Viable suspect: Terry Hobbs #1

[primitivefuture]

Yes it does make sense.

But it's strange to me to ask somebody something they obviously wouldn't know -- 'where is he?' as opposed to something like 'didn't he wish to visit today?' or 'how long will Stevie be out?'

The structure of it isn't natural, iyswim.

But why is it obvious Terry wouldn't know the answer to that question? For all David knew at that point, Stevie could have told Terry exactly where he was going. My head is starting to spin from all these different interpretations of Jacoby's statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ausgirl]

Ah, I am going by the whole thing where Hobbs claimed he hadn't seen Stevie, and that Stevie was 'missing' when he went to Jacoby's place.

If Hobbs mentioned he was missing, then it's an odd question. If he didn't mention it - well, that's odd, too. I should think Stevie was less 'missing' than 'out somewhere, with pals'. Which you think might have been mentioned to somebody at some point on the day?

Yeah, does my head in, too... lol. :scared:

 

[gheckso]

Yes it does make sense.

But it's strange to me to ask somebody something they obviously wouldn't know -- 'where is he?' as opposed to something like 'didn't he wish to visit today?' or 'how long will Stevie be out?' or 'where's Stevie headed to (half an hour ago..delayed reaction?)'

The structure of it isn't natural, iyswim.

yeah I do get that, however, asking the question "where's Steve" in certain contexts can mean basically the same things as those others you mentioned. Kind of like a shortcut way of asking.

 

[primitivefuture]

Ah, I am going by the whole thing where Hobbs claimed he hadn't seen Stevie, and that Stevie was 'missing' when he went to Jacoby's place.

If Hobbs mentioned he was missing, then it's an odd question. If he didn't mention it - well, that's odd, too. I should think Stevie was less 'missing' than 'out somewhere, with pals'. Which you think might have been mentioned to somebody at some point on the day?

Yeah, does my head in, too... lol. :scared:

I get what you mean, but Terry answered saying that Stevie was riding his bike. Then a while later he tells Jacoby he's going to go home to see if Stevie is home yet. It sounds like, according to Terry, Stevie was not missing at that point or he was unconcerned if he was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[primitivefuture]

His statement isn't gossip, but when someone adds to his statement saying that Jacoby saw Stevie behind Terry when he came in.

That's not true according to both of his statements from the police interview and the declaration.

I don't think it's fair to say the poster was gossiping. It's just a case of interpreting what Jacoby said differently than you do. I read his statement the same way. (6. Terry came over. 7. I saw the boys ride by on bikes 8. Terry and Amanda came inside)

According to what Jacoby said, when do you think he saw the boys ride by, if not when he let Terry in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ausgirl]

I get what you mean, but Terry answered saying that Stevie was riding his bike. Then a while later he tells Jacoby he's going to go home to see if Stevie is home yet. It sounds like, according to Terry, Stevie was not missing at that point or he was unconcerned if he was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now -that- makes sense. Phew!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The only interpretation that made sense to me was that DJ was questioning why Steven didn't come into his house as was the usual procedure when TH came over with the kids. Remember, the DJ question happened after an hour of guitar-playing (which could be a code for something else). So, maybe DJ was thinking that Steven should have come into the house by that time. TH confirmed that Steven was still "riding his bike" (which, IMO, indicates that TH "saw" the kids) and was, therefore, as others have said, not missing.

Now, if Steven had not come home before Pam left for work, IMO, this indicates that Steven came home sometime between Pam going to work and TH and Amanda going to the Jacoby's house. If true, this means that TH was lying when he said he didn't see Steven at all that day. Jacoby's statement supports the statements of the neighbors (Ballard/Clark) who claimed they saw the boys with TH at around 6:30 pm.

Here's my proposed mini-timeline for this portion of May 5, 1993:

4:45 pm Steven is not home. Pam, Terry and Amanda leave to take Pam to work.

5:00 pm Terry and Amanda return from taking Pam to work. Steven and his friends are at the house, and Steven begs Terry for a little more time to play with his friends. Terry agrees.

5:15 pm Terry and Amanda arrive at the Jacoby's. Steven and his friends are seen riding by (two bikes and one skateboard) in the background when Jacoby opens the door to let Terry and Amanda enter.

6:15 pm Terry and Amanda leave Jacoby's and return home. Amanda rides her tricycle in the driveway and Terry goes inside the house. Steven is there, with his friends, maybe eating his dinner. There is some sort of confrontation between Steven and Terry and the boys run out, chased by Terry. (This is what was witnessed by the neighbors,)

6:30 - 7:00 pm Terry follows the kids into the woods. He is angry with Steven and starts hitting him. It gets out of hand . . . you know the rest.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

The only interpretation that made sense to me was that DJ was questioning why Steven didn't come into his house as was the usual procedure when TH came over with the kids. Remember, the DJ question happened after an hour of guitar-playing (which could be a code for something else). So, maybe DJ was thinking that Steven should have come into the house by that time. TH confirmed that Steven was still "riding his bike" (which, IMO, indicates that TH "saw" the kids) and was, therefore, as others have said, not missing.

Now, if Steven had not come home before Pam left for work, IMO, this indicates that Steven came home sometime between Pam going to work and TH and Amanda going to the Jacoby's house. If true, this means that TH was lying when he said he didn't see Steven at all that day. Jacoby's statement supports the statements of the neighbors (Ballard/Clark) who claimed they saw the boys with TH at around 6:30 pm.

Here's my proposed mini-timeline for this portion of May 5, 1993:

4:45 pm Steven is not home. Pam, Terry and Amanda leave to take Pam to work.

5:00 pm Terry and Amanda return from taking Pam to work. Steven and his friends are at the house, and Steven begs Terry for a little more time to play with his friends. Terry agrees.

5:15 pm Terry and Amanda arrive at the Jacoby's. Steven and his friends are seen riding by (two bikes and one skateboard) in the background when Jacoby opens the door to let Terry and Amanda enter.

6:15 pm Terry and Amanda leave Jacoby's and return home. Amanda rides her tricycle in the driveway and Terry goes inside the house. Steven is there, with his friends, maybe eating his dinner. There is some sort of confrontation between Steven and Terry and the boys run out, chased by Terry. (This is what was witnessed by the neighbors,)

6:30 - 7:00 pm Terry follows the kids into the woods. He is angry with Steven and starts hitting him. It gets out of hand . . . you know the rest.

BBM

That's the problem I'm having with it. What is the source of the boys being in the background when Jacoby opens the door to let Terry and Amanda enter?

Can you please provide a link or tell me where you are getting this from. TIA

That was the problem earlier and it's still not clear to me where this is coming from?

Jacoby? Terry Hobbs?

 

[primitivefuture]

BBM

That's the problem I'm having with it. What is the source of the boys being in the background when Jacoby opens the door to let Terry and Amanda enter?

Can you please provide a link or tell me where you are getting this from. TIA

That was the problem earlier and it's still not clear to me where this is coming from?

Jacoby? Terry Hobbs?

This is related to the question I asked you earlier which you haven't answered. With regard to part 6-9 of Jacoby's statement, when do -you- think Jacoby means that he saw Stevie and the other two ride by, if not when he opened the door to let terry and Amanda in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UdbCrzy2]

In the time line attempt above, Jacoby conveys that he saw Stevie riding past behind Terry Hobbs as he, Jacoby, opened the door to let him in, not actually 'with' him.

<<snipped for space>>

The only one that I know of who said this is John Mark Byer in his declaration

David Jacoby, Hobbs' friend, has stated to me that Hobbs came to his house at approximately 5:00 PM and that as he was opening the door to let Hobbs in, he saw 2 boys on bicycles and 1 boy on a skateboard ride by his house and that he believes one of the boys was Stevie.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmb_declaration.html

So, to me this means it wasn't Jacoby or Hobbs who said this, but instead it was Byers.

And to add that Reedus timeline has included this but I don't know why unless he's just going from Byers declaration who wasn't there.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

This is related to the question I asked you earlier which you haven't answered. With regard to part 6-9 of Jacoby's statement, when do -you- think Jacoby means that he saw Stevie and the other two ride by, if not when he opened the door to let terry and Amanda in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He doesn't say when he saw him and that's my point. He does not give a time only that sometime during that day he did see all of the boys.


Jacoby Declaration for reference.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/d_jacoby_declaration.html

 

[primitivefuture]

He doesn't say when he saw him and that's my point. He does not give a time only that sometime during that day he did see all of the boys.


Jacoby Declaration for reference.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/d_jacoby_declaration.html

But he does say (paraphrased) terry came over, I saw the boys ride by, terry came inside. Why would he plop it in the middle of terry coming over and terry coming inside if it didn't happen in between those two events?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UdbCrzy2]

But he does say (paraphrased) terry came over, I saw the boys ride by, terry came inside. Why would he plop it in the middle of terry coming over and terry coming inside if it didn't happen in between those two events?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[modsnip] He does not say it in the middle.

7. I believe I saw Terry's step-son, Stevie Branch, ride by on his bicycle in the street in front of my house. I also believe I saw two other little boys with Stevie. One of the other boys who went by the front of my house was on a bicycle and the other boy was on a skateboard.

8. Terry and Amanda came inside my house. Amanda played with toys, and Terry and I sat down and played guitars for up to one hour. At some point while Terry and I were playing guitars, I asked, "Where's Stevie?" because Stevie usually came over to my house with Terry and Amanda (and also Pam Hobbs when she came over). Terry responded that Stevie was riding his bike.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/d_jacoby_declaration.html

 

[gheckso]

Perhaps a logical deduction of his statement alludes to it?
You have completely omitted para 6. From your reply, I can see why. David relates his statement chronologically as far as I and others can see.

 

[gheckso]

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. since when was this primitives argument?

6. Terry came over
7. Saw Steve and friends ride by
8. Terry came inside.

 

[Salem]

Stop being snarky and bickering. Stick to the topic. If you can't reply respectfully, then scroll and roll.

Salem

 

[primitivefuture]

[modsnip] He does not say it in the middle.

7. I believe I saw Terry's step-son, Stevie Branch, ride by on his bicycle in the street in front of my house. I also believe I saw two other little boys with Stevie. One of the other boys who went by the front of my house was on a bicycle and the other boy was on a skateboard.

8. Terry and Amanda came inside my house. Amanda played with toys, and Terry and I sat down and played guitars for up to one hour. At some point while Terry and I were playing guitars, I asked, "Where's Stevie?" because Stevie usually came over to my house with Terry and Amanda (and also Pam Hobbs when she came over). Terry responded that Stevie was riding his bike.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/d_jacoby_declaration.html

6. On May 5, 1993, I worked at the Memphis Ice Cream Company. I got home from work at approximately 4:30 PM on that day. Sometime between 5 PM and 5:30 PM on May 5, 1993 (it could have been as late as 6 PM, but I believe it was between 5 and 5:30 PM), Terry Hobbs came over to my house.

7. I believe I saw Terry's step-son, Stevie Branch, ride by on his bicycle in the street in front of my house. I also believe I saw two other little boys with Stevie. One of the other boys who went by the front of my house was on a bicycle and the other boy was on a skateboard.

8. Terry and Amanda came inside my house. Amanda played with toys, and Terry and I sat down and played guitars for up to one hour. At some point while Terry and I were playing guitars, I asked, "Where's Stevie?" because Stevie usually came over to my house with Terry and Amanda (and also Pam Hobbs when she came over). Terry responded that Stevie was riding his bike.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[reedus23]

And to add that Reedus timeline has included this but I don't know why unless he's just going from Byers declaration who wasn't there.

I didn't even use Byers' declaration. It is in my timeline as it is because Jacoby gave a chronological account of what happened in his declaration. In paragraph 6, he says Terry and Amanda came over. In paragraph 7 he says he saw the boys. In paragraph 8 he said Terry and Amanda came inside. Since he was giving a chronological account of what happened, I used my deductive reasoning to determine that he saw the boys as he was letting Terry and Amanda in the house.

 

[Miranda!]

<<snipped for space>>The only one that I know of who said this is John Mark Byer in his declaration
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmb_declaration.html
So, to me this means it wasn't Jacoby or Hobbs who said this, but instead it was Byers.

Are you trying to tell us that over a period of time a statement has to include all and every thing that was previously said, or if something was forgotten in one session then it can never ever be said later??

Or that if one person mentions what somebody told him it means that the original source is not permitted to say it in his declaration?

Jacoby said what he saw. FACT.

JMB actually confirms that, FACT.
JMB's confirmation is actually hearsay had Jacoby not made the same statement in his declaration. On its own it would not be admissable as evidence!

I appreciate that you are feeling a bit under pressure here, given your understanding of events that ghastly night. But doing an 'hobbsism' by going into the third person to distance yourself from what you said indicates a pretty odd thinking process.

We are not debating the validity of any of the content at this point - but merely what was stated, when to whom, that triggers a red flag for many of us. Thus making, for some of us, Hobbs a viable suspect whos shoud have been investigated all those years ago and as the wmpd missed that, then they should do it now. Furthermore, Hobbs should wish for this to happen if he is as innocent as he claims. Surely he would want his name cleared??


As to the sequence of events in that declaration I can quite understand that Jacoby may have expected Stevie to join them there after seeing the other two home, or something. OK, so his wording might have been a bit clumsy but that does not negate what he is saying!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think the biggest point here is that DJ saw Stevie when TH was there. That to me is all that matters. I believe DJ.