enough, Graznik. I trust some of the other sightings: the OB Jr. sighting and Posey's (because they corroborate JMB's claim of CB being by himself in the same exact time frame, as well as PH's sighting of MM/SB leaving together separate from CB), but I understand why you would only trust JMB's and DM's (family).

That's yet another thing about the JCB sighting: she says that only one was on a bike. She says that only SB was riding a bike. This again is just a huge red flag for me and makes no sense. If the boys were on their bikes and were able to get around the neighborhood easily (like you say), then how'd they all do it using one bike? Where was MM's? He rode it to the Branch's residence (when he went to pick up SB -- the whole reason why they were going out, was to ride bikes together). If they were roaming all over the neighborhood, why wouldn't he have his bicycle at this particular time? Now, I'm sure people will chime in and say "well he stashed it somewhere," but why would he do that and how would TH get his hands on MM's bicycle? More importantly, why would he even need to (if MM just randomly left it somewhere)? Are we to believe MM left his bike at TH's, and the boys walked (with the exception of SB) to the Ballards? This again doesn't make any sense because, why wouldn't SB also leave his bike at TH's?

Again, it would be just another hole for the prosecution to exploit.

 

[Graznik]

Oh, obviously, I trust PH's statement too, and I can see why you'd rate BP's statement as it ties in with that of a parent. But yeah, the only ones I trust 100% are the parents - even though they might be off by 5 minutes here and there too. All the others are debatable if you ask me - they all come with "pros and cons".

They would've had to have been on bikes for best part of the afternoon, but for all we know Michael could've chucked his bike somewhere while they were down on South McCauley (they likely did later on). Again, I don't see this as a major problem but I understand why you would. We don't know what happened that afternoon, that's kind of the whole point, and we sure can't account for every minute of the boys' movements during the afternoon. We all end up falling back on our own common sense and logic, and our own personal experiences. I can recall what it was like being 8 years old biking around the neighborhood, and how fast you got around and how hard it could be to track down your friends. Those memories do play a part in my reasoning here, for better or for worse.

As to TH getting his hands on MMs bike, that's not really relevant in relation to JCBs statement IMO. All her statement provides is the "fact" that TH saw the boys that day, that they could've disobeyed him and, in turn, that could've pissed him off. That's why her statement, if true, would be important.

 

[Userid]

MM's bike is relevant to me in the sense that, TH (if he indeed did commit this crime) would have had to have gotten his hands on MM's bike eventually to have disposed of it (along with SB's). That's relevant in the sense that TH is the endpoint (i.e. the killer). If that isn't the endpoint, then this sighting is somewhat moot, even if it did happen as JCB describes. It would "prove" (for lack of a better word) that TH "lied," but nothing more -- in the grand scheme of things.

 

[indridcold]

I'm sort of with you on this. I've been obsessed with this case more than any other (so much so that I actually visited West Memphis, a good 13 hours away), and for the life of me can't entirely understand why the Bojangles incident has been more or less dropped, this is especially after everyone started focusing on Hobbs more harshly...And I am in no way saying that we shouldn't, he still seems like the best suspect. However, a guy comes into a restaurant, covered in blood, sometime after the boys were last seen, and before the boys' bodies were found. The location was not far from the neighborhood, or Robin Hood hills. This sighting was confirmed, and legitimate blood samples from the bathroom were taken (albeit lost before the murders went to trial). It's still something to follow up on, we can't put our blinders on when it comes to solving this case, after all that's where this whole tragic mess came from in the first place.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The unfortunate thing about "Mr. Bojangles" is that the samples were lost - or were they? I read or saw a brief statement (from GG, IIRC) implying that those samples were actually sent for testing. Now, it could be a faulty memory on his part or a "white" lie in an attempt to cover up the loss of the samples. Or, on a more sinister bent, it could be that the blood samples were tested and implicated "Mr. Bojangles" in some way.

That leads to the question, "Who was he?" We've all heard that TH told JMB in a phone convo that "the police have to protect me." (IIRC, he said something similar to DJ, too.) I've always maintained that the key to the case is in discovering why TH has to be protected. If my sinister speculation re: "Mr. Bojangles" is true, I wonder what the link between "Mr. Bojangles" and TH could be and if he, too, is "protected" by the police.

The questions and twists and turns in this case never cease! I'm hopeful that Judge Stidham's book ("A Harvest of Innocence") comes out soon and sheds some light on at least some of the lingering questions in this case. I still have faith that "all" of the truth will eventually come out and we'll know the truth. I just hope it's soon!

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Here is another statement from TH that makes me just feel soooo uncomfortable!

From the 19th July 2007 Commercial Appeal after the new DNA evidence was revealed.

"I have nothing to hide," Hobbs told The Memphis Commercial Appeal. "I still didn't have nothing to do with them boys dying."

What a strange thing to say!

 

[Userid]

^ Um, what exactly is strange about that comment? The double negative??

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

The depersonalisation of his stepson, the use of the word "still" suggests that he might have something to do with it in the future, and those boys did not just die, they were brutally murdered.

TH repeatedly says he was not a suspect then, and he isn't a suspect now (he repeats it here too), but not being a suspect is not a pledge of innocence

 

[Userid]

You're reading way too much into one sentence. He's simply saying, he has nothing to do with it now, then, or ever.

This reminds me of how nons disect to death the utterly innocent utterance of JM's Dad when he said that "JM could have been with the boys, but he didn't have anything to do with the crime." Nons act like that is some sort of admittance that he knew JM was there and that he was a part of the crime, when in all reality, it was anything but a completely innocuous comment. I'm always hoping supporters would somehow be above this type of over-reaction, but unfortunately they're exactly the same.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

The objective of my post was to discuss the statement by TH, not to discuss my opinion on the statement.

 

[Graznik]

MM's bike is relevant to me in the sense that, TH (if he indeed did commit this crime) would have had to have gotten his hands on MM's bike eventually to have disposed of it (along with SB's). That's relevant in the sense that TH is the endpoint (i.e. the killer). If that isn't the endpoint, then this sighting is somewhat moot, even if it did happen as JCB describes. It would "prove" (for lack of a better word) that TH "lied," but nothing more -- in the grand scheme of things.

Well, he obviously would've at some point. I just don't think it would've had to have been on S. McAuley, as I believe the woods (or the immediate area) was the murder site.
Yes, it would prove that TH lied but it would also add a little something in regards to motive.

 

[Graznik]

Here is another statement from TH that makes me just feel soooo uncomfortable!

From the 19th July 2007 Commercial Appeal after the new DNA evidence was revealed.



What a strange thing to say!

I don't want to read too much in to this, but his wording is a bit odd. "Them boys dying" sounds so... Detached?! He's talking about the brutal murder of his 8 year old stepson for crying out loud! However, I don't know him, and AFAIK this might just be the way he expresses himself - he might just be a very emotionally detached person and that doesn't make someone guilty.
However, claiming that he has got nothing to hide is rather ridiculous. Sure, he doesn't have to do anything, and I think that's an important right to exercise. But if he had nothing to hide he might have been a little more compliant, especially when he himself has instigated a bit of an investigation by trying to sue Natalie Maines (Pasdar).

 

[Justiceseeker35]

I don't want to read too much in to this, but his wording is a bit odd. "Them boys dying" sounds so... Detached?! He's talking about the brutal murder of his 8 year old stepson for crying out loud! However, I don't know him, and AFAIK this might just be the way he expresses himself - he might just be a very emotionally detached person and that doesn't make someone guilty.
However, claiming that he has got nothing to hide is rather ridiculous. Sure, he doesn't have to do anything, and I think that's an important right to exercise. But if he had nothing to hide he might have been a little more compliant, especially when he himself has instigated a bit of an investigation by trying to sue Natalie Maines (Pasdar).

I think for many people here, reading the Pasdar depos, that his choice of words and phrasing leads one to believe he is lying about the details and at times is overly defensive about it. It gives me a gut feeling that he has something to do with the murders. I have no agenda.. I don't want a parent to be involved but something was/is very wrong. Why didn't he voluntarily go make a statement about that day to help with the investigation? The kids were last seen leaving his house yet police say they never spoke to him. He was not interviewed until 2007. Again something feels wrong.

 

[Userid]

^ When did police say they never spoke to him (TH)? PH and TH were interviewed on at least one occasion together immediately after the murders, according to PH herself, if I recall. Granted, they could have investigated him more thoroughly, but I've never seen the police admit that they "never interviewed him at all." I bring it up because I don't like misinformation being spread. Also, TH wasn't the only parent/step-parent who didn't "voluntarily make a statement that day," was he (honest question)?

Nothing about TH's statement strikes me as odd. This is just how some people speak, be it due to lack of education or territorial tendencies. JMB has said some things one could just as easily construe as "fishy" or "detached." He's simply saying, he didn't have anything to do with the boys' death. It seems like people are over-interpreting his (for some) brunt use of the word "dying." Again, this isn't indicative of anything but a lack of vocabulary. Would people even look at this statement twice if he said "passing away" instead? No, they wouldn't. (well, I probably shouldn't kid myself -- they probably would ).

 

[Userid]

Well, he obviously would've at some point. I just don't think it would've had to have been on S. McAuley, as I believe the woods (or the immediate area) was the murder site.
Yes, it would prove that TH lied but it would also add a little something in regards to motive.

This discussion is so old I'm having trouble remembering my exact thought process, but I don't remember ever saying the bike would have had to have been on S. McCauley. My point was, TH would have had to have found where ever MM stashed the bike, in order to dispose of it -- but my greater point was, why would he even need to do so (find it at all), if MM stashed the bike before the abduction/murder occurred at TH's house? He wouldn't need to find it at all, and also, if JCB's sighting of the boys with one bike is true (which isn't, imo), TH wouldn't have even known that MM had a bike at all that day, since he arrived home after MM had picked up CB.

In short, JCB's sighting of the one bike is extremely relevant, considering that both bikes would eventually be found in the bayou. If they (the bikes) were separated at any point that day (which I doubt, but I digress), then reunited later, it would be a pretty substantial facet. However, since I don't believe pretty much anything about the JCB sighting, I don't believe the bikes were separated that day at all; they were with the boys from the moment MM went to pick up CB, to the moment they were abducted, to the moment they were disposed in the bayou. To me, this is the most logical conclusion.