Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[Cher Lockhomes]

LM, on paper that is a valid point. The facts are static, but in reality, we live in a dynamic environment. The boys had been missing for approx. 18 hours. As soon as those bikes had been found the parents and everyone else would have been fearing the worst. The first body (MM) was discovered around 1:30 to 1:45pm. The articles of clothing, shoes etc. before this. Of course it would be nice to talk to Ryan C. and the Ballards, and everyone else concerned, to fill out the blanks that are occupying our minds, but isn't that what the wmpd and the authorities should have, and should be doing ?

 

[Userid]

We've been through this before, but, again, I find the Clark girls' sighting much more credible as to time frame than the others you mentioned. For one thing, the JCB statement was under oath whereas the other statements were merely responses to police questioning. In the statement, JCB didn't say that she saw the boys playing in the back yard at 5:30, but in the 5:30 -6:30 time frame. Also, with the boys on bikes and the relatively small area we're discussing, IMO, there's simply no contradiction. Besides, the more important time, to me, is the 6:30 time.

As to RC being seen by JCB at school, as I've repeatedly explained, he could have gone by the school shortly after the bodies were discovered and seen JCB in the school yard. She didn't say she saw him in school, but rather at school. IMO, there's a difference.

Here's a possible scenario. The bodies are discovered and the parents notified. This would have been around 2 pm or 2:30 pm, IIRC, by the time all three bodies were found. JMB and his wife (MB) are distraught. RC could have been more or less "forgotten" at this time. He could have slipped away and gone by the school, seeking solace or for some other reason, like getting his assignments.

According to JCB's statement, she and RC were friends and walked home together from school every day. Although RC had not attended school that day, he could have gone by the school, either to seek solace from his friend or maybe to pick up assignments. Since RC attended a private school at the time, he would have been more likely to be diligent about assignments. When I was teaching, there were several times that a student came by to get assignments right after a traumatic event - and I taught at public schools!

So, either for one of the reasons I mentioned or for some other reason, RC went by the school and saw JCB. In her statement, JCB even mentions that school was dismissed right after she talked with RC. Unfortunately, she didn't clearly state if this was at the "normal" dismissal time (I'm assuming around 3 pm) or if school was dismissed early because the news of the bodies being found had been made public. Either way, however, RC's "dropping by" the school, IMO, is a distinct possibility. Yes, this is speculation on my part. However, I believe that the scenario I outlined is plausible, at least.

CR, JMB testified at the trials. That would be under oath. He places CB on his skateboard, alone, in the middle of the street, after which, he takes him home, whips him, and has him clean out the carport. Melissa Byers also testified under oath, and she places Chris cleaning the car port both before and during the time that JCB places him in her back yard. If I remember rightly, Mrs. Moore was also called to the stand. Posey would have absolutely no reason to lie to police, nor would Bailey and/or Rico. The fact they weren't technically "under oath" means absolutely nothing, and concurrently, the fact JCB was under oath means nothing.....to illustrate this fact, see the BS "testimony" of one Michael Carson and Vicki Hutchenson. Being "under oath" means squat.

Quite simply, the Ballard sighting goes against the entire known narrative of this day. The boys couldn't have been in Ballard's backyard, rode past the Moore house down Michael's street, entered RHH, then rode back down to the Ballard's, re-entered the backyard, and re-exited the backyard -- it makes zero sense, and again, contradicts every other sighting of the boys -- with CB alone, and MM & SB together.

Basically, it boils down to this: in order to believe this Ballard sighting, you pretty much have to not believe in every other single sighting of the boys during this time period, which would be completely illogical to me because the majority of these sighting are not only from actual well-known friends but actual family members of the victims themselves.

Also, I don't get the point in "speculating" that RC went to the school that day when it is a proven fact that he didn't attend school that day -- just seems counterproductive.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Nonsense. How can you define speculation as counterproductive when practically your whole post is speculative. Not all the sightings contradict the Ballard sightings, if you take a look in general at all the sightings, you will find that many contradict each other, and that the information given is not always on line with what the parents said. Userid, you have a problem with the Ballard sightings, that's OK. Other people see it differently, I find it counterproductive to constantly chew the same bone again and again.

 

[Userid]

Um, because the multiple eye witness sightings of the boys are not speculative. I'm unsure what your definition of "speculation" is that you adhere to, but there is zero speculation in my post above. These sightings have been reported and well-documented...i.e. not speculated upon (by myself). What is speculation, is suggesting Ryan went to school the next day. That is complete speculation; and as I said, counterproductive.

And no, they don't contradict each other. Matter of fact, they corroborate each other. Posey seeing CB alone, while Otto Bailey seeing SB and MM without Chris; Mark seeing CB riding skateboard alone in the middle of the street, etc. This, again, is not speculation, unless you are applying your own definition to the word.

As a matter of fact, the only sighting that is contradictory, is the Ballard sighting -- that's my whole point.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It's the "time" that could be off. Posey, et. al., could have been a bit off in their times. They were never as definite with the time as JCB was. She had an event with which she linked the sighting - waiting to be picked up for church and actually being picked up right after she saw the boys with TH calling to them. As to the distinction between "attending" school and "going by" school, I'm simply trying to give an explanation of how JCB could have seen RC "at school" on May 6, 1993, although he didn't attend classes that day. Again, it's all about credibility for me - and I find the JCB affidavit very credible. If someone else doesn't, that doesn't change my mind - or preclude me from discussing same.

Yes, I know JMB, MB, DM and PH testified at the trials. I don't see any contradictions with their testimonies, given the boys on bikes being able to cover the relatively short distances between locations within about five minutes or so. IMO, these time differences are easily explained by the movement of the boys and the unsure nature of the actual time by most of the "witnesses" you cited. Again, JCB didn't say the boys were in the back yard at 5:30, but in the 5:30- 6:30 time frame. The time she was certain of was the 6:30 time - when she saw the boys and heard/saw TH calling to them. This is what is most critical, IMO. TH lied when he said that he didn't see SB on May 5, 1993. (Of course, he lied about a lot of other things, too. However, the JCB affidavit, coupled with the BCW affidavit, are evidence, IMO, that TH lied about seeing SB that day.)

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

@Userid

You're speculating on which statement / sighting is fact. Either all statements are fact, including the Ballards, or none of them are fact. Your opinion on which statement is credible, is speculation. Even the authorities can only speculate on sightings, follow them up, and try to confirm them with other details. The Ballard sighting is confirmed by two other family members, which still doesn't make it a proven fact, but as a statement it remains a fact. What anyone makes of it, is speculation, the same goes for all sightings. It's as simple as that.

 

[Userid]

I speculate that the multiple sightings given within the same exact time frame are more fact than the Ballard sighting, but my speculation is actually corroborated between the multiple sightings of the boys from various parties! There are degrees of speculation here, and yours is at the extreme.

Completely disagree with the statement that either all the sightings are fact, or none are. The Ballard sighting, to me, is faulty. Not only in time, but in the proven (I stress, proven, by multiple family members: the Moore's, Kim Williams, etc.) movements of the boys themselves that day. Why the hell would they leave the Ballard backyard, ride to RHH, enter (bikes seen without boys on Goodwin), ride back the opposite way and re-enter the Ballard yard, and conveniently exit the yard right when the Ballards were leaving for church? The times, and the movements, are illogical.

I also find it funny how, all of these other sightings are off, but Ballard's is right on. Otto Bailey was going to a softball game that very day -- to me, this is just as good a "bookmark" for knowing exactly what time he saw the boys, as Ballard's bookmark for Church that day.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I disagree. Bailey could have arrived late to the game. Plus, as I've pointed out before, the Clark girls went to church every Wednesday night at the same time.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I disagree. Bailey could have arrived late to the game. Plus, as I've pointed out before, the Clark girls went to church every Wednesday night at the same time.

That might be true, but who's to say that they didn't went to church earlier than usual on that Wednesday night? I don't really agree that 18:30 is a fixed time, especially since they told their story 16 years or so after the event.

 

[Userid]

That might be true, but who's to say that they didn't went to church earlier than usual on that Wednesday night? I don't really agree that 18:30 is a fixed time, especially since they told their story 16 years or so after the event.

Exactly.

And since some are now speculating with what "maybe" happened, maybe this memory took place exactly one week prior to May 5th.

Maybe the police actually did interview JCB and/or her family at the time, as her name and address were written by an officer while doing the door-to-door interviews while the boys were missing. She was on the police's radar right when the investigation broke. Yet she made no mention of this incident at the time.

We can "maybe" certain scenarios all day, but I'd prefer we stick to the known facts and the known/corroborated sightings of the boys.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

So you're some sort of self declared administrative as to which sightings are fact, and which should not be considered ? No thanks, I prefer to act on my own responsibility.

 

[Userid]

So you're some sort of self declared administrative as to which sightings are fact, and which should not be considered ? No thanks, I prefer to act on my own responsibility.

No, I'm simply stating an opinion and disagreeing with you.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

So you're some sort of self declared administrative as to which sightings are fact, and which should not be considered ? No thanks, I prefer to act on my own responsibility.

As do I, CL!

All any of us on this board have is speculation. When investigating a crime, all one who was not involved in the crime can do is to use logical reasoning and arrive at well-thought-out conclusions, based, of course, on the known facts. That's why this board exists!

It is a fact that JCB gave a sworn affidavit concerning her knowledge of May 5, 1993 and May 6,1993. She did give this affidavit some 14 years after the events. However, as anyone who was alive and living in the US on September 11, 2001 (over 14 years ago) knows, some events are irrevocably imprinted in the brain. I'm not talking about the press coverage. I'm talking about remembering where one was, what one was doing, etc. when one first learned of the attacks on the World Trade Center. I feel confident that I could give a detailed and accurate account of my movements, who I saw, etc. concerning that day, and I don't think I'm unique. West Memphis is a small town. These murders were horrendous and traumatic for that town. Therefore, using logical reasoning, I feel that JCB could do likewise. So, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of her statement.

 

[Graznik]

I'm not sure what to make of the JCB-sighting, but I don't see why she'd be any less credible than anyone else. Some point to the fact she gave the affidavit 14 years after the fact, but as CR pointed out, there are certain events that etch in to your mind. As JCB was a neighbor of one of the victims, she'd definitely fall in to the category of people affected by it - it would be etched in to her memory. I can account for my movements on 9/11 from the moment my mum rang me and told what had happened until I went to bed that night, and I was a teenager on a different continent.

The only statements I consider certain are those given by the parents involved that afternoon (so MB, JMB and DM). They would not be mistaken about their own child, and their timelines should be fairly solid considering the circumstances. Any other sighting is debatable, and we should not underestimate how quickly kids on bikes can get around.

 

[Userid]

Again, it's not only the "14 years after" fact, but I've already stated the multitude of reasons on the previous page, so I won't state them again.

But simply because a tragic event occurred in tandem with a supposed "memory," doesn't make the memory any more infallible, I'm sorry to say. Here is an article which explains such, with September 11th, 2001 used as one of the events: http://science.time.com/2013/11/19/...nt-study-shows-false-memories-afflict-us-all/

That said, I would love to see JCB on the stand for a cross-examination. Unfortunately, we more than likely will never get that chance.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The examples in the article re: 9/11 are very different from the situation with JCB, IMO. This was a (supposedly) scientific study in which they were actually trying to create false memories to test their particular hypothesis. It reminds me of how the McMartin Pre-School case was "investigated" and innocent people were wrongfully convicted! Not the same thing at all as a private citizen recalling a personal experience - even years later. I agree that one's memory can be manipulated. That's partially what happened with JLM, Jr. I just don't think JCB's memory was manipulated, and I find her account one of the most credible of those known of this case.

 

[Userid]

The examples in the article re: 9/11 are very different from the situation with JCB, IMO. This was a (supposedly) scientific study in which they were actually trying to create false memories to test their particular hypothesis. It reminds me of how the McMartin Pre-School case was "investigated" and innocent people were wrongfully convicted! Not the same thing at all as a private citizen recalling a personal experience - even years later. I agree that one's memory can be manipulated. That's partially what happened with JLM, Jr. I just don't think JCB's memory was manipulated, and I find her account one of the most credible of those known of this case.

Point being? I'd say 14 years and exposure to a plethora of news reports, television series, documentaries, and gossip would more than be sufficient to create similar false memories as evidenced in the article.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

My point is that she was not having false memories. None of the news reports, etc. were designed to make her "remember" seeing TH and the boys at 6:30 on May 5,1993. In the article you cited, the false news footage of the PA crash was designed to implant a false memory. Nothing like that happened in this case. She merely responded to a plea for additional information through a tip line.

 

[Userid]

My point is that she was not having false memories. None of the news reports, etc. were designed to make her "remember" seeing TH and the boys at 6:30 on May 5,1993. In the article you cited, the false news footage of the PA crash was designed to implant a false memory. Nothing like that happened in this case. She merely responded to a plea for additional information through a tip line.

Um, you can't state definitively that none of the stimuli presented to JCB within that 14 year time span had zero effect on her memory. People have false memories, even on days of large scale tragedies. The methods of the study are intended to facilitate the results -- granted -- but even so, that doesn't disprove the totality of the overall findings in the slightest. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Um, you can't state definitively that none of the stimuli presented to JCB within that 14 year time span had zero effect on her memory. People have false memories, even on days of large scale tragedies. The methods of the study are intended to facilitate the results -- granted -- but even so, that doesn't disprove the totality of the overall findings in the slightest. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Likewise, you can't state definitively that any of the stimuli presented to JCB within that 14 year span had any effect on her memory. I can state definitively that I remember the particulars of all of the traumatic events in my life with total clarity. That's because they were traumatic - and personal to me. This particular event was traumatic and personal to JCB, IMO, because she was close friends with RC and had seen the boys the night before they were found dead. One tends to remember seeing someone alive right before they are found dead - unless one is hiding something. And, if the "study" used manipulation of memory as part of the process, yes, IMO, that could easily "prove" that the overall findings are tainted, at least.