TH and potential evidence

I think all those close to the young boys needs to be investigated, one has not been thoroughly investigated. Even without a full investigation into him, it could be argued that some evidence potentially points in his direction, further justifying a thorough justification. Ignoring for the moment it's credibility (which we can address later or in a separate thread), I am curious what evidence is out there that would justify further investigation. Please take note, I'm not saying TH is guilty of anything, but what would justify further investigation. As with any investigation, all of the information is gathered and then it is analyzed to determine if it's credible, consistent with known facts or ultimately admissible in court. Right now, I am just curious in the gathering portion. Off of the top of my head, there is:

1. Hair with same mtDNA.
2. Criminal/violent history?
3. Child physical abuse?
4. Child sexual abuse??? (Weren't there allegations he acted improperly?)
5. No alibi for the night in question.
6. Inconsistent statements concerning the night in question.
7. Pocket knife found in his possession.
8. Never called LE to report missing until after picking Pam up.
9. The statements/affidavits concerning "The Hobb's Family Secret".
10. Inmate statements/affidavits
11. His avoidance of answering questions.
12. Potential lies (i.e. never saw kids that day though other witnesses say otherwise).
13. Fibers in knife that could be consistent with the shoe laces(read this somewhere I believe)

If I'm just gathering facts/evidence to later sift through them to determine their relevance/importance, what else is out there? TIA

What about his actions after the kids were supposedly murdered? Such as doing laundry, changing his clothes, etc.

This is not evidence, and I'm not convinced at all that Hobbs is the guilty party. It should however be noted that the Hobbs home was never searched for exclusionary fibres, unlike the Byers and Moore homes.

Lots of evidence can be circumstantial. People have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

Cappuccino said:

This is not evidence, and I'm not convinced at all that Hobbs is the guilty party. It should however be noted that the Hobbs home was never searched for exclusionary fibres, unlike the Byers and Moore homes.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced he did it either. Maybe I should edit my thread title. What you said are the type of things I was talking about. Reasons TH should be investigated. Or something along those lines. Basically, is there enough reason out there that an investigation should even be done and if so, what are those reasons/things/facts.

Wasn't there a hair in the perineal area of one if the boys? I wonder if that was ever tested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please indulge me. I'd like to expand on some of these items.

reedus23 said:

I think all those close to the young boys needs to be investigated, one has not been thoroughly investigated. Even without a full investigation into him, it could be argued that some evidence potentially points in his direction, further justifying a thorough justification. Ignoring for the moment it's credibility (which we can address later or in a separate thread), I am curious what evidence is out there that would justify further investigation. Please take note, I'm not saying TH is guilty of anything, but what would justify further investigation. As with any investigation, all of the information is gathered and then it is analyzed to determine if it's credible, consistent with known facts or ultimately admissible in court. Right now, I am just curious in the gathering portion. Off of the top of my head, there is:

1. Hair with same mtDNA.

Click to expand...

It cannot be stressed enough that mtDNA, although not able to identify a particular individual, does identify someone who shares a maternal antecedent. If the hair is not Terry Hobbs', it is the hair of someone who shares a maternal antecedent with him and who was in the RHH woods on May 5 - 6, 1993. That's no small thing.

2. Criminal/violent history?
3. Child physical abuse?

Click to expand...

This is supported by Mildred French's deposition in the Pasdar case and by his attack on Jackie Hicks, Jr.

4. Child sexual abuse??? (Weren't there allegations he acted improperly?)

Click to expand...

Yes, there were - with Amanda. TH has expressed his displeasure in her being hypnotized, too. Makes one wonder!

5. No alibi for the night in question.

Click to expand...

There are certainly gaps in his alibi - specifically from about 6:30 pm until 8:00 pm, which is plenty of time to confront the boys, attack them and leave them to die.

6. Inconsistent statements concerning the night in question.

Click to expand...

Definitely. When questioned by the Pasdar attorneys, he was very evasive - and very dismissive of the female attorney, which, IMO, indicates a disdain for women.

7. Pocket knife found in his possession.

Click to expand...

. . . and later identified by Pam as Steven's knife that he always had with him and which she was surprised wasn't found on his body. His explanation (in the Pasdar interview) was that he took it from Steven because he didn't think Steven should have such a knife at his age. However, Steven never told his mother such a thing even though Hobbs stated that he had taken the knife some time ago. Very suspicious.

8. Never called LE to report missing until after picking Pam up.

Click to expand...

. . . and never even notified Pam that Steven was still missing. Also, although Catfish Island was close, he never even went by to check if Steven was there.

9. The statements/affidavits concerning "The Hobb's Family Secret".

Click to expand...

The family has "closed ranks" about this situation, but that's understandable. Southerners, especially mountain people, are prone to protect their own. However, there's enough "smoke" in these allegations to warrant investigation, IMO.

10. Inmate statements/affidavits

Click to expand...

Although some people might dismiss these statements because they came from convicts, not all convicts always lie. Why didn't they at least question the officials that Stewart (or was it Guy) claimed to have contacted back in 1995? Again, something worthy of investigation, IMO.

11. His avoidance of answering questions.
12. Potential lies (i.e. never saw kids that day though other witnesses say otherwise).

Click to expand...

This behavior, especially during the Pasdar depositions, is very troubling and a competent police department would have done some follow up. Again, it begs the question, "Why is Hobbs being protected by the police and, to some extent, the State of Arkansas? What does he know about whom that makes him "Teflon Terry" where these murders are concerned?" Inquiring minds want to know!

13. Fibers in knife that could be consistent with the shoe laces(read this somewhere I believe)

Click to expand...

I've also heard this allegation. Again, a competent police department would investigate thoroughly. Why didn't they?

If I'm just gathering facts/evidence to later sift through them to determine their relevance/importance, what else is out there? TIA

Click to expand...

I'm convinced that there's more evidence about TH that just hasn't been made public. I hope it surfaces soon. When it does, I feel sure that all questions and doubts will be answered.

Compassionate Reader said:

Please indulge me. I'd like to expand on some of these items.



It cannot be stressed enough that mtDNA, although not able to identify a particular individual, does identify someone who shares a maternal antecedent. If the hair is not Terry Hobbs', it is the hair of someone who shares a maternal antecedent with him and who was in the RHH woods on May 5 - 6, 1993. That's no small thing.



This is supported by Mildred French's deposition in the Pasdar case and by his attack on Jackie Hicks, Jr.



Yes, there were - with Amanda. TH has expressed his displeasure in her being hypnotized, too. Makes one wonder!



There are certainly gaps in his alibi - specifically from about 6:30 pm until 8:00 pm, which is plenty of time to confront the boys, attack them and leave them to die.



Definitely. When questioned by the Pasdar attorneys, he was very evasive - and very dismissive of the female attorney, which, IMO, indicates a disdain for women.



. . . and later identified by Pam as Steven's knife that he always had with him and which she was surprised wasn't found on his body. His explanation (in the Pasdar interview) was that he took it from Steven because he didn't think Steven should have such a knife at his age. However, Steven never told his mother such a thing even though Hobbs stated that he had taken the knife some time ago. Very suspicious.



. . . and never even notified Pam that Steven was still missing. Also, although Catfish Island was close, he never even went by to check if Steven was there.



The family has "closed ranks" about this situation, but that's understandable. Southerners, especially mountain people, are prone to protect their own. However, there's enough "smoke" in these allegations to warrant investigation, IMO.



Although some people might dismiss these statements because they came from convicts, not all convicts always lie. Why didn't they at least question the officials that Stewart (or was it Guy) claimed to have contacted back in 1995? Again, something worthy of investigation, IMO.



This behavior, especially during the Pasdar depositions, is very troubling and a competent police department would have done some follow up. Again, it begs the question, "Why is Hobbs being protected by the police and, to some extent, the State of Arkansas? What does he know about whom that makes him "Teflon Terry" where these murders are concerned?" Inquiring minds want to know!



I've also heard this allegation. Again, a competent police department would investigate thoroughly. Why didn't they?



I'm convinced that there's more evidence about TH that just hasn't been made public. I hope it surfaces soon. When it does, I feel sure that all questions and doubts will be answered.

Click to expand...

Thanks CR. Can you think of anything else that would warrant investigation? Mind you again, I'm not asking for stuff that is admissible evidence or stuff that absolutely points towards guilt but rather, other reasons that would support an investigation.

I'm fairly confident in saying the DNA....is his. DNA is almost always about percentages. The reality is that even at 7%, the number of people in WM at the time would be rather small and probably 99% of them could be eliminated with less effort than even the WMPD puts forth. It's really kind of grasping at straws and a sign of desperation to suggest it's not his. The stronger argument is it was an innocent secondary transfer, even though that even has difficulties.

Compassionate Reader said:

. . . and never even notified Pam that Steven was still missing. Also, although Catfish Island was close, he never even went by to check if Steven was there.

Click to expand...

This I cannot comprehend, any parent or parent worth labeling as such would be communicating with his wife with regular updates on the situation. And there is no excuse not to whatsoever, hell he had time to finger-pick twinkle little star with his mate.

Another fact about Terry Hobbs that tends to support the theory that he is the killer is that he worked in a pig slaughterhouse as a teen. The manner in which the boys were tied is the same manner used for tying hogs in a slaughterhouse. I don't know what there is to investigate, but that's yet another piece of circumstantial evidence, IMO. Really, your list is very compelling, IMHO!

As I've said before, what I would really like to see investigated is why Hobbs was never interrogated by the wmpd back in 1993. What does he know, and about whom does he know it? I'd like to ask Hobbs a few questions myself, chief among them would be, "Why didn't you report the black bum you claimed to see in the area until after the report linking your mtDNA to the ligature hair was released?"

One last thing. I'd like clarification (not from Hobbs) about whether or not Hobbs was at work on May 5, 1993. Some time back, The Commercial Appeal published an article implying that Hobbs wasn't at work on May 5, 1993. It was never investigated. I've long since lost the link to the article, however, but, IIRC, it was something uncovered by Ron Lax (RIP).

With Hobbs putting himself in and around the crime scene throughout the night it seems very likely he would have heard or seen 3 crazy drunk teens doing what the prosecution allege took place.

Good points all. So to update:

1. Hair with same mtDNA.
2. Mildred French incident
3. Child physical abuse
4. Child sexual abuse
5. No alibi for the night in question.
6. Inconsistent statements concerning the night in question.
7. Pocket knife found in his possession.
8. Never called LE to report missing until after picking Pam up.
9. The statements/affidavits concerning "The Hobb's Family Secret".
10. Inmate statements/affidavits
11. His avoidance of answering questions.
12. Potential lies (i.e. never saw kids that day though other witnesses say otherwise).
13. Fibers in knife that could be consistent with the shoe laces(read this somewhere I believe)
14. Questionable behavior following the murders.
15. No search to exclude TH in the first place (will include lack of investigation into Hobbs at all here instead of breaking out every thing the WMPD failed to do as it relates to TH).
16. Jackie Hicks Jr. incident.
17. Demeanor (separated this from inconsistent statements as it's a bit different and refers to how he reacts to different stimuli and his apparent belief that he is above the law by not answering questions posed).
18. Never informed Pam that Stevie could not be found.
19. Worked in a slaughterhouse.
20. TH places himself at the scene in and around the time the murders would have occurred.

Some things, like changing stories (black bum), I didn't break out because the list would probably become unwieldy. So I kept them all under the label of inconsistent statements. I still haven't gone back to look through my notes. My contributions are just off the top of my head. Forgetting for the moment if he's guilty or not, it is baffling to me that just with what we have listed the powers that be still don't see fit to at least take a look and investigate.

The other thing I find curious is that most of the contributions to this thread have come from "fence sitters" or "supporters" if I had to use the labels I don't care for. I know in the short time I've been here, "supporters" have contributed to threads discussing hypothetically, if the WM3 committed the murders, how it would have happened. It is curious to me why no "nons" have contributed even on a hypothetical basis. I would think, even if holding true to their beliefs, they aren't so inflexible such that they couldn't contribute. I'd truly like to hear the input from both sides if you would indulge me. If not, that is fine as well.

reedus23 said:

Forgetting for the moment if he's guilty or not, it is baffling to me that just with what we have listed the powers that be still don't see fit to at least take a look and investigate.

Click to expand...

Even forgetting the evidence against the three who were convicted of and eventually plead guilty to the murders, I'd be baffled if the powers that be were persuaded by your list of assertions proffered as evidence against Hobbs.

reedus23 said:

I would think, even if holding true to their beliefs, they aren't so inflexible such that they couldn't contribute.

Click to expand...

I've no interest in clinging to any belief, and if you'd take the time to actually cite any of the the sources for which you base your claims of evidence on, I'd be happy to address them.

Even forgetting the evidence against the three who were convicted of and eventually plead guilty to the murders, I'd be baffled if the powers that be were persuaded by your list of assertions proffered as evidence against Hobbs.

Click to expand...

Not sure what any supposed evidence against the WM3 has to do with the topic of this thread so you can remember it for forget, it's really irrelevant for purposes of this thread.

I've no interest in clinging to any belief, and if you'd take the time to actually cite any of the the sources for which you base your claims of evidence on, I'd be happy to address them.

Click to expand...

There is nothing to cite so I'm not sure why you're asking for one. The question I have is, do you believe there are any facts, information evidence that draws suspicion to Hobbs? Even if you believe the WM3 are as guilty as sin, do you believe there is anything that casts a cloud of suspicion around Hobbs and if so, what is it.

As for the other things mentioned by myself or others, maybe it's easier to ask it this way.

1. Do you deny that the hair tested matches Hobbs' and 7% of the populations mtDNA? If not do you believe that casts any suspicion on Hobbs?
2. Do you deny that there was ever an allegation that Hobbs assaulted Mildred French? If not, do you believe such an allegation casts suspicion on Hobbs?
3. Do you deny that Hobbs has been accused of abusing children? If not, do you believe such accusations cast suspicion on Hobbs?
4. Do you deny that Hobbs has been accused of sexually abusing a child(ren)? If not, do you believe that such accusations casts suspicion on Hobbs?
5. Do you deny that Hobbs has not provided an alibi for the entirety of the evening in question? If not, do you believe his inability to provide an alibi for the entirety of the evening casts suspicion on Hobbs?
6. Do you deny that Hobbs has made inconsistent statements concerning the night in question? If not, do you believe making inconsistent statements concerning the evening in questions casts suspicion on Hobbs?
7. Do you deny that Stevie's pocket knife was found amongst Hobbs' possessions? If not, do you believe the fact it was casts suspicion on Hobbs?
8. Do you deny that Hobbs never called LE to report Stevie missing until after picking Pam up? If not, do you believe this failure to contact LE casts suspicion on Hobbs?
9. Do you deny that statements/affidavits have been sworn to concerning "The Hobb's Family Secret" asserting that Hobbs admitted to killing the 3 boys? If not, do you believe the fact these statements/affidavits have been sworn to casts suspicion on Hobbs?
10. Do you deny inmates have signed statements/affidavits claiming to have knowledge that Hobbs was involved in the murders? If not, does the fact that these statements/affidavits were sworn to cast suspicion on Hobbs?
11. Do you deny Hobbs avoids answering questions? If not, do you believe such avoidance casts suspicion on Hobbs?
12. Do you deny witnesses have placed Hobbs and the children together on the night in question but Hobbs denies he ever was? If not, do you believe this inconsistency casts suspicion on Hobbs?
13. Do you deny that fibers in Hobbs' knife were discovered that could be consistent with the shoe laces? If not, do you believe this casts suspicion on Hobbs?
14. Do you deny that Hobbs undertook questionable behavior following the murders? If not, do you believe this behavior casts suspicion on Hobbs?
15. Do you deny that Hobbs' home was not searched for exclusionary fibers? If not, do you believe this casts suspicion on Hobbs?
16. Do you deny that Hobbs was involved in a violent altercation with Jackie Hicks Jr. incident? If not, do you believe this casts suspicion on Hobbs?
17. Do you deny that Hobbs' demeanor demonstrates a belief that he is above the law? If not, do you believe his demeanor casts suspicion on Hobbs?
18. Do you deny that Hobbs never informed Pam that Stevie could not be found prior to picking her up after work? If not, do you believe this failure casts suspicion on Hobbs?
19. Do you deny Hobbs worked in a slaughterhouse? If not, do you believe this casts suspicion on Hobbs?
20. Do you deny that Hobbs places himself at the scene of the murders in and around the time the murders would have occurred? If not, does this cast suspicion on Hobbs?

Mind you, I'm not asking you if this establishes guilt, or even points to it. But does it cast suspicion on Hobbs?

reedus23 said:

Not sure what any supposed evidence against the WM3 has to do with the topic of this thread so you can remember it for forget, it's really irrelevant for purposes of this thread.

Click to expand...

It's relevant to the matter of why one might not "see fit to at least take a look and investigate" even clams of alternate suspects which cite actual documented facts as a basis for, let alone the vague list of assertions which you've proffered as evidence against Hobbs.

reedus23 said:

There is nothing to cite so I'm not sure why you're asking for one.

Click to expand...

I've rightly not asked to to cite anything, but rather simply pointed out as long as you don't cite any sources as a basis for your assertions of evidence on I've no interest in humoring them.

reedus23 said:

The question I have is, do you believe there are any facts, information evidence that draws suspicion to Hobbs? Even if you believe the WM3 are as guilty as sin, do you believe there is anything that casts a cloud of suspicion around Hobbs and if so, what is it.

Click to expand...

Best I've been able to tell, it's just a failure to comprehend evidence which "casts a cloud of suspicion around Hobbs", and the same went for Mark Byers before him, and the man who bled all over Bojangles before that.

kyleb said:

and the man who bled all over Bojangles before that.

Click to expand...

Who bled all over Bojangles?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kyleb, I think it's pretty clear that whatever points are made you will try to contradict them. I think mostly everyone here is being unbiased and for some reason I always feel that you are ready to go on the defense. And these "vague assertions" are all one has to go on in this case, or else we have nothing.

kyleb said:

Best I've been able to tell, it's just a failure to comprehend evidence which "casts a cloud of suspicion around Hobbs", and the same went for Mark Byers before him, and the man who bled all over Bojangles before that.

Click to expand...

You've pretty much responded the way I anticipated. As for the above, it would be an absolute failure of the system to have NOT investigated those individuals. Likewise, it is a complete failure of the system to have not investigated Hobbs. Whether they ultimately did it or not is besides the point. For one to suggest that Byers, Mr. Bojangles or Hobbs should not have been investigated gives a clearer picture into that persons point of reference.

Just thought of something else. Hobbs drove an ice cream truck at the time of the murders. Could it be possible that the boys were killed there or that the bodies were temporarily stored there? IIRC, a white van was noted in the area at the time of the murders. I don't remember reading anything about that van being thoroughly searched, just looked in for the boys. Just a thought.

Here's how beyond crazy I see it. Even if Hobbs was thoroughly investigated at the time and this information was subsequently discovered, short of receipts, witnesses and video showing he was in London at the time, I would feel it justifies looking at him again. Add to that the fact that he was never truly investigated in the first place and it's just mind blowing to me.