Viable Suspect: Terry Hobbs - #2

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.

Fair enough. That would apply to almost everyone associated with this case: the step fathers and the WM3, but still, there isn't a strong case against any of them. I can agree there.
 
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.

The other poster hasn't attempted to sweep it under the rug either, she just disagrees with your assessment of the Ballard's statements.

There is no witch hunt against TH going on this thread, there's merely a reasonable discussion of the case for and against viewing him as a suspect. There are plenty of threads devoted to doing the same with the WM3, and I don't recall ever saying there shouldn't be. Accusing other posters of witch hunts and hypocrisy merely for making on topic posts in this thread may very well be within the rules of the board, but your accusation is still wrong.
 
The other poster hasn't attempted to sweep it under the rug either, she just disagrees with your assessment of the Ballard's statements.

There is no witch hunt against TH going on this thread, there's merely a reasonable discussion of the case for and against viewing him as a suspect. There are plenty of threads devoted to doing the same with the WM3, and I don't recall ever saying there shouldn't be. Accusing other posters of witch hunts and hypocrisy merely for making on topic posts in this thread may very well be within the rules of the board, but your accusation is still wrong.

Yes she has; she'd rather believe a person who came forward 15 years after the fact over RC himself, who has debunked the sighting all together. That's sweeping it under the rug, no matter which way you slice it.

I've seen it plenty of times; please don't play dumb. TH is fair game with supporters, but the WM3 are completely off limits, even when the person bringing up the subject is walking on egg shells. My observation isn't strictly about this thread (of course there would be no witch-hunt in a TH thread, obviously!); but in general.
 
Yes she has; she'd rather believe a person who came forward 15 years after the fact over RC himself, who has debunked the sighting all together. That's sweeping it under the rug, no matter which way you slice it.

I've seen it plenty of times; please don't play dumb. TH is fair game with supporters, but the WM3 are completely off limits, even when the person bringing up the subject is walking on egg shells.

Disagreeing with you, about the Ballard sighting or anything else, is not sweeping it under the rug. Get back to me when Cher attempts to close down discussion on the subject instead of merely giving an opinion you don't like on it, then I'll agree that she's sweeping it under the rug.

The vast majority of the threads in here are about the WM3, and many of the posters are on the pro-guilt side of the debate. Again, get back to me when anybody attempts to close down discussion in any of these threads and then I'll agree that the WM3 are "completely off limits". As it is I think your entire post is spurious.
 
Disagreeing with you, about the Ballard sighting or anything else, is not sweeping it under the rug. Get back to me when Cher attempts to close down discussion on the subject instead of merely giving an opinion you don't like on it, then I'll agree that she's sweeping it under the rug.

The vast majority of the threads in here are about the WM3, and many of the posters are on the pro-guilt side of the debate. Again, get back to me when anybody attempts to close down discussion in any of these threads and then I'll agree that the WM3 are "completely off limits". As it is I think your entire post is spurious.

"Sweeping it under the rug" has nothing to do with "closing down the discussion." Sweeping it under the rug, is an expression that is used when a person quickly dismisses a fact, with no justifiable reason for such a hasty denial. So again, yes: she swept it under the rug. She immediately dismissed the fact, as reported by Bob Ruff, with the very weak reasoning that RC was in no position to debunk it -- which is absurd, given the fact that he is directly involved, mentioned, and is a huge part of her statement as a whole.

No one has attempted to "close down discussions." You're playing the straw-victim.
 
"Sweeping it under the rug" has nothing to do with "closing down the discussion." Sweeping it under the rug, is an expression that is used when a person quickly dismisses a fact, with no justifiable reason for such a hasty denial. So again, yes: she swept it under the rug. She immediately dismissed the fact, as reported by Bob Ruff, with the very weak reasoning that RC was in no position to debunk it -- which is absurd, given the fact that he is directly involved, mentioned, and is a huge part of her statement as a whole.

No one has attempted to "close down discussions." You're playing the straw-victim.

To sweep something under the rug means...

To ignore, deny, or conceal from public view or knowledge something that is embarrassing, unappealing, or damaging to one's reputation.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/sweep+under+the+rug

She hasn't ignored RC's statement, she's given her opinion on it. She hasn't denied he said it, she has merely said it doesn't necessarily follow that the Ballard sighting didn't happen in her opinion, and she certainly hasn't attempted to conceal it. So she has, in effect, made no attempt to sweep anything under the rug and your accusation is spurious.

You posted...

TH is fair game with supporters, but the WM3 are completely off limits, even when the person bringing up the subject is walking on egg shells

That is a clear accusation that WM3 supporters on this forum close down, or try to close down, discussions about the evidence for and against the WM3. Its also clearly a false accusation because no WM3 supporter here has ever said or implied or acted in a manner that suggested the "WM3 are completely off limits."

In summary, your accusation against Cher is spurious and your accusation against WM3 supporters in general is complete bunk.
 
To sweep something under the rug means...



https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/sweep+under+the+rug

She hasn't ignored RC's statement, she's given her opinion on it. She hasn't denied he said it, she has merely said it doesn't necessarily follow that the Ballard sighting didn't happen in her opinion, and she certainly hasn't attempted to conceal it. So she has, in effect, made no attempt to sweep anything under the rug and your accusation is spurious.

You posted...



That is a clear accusation that WM3 supporters on this forum close down, or try to close down, discussions about the evidence for and against the WM3. Its also clearly a false accusation because no WM3 supporter here has ever said or implied or acted in a manner that suggested the "WM3 are completely off limits."

In summary, your accusation against Cher is spurious and your accusation against WM3 supporters in general is complete bunk.

You must have missed the other two words following "ignore" in the definition you posted, lol:

To ignore, deny, or conceal from public view or knowledge something that is embarrassing, unappealing, or damaging to one's reputation.

She denied it, instantly; so yes, it was swept under the rug.

I think you've dragged her into this long enough, don't you? Seems quite unnecessary on your part, simply to prove some pseudo-point on your own behalf, but that is your prerogative.

And also, you are completely conflating two things: the "closing down of a forum" and the "closing down of a theory." What I meant by that sentence (i.e. "completely off limits") was in relation to the behavior of supporters solely, and my observation of hypocrisy as exhibited through that behavior. I never inherently stated that anyone has ever tried to "close down" a thread or forum, etc.
 
You must have missed the other two words following "ignore" in the definition you posted, lol:



She denied it, instantly; so yes, it was swept under the rug.

I think you've dragged her into this long enough, don't you? Seems quite unnecessary on your part, simply to prove some pseudo-point on your own behalf, but that is your prerogative.

And also, you are completely conflating two things: the "closing down of a forum" and the "closing down of a theory." What I meant by that sentence (i.e. "completely off limits") was in relation to the behavior of supporters solely, and my observation of hypocrisy as exhibited through that behavior. I never inherently stated that anyone has ever tried to "close down" a thread or forum, etc.

You obviously didn't read my post properly, so I'll re-post it with the relevant part bolded....

She hasn't ignored RC's statement, she's given her opinion on it. She hasn't denied he said it, she has merely said it doesn't necessarily follow that the Ballard sighting didn't happen in her opinion, and she certainly hasn't attempted to conceal it. So she has, in effect, made no attempt to sweep anything under the rug and your accusation is spurious.

Not believing that RC's statement means the Ballard sighting is debunked, even though I disagree with her, is not at all the same thing as denying RC's statement exists or even that RC's statement is true.

You seem to be making a habit of pretending I said something I didn't, so again I'll quote my own post with the relevant part bolded...

That is a clear accusation that WM3 supporters on this forum close down, or try to close down, discussions about the evidence for and against the WM3. Its also clearly a false accusation because no WM3 supporter here has ever said or implied or acted in a manner that suggested the "WM3 are completely off limits."

As you can plainly see I never said you accused us of trying to close down threads or forums but discussion on the subject. And I am afraid there is no other way to interpret your words - that "TH is fair game with supporters, but the WM3 are completely off limits, even when the person bringing up the subject is walking on egg shells" - other than as an accusation that WM3 supporters try and close down discussion on any evidence against the WM3. That accusation is untrue. I've never seen any WM3 supporter on here attempt to shut anyone else up when they want to talk about Jessie's confessions, Exhibit 500 or whatever, so no the WM3 are not completely off limits.
 
You obviously didn't read my post properly, so I'll re-post it with the relevant part bolded....



Not believing that RC's statement means the Ballard sighting is debunked, even though I disagree with her, is not at all the same thing as denying RC's statement exists or even that RC's statement is true.

You seem to be making a habit of pretending I said something I didn't, so again I'll quote my own post with the relevant part bolded...



As you can plainly see I never said you accused us of trying to close down threads or forums but discussion on the subject. And I am afraid there is no other way to interpret your words - that "TH is fair game with supporters, but the WM3 are completely off limits, even when the person bringing up the subject is walking on egg shells" - other than as an accusation that WM3 supporters try and close down discussion on any evidence against the WM3. That accusation is untrue. I've never seen any WM3 supporter on here attempt to shut anyone else up when they want to talk about Jessie's confessions, Exhibit 500 or whatever, so no the WM3 are not completely off limits.

You're splitting hairs to prove your pseudo-point. She dismissed RC's statement and said he wasn't capable of debunking the JCB statement, which is false. Again, why do you keep bringing her up? She obviously doesn't want to engage in the subject, which is completely fine, but you keep bringing her up all the same.

No, you're missing my point again, actually. When I made that statement, I was generally speaking of the behavior I have observed from supporters over my time discussing the case (which spans years and multiple forums). The observation, again, is that TH is fair game; but the WM3 are not -- for them. That isn't the same as saying "they try to close down discussion," it's saying, they play by two different set of rules when it comes to each of the two parties.

Define "shut anyone else up." If you're saying with a straight face that you've never seen a supporter act hostile to a non or a fencie who was simply questioning the WM3's innocence or who brought up the confessions/exhibit 500, you're either flat out lying or you're in denial.
 
You're splitting hairs to prove your pseudo-point. She dismissed RC's statement and said he wasn't capable of debunking the JCB statement, which is false. Again, why do you keep bringing her up? She obviously doesn't want to engage in the subject, which is completely fine, but you keep bringing her up all the same.

No, you're missing my point again, actually. When I made that statement, I was generally speaking of the behavior I have observed from supporters over my time discussing the case (which spans years and multiple forums). The observation, again, is that TH is fair game; but the WM3 are not -- for them. That isn't the same as saying "they try to close down discussion," it's saying, they play by two different set of rules when it comes to each of the two parties.

Define "shut anyone else up." If you're saying with a straight face that you've never seen a supporter act hostile to a non or a fencie who was simply questioning the WM3's innocence or who brought up the confessions/exhibit 500, you're either flat out lying or you're in denial.

Acting hostile to anyone who questions the WM3's innocence does not equal the WM3 being completely off limits, which is the opinion you projected onto supporters. I can't speak for supporters you have encountered on other forums, but its never been the case here that the WM3 are off limits, indeed most threads in this sub forum are discussing the WM3.

Again, Cher did not dismiss RC's statement. She made the assertion that just because RC debunked part of JCB's story doesn't mean his statement debunks the Ballard sighting. I don't agree with her as it happens, IMO RC's statement casts as much doubt on the Ballard sighting as is necessary to discount it. However, even though I don't agree with her, its not fair to accuse her of trying to sweep it under the rug - she did no such thing, she simply doesn't draw the same conclusions from RC's statement as I do.

People are allowed to have different opinions without being accused of hypocrisy, witch hunting, sweeping things under the rug or placing the WM3 completely off limits. And that includes people who think TH is guilty, a group of which I'm not one.
 
Acting hostile to anyone who questions the WM3's innocence does not equal the WM3 being completely off limits, which is the opinion you projected onto supporters. I can't speak for supporters you have encountered on other forums, but its never been the case here that the WM3 are off limits, indeed most threads in this sub forum are discussing the WM3.

Again, Cher did not dismiss RC's statement. She made the assertion that just because RC debunked part of JCB's story doesn't mean his statement debunks the Ballard sighting. I don't agree with her as it happens, IMO RC's statement casts as much doubt on the Ballard sighting as is necessary to discount it. However, even though I don't agree with her, its not fair to accuse her of trying to sweep it under the rug - she did no such thing, she simply doesn't draw the same conclusions from RC's statement as I do.

People are allowed to have different opinions without being accused of hypocrisy, witch hunting, sweeping things under the rug or placing the WM3 completely off limits. And that includes people who think TH is guilty, a group of which I'm not one.

In my opinion, she did, so I disagree. If you're going to chastise me for "accusing" someone of "sweeping something under the rug" (as if this is some horrible slight; I've seen much worse and I'm sure you have to), why aren't you chastising her for her pot-shot that was just as innocuous (when she criticized nons for believing the JM confessions but not the JCB sighting)? You want to make it a federal case that I used the term "sweep under the rug," and act like you haven't seen much, much worse in terms of message board offenses; all you're doing is blowing the issue way out of proportion.

People are allowed to have differing opinions, but you know what else, people are allowed to make observations all the same, which is literally all I did. It was a general observation of how supporters act with relation the subject of innocence.

Also, if you can accuse me of "shutting people up" on a particular subject (when all I ever did was make an observation and provide counter points), I can "accuse" another person of "sweeping something under the rug."
 
A federal case, lol.

I think we've both had our say, and should just agree to differ. I will if you will.
 
Acting hostile to anyone who questions the WM3's innocence does not equal the WM3 being completely off limits, which is the opinion you projected onto supporters. I can't speak for supporters you have encountered on other forums, but its never been the case here that the WM3 are off limits, indeed most threads in this sub forum are discussing the WM3.

Again, Cher did not dismiss RC's statement. She made the assertion that just because RC debunked part of JCB's story doesn't mean his statement debunks the Ballard sighting. I don't agree with her as it happens, IMO RC's statement casts as much doubt on the Ballard sighting as is necessary to discount it. However, even though I don't agree with her, its not fair to accuse her of trying to sweep it under the rug - she did no such thing, she simply doesn't draw the same conclusions from RC's statement as I do.

People are allowed to have different opinions without being accused of hypocrisy, witch hunting, sweeping things under the rug or placing the WM3 completely off limits. And that includes people who think TH is guilty, a group of which I'm not one.

After reading this discussion, I've tried to pick out the shortest part that reflects my post. Thanks Cappuccino for your clear intellect. I am very sorry that Userid and I have a complete different way of thinking. This has become obvious after 4 years on this board, and the same amount of time on another board. Some rivers are just too wide to build a bridge across.

Just to clarify the matter, RC denies the interactions with JB, meaning the walk from school and the meeting in school the day after, that is his recollection of things. OK he says it didn't happen, JB says it did happen, that's his word against hers. Who has more credibility ? Decide yourself.

On this part of JB's statement, Ryan can deny, debunk, call JB a liar if he wants, because he was a part of the interaction that took place. He or Bob Ruff can't declare that the sighting by JB and her relatives later in the evening is not true, because they were not present at time and place.

To say that this part of the statement is not true because the other part is not true, well that sounds to me like someone's trying to "sweep JB and her relatives sighting under the rug"

Of course JB's statement can be inaccurate in parts or even as a whole, there is no denying that.
I believe that JB's sighting took place, I have my reasons, I've relayed them more than often. If something comes up which proves that it is not reasonable to believe the JB statement, I will be the last to let go. I don't see any reason yet.

A few other points, I'm not on a witch hunt, I don't hate TH, and as Cappuccino said it's not gonna be nice if he's innocent, although he has mostly himself to blame just as JMB's woes were mainly self-inflicted. I've studied this case for four years now, and with my knowledge and a lot of analysis and recherché I've formed "my" opinion, which doesn't mean I don't respect anyone elses opinion.

Oh and finally, though my name doesn't suggest it, I am a "fellah". It doesn't cause me any discomfort to be called "her" though, just for the record.
 
A federal case, lol.

I think we've both had our say, and should just agree to differ. I will if you will.

Well, yes: considering you had to look up the text book definition and went on and on about it for at least 5 posts while I had asked you why keep bringing up Cher at all (to prove your pseudo-point, which you never answered). What else would you call it?

Sure, I'll stop if you want to.
 
After reading this discussion, I've tried to pick out the shortest part that reflects my post. Thanks Cappuccino for your clear intellect. I am very sorry that Userid and I have a complete different way of thinking. This has become obvious after 4 years on this board, and the same amount of time on another board. Some rivers are just too wide to build a bridge across.

Just to clarify the matter, RC denies the interactions with JB, meaning the walk from school and the meeting in school the day after, that is his recollection of things. OK he says it didn't happen, JB says it did happen, that's his word against hers. Who has more credibility ? Decide yourself.

On this part of JB's statement, Ryan can deny, debunk, call JB a liar if he wants, because he was a part of the interaction that took place. He or Bob Ruff can't declare that the sighting by JB and her relatives later in the evening is not true, because they were not present at time and place.

To say that this part of the statement is not true because the other part is not true, well that sounds to me like someone's trying to "sweep JB and her relatives sighting under the rug"

Of course JB's statement can be inaccurate in parts or even as a whole, there is no denying that.
I believe that JB's sighting took place, I have my reasons, I've relayed them more than often. If something comes up which proves that it is not reasonable to believe the JB statement, I will be the last to let go. I don't see any reason yet.

A few other points, I'm not on a witch hunt, I don't hate TH, and as Cappuccino said it's not gonna be nice if he's innocent, although he has mostly himself to blame just as JMB's woes were mainly self-inflicted. I've studied this case for four years now, and with my knowledge and a lot of analysis and recherché I've formed "my" opinion, which doesn't mean I don't respect anyone elses opinion.

Oh and finally, though my name doesn't suggest it, I am a "fellah". It doesn't cause me any discomfort to be called "her" though, just for the record.

RC....by a country mile. Last I checked, he never appeared in a movie (do you have proof she was never compensated for her onscreen appearance?). Last I checked, he didn't come out 15 years later.

Also, Ruff never said RC "called JB a liar," those are your words, not RC's. He simply said, those events never happened. He never regularly walked home from school with her -- let alone that day -- and he never saw and/or interacted with her at all in school the next day. Neither Ruff nor RC dragged her name through the mud.

You're wrong that this revelation can't debunk the JCB sighting of TH with the boys because, these 2 events were two of the staples which she cited in remembering the exact Wednesday she saw TH with the boys. The other was going to church every Wednesday; but again, without the 2 staples of RC walking home with JCB that day and seeing him at school the next, that could have been any other Wednesday but the one in question (the 5th). Her statement would get eaten alive in a trial. Eaten alive. There is no "sweeping" there, sorry Cher. That is pure and simple fact.
 
To sweep something under the rug means...



sweep under the rug

She hasn't ignored RC's statement, she's given her opinion on it. She hasn't denied he said it, she has merely said it doesn't necessarily follow that the Ballard sighting didn't happen in her opinion, and she certainly hasn't attempted to conceal it. So she has, in effect, made no attempt to sweep anything under the rug and your accusation is spurious.

You posted...



That is a clear accusation that WM3 supporters on this forum close down, or try to close down, discussions about the evidence for and against the WM3. Its also clearly a false accusation because no WM3 supporter here has ever said or implied or acted in a manner that suggested the "WM3 are completely off limits."

In summary, your accusation against Cher is spurious and your accusation against WM3 supporters in general is complete bunk.

The WM3 are off limits to supporters in that they refuse to accept or even consider any and all evidence, including countless confessions, that glaringly point to their guilt. So, he's not wrong.
 
In The Forgotten West Memphis Three, Bob Ruff thought it was significant that Stevie's mother and stepfather made the 911 call from her place of work and then waited for the police there. Ruff speculated, angrily, that TH was the one that made the call and waiting there for the police (as opposed to home) was his idea. I expected Ruff to follow up and ask the mom which one of them made the call. If Ruff found out which of them made the call, it didn't make it into the program. I can think of a couple of reasons why they might wait there.

And if it was a crime of anger, why were the kids undressed and their clothes sunk by being impaled with sticks? That took time and served no purpose that I can see. Better to leave the clothes on the sunken bodies.
 
In The Forgotten West Memphis Three, Bob Ruff thought it was significant that Stevie's mother and stepfather made the 911 call from her place of work and then waited for the police there. Ruff speculated, angrily, that TH was the one that made the call and waiting there for the police (as opposed to home) was his idea. I expected Ruff to follow up and ask the mom which one of them made the call. If Ruff found out which of them made the call, it didn't make it into the program. I can think of a couple of reasons why they might wait there.

And if it was a crime of anger, why were the kids undressed and their clothes sunk by being impaled with sticks? That took time and served no purpose that I can see. Better to leave the clothes on the sunken bodies.

I was thinking the exact same thing (with regard to the bolded). I don't know what the exact protocol is, but couldn't it have been possible that the operator told whoever called to stay where they were calling from? I mean think about it: you call the police from one place -- wouldn't it make sense to simply stay at the place where you're calling, as opposed to hanging up and essentially meeting them at another place? The cops would want you to simply wait where you are and come to you, as opposed to meeting you somewhere else -- because what if the cops get there and you never show up? They would waste their time.

Clemente is a clown by the way -- I fully believe he knew this was BS but wanted to pretend he came up with some juicy "nugget" or epiphany on the case, when simple logic easily dismisses it.

Also, from what I've always understood, it was TH that called from Catfish Island. Supposedly, right when he got there, he entered the restaurant and went straight to the phone.
 
Is the prosecutors reluctance to have evidence tested for DNA because of the cost. Why wouldn't he want to pursue more facts about the case?
 
I was thinking the exact same thing (with regard to the bolded). I don't know what the exact protocol is, but couldn't it have been possible that the operator told whoever called to stay where they were calling from? I mean think about it: you call the police from one place -- wouldn't it make sense to simply stay at the place where you're calling, as opposed to hanging up and essentially meeting them at another place? The cops would want you to simply wait where you are and come to you, as opposed to meeting you somewhere else -- because what if the cops get there and you never show up? They would waste their time.

Clemente is a clown by the way -- I fully believe he knew this was BS but wanted to pretend he came up with some juicy "nugget" or epiphany on the case, when simple logic easily dismisses it.

Also, from what I've always understood, it was TH that called from Catfish Island. Supposedly, right when he got there, he entered the restaurant and went straight to the phone.

Yeah, considering its significance ("I'm angry now...."), I expected the topic to be explored--or at least mentioned again.

Now that you mention it, the address of the call probably/maybe popped up on the dispatcher's screen. That's why I keep my landline.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
1,103
Total visitors
1,236

Forum statistics

Threads
589,162
Messages
17,915,003
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top