VICKIE: ARRON TOLD ME THAT UM HE AND MICHAEL AND CHRIS VISITED THEIR CLUB HOUSE EVERYDAY AND THEY ROAD THEIR BIKES AND THEY WERE SPYING ON 5 MEN AND AH I ASKED HIM WHO THEY WERE AND HE SAID I DON’T KNOW MOM WHO THEY WERE I JUST YOU KNOW WE JUST SPYING ON EM I SAID WHY WOULD YOU BE SPYING ON 5 MEN YOU KNOW AND HE SAID WELL THEY WERE THERE EVERYDAY SO WE WOULD WATCH THEM.

And also:

AND I TOLD HIM, YOU KNOW WHAT WHY DIDN’T YAWL LEAVE WHY DIDN’T YOU COME HOME, WERE YOU SCARED? THEY SAID NO WE HID THEY COULDN’T SEE US. OKAY AND AH I SAID SO YAWL WENT THERE EVERYDAY. HE SAID WE WENT THERE EVERYDAY BUT WOULDN’T GO ON FRIDAY AND I TOLD HIM WHY HOW DO YOU KNOW FRIDAY? … AH I SAID ARRON YOU KNOW THAT THEY TOOK THEIR CLOTHES OFF WHY DIDN’T YOU LEAVE? AND HE SAID BECAUSE WE WERE SCARED, AND THEY WERE SCARED I GUESS OF GETTING CAUGHT THEN AND AH HE SAID MICHAEL KEPT TELLING ME THAT IT WAS AN INDIAN THING THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO AND CHRIS SAID NO THEIR GETTING READY TO HAVE SEX. AND I TOLD AARON, ARRON DOESN’T KNOW ABOUT SEX AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND ALL THE BOOKS THAT YOU’VE SEEN UM HE SAID THAT THEY HAD THEIR PETERS IN EACH OTHERS BUTTS AND SAID THEY WATCHED. 

RIDGE: OKAY. ALRIGHT HE TOLD YOU THAT 

VICKIE: YEAH.

And Aaron continues:

RIDGE: ALRIGHT, WHEN YOU SAW THESE FIVE OUT THERE IN THE WOODS AND THEY WERE DOING THESE THINGS THAT WERE BAD OKAY WAS THIS AT DAYTIME OR WAS IT NIGHTTIME?

AARON: IT WAS BOTH

RIDGE: IT WAS EARLY IN THE MORNING OR LATE AT NIGHT OR LATE IN THE EVENING?

AARON: IT WAS, WHEN EVER WE GOT OUT OF SCHOOL WE WENT THERE ABOUT FOUR

RIDGE: OKAY

AARON: AND THEY NEVER GOT THERE BEFORE WE DID

RIDGE: YOU WERE ALWAYS THERE FIRST. WHAT DID YOU ALL HIDE AND WAIT FOR THEM?

AARON: YEAH (YES) WILL WE ALWAYS. WE ALWAYS GOT A PLACE TO HIDE BEFORE THEY CAN GET THERE

RIDGE: WHERE DID YOU HIDE?

AARON: WE HIDE ONE TIME WE HIDE BEHIND UM A TREE. SIDEWAYS AND WE GOT IN OUR CLUB HOUSE

RIDGE: OKAY

RIDGE: OKAY. ALRIGHT DID CHRIS AND MICHAEL DID THEY TELL YOU THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD GOT CAUGHT. THAT THE FIVE MAN MAY HAVE CAUGHT THEM? THEY WEREN’T SCARED THAT MAYBE SOMEBODY HAD SEEN THEM IN THERE ONE DAY?

AARON: UH-UH (NO), BECAUSE THEY NEVER SEEN US

Another interesting bit of information that Aaron tells police is that not only did Stevie not ever join the others when they watched these man having sex in the woods, but that Chris and Michael told Aaron not to tell anyone what they had seen, including Stevie, who was one of their best friends.

RIDGE:  SO HOW ABOUT DO YOU KNOW STEVE, DID HE EVER GO DOWN THERE WITH YOU?

AARON: UM, ONLY ONE TIME

RIDGE: ONE TIME, WERE THEY, WERE YOU ALL WATCHING THE FIVE MEN DOWN THERE THAT TIME WHEN HE WENT WITH YOU?

AARON: NO, HE’S NEVER… WE NEVER TOLD HIM ABOUT IT. HE’S NEVER SEEN THEM

RIDGE: OH, OKAY

AARON: CAUSE IT WAS ON A FRIDAY WHENEVER HE WENT DOWN THERE WITH US

RIDGE: DID YOU EVER TELL ANYDODY ABOUT IT?

AARON: HU-UH (NO)

RIDGE: WHY? YOU JUST THOUGHT IT WAS BAD? 

AARON: MICHAEL AND CHRIS SAID NOT TO TELL NOBODY

Aaron adds a few more details to what the boys had seen down in those woods:

RIDGE: UM, DO YOU THINK THOSE MEN WERE CRAZY? DO YOU THINK THEY WERE CRAZY

AARON: THEY WERE SMOKING

RIDGE: FOR DOING WHAT THEY WERE DOING?

AARON: THEY WERE ROLLED UP UM, CIGARETTES THERE WAS ALL KIND OF WHITE

RIDGE: KINDA WHITE CIGARETTES?

AARON: ALL WHITE THE KIND YOU ROUND UP YEA YOU PUT THAT GREEN STUFF IN THERE

RIDGE: DID YOU EVER SMELL THE SMOKE? WHAT DID IT SMELL LIKE DID IT STINK?

AARON: YEAH (YES) IT STUNK

RIDGE: WHAT IT SMELL LIKE?

AARON: IT SMELLED LIKE, IT SMELLED LIKE A CIGARETTE JUST GETTING LILT BUT IT WAS A DIFFERENT KIND

Aaron tells police why he believes his friends were killed:

RIDGE: TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED?

AARON: THEY UM, THEY WENT DOWN TO WATCH THOSE MEN AND

RIDGE: OKAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENED TO THEM?

AARON: I THINK THEY WAS WATCHING THEM MEN LIKE… LIKE WE ALWAYS DID, AND THEY… THEY GOT CAUGHT, AND THEN THEY NEVER TOLD THE MEN, AND THE MEN SORTA KILLED THEM

And in another statement made a week later, Aaron again says he believes his friends got caught spying on the men and one of them ordered the others to hold the boys while he killed them:

AARON: NOBODY EVEN KNOWS THAT.. THAT I KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. WHAT I THINK HAPPENED TO THEM.

RIDGE: DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?

AARON: I KNOW MOST OF IT

RIDGE: OKAY

AARON: I THINK THEY WENT DOWN THERE. THEY UM. THE MEN SEEN THEM. AND THAT WHITE TANK TOP MAN. THAT HAD ON THE WHITE TANK TOP.  HE TOLD THE REST OF THE MEN TO HOLD THEM OR SOMETHING AND PROBABLY DID IT

RIDGE: THE ONE IN THE WHITE SHIRT DOES HE LIKE TO BOSS?

AARON: KIND OF. HE ALWAYS TELLS THEM WHAT TO DO AND THEY DO IT

If we believe these statements by Aaron, which I think are very plausible, we have not only a motive for murder but the very basis for what might have occurred in those woods on May 5th, 1993. There was evidence to suggest that Aaron was telling the truth about the clubhouse because wooden planks were in fact found and collected by police. Chris Byers’ brother and others also confirmed that the boys played in those woods very often and the very first statements made by both Aaron and Vickie were that Aaron and the boys played in those woods and secretly watched men engage in sex. Additionally, approximately a month before the murders, a friend of Chris Byers’ brother claimed to have seen Michael and Chris with their pants down, simulating a sex act in the exact way that homosexual men preform sex; one boy was standing up and bent over and the other boy was standing behind him and they both had their pants down. What are the chances that boys would act out the way homosexual men have sex, in addition to one of them saying they watched homosexual men have sex, and it not be true? Furthermore, the time the boys were seen doing this is also around the time that Aaron Hutchinson claimed they had first seen the men in the woods. Another coincidence? Again, I’ll let you decide.

Unfortunately, the police had such tunnel vision about the reason why they believe the murders had occurred and who they believed the perpetrators were, that they basically ignored what Aaron’s statements really revealed; they unwittingly lead Aaron away from helping them find the true killers. They were so sure that the murders were part of a satanic ritual done by teenagers, and were so desperate to make sure that Aaron’s answers revealed that, that eventually Aaron’s statements began to get more and more fantastical and implausible.  Due to this error in the judgement by police, the information revealed by Aaron has been largely ignored through the years. Basically, the truth was overshadowed by stories of cults and devil worshipping put into Aaron’s head by his mother and the West Memphis detectives, Bryn Ridge and Gary Gitchell. If they had focused on what the evidence at the crime scene really revealed, in addition to the details from Aaron’s interview, they would have been looking for a male or males who knew the victims well, were rumored or known homosexual or bisexual men approximately aged from 20-30 years old, and a person(s) who was free to frequent the woods in the afternoons from 5pm- 8pm at night, Monday -Thursday. Additionally, they would have focused on someone who lived in West Memphis and knew the Blue Beacon Woods well.

Twenty years later, in 2013, two parents of the murdered boys, Mark Byers and Pam Hicks, hired a lawyer to help them look at any evidence in the prosecution’s possession. While searching through the evidence, their lawyer and private investigator found a letter written to prosecutor, Scott Ellington in February 2012. In this letter, a man named Bennie Guy revealed that in 1994, two teens, Buddy Lucas and LG Hollingsworth had confessed to him that they had been involved in the murders with two other men, Terry Hobbs, stepfather to one of the murdered boys and David Jacoby, friend of Terry Hobbs. To corroborate this letter, Byers and Hick’s lawyer and investigator contacted Bennie’s friend, Billy Stewart. He also confirmed that one of the teens, Buddy Lucas, had admitted to his involvement in the murders with the other three men. These men had no reason to lie or even tell their story, if not for justice. Not only did they not ever contact the Echol’s defense team in search of a deal for their help, Buddy Guy didn’t send his letter to the prosecutor till the WM3 were out of prison. I feel the reason for this was because Bennie knew no one would listen to him as long as someone else was locked up for the crime. Billy was merely contacted to corroborate the letter, which he did. He told the exact same story even though the two men were not in prison together. Their affidavits can be read here and here. Both Guy and Stewart have tried since 1994, thirteen years before Terry and David were even suspects, to tell the authorities what they had been told. Tragically, for all involved,  no one seemed interested or would return their calls.

Left: Buddy Lucas Right: LG Hollingsworth

Left: Terry Hobbs Right: David Jacoby

Before I summarize what the Guy/Stewart affidavits reveal, I’d like to summarize the statements made by Aaron Hutchinson in his first two interviews. He told police that he and his friends often played in the Blue Beacon Woods. He admits that they would go to the woods and hide either behind a tree or in their clubhouse, wait for a group of men to arrive, and then spy on them. They would watch the men as they smoked marijuana and engaged in sexual activity. When the police asked Aaron why he thought his friends were murdered, he told them that he believed his friends got caught spying on the men and that the “man with the white tank top” told the others to hold them while he killed them.

In 1993 Bennie Guy and Billy Stewart were both very close with a mentally slow teenager named Buddy Lucas. After the murders occurred, rumors circulated that Buddy may have been involved. Apparently, he had told family members that his mother found a pair of his bloody shoes and when he talked about the murders at work, he lead people to believe he somehow knew something or was in someway involved. Due to the suspicion surrounding Buddy and because of his erratic behavior, Bennie Guy decided to confront Buddy and ask him if he truly was involved. What Buddy said was shocking. He allegedly admitted to Bennie that he had participated in the murders with three other men, LG Hollingsworth, Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby. A year or so after Buddy admitted to Bennie of his involvement, he also allegedly confessed to Billy Stewart and described to him what happened. Buddy’s version of events would match up perfectly with what LG would later tell Bennie Guy when they were locked up in the county jail together.

Both teens allegedly confessed that on the late afternoon of May 5th, 1993, they had been walking around Lakeshore trailer park when Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby pulled up next to them. The two men were looking for weed and asked the boys if they knew where to find some, or in other words, they wanted to know which drug dealer was currently “holding”. Buddy told them that Billy Stewart was holding weed at that time.  The two teens jumped in the truck with the men, stopped by Billy’s home and bought the weed and then drove around the back streets of West Memphis, smoking and drinking whiskey. After some time, they pulled up beside the Blue Beacon Woods. When they arrived in the woods, Terry Hobbs told the boys to wrestle. After the boys wrestled, the men offered them more marijuana and whiskey. According to Billy Stewart’s statement, he believes that at this time some sexual activity occurred between the men and two teens. Shortly after this, Terry Hobbs noticed that the three boys were spying on the men. He then told the others to “Get them, fuckers! Catch them!” When the teens brought the boys back, one of them kicked Hobbs which sent him into a rage. He snapped and hit the boy. David Jacoby, in an effort to catch one of the boys, fell and skinned his knee and also snapped in his frustration and hit one boy. Allegedly, Terry Hobbs told the boys he was going to teach them a lesson. He had LG and Buddy rip off the clothes of the boys and then pulled out a knife and began to bite and stab the scrotum  of one boy. He then told the others that all three had to die for what they had seen. The four men beat the boys, tied them up and threw them and their clothes into the ditch of water. They then went and dumped the boys’ bicycles into the bayou, cleaned up the area and left by dark.

You have to keep in mind that the statements from Bennie Guy and Billy Stewart are considered hearsay and most likely would not stand up in a court of law alone. However, is it simply a coincidence that the statements that Aaron told police in 1993 coincide so perfectly with the alleged confessions that Buddy and LG made in 1994 and were later retold in 2012? Aaron claimed that he and his friends would go to the woods, hide, and spy on men as they smoked marijuana and had sex. He believed that the men, this time, saw the boys spying and killed them. He believed that one of the men told the others what to do, because they always did what he said. And then, twenty years later, a letter is found that had been sitting untouched in the prosecution’s possession for a year. In that letter is a story about four men going to the woods, smoking marijuana and possibly engaging in sexual activity. The four men see the young boys spying, one man in particular, the stepfather of one child, orders the others to grab them; he flies into a rage and hits the boys, and the attack leads to murder.

Coincidence? Perhaps. It’s important to note that the details of Aaron’s interview were not open to the public until 2006. At that time and also later, when Bennie sent his letter and Billy was contacted, both men were in prison, separately. This means that they were not free to sit at a computer all day and wade through reams and reams of public evidence to know all the details of the case. So the chance of them basing their statements off of the practically endless information found on the internet is nil. These alleged confessions did not, and could not, come from intense online investigation. And that is extremely significant. However, we have the ability to read all the information and evidence that is available to the public, and it’s not difficult to see that it all supports that this theory is more than just a theory. In my opinion, it shows that this theory is actually exactly what happened. Read on and perhaps you will agree.

Here is a timeline of how events may have unfolded that day. I will support each theory with known public evidence. Some details of this timeline are facts, corroborated by multiple sources, other details are merely theories of what may have taken place on the evening of May 5th, 1993. Timeline:

2;30 Pam Hicks, Stevie and Amanda walk home from school. Pam begins making dinner and getting ready for work (source)

3:15 Michael Moore shows up and asks if he and Stevie can ride bikes together. Pam concedes on one condition: Stevie must be home by 4:30 or he will be grounded from his beloved bike for two weeks. Stevie promises and the boys leave.

-3:30 Christopher shows up looking for the boys. He ends up staying and watching TV with Amanda.

4:00 Chris leaves leaves Pam’s house to meet up with Stevie and Michael who are out riding their bikes in the neighborhood

4:30 Terry gets home from work

4:50 Terry takes Pam to work but first drives by the Moores looking for Stevie who did not come home by 4:30. Terry and Pam see Dawn Moore and tell her they are looking for Stevie. She hasn’t seen him or Michael by this point.

-5:00 Terry Hobbs drops Pam off at work and returns home What happened next is a theory supported by evidence and interviews. Terry Hobbs was basically unaccounted for from 5pm to approx. 9pm the night of the 5th so we need to theorize what may have happened because he has no alibi. I allege that Terry came home right after 5pm and Stevie was headed to the house at this time. This is corroborated by various accounts and also by the fact that Stevie was not a child who disobeyed his parents. In 2011, Jamie Ballard, her sister and her mother came forward when they discovered that Terry Hobbs claimed to have never seen the boys on the 5th. (1, 2 ) According to Jamie and her family, the three boys were playing in her backyard and then flew out onto the sidewalk and headed towards the Hobbs home. Right as this happened, Terry, who was their neighbor, called to Stevie to come home. Jamie and her sister believe that this occurred at 6:30, while their mother believes that the boys were playing in her backyard somewhere between 5:30-6:30pm. I allege that these three women are correct in that they saw the three boys, I simply believe that they got confused on the time that it occurred. Memories of events are easy to remember, specific times when events occurred are much more difficult to pinpoint. Especially considering that they are remembering this event 18 years later for one, and for two, there were multiple sightings of the boys from 6pm-6:30 on the street beside the woods, quite a ways away from the Hobbs’ home, as well as the woods themselves. One woman, in particular, saw the boys inside the woods from her truck when traffic has slowed. (3) She claimed to have seen them near the spot they were murdered somewhere between 6:00 and 6:30. This would make the Ballard sighting of 6:30 next to impossible if not impossible, considering the boys were found in those woods and the time of death was most likely 7pm. However, I do believe the women saw the three boys and that they also saw them with Terry Hobbs; they testified under oath and under penalty of perjury and they are credible sources.

In addition to the Ballard sighting, there is more evidence that supports the boys were with Terry around 5pm. Before Pam went to work she made a dinner of green beans and steak. (1)  When Stevie’s autopsy was performed, a partially digested green-vegetable like substance was found in his belly. This lends credibilty to the theory that Stevie did in fact go home, and even ate some dinner. No matter what green vegetable Stevie ate, the fact that it was a green vegetable and that it was partially digested shows that Stevie had to have eaten some vegetables sometime between 5:00 and 6:30. We know this because it takes 45 minutes to two hours to digest vegetables and we also know that the experts believe that the boys were murdered sometime around 7:00 pm. Who would have fed Stevie vegetables if not his own parents? And, since Pam regularly made dinner at 4:30, Stevie knew that dinner was going to be around this time. Even Terry said they usually ate dinner before Pam left for work (2). It is much more plausible that Stevie would have come home not much later than the time he was originally supposed to be there and that he made it home not much later than dinnertime. Additionally, Stevie, by both Pam and Terry’s accounts was a well behaved boy who did not disobey. Not only did Terry whip Stevie for not listening, but Pam was strict as well. If Stevie had disobeyed and never returned home or even waited a full two hours before doing so, he would have lost his bicycle privleges for two weeks, and probably would have gotten a pretty severe whipping from Terry. The most likely answer is that Stevie, Chris and Michael were playing behind Jamie Ballard’s home probably right around 5:00 as they headed on there way to Stevie’s house. Sometime after 5:00 Stevie then told his friends he really needed to go home and so they began to head back that way. This is when Jamie would have remembered seeing Terry out on the sidewalk calling the boys home just as they would have shot out onto the street from her house. Stevie would have then gone home, eaten some dinner and asked if he could continue playing with Chris and Michael.

Lastly, even David Jacoby, friend to Terry Hobbs, testified that when Terry arrived at his home at 5:30, he asked Terry where Stevie was. David Jacoby claimed that Terry said that Stevie was out riding his bike and that he told “them” to be back before dark. (1)

 I believe I ask where Steve was ask. And he said he was out riding his bike that his grand paw had bought him. Its been so long ago you know it may not be in the right order but I know he did come over around 5:30/6 o’clock and we played the guitar for a while and then he said he had to go. And uh Steve was suppose to come by (not audible) before dark I thank it was bout yeah it was bout this time a year it git dark around 8 o’clock or so, and he said he told em to be back before dark.

With all that in mind, I allege that Terry and Amanda returned home a little after 5pm. Shortly after arriving home, Terry was out in his driveway with Amanda, saw the boys outside Jamie Ballards’ home and called them to come to the house. This is most likely when Stevie asked Terry if he could continue riding bikes with his friends. I believe the known evidence supports the notion that Terry said yes, but that Stevie went inside to eat dinner first.  I also believe this is why the boys got separated. If Stevie was going to go inside and eat dinner, this might have lead Chris Byers to decide to go home and eat, too, knowing that he would also get in trouble if he didn’t show up. The boys probably promised to meet up in a bit and Chris headed home.

This is all supported by Mark Byers’ testimony. Mark Byers claimed that Chris had attempted to break into the house sometime near 5pm but could not get in, when Mark arrived home at 5:20 and left shortly after to pick up his other son, he saw Chris riding his skateboard in the street. My theory is that Chris had tried to get into his home and failed and was heading back to Stevie’s house when he was picked up by his dad instead. Mark took Chris home, spanked him for being in the middle of the street and not waiting at home, told him to clean the carport and left him there cleaning at 5:30.

5:30pm According to both Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby, Terry and Amanda show up at the Jacoby’s at approx. 5:30. My theory is that Stevie finished dinner and took off with Michael again to find Chris, and Terry and Amanda then headed over to the Jacoby’s home. Terry claims that he dropped Amanda off with Bobby, David’s wife and that he and David then scoured the neighborhood looking for Stevie, which makes no sense. David Jacoby claims that Terry showed up and the two played guitar for an hour, which also doesn’t add up when you know all the details. David Jacoby also claimed to have seen the three boys in the street at this time; one on a skateboard and the others on bikes. I think David Jacoby made a mistake/ a slip when he claimed that he saw the three boys, two on bicycles and one on a skateboard on the street when Terry showed up. The problem with this statement is this: for one, Jacoby claims he asked Terry where Stevie was. Why would he ask Terry where Stevie was if he literally had seen Stevie riding in the street with his friends a few minutes prior? And for two, David claims to have seen the three boys in front of his house at 5:30 when he opened the door to let Terry and Amanda inside. The problem with that is that Chris was under the carport cleaning at 5:30, according to both of his parents.  What is most interesting, however, is that most of the public did not know that Chris was on a skateboard at one point that afternoon. Most of the sightings of the boys were when the three were riding on two bicycles. The fact that David Jacoby said that he saw all three boys and one was riding on a skateboard, means that David really did see the boys at some point that day. And, it had to have been between 5:30 and 6:00 because Chris abandoned his skateboard by 6:00 and joined Stevie on his bicycle.

So, here is my theory of what happened. Terry showed up at his good friend David’s house to drop off Amanda so he and David could go buy marijuana. You have to remember that during this time these two men were quite young, mid twenties/mid thirties and they had just gotten off of work, they had David’s wife Bobby to watch the kids, Pam was at work and Stevie was playing with his friends and wouldn’t be back till 8pm. This gave the men 2 and a half hours to let off some steam and possibly drink and get high. I believe that David did ask Terry where Stevie was when Terry showed up at 5:30 and that Terry told him the truth: Stevie was riding his bike and would be back by dark (8pm). Then, I believe the men left around 5:45 and headed out of West Memphis towards Lakeshore trailerpark where Terry’s alleged drug dealer lived.

Sometime right after 5:30, according to the Byers, Chris took off again from his house. According to known evidence Stevie and Michael went to the Byers’ right around 5:30, which in my opinion was right after they left the Hobbs’ home. They then picked Chris up (as evidence shows) and the three headed out on their bikes and skateboard, riding up 14th street right before 6pm. As they were riding around the street, Terry and David drove by on Barton (Barton would have lead them directly out of the neighborhood, taking them to 7th street which leads up to Lakeshore) and David saw them in the street. This is the reason why David remembers the three playing; two on bicycles and one on a skateboard. Chris was only spotted on a skateboard up until 6pm. From 6pm on, he had left his skateboard in the street and hopped on the back of Stevie’s bike.

A and B represent Chris and Michael’s home and the C on the map on the right represents Stevie’s home. David Jacoby lived on 17th between 14th and Ingram.

We know from multiple sightings, including Michael’s mother, that the three boys were on two bikes riding on 14th, headed to Goodwin St. at 6pm. The final sightings of the boys had them heading into Robin Hood Hills at 6:30.(source)

If the theory of Terry and David leaving West Memphis and heading to Lakeshore trailer park at 5:45 is true, then Terry and David could have theoretically ran into Buddy Lucas and LG Hollingsworth sometime around 6pm, since both LG and Buddy were last seen at Lakeshore that afternoon.

One of the most vital components of this theory is whether LG and Buddy had alibis for this night. I admit that when I first read the alleged Buddy/LG confessions I was skeptical. I thought, surely, if this is a lie, it will be discredited quickly by known facts and information. But the deeper I dug, the more I realized that not only was there no evidence to discredit that these four men committed this murder, all the known evidence supports the notion that they actually did do it.

Let’s begin with Buddy. Buddy Lucas lived in Lakeshore Trailerpark in May, 1993. When questioned later by police, he claims that on the day of the murders he was heading out to meet up with Jesse Misskelley at his Lakeshore trailer but never met up with him.  When police interviewed Buddy’s cousin, she recalled that her aunt said that Buddy left to go see Jessie sometime before the murders occurred but did not return till the next day. (Charlotte Bly interview)

RIDGE – OKAY, NOW THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH HIS AUNT WHAT IS HER NAME AGAIN? 

BLY – IRENE WILSON 

RIDGE – IRENE SHE TOLD YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE DAY THE KIDS WERE MURDERED? 

BLY – BUDDY UM, LEFT A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THE KIDS GOT KILLED AND SHE SAID, HE DIDN’T COME BACK UNTIL THE NEXT DAY 

RIDGE – OKAY

BLY – LATER THAT AFTERNOON

RIDGE – ALRIGHT, DID SHE KNOW WHERE HE HAD BEEN? 

BLY – NO 

RIDGE – OKAY, WHEN HE LEFT DID HE TELL SOMEBODY WHERE HE WAS GOING? 

BLY – HE WAS SUPPOSE TO GO MEET JESSIE MISSKELLEY OUT AT LAKESHORE 

RIDGE – OKAY, THEN HE WAS AT LAKESHORE AND LEAVING TO GO SOME WHERE? 

BLY – SUPPOSEDLY 

When Jessie was fully investigated by police, it never once came up that Jessie was with Buddy that night. When police finally did ask Buddy where he was the night of the 5th, he claimed that he barbecued with his family and then brought over some barbecue chicken to Jessie who ended up not being there. He claimed that along with his cousin Rex Heath, he gave Jessie’s dad the barbecued chicken and went home. According to his cousin, Rex, this was not true.

RIDGE – DO YOU REMEMBER MAY THE 5TH?

HEATH – YES SIR 

RIDGE – DO YOU REMEMBER THAT DAY ON THE 5TH, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOU DID THAT DAY? 

HEATH – RAISED SOME WALLS ON A HOUSE 

RIDGE – WHO WERE WORKING IN CONSTRUCTION WORK?

 HEATH – YES 

RIDGE – OKAY, DO YOU REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY WHETHER YOU MAY HAVE GONE OVER TO JESSIE’S ON THAT DATE? 

HEATH – NO SIR 

RIDGE – YOU DON’T REMEMBER? 

HEATH – I DIDN’T GO THAT DAY 

RIDGE – YOU DIDN’T GO OVER THERE THAT DAY? 

HEATH – DIDN’T GO OVER THERE 

RIDGE – OKAY, THAT’S WHAT I’M GETTING TO, BUT YOU HAVE BEEN THERE ON OCCASION WITH BUDDY? 

HEATH – ONE TIME 

RIDGE – OKAY, SO WHEN BUDDY TELLS US THAT HE BELIEVES THAT THE DATE ON THE 5TH THAT HE WENT OVER THERE WITH YOU, HE DID GO OVER THERE WITH YOU, BUT IT WASN’T ON THAT DATE? 

HEATH – RIGHT 

When prosecutor John Fogelman interviewed Buddy later, Buddy repeatedly told him that he had an alibi for the 5th despite the fact that Fogelman never even brought it up himself. (1) Strangely, Buddy first says that he has a man who will testify that he worked with Buddy all that day and then later on in the conversation, Buddy claims that his boss will testify that he was at work on the 5th. However, this was never corroborated by police. And even if he did work the day of the 5th, it’s the late afternoon/night that is important. What’s more suspicious, is that Buddy originally told police that he was with his family barbecuing on the 5th but when his mother spoke to Fogelman, she never mentions anything about Buddy being home with her that night. In fact, she too brings up that Buddy was “working that day” as if that proved anything. And, according to Buddy’s cousins, Rex Heath and Charlotte Bly, not only does Buddy not have an alibi for the night of the 5th, it’s a possibility he lied to police about what he did that night. Additionally, his cousin, Charlotte claims that he was at Lakeshore before the murders, left and did not come back till the next day. This not only puts Buddy in Lakeshore at the possible time that Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby could have shown up, but it shows that his whereabouts were unknown at the time the murder occurred.

LG’s whereabouts that night are equally suspicious, if not more so. LG spent the day of the 5th with his aunt, Narlene. She drove him around that day to help him find a job. Although LG lived in West Memphis,  just a few blocks from Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby, he spent a great deal of time at Lakeshore because various family members of his, including Narlene, lived there. In LG’s interviews of what he did that afternoon, he repeatedly contradicts himself. In his first interview, taken shortly after the murders, he claims he went home in the early afternoon but then changes his story and puts himself in Lakeshore at 4:30. (1, 2,) He originally claims to have asked his aunt for a ride home, that she said no, and he left and began to walk home. Then he changes his story again and said that Narlene did give him a ride home around this time. When  Narlene was interviewed she claimed to have dropped LG off at his home. At first she claimed that this happened at 4:30 and at the murder trials, she claimed it was sometime after 5pm.

I have a very strong suspicion that Narlene lied about dropping LG off at home and there is ample evidence to support this. Narlene interjected herself all over this case. She claimed to have seen the three eight year old boys when she dropped LG off, but it was a very shaky sighting. She described all three of on them on bicycles although they were only on two. She was completely off in her description of the way they looked and the way they were dressed.  When reading her first statements to police, it raises serious doubts about her alleged sighting of the three boys. How could she be so off in her description of what they wore and what they looked like, if she truly did see them? She even described one brunette boy as being heavy set. The boys, especially Chris and Michael, were skinny, little boys. (Narlene Interview) Additionally, she lied about seeing Damien and her niece, Domini walking away from the crime scene sometime around 9:30 the night of the murders. She claimed to have seen the two walking as she was on her way to pick up her sister from work but there are serious problems with her statement. First of all, she claims that her husband, her three children and her son’s girlfriend were all in the car that night and two of her children even testified in court about the sighting. However, she drove a small four door car and there would be no room to pick up her sister if she already had six people in her car. It makes absolutely no sense that she would have brought five people along with her at almost 10pm at night to pick someone up. Even more incriminating, is that Narlene’s sister said that only Narlene and her husband picked her up from work. (Dixie’s statement) When Narlene’s husband was interviewed he said he saw two people walking on the service road, but was not sure who they were. What is equally disturbing, is that both Domini and Damien had solid alibis for that time period. (1, 2, 3) This means that not only did Narlene lie repeatedly to police and in court, but she convinced her two children to lie under oath as well.

Now why would Narlene go to such lengths to lie and basically accuse her niece and her neice’s boyfriend of murder? Why would she lie about seeing the three boys that day? It’s difficult to know all of Narlene’s reasons but I have a feeling about one of them.  I  believe that she knew that LG was somehow involved in the murders. My suspicion is that LG’s parents knew he participated in this crime ( I will touch more on this later) and Narlene, being LG’s aunt, probably had some limited knowledge of his participation, too. I allege that LG was confronted by his parents because of some evidence that pointed to his guilt, and when caught, LG told them that Damien had committed the murder and he that had only helped them in some small way. This is actually supported by various testimony, which I will bring up later. I believe this somehow got back to Narlene, who began to feel that  it was her duty that justice be served. Perhaps she felt obligated to lie about Damien in order to get him arrested for a murder she believed he committed. At the same time, she felt she must lie to protect her nephew, as she may have been told that his participation was very small. Here are two statements made by Narlene to police about LG. In the first one, she is relaying to police a conversation she had with her sister in law about LG and his family and the way they all were behaving a few days after the murder. In the second statement, Narlene describes to police a conversation she had with LG outside of the police station right before a police interview.

NARLENE: She meant the mommy, the daddy and the son,(LG) she said I don’t know what’s going on over there and she said, they are making me nervous, she’s a christian girl, she said and I got out of there, I said yeah, I get bad feelings around them too. And, I’ll tell you something, I would take up for my kids when I’ve known that they have done something, cause ain’t no telling what they would do. I don’t know what L. G. is capable of, and I am not saying that he would do it, and I am not saying that he wouldn’t, but I know Damian. Everybody said that Damian, I know that he’s suppose to have 666 on his shoes.

NARLENE: He (Lg) said, if you start saying that about Damian, you’re going to get in trouble, I said, well, the mommy is up there saying stating that he was, Damian was with her all the time. I said, well the mommy is a liar ain’t she. He said, you seen him coming down the street, I said, yes L. G. and I am not lying for him. I am not scared of that boy. He said, well don’t you put yourself in that kind of trouble. well, I’m going to take care of L. G. 

I find Narlene’s comments very telling. She tells police that LG said to her, don’t tell police you saw Damien on the service road or you will get in trouble. Why would she get in trouble for that? Because she was lying and both she and LG knew it. I think he knew it because he knew that Damien didn’t really commit this murder and that’s why he basically tells his aunt not to tell this lie.  It’s also interesting that Narlene is claiming that Damien’s mother is lying about Damien being with her. If she really did not see Damien on the road that night (which she didn’t) why was she so sure that Damien was not with his mother? Why was she so sure, in her mind, that Damien’s mother was lying about being with him all night? Maybe because she knew LG was involved and he told her that Damien did it. What other reason could there be? Her relay of the conversation seems to reveal that Narlene is talking to LG as if they both “know” that Damien is guilty. And since she couldn’t have “known” this from a sighting, because the sighting never happened, then it must be from some other source. At the end of the conversation LG apparently told Narlene, “Don’t put yourself in that kind of trouble” and Narlene says, “Well, I’m going to take care of LG.” To me, that means that she is willing to lie to help protect LG. I just find it amazing that she let this slip out and the police never even caught on. And why would Narlene have any need to lie for LG if he was innocent?

There is more evidence, also, that LG never went home that afternoon. For one, LG’s other aunt saw him at her work at approx. 9pm at night, and according to her, he was wearing a white shirt and tie. (source) LG had been job hunting that day and was likely wearing a shirt and tie for his interviews. If LG had been dropped off at home at 4:30, surely he would have changed out of his shirt and tie by 9pm. He was only 19 years old and this was a hot day in May. That he was still wearing the same clothes is very telling. It means it’s likely that he never went home. Also, according to LG’s aunt, Dixie, LG’s mother, Linda, came to her work the next day asking where he had been the night before.

Dixie came to work later and Linda Hollingsworth came in asking about where L.G. had been during the evening on 5-5-93. When Dixie told her of him coming in to the laundry in the small car she asked if she was sure that it wasn’t Richard Simpson’s car. Dixie stated that she knew Richard’s car and that it was not his.

LG also lied extensively about his whereabouts the night of the 5th. He flipped flopped between being at home with his mother and being at his friend Richard’s house from 5:30-9pm. When his friend Richard failed a polygraph, he admitted that LG had asked him to lie. Richard took another polygraph saying that LG was not with him the night of the 5th and he passed. (source) Additionally, a roommate of Richard’s also testified that LG was not at their home on the 5th but that he remembered LG’s mother calling looking for him. (source) All of these interviews and statements show that not only did LG not have an alibi, but he lied about his alibi and asked other people to lie about being with him, too. He actually was able to get his friend and aunt to lie for him in order to protect him. Now what did LG have to hide? Why was he lying?

And keep in mind how high the possibility is that Narlene lied about dropping LG off and what that might mean. Remember that LG’s own mother was looking for him that night, despite the claim that he was allegedly dropped off at her home. He was still wearing the same shirt and tie when he was spotted at approx. 9pm by his aunt, and lastly, remember the very obvious lie Narlene made, and even convinced her two children to make, on the stand about seeing Damien and Domini on the service road.. What that may mean is that the last known place that LG was seen was Lakeshore Trailerpark. Which means he could have been walking with Buddy right at the time Terry and David would have shown up.

This brings us to around 6pm at night. This is when Terry and David would have allegedly arrived at Lakeshore, seen Buddy and LG walking together and asked them who was holding weed. It’s likely that Terry was already heading to Billy Stewart’s home since, according to Billy, he was Terry’s drug dealer at this time. Buddy also knew Billy, so he, too would have told Terry to go by Billy’s. According to both Billy and Bennie’s statements, the four men pulled up to the trailer, bought a small amount of marijuana and left. This means that the four could have been driving around the back streets for around 25 minutes and then might have pulled up to the Blue Beacon Woods sometime around 6:40. On the north side of the pipe bridge, very close to the Blue Beacon woods, a woman on the service road saw the three boys riding their bicycles at approx. 6:00-6:30. (1)  It’s possible that the by the time the men could have entered into the woods, the three eight year old boys were already there hiding.

Allegedly, the four men made it to a spot in the Blue Beacon Woods and Terry Hobbs asked the teens to wrestle each other. After they wrestled for a bit, Terry told them to stop and called them over to drink and/or smoke more. This is the time when, according to Billy Stewart, he believes something sexual might have taken place between all or some of the four men. If this is to be believed, it makes sense. If Terry wanted things to turn sexual, his predatory mind would have thought of ways to lead things in that direction. The teens wouldn’t have minded being asked to wrestle initially and it’s even likely they would have removed their shirts to do so (especially if LG was wearing a shirt and tie at this time). It also would have allowed Terry to take things to the next level; if he began with seemingly innocent orders he could have continued things that way, escalating events with each command. i.e: wrestle. Ok, now kiss. Ok, pull down his pants, etc. Also, we don’t know if the four men were already well acquainted. I actually believe there is a good possibility that at least LG already knew the two men. They lived only a few blocks from each other after all and LG already had a suspicious relationship with an older man. Had LG engaged in sexual activity with Hobbs and Jacoby prior to this day? I don’t know. It’s possible.

Before I continue, it’s important to bring up the alleged homosexuality of Terry Hobbs, which , in my opinion lends credence to the entire theory. Not only did Billy Stewart allege to have seen David and Terry kiss two different times, but he also claims to have delivered drugs to both men at a gay bar called J-Wags. He continued to say that it was known in the “drug world” that Terry was gay or bisexual and that he preferred sex with young boys.

I met Terry Hobbs through a mutual friend, Roy Taylor. Roy Taylor was the marijuana, cocaine, and crystal meth supplier for Mr. Hobbs and me.  I learned from Roy Taylor that Mr. Hobbs was bisexual. I learned through my connection in the drug-trade that Mr. Hobbs preferred sex with young boys. Within a week of that delivery, I also delivered marijuana, cocaine, and crystal meth to Mr. Hobbs in Memphis, Tennessee, on Madison Avenue at a gay bar called J-Wags. Upon the delivery, I saw Mr. Hobbs holding hands with the same man who he was at my house with on May 5, 1993.

The suspicious part about this is that in a deposition taken in 2009, Terry Hobbs had the very same allegations implied against him that Billy Stewart made in 2013, four years later, but this time the implications were made by Natalie Maines’ lawyers. Which means that when Natalie’s lawyers dug into Terry Hobb’s past, there were obviously some people who made similar allegations to the ones Billy made 4 years later. To me, this suggests that perhaps this was common knowledge around Terry’s group of “friends”.

2 Q. Have you had a drug dealer named Ray?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Do you frequent gay clubs?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Have you ever been called the Queer Pepsi
7 Driver?
8 A. No. Where do you get all this from?
9 Q. Have you ever — have you ever sexually propositioned David Jacoby?

The question about Terry having a drug dealer name Ray could also possibly be significant. In Billy Stewart’s statement, Terry had another drug dealer named Roy Taylor. I can’t be sure, but it’s possible that the interviewer in this deposition meant Roy not Ray. If that is true, then that is more evidence to support Billy’s statements as being factual. If he was correct about the drug dealer, he could have correct about the other allegations. The question about Terry propositioning David Jacoby has lead some people to defend Jacoby, claiming that he would not have told people he was propositioned if he really had a secret gay relationship with Terry Hobbs. What people forget is that we don’t know who said that Terry propositioned Jacoby. There is both an interview and an affidavit signed by Jacoby and neither of those mention anything about Terry propositioning him. It seems more likely that someone saw Hobb’s make a pass at Jacoby and then told Natalie Maines’ lawyers about it. Either way, it’s awfully peculiar that there is a question that implies something sexual about the nature of Terry and David’s relationship. I’d certainly like to know the back story to some of those questions.

In addition to Billy’s statements and the similar questions asked in the 2009 deposition that both pointed to Terry Hobbs being an alleged homosexual or bisexual man, the criminal profiler Brent Turvey claimed in 1996 that whoever committed this murder was a closet homosexual who projected a macho image.  

The attack on his genitals suggests an offender who is ashamed of his own sexuality, possibly confused and angered by his own sexual impulses towards males. 

And also..

Would project a macho, heterosexual, in-control image.

Additionally, there is an ample amount of evidence, in my opinion, that Terry might have sexually abused all of his children. According to Terry’s ex wife, Terry Hobbs’ first wife had claimed in their divorce papers that he molested their son. Terry’s own daughter allegedly told family members, including her mother, grandmother, cousin and aunt that she had been abused by her dad and two family members even claimed to have walked in on Terry abusing his daughter. In Terry Hobbs’ daughter’s own diary she talks about having dreams about having sex with her dad and that she is sure that he didn’t molest her from age 15 years old to 19. That leaves many years unaccounted for. Lastly, Stevie branch apparently told his cousin that Terry was molesting him and Amanda. ( source) One of the most significant pieces of evidence to support this allegation comes from the medical examiner who did Stevie’s autopsy. Apparently, Stevie had injuries to his penis that he believed were self inflicted. Basically, he believes that Stevie was a sexualized child. In other words, he was likely being molested. This is a big deal. Essentially, the statements made by Dr. Perretti are not much different than if Pam took her son to a doctor, had him examined and was then told by the doctor that Stevie had injuries related to sexual abuse. (source)

Steven Branch had lacerations on his penis which were probably self-inflicted indicating a sexualized child, usually associated with sexual abuse.

Terry and David are not the only ones with suspicions and allegations of homosexuality surrounding them, though. LG, as well, had raised some suspicions himself by carrying on an unusual relationship with a much older man. At the time of the murders, LG was only 19 and spent most of his time with an unmarried man who was in his 50s. When LG was interviewed by police one of the things they noted was LG’s suspicious relationship with Richard Simpson. They believed something inappropriate may be going on between the two, who practically lived together. Also, although this may seem insignificant, Anthony Hollingsworth, LG’s cousin,  made a statement in May of 1993 that LG “acts” like he is gay.

Statement made by Anthony Hollingsowrth, cousin to LG, to police. May 1993

Back to the timeline. At 6:40 the men may have shown up in the BB woods, some wrestling may have occurred and some drinking and/or smoking and even the beginning of sexual activity. By 7:05 the three boys may have been spotted by Terry or one of the others. My theory is this: Stevie had never seen the “men in the woods” having sex before. Aaron, Michael and Chris had always gone without Stevie and the one time Stevie did go, the men did not show up. Also, Chris and Michael told Aaron never to tell Stevie. I wonder if Michael and Chris knew that one of the men was Stevie’s stepdad and that is the reason they never told Stevie what they saw in those woods. Stevie knew Terry well. According to Pam’s family, Stevie was terrified of Terry. Terry admitted himself that he whipped Stevie and by Amanda’s own account, Terry was a violent man who left welts and bruises on her when he hit her. My theory is that when Stevie saw Terry there, he was scared, very scared. And if he witnessed the beginning of sexual activity, Stevie, unlike the others, would have known that if the three of them got caught spying they all would have been killed. Perhaps Stevie tried to sneak away. For whatever reason, if this all is the truth, something went wrong, and that was the day that the boys tragically got caught spying.

In both Billy and Bennie’s statements, i.e.: the alleged confessions of both Buddy and LG, Terry saw the boys spying and ordered the other three men to catch them. I don’t believe when Terry first saw them that he intended to kill them. I believe he intended to terrify and threaten them so they would never, ever speak of what they had seen. However, according to Billy, one of the boys kicked Terry after he was caught and brought to him. I personally believe that this boy was Michael Moore. With what we know about Stevie and how much he feared Terry, it seems impossible that Stevie would have been the child who kicked Terry. And, allegedly, David was the one who caught Christopher, so I believe the first person who was attacked was Michael. In the autopsy reports, it was concluded that Michael was swiftly and violently attacked and was likely unconscious for almost the entire assault on the boys.  If Michael had kicked Terry  that could have been the impetus that pushed Terry to hit him back. The second that Terry would have hit Michael in the face or head, would also be the split second he knew all three had to die. There is no way that if this really occurred, Terry would have allowed those boys go home to tell their parents that, not only was Terry Hobbs in the woods having sex with men and teenagers, but he punched his stepson’s friend in the head for catching him. That is your motive right there. It’s not so much what the boys saw by itself, but what they saw coupled with Michael kicking Terry. The kick, along with the humiliation of being spied on, would have made Terry snap because he did not stand for any kind of disobedience. After he allegedly hit back, he then really had a motive to kill.

As noted earlier, the autopsies revealed that Michael was quickly incapacitated with a few defensive wounds to the hands, which implied to the Medical Examiner that Michael was in fact the first one to be attacked. According to Bennie’s statement, Terry stopped for a moment to yell, “I’m going to teach your fucking ass!!” Retired FBI profiler, John Douglas, as well as profiler Brent Turvey both believed the entire attack was punitive in nature and that the perpetrator was teaching the boys a lesson for either a real or percieved transgression. Douglas believes the act was meant to dominate, control, humiliate and punish. Which is right in line with why this attack would have occurred.

Due to the fact that the three were so severely injured, a weapon had to have been used at some point. I have a theory about what weapon it could have been. When Aaron Hutchinson spoke about the clubhouse, he referenced the “boards” numerous times. The boards were a combination of boards that had been nailed together as well as a pile of loose boards on the ground. These boards were right next to the “clubhouse” which means that when the boys were caught, they most likely would have been caught very close to where these boards lay, easily seen to the naked eye.

Crime scene footage of the pile of boards

The crime scene, as well as the “clubhouse” were both located somewhat close to each other on the east side of the drainage ditch. This means that the boys had most likely arrived to the Blue Beacon Woods before the four men did, crossing over from the west side of the drainage ditch to the east side of the drainage ditch, on a log that lay across the ditch at the south end. The men most likely entered the Blue Beacon Woods from the field that was located to the east of the woods. This theory is corroborated by Bennie Guy’s statement (here) You can see in this photo where Hobbs and Jacoby could have parked, giving them very easy access to the location that the boys were most likely killed and later found.

I allege that the boys were spotted and began to run back towards the log that lay across the drainage ditch. This would have been the only way they could have crossed without falling into the water. So, essentially, the boys were trapped unless they were able to get to the log. The three men ran after the boys, caught them and dragged them back to Terry. If the boys had their bicycles with them, which I believe is very likely, that means Stevie and Michael would have been quickly caught whereas Chris, who had no bicycle to push, would have gotten caught a bit farther away.  (Interestingly, Chris was referred to as the “3rd child” in the alleged confessions. Meaning to me that he was the third one caught). As Michael was carried back to Terry, he allegedly kicked him. In accordance with the alleged confessions and as stated previously, I believe this kick would have sent Terry into a rage and he would have instantly punched Michael in response. Almost immediately after Terry would have hit Michael, I believe that is when David would have caught Chris. Allegedly, David Jacoby fell in his effort to catch “the third child” and in doing so, scraped his knee. As he jumped up from the fall, he grabbed Chris and apparently hit him with force as well. I believe as David dragged Chris with him back to the others, he picked up one of the boards that lay in the open nearby. According to statements, and as noted earlier, after Terry hit the first boy a few times, he stopped long enough to yell at him. After yelling and threatening Michael, I believe he took the board from David and violently hit Michael on the top of the head 2 or 3 times. According to Michael’s autopsy report, the injuries to his head support the belief that he was hit with something that had a relatively sharp edge that caused three lacerations to the left side of his head. On the right side, it appeared as if he had been hit with something that was flat. And, strangely enough, LG’s alleged confession also show that the first boy (Michael) was hit with force two or three times, supporting both the autopsy and what is seen from the autopsy photos.

92.According to L.G., Mr. Hobbs snapped and hit the boy with severe force in the head two or three times.

I also believe that at some point during the attack, Stevie was hit on his leg by the edge/side of the board, and also possibly in his face, which I will discuss in a moment.

Mark on Stevie’s leg, possibly made by edge of the board found at crime scene

What would allegedly happen next is one of the greatest indicators that the  statements made by Billy and Bennie are in fact true.  After Terry’s attack on Michael, I believe Terry left him on the ground unconscious. According to Bennie and Billy’s account, Terry Hobbs then walked over to the other boys, pulled out a knife and ordered the teens to remove their clothes. The removal of the clothes was a very significant act. It has baffled people for years because there was no evidence that the boys were sexually assaulted. What purpose would there be to strip the boys naked? The purpose, according to FBI profiler, John Douglas, was to humiliate, demean and control. I agree that that was the intention, but I also believe there was another element behind it. If the boys truly had interrupted the men in the middle of a sex act, then it would be understandable why there were sexual overtones to their murder.

The two teens apparently complied with Terry’s demands and ripped  the clothes off of the children. It is my belief that only Stevie and Chris were stripped at this time because Michael was most likely already unconscious. If the purpose in stripping the boys was to demean and humiliate them, then Terry would have wanted them to be conscious while he did it. Michael was later stripped, perhaps so he would not stand out. This theory is supported by evidence as well. Two of the children’s clothes were found inside out, implying that they were very quickly ripped off, and most likely ripped off of boys who were still moving. A boy who is passed out does not need his clothes ripped off as quickly or roughly as one who is awake and struggling. We do not know whose pants were the ones inside out for sure and whose pair of pants was not, but we do know that Michael’s shirt was the only one not inside out and none of the buttons on his shirt were ripped off. To me, this shows that Michael was not conscious or struggling when he was stripped naked and because of that, his clothes were more gently removed.

Once Stevie and Chris were naked, both Bennie and Billy claim that Terry approached the boy David had been hitting, told someone to hold his legs and began to bite his scrotum repeatedly and stab at his groin. As I mentioned previously, this statement is an enormous indicator of truth, in my opinion. After the murders of the three boys, the general understanding by the public was that Chris had been emasculated and very meticulously had had the skin removed from his penis. Those who didn’t know the case that well simply believed that Chris’ entire penis and scrotum had been cut off with a knife. Years later it was discovered by experts for the defense that a knife had not caused the injuries to Chris’ penis at all. The reason why Chris’s skin was removed but his penis remained, i.e.: de-gloving, was because of animal predation that occurred after death. More specifically, turtles had bitten and clawed at Chris’ penis and scrotum as he lay for 18 hours in a muddy, watery ditch. The question, however, is why was Chris degloved and not the other children? Well, the alleged confessions from Buddy and LG finally answer that question. If Terry truly had bitten and stabbed Chris’ scrotum, it would explain perfectly the questions around Chris’ death. According to the ME, Chris did not drown like the others, he died before entering the water. The ME noted the extremely pale look of Chris’ skin as well as the lack of water in the lungs,  and it was clear to him that he had bled to death. However, other experts who studied Chris’ wounds said that the injuries to his groin were post mortem and that there was no way a knife could have made those kinds of injuries. But if Chris was merely bitten and stabbed, and did not actually have his penis or scrotum cut off, as was once believed, this would have provided an injury severe enough to have killed him (ie: bled out) while also allowing  turtles and attracting turtles, in fact,  to make the final injury after death. It puts all questions to rest. Turtles would be most attracted to areas that were soft and already leeching blood, according to experts and that is why it appears as though Chris’ groin had both stab wounds before death and animal predation wounds after death. What stands out to me, is that no one has ever suggested before that the injury to Chris began as a bite. I strongly feel that this was something that only the killer or someone who witnessed the killing, would have known.

Additionally, the act of biting the scrotum and stabbing the groin area speaks volumes about  the identity of the killer. Biting and stabbing the groin of a male victim is a hallmark of a homosexual homicide. As Brent Turvey wrote in his profile of the criminal, the man who perpetrated this act against Christopher is a closet homosexual who carries shame about his homosexual tendencies. If Terry was truly involved in a homosexual act directly before this attack took place, it makes sense why he would carry out an attack of this nature on Chris’ genitals. Not only was he punishing and dominating him, but he was expressing his repressed anger and shame associated with being bisexual or homosexual. It also would make sense that Terry would carry shame, deep shame, if he were secretly homosexual. Terry Hobbs grew up in a strict fundementalist pentecostal home, with his father actually being a pentecostal preacher. It isn’t difficult to assume that Terry was told by his parents for most of his life that homosexuals were sinners who were going to hell.

After his alleged attack on Chris, the beating of the boys continued. I believe at this time, Terry directed his attention to Stevie and bit him repeatedly on this face. The question whether the mark on Stevie’s left eyebrow is a bite mark or not has been the subject of great debate by experts and followers of the case for years. Experts for the defense have claimed it is a bite mark and experts for the prosecution have claimed it isn’t. The reason for the prosecution’s stance, I believe, is because the bitemark never matched Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley. However, I don’t think it takes an expert to see that the mark above Stevie’s eye appears to truly be a bite mark. The photo on the left is Stevie’s “bitemark” and the photos on the right are other known bitemarks. I’ll let you be the judge.

Stevie’s “bite mark” on the left and known bite marks on the right

If the mark above Stevie’s eye truly is a bitemark that is also powerful evidence in support of the Bennie/Billy statements. A bitemark on Stevie’s face would lend credibility to the statement that another bite occurred on Chris’ genital area. If we have actual evidence that the attacker did in fact bite Stevie in the face, then it is not a stretch of the imagination to think that the same attacker would also bite another child during the attack. This is significant because no one else has ever theorized that Chris was actually bitten in his scrotum; it’s a completely new allegation. Additionally, a bite on the face during murders/attacks is not only common in homosexual attacks, like a bite to the scrotum is, but it also common in Battered Child Syndrome. In other words, a bite on Stevie’s face would likely mean that his perpetrator was a parent or step-parent.

Further, there is some belief that part of the injury to Stevie’s penis was also a bitemark. In recent years it’s been discovered that someone’s DNA was on Stevie’s penis. With advancements in DNA testing, hopefully we will soon know exactly whose DNA this very small sample belongs to.   I do believe that some of the injuries on Stevie’s penis came from himself, from excessive masturbatory play. However, knowing that a DNA sample was found on Stevie’s penis coupled with the knowledge that Chris may have allegedly been bitten on his penis and scrotum as well, I feel the chances are quite high that Stevie, too, may have been bitten in his penis.  (Another theory is that the injury to Stevie’s penis came from oral sex. Apparently, the medical examiner stated that the fine scratches on Stevie’s penis are similar to those from children who have sexually abused, i.e: given oral sex. What the ME failed to mention, however, is that a one time act of oral sex on a child is not going to cause enough injury to a child’s penis to be noticeable. I believe, that the ME was speaking of long term sexual abuse of a child. What this means, is that the injuries to Stevie’s penis may have been the result of an abuser repeatedly preforming oral sex on him. This is just more evidence to support the statements from Stevie’s family that he was being abused by Terry.)

This, too, would further explain how the attack unfolded. As Bennie’s statements suggest, as well the ME’s position on Michael’s injuries, there is good evidence to suggest that Michael was violently attacked first and then lay unconscious for the rest of the crime. This would mean that the attack and torture was focused on the two conscious boys; Chris and Stevie, which is what appeared to have happen. One mystery that has plagued people who have followed the case, is why it appeared that Stevie and Chris were tortured while Michael was not.  I think we have the answer now; Stevie and Chris appeared to have been tortured because they were the ones who were conscious. Michael, being the first one attacked, was hit so violently and with such anger, that he was almost immediately rendered unconscious. Apparently, David initially hit Chris in the face and head with his fists until Terry came over and ordered the boys’ to be stripped. I also believe that Stevie was punched by the teenage boys, mostly by LG, but for the most part, and according to the “confessions” they mostly restrained him. The ME examiner again supports this alleged statement, as Stevie, although probably the most conscious during the attack had little to no defensive wounds. Apparently, Terry then viciously attacked Chris’ genitals. When he was finished with that, I believe he then turned to Stevie. I think it’s highly probable that Terry repeatedly bit Stevie on his face, mostly on his left side. And also bit him in his penis perhaps once or twice. After Terry’s attack on Chris’ groin, was when, allegedly, David hit Chris till  Buddy believed he was dead.

I believe it’s likely that LG and Buddy most likely used only their fists to hit the boys. I believe that certainly Buddy, and perhaps LG as well,  participated in the crime because of The Bystander Effect; they partook in the crime out of fear and/or compliance, but they did not have intentions to murder. That means that they may have punched Stevie, but may not have taken it farther than that. The evidence that supports this theory is in the injury to Steve Branch’s face and back of the head. When Stevie was pulled from the water, the left side of his face was terribly mangled. Neither Chris nor Michael had any facial injuries even remotely close to what Stevie had on his face. It is clear to many experts that the left side of Stevie’s face had been bitten by turtles. But again, why would  turtles only be drawn to the left side of Stevie’s face and none of the other boys’ faces? I believe it was because Stevie was hit repeatedly on the left side of the face by LG. Then, I believe that Terry began to attack Stevie’s face by biting him and even possibly striking his face with the corner of the board. Since Stevie was Terry’s stepchild, it’s possible that Terry wanted to depersonalize Stevie’s face, which could make it easier for him to carry out the attack on him. That could be why Stevie had wounds to the face, while the other boys had wounds to their head. Additionally, his wounds later attracted turtles to further bite his face, making his injuries more severe. Stevie also appeared to have a footwear impression on the back of his head; meaning that Stevie was likely kicked or stomped at the end of his attack. This too, may have further contributed to the injuries on the left side of his face.

Additionally, Stevie had what appeared to be bruises on the back of his head. When suspicion was surrounding Buddy and he was interviewed by police about allegedly having a pair of bloody shoes, Buddy turned the attention to Jessie Misskelley. He told police that Jessie had confessed to him and that he said that he had just held the boys while the others killed them. He also claimed that Jessie said he had punched a couple in the back of the head. When police told him they were going to polygraph him about Jessie’s alleged confession, Buddy immediately admitted that he had lied; Jessie never said anything to him about the murders. It’s intriguing, however, that Buddy’s statements were, “He just held them while the others killed them,” And, “He hit a couple in the back of the head.” Was Buddy really speaking of his own participation in the murders? Did he simply use Jessie as a scapegoat so that he could talk about the details of the murder and get it off his chest? Is it just a coincidence that Buddy mentions that the boys were hit on the back of the head, and that, unknown to the public, all three were in fact hit in the back of the head?

After the boys were attacked and stripped of their clothes, they were tied up. The manner in which they were tied also tells us about the crime and the perpetrator(s). The act of tying up three unconscious boys who were near death at this point, was clearly an unnecessary act. In John Douglas’ analysis, the tying up of the boys was another attempt from the perpetrator to humiliate and dominate the boys. I agree with that assessment but believe there were additional reasons. My opinion is that Terry wanted to humiliate the boys because he felt humiliated when the boys caught him involved in a sex act with other men. I believe he wanted to punish them because he faulted them for spying. I believe that in his mind, the boys deserved what they got because they shouldn’t have been spying. This would be something he could rationalize and also something that would anger him. “Look what you made me do! If it wasn’t for your choices, this never would have happened!” And, the act of tying up the boys, especially the manner in which they were tied up,  looked somewhat sexual in nature. Just as the stripping of the clothes and the bites and stabs to groin; it all suggests a sexual element to this crime. Again, If we believe Billy Stewart’s statement, the murders were predicated by a sexual act which could further explain why so many seemingly unnecessary acts occurred. It’s extremely rare that a murder would take place directly after sexual activity that was unrelated to the victim, but if it did happen, it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that it could contribute to a perpetrator’s desire to strip the victim naked, tie them them up in a sexual and demeaning manor and then attack their genitals.

Even more damaging is the specifics of the way the three boys were tied up. Terry Hobbs grew up working for his dad as a butcher; his job was to tie up cattle and hogs, transport them, butcher them and to possible even prepare and bind the meat. The way the three boys were tied, wrist to ankle, as opposed to wrist to wrist, ankle to ankle, is one of the most unique aspects to this case. John Douglas claimed to have searched murders all over the world and could not identity one other time that this method of tying someone up was used. What really stands out to me, is that farmers and hunters use this method of tying a hog arm to leg in a method called hobbling. The use of hobbling helps to quickly control the animal as well as making transportation of the animal more easy. If Terry was already trained in this technique, it is a powerful piece of evidence against him, in my opinion. Especially considering how extremely rare it is for a victim to be tied in this manner. Additionally, Michael Moore was tied on one side of his body using a somewhat complicated knot, called a Square Knot. Square knots are used by farmers to subdue hogs because the more they struggle, the tighter the knot becomes. Considering that the boys were unconscious, this knot seems to have been used out of sheer habit. Stevie Branch was also tied with a less common and more complicated knot on one side, a Figure Eight Knot. The figure eight knot is used in conjunction with the Packer’s Knot; a knot used by butchers when they bind meat. In my assessment, it speaks volumes to the guilt of Terry Hobbs that the children were tied up in the same manner as hogs being prepared for transport and that two of the children were tied up using square knots and figure eight knots, the same knots used by farmers and butchers. Is it merely a coincidence that Terry Hobbs was a former butcher and that he grew up working on his family’s pig farm? You may be the judge of the that.

The fact that the knots were not all the same, indicates as well that Terry was not the only person to tie up these children. However, I do believe that this was Terry’s murder and he controlled it. I allege that he ordered the three to tie up the boys and explained that they should all be tied up in the same manner. He most likely began to tie up one side of Stevie using a figure eight knot and then went to Michael and tied up one side of him with a square knot. It’s possible that Terry realized these knots could come back to him so he finished tying Michael up with a more traditionally used knot. It appeared as though Christopher was tied up by one person, most likely David Jacoby, in my opinion, since his knots were all the same.

Another indicator that points to Terry’s guilt and the truth in the alleged Buddy/LG statements, lies with what was discovered on Michael Moore’s body. In 2007 it was discovered that a hair that had been found underneath a ligature on Michael Moore’s nude body, belonged to Terry Hobbs. This suggests that Terry Hobbs was the person who tied up Michael Moore and it is further supported by the manner in which Michael was tied up. For one, Michael was tied up with a shoelace that had been cut. Therefore, it was likely that the person who either killed or tied Michael up, was carrying a knife. Secondly, Michael was tied up on one side using square knots. A rather uncommon knot for a regular person but a very common knot for a former butcher or farmer.

I allege that after Stevie and Chris had been stripped and attacked, Terry began to tie up Stevie. The most severe injury to Stevie came from being stomped on the back of the head and it’s very likely that this injury was the very last thing to happen to Stevie. We know this because it appeared as though Stevie had struggled while he was restrained. I believe that after Terry’s attack on Stevie’s face, and with Stevie still quite conscious, this is when the tying of the children began. I allege that Terry tied up one side of Stevie and then told either Buddy or LG to finish doing the other side. I then believe Terry went over to Michael’s unconscious body and began to undress him. After he removed his clothes, he ripped out one shoelace from Michael’s shoe and cut it in half with his knife. As he leaned over Michael and removed his clothes, a hair from Terry’s head or mustache fell onto Michael’s body. That hair was then secured to Michael’s body as Terry tied him up. As he tied up Michael, he further demonstrated to them how to tie up the others in the same consistent manner.

Although I have gone into great detail describing how this murder took place, in reality, the experts believed it would have only taken around 20 minutes to carry the murder out. This means that by the time the four men would have attacked, stripped and tied up the boys, it would have only been somewhere around 7:30 at night. This would have allowed the four men approx. thirty minutes to clean up the crime scene before it got dark. And interestingly enough, the alleged confessions mention that the four cleaned up as darkness approached. When the boys were eventually discovered the next day, not only were they discovered hidden under water, but their clothes and bicycles had all been submerged as well. According to many experts, this is a huge indicator that the perpetrator(s) knew the victims. Otherwise, there would be no reason to hide these items. The most significant of them all, was the specific act of taking the bikes to the bayou, which were very likely with the children inside the Blue Beacon Woods. We can assume this because of the 6:00/6:30 sighting from the service road. The only reason one could think that someone would make the concerted, and possibly dangerous, effort to take the bikes up to the bayou to be submerged, was to give themselves time to create an alibi. If the bikes had been found  immediately, then the focus would have very quickly zeroed in on the people who were last with the victims. Or, who were free to murder the victims from 7:00- 8:00pm that night. Furthermore, in the alleged confessions, Terry states: “The bodies can’t be found, at least not yet.”

One of the mysteries of this crime is the location of the bodies in the drainage ditch. What’s peculiar is that Michael Moore was somewhat further away from Stevie and Chris, and that the location of the bodies was actually around 20 feet south of the suspected murder location. I’ve thought about this in length and I think I understand what may have occurred. First of all, something led the perpetrators to get into the water. The boys were not simply tossed in, but carried down the ditch and methodically pushed deep into the mud so they wouldn’t float. There’s no debate about that because there were steep inclines on the sides of the ditch where all three bodies were placed, making it impossible that they were just tossed in from either the east or west bank. Either the perps knew the possibility of the bodies floating with time, or, the area where the bodies could be dropped in was not deep enough to completely hide them.  Either way, either  one or two of the perpetrators decided it was necessary to actually get into the water to submerge the boys. According to Pam Hicks, Terry was wearing shorts that afternoon. Additionally, in both alleged confessions, David Jacoby was also wearing shorts. What this means is that the men would have only needed to briefly remove their shoes before entering the water. After doing so, they most likely would have walked down south in the ditch till the water was the deep enough and also not directly beside the crime scene. This was an attempt, clearly, to make the discovery of the boys more difficult.

Also, by looking at the photo of the ditch where the boys were found, you can begin to have an understanding of what might have occurred. West Memphis Police Officer, Bryn Ridge found Michael Moore first, just south of the crooked tree that juts out from the ground in the photo on the far left. When you realize that Michaels’ body was found by the tree and not by where he was placed on the bank, you conclude two things. 1. He was probably only 5 or 10 feet from the other boys, not 25, as some people believe and 2. He was most likely placed near the tree becase one of the perpetrators used the tree as support in order to enter the water.

I allege that the two perpetrators, Jacoby and Hobbs, entered the water and began to submerge the boys deep in the mud in order to keep them from floating. When you realize that LG and Buddy were most likely above the ditch, handing the boys’ bodies to the two men, you can begin to see exactly what a difficult task this was if done alone. It seems extremely unlikely that one person would have been able to do this on their own in such a short period of time. Or alone at night with people swarming the area.

As the men submerged the boys, I believe the two teens took the bicycles to the bayou where they dumped them on the north side of the pipe bridge. When they returned the four men continued to submerge the boy’s clothes with sticks and, finally, hastily threw the last items of clothing in the water as it grew dark.

When the boys were found, along with their clothes the following day, there were two pairs of underwear and 5 socks missing from the crime scene. My belief is that these items were used in the clean up. I allege that one or all of them took the underwear and socks, wet them in the water and used them to wipe  blood off themselves, off the board and any other weapons used in the murder, as well as to wipe up blood at the scene. They also could have used them to dry and clean their feet after entering the ditch. Due to the possibility that they wiped these items on their skin, I believe Terry would have taken those items with them when they left. I think it’s likely that Terry took the board with him as well to dispose of later or had it thrown in the bayou.  I theorize they then cleaned up the blood from Chris’ injuries by scraping up the mud, grass, leaves and blood and throwing it into the drainage ditch. This theory was supported by police who were at the crime scene. Apparently, there was a bank near the ditch that appeared to have been slicked down and cleaned off  to the point that there was no grass or leaves at all in that one area.

Further, I have another theory why the crime scene appeared so clean. Allegedly, some children who used to play in those woods have claimed that stray dogs lived there (source).  Anyone who has owned a dog, knows how dogs will lick blood clean in a matter of minutes. If the men left the woods by 8pm and searchers did not arrive till around 10, that would give stray dogs approx. two hours to clean up the blood at the scene. In addition to that, when the boys’ autopsies were performed, animal hair was discovered on them. If dogs had been licking the spot where the crime occurred and the boys, still wet from the water,  were then laid on that area, It is very likely that they would have picked up dog or animal hair. In truth, this theory would finally explain and clarify, really, why the boys had animal hair on them if they were pulled from the water. Even if the dogs had not licked up blood, their presence in the woods could mean that their fur would have already been on the ground where the boys’ bodies were placed when discovered. In fact, in 2012 the animal hair found on the boys’ bodies was tested; revealing that the animal hair was from both canines and felines. Furthermore, Terry himself claimed to be in those woods all night, up until the early morning. This could have given him ample time to clean the area. And in keep in mind that Terry grew up working as a butcher. He actually worked in a slaughterhouse. Was there anyone else who knew how to clean up blood better than Terry did? We have a man, by his own admittance, who was in the spot where they crime occurred all night long. What was he doing for so many hours in that small patch of woods?

However, there is no mention of animal prints at the scene, as far as I know, nor car tracks found in the field next to those woods. There is an easy explanation for that, though, if it’s true. When police were searching for the boys on the fifth, they were not inspecting a crime scene, they were simply trying to find three boys. Seeing animal prints in the woods at that time, or tire tracks in the field would not have been meaningful to them at all at that point. The third boy was found in the water at approx. 3:00/4:00pm. From there, the police focused on finding clothes, speaking with the families, taping off the area, etc and possibly some small searching of the area. They did not have the ability to do an in depth search on the 5th because darkness was approaching. The day when they finally made a grid to cover the entire woods and nearby field, was on either the 7th or 8th of May, a full two or three days after the murder. According to Gary Gitchell, there was rainfall on at least one or two of those nights. At the same time, considering the trampled crime scene and shoddy police work, would the cops have even documented the sight of animal prints or tire tracks even if they did see it? Personally? I highly doubt it. Would they have admitted there were car tracks found and helped the defense win their case?

Back to the timeline. By the time the crime scene was cleaned up, it would have likely been around 8pm; dark, which I believe helped the four escape undetected. Buddy allegedly confessed that when the four returned to the truck, Terry and David looked to the teens and promised to kill them if they ever spoke of the crime to anyone. According to Buddy’s confession, the men then drove him back to Lakeshore and dropped him off. LG never mentioned whether he was dropped off at home or not, but I have a theory about what happened next, which I will now describe.

By the time Buddy would have been dropped off at Lakeshore and the other three arrived in West Memphis, it could have been somewhere around 8:15-8:30. I believe that when LG asked to be dropped off at home Terry refused. The reason for this is because LG lived very close to both the Byers and the Moores. If Terry had been spotted driving around with LG by either the Moores, Byers or any policemen who might have been in the vicinity, that could have raised some difficult questions for Terry to answer.   I allege that all three men returned to Terry’s home and cleaned themselves up, which most likely involved washing mud off their shoes. I believe Terry would have changed altogether since he was at home but neither Jacoby or LG had that luxury just yet. However, since LG was wearing a tie that day and the alleged confessions state the teens wrestled, it’s my belief that LG’s shirt and tie had been removed for the entire murder, which meant that it was clean.

Right around 8:40, I believe that David would have walked or driven home, depending on who was driving that night and Terry and LG would have gotten into Pam and Terry’s small, white Toyota. My feeling is that LG, thinking of a close and safe spot where he could go, would have asked Terry to drop him off at the Laundromat, less than a mile away from Terry’s house. This is supported by evidence as well. On the night of the 5th LG’s aunt Dixie told police and her sister, Narlene, that LG was dropped off at the Laundromat where she worked in a small, light colored car. Apparently, LG walked in and asked for his cousin Domini’s telephone number. When LG was later questioned by police about who exactly had dropped him off, he claimed that he had borrowed Richard’s car that night strictly to go to the Laundromat and get his cousin’s phone number. However, Richard vehemently denied lending LG his car that night. In fact, Richard and his roommate both admitted that they didn’t even see LG that night. When police asked Dixie if the car that LG was spotted in was Richard’s, she too, vehemently denied it, stating that she knew Richard’s yellow car well, and this wasn’t it. To add further suspicion, LG’s cousin, Domini lived within a five minute walk from Richard’s house. It is completely illogical to believe that LG would have driven nearly ten minutes away to get the phone number of someone who was in walking distance from him. Additionally, why would LG go down to the Laundromat at approx. 9pm at night looking for a phone number when all he would need to do is call numerous people and he could have gotten it? It’s also extremely suspicious and coincidental that Dixie Hufford’s description of the car that dropped off LG would be so eerily similar to the car that Terry actually drove at the time and the car that he would have used to pick Pam up from work.

I allege that Terry dropped LG off at 8:45 at the Laundromat/Flash Market on Ingram and proceeded to create an alibi for himself. Police Officer Regina Meeks had been called to  Mark Byers home at 8:10 and filled out a police report for the missing children with both the Byers and Dana Moore. At 8:42, officer Meeks was dispatched to another call and left. Mark Byers stated that Terry arrived at his home sometime after Meeks left. This could mean that Terry could have arrived sometime between 8:45 and 9:00pm. Keep in mind as well, that the Flash Market/Landromat on Ingram was only a few minutes drive away from the Byers’ home on 14th. If Terry had dropped LG off at 8:45, he could have arrived at the Byers’ by 8:47 pm, just about the time that Mark Byers’ testified he arrived. According to Mark, Terry told him that the boys had been seen heading to the woods and that he was going to head down that way to look. In my opinion, this was smart of Terry. He dropped by the other parents’ home at the first chance he got, made an appearance and a statement that implied he’d been out looking for the kids. The interesting thing is that Terry had to pick up Pam from work at 9pm, so there’s no way he would have had time to go check the woods at that time. Instead, he must have gotten back in his car, driven to the Jacoby’s to pick up Amanda and then arrived at Pam’s work, which he did at 9:18pm. Why was Terry 18 minutes late picking Pam up? Was it because he was running around frantically trying to cover up for the crime? And, is it just a coincidence that LG and Terry were unaccounted for that night and then, strangely, they both made public appearance right at 9:00 pm at night?

When Terry arrived at Pam’s work, he did something very peculiar. Rather than rush inside and tell Pam that Stevie was missing along with two of his friends, he walked right past Pam to the phone, called police and filed a missing person report. Pam walked past him to the car and had to find out from her 4 year old daughter, Amanda, that they couldn’t find Stevie. For the rest of the night the families, neighbors, friends and police search for the boys. It wasn’t until the following day when clothes began to emerge from the water, that police found the bodies.

For some reason, unknown to the public at least, Terry Hobbs was never questioned. At all. It would take another 14 years before he was even interviewed about his whereabouts that night. David Jacoby was never interviewed either. Not until it was learned that Terry was using Jacoby as an alibi and that a hair that was found at the crime scene turned out to be consistent with David’s DNA. LG was actually a suspect from the very beginning, and it’s actually really shocking to me that he was not further investigated. My only guess is that they already had their sights set on Damien at that time. However, the police knew LG was lying to them and yet his DNA, hair and prints have presumably never been tested against those found at the scene. Buddy as well was involved in the investigation and was under suspicion from his family from the beginning. Actually, Buddy and LG are the only two people in twenty years of suspects and allegations that had family member come forward and say that they had blood on them following the murders. They are also one of very few people, who had family members who suspected that they were involved and actually contacted police as a result of those suspicions. Not even Damien, Jason or Jessie had any of that happen to them, and they were the ones who were falsely arrested for the crime.

Before I further explain and explore all the evidence that points to Terry Hobbs, David Jacoby, LG Hollingsworth, and Buddy Lucas being the perpetrators of this murder, I would like to reiterate something: there is almost no possibility that one person could have committed this murder alone in the timeframe it occurred. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that anyone other than Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby committed this crime and I’ll briefly explain why. Terry claims to anyone and everyone who has asked about that night, that he was almost frantically searching for Stevie from 5:00pm-9:00pm at night. That’s four hours. That leaves one very glaring, unexplainable question. Why didn’t Terry search for Stevie at the Moores? Terry knew that Stevie was with Michael Moore. In fact, the very first place that he and Pam looked before Pam went to work was Michael’s house. One of them even went up and knocked on the door and spoke to Michael’s sister, Dawn. So why didn’t Terry return to the Moore’s house in the four frantic hours he searched for Stevie in their tiny neighborhood? Dana Moore was there the entire time; she never left. According to David Jacoby, he and Terry drove down Barton street searching four separate times, passing Michael Moore’s home each time. Is there any possible reason why they wouldn’t have stopped? What’s equally puzzling is the fact that almost nothing about the two men’s alibis is the same, yet they both claim to have been with each other. Not only are their alibis remarkably different, they actually contradict and conflict with each other. For instance: Terry says the two ran in to an older white man who told them the boys were heading towards the woods. David claims a little black girl told them the boys were heading to the woods. He later changed that story and claimed she told them they were at some apartments. Why would either of these men lie about who they talked to that night unless they both were lying and couldn’t get their stories straight? Even worse, Terry claims that he had arrived at Jacoby’s already searching for the boys, while David claimed that Terry arrived with the boys behind him in the street and apparently told David that he was allowing them to play until dark. What is stranger, and in complete contrast to what was previously said, David also claims that he and Terry were out searching the streets for Stevie before dark.  Why in the world were the two men (or Terry alone) searching for the boys when it was light out if Terry had already said that Stevie could stay out till 8:00 pm? And finally, if Terry claims he never saw Stevie that day (despite statements from Jacoby, Jamie Ballard and her sister and mother) there is one extremely significant question Terry has to answer: why did Stevie have partially digested vegetables in his stomach? Those partially digested vegetables not only prove the long held belief that the boys died around 7pm, shortly after being seen, but that Stevie most likely ate those vegetables right near 5:00 pm. Who fed Stevie if not Terry?

The bottom line is very simple: Terry, David, LG and Buddy all lied about their whereabouts that night. The question is, why? What reasons could there possibly be for not being honest about the night a horrific murder of children took place?

(More recent observations:

I went back and read all the autopsy reports and attempted to interpret them. It really wasn’t too difficult to do, at least for some of it. I’ve been trying to bridge what Peretti said happened with what the defense experts said. They both have bias, so I think it’s important to keep that in mind. Basically, anything that both sides agree with I consider to be a fact because it’s gone undisputed. One thing that was agreed upon if you read between the lines, is that Chris was dead before he was put in the water. Peretti believed that and the Echols defense team, although claiming that Chris “must have” drowned, all admitted that Chris died while he was being tied up. Even the autopsy report shows that. All experts agreed that Peretti’s autopsy reports were written exquisitely. They happen to not agree with all of his interpretations. Anyway, some things the autopsy reports show us..

~Chris was alive when he was being tied up. He died before he was finished being tied up.

~Even Peretti agrees that Chris had post mortem wounds in his groin area as well as pre mortem. Even Peretti agrees that there was injury to the groin area AFTER death. He writes it right in the autopsy report. But there also had to be an injury there to begin with. He writes that there is sign of hemorrhage.

~It appears the boys *were* punched.. at least a little bit. They had contusions, which are bruises, which had to have happened before death, on their ears, under eyes, over eyes, on forehead, etc. Each boy had indications of being punched because the contusions did not have deep lacerations with them. If a weapon had been used to create all the injuries then there would have been major cuts and lacerations with the contusions just like there was on the boys’ heads. So although at least some experts said the boys were not punched, I don’t believe that’s true at all. I believe that their bias came into play when they claimed that, just like they claimed Chris drowned even though they admitted he died before he was put in the water!

~Stevie had bruises on the back of his hands, indicating he put up a fight. Indicating that, just like the 4perp indicates, Stevie was alive the longest. Michael was almost immediately rendered unconscious ( I believe because he was attacked first). Chris had bruises on his inner and outer thigh, indicating that he WAS held down and his legs were held apart. Why else would *Chris* have patterned bruises on his thighs(could be finger marks)? The 4perp claims that Chris was very quickly held down so Terry could stab and bite him. That means that Chris would have not fought back much because after being stabbed, he probably would have been very weak.

~What I couldn’t tell from the autopsy report was if Stevie struggled in his ligatures or not. I know that all the experts agree that Michael was unconscious while he was tied up but I don’t know about Stevie.. I think it’s open to interpretation.

~Also, during trial, Perreti said about ten times that the weapon was probably a 2×4. The prosecution would mention a stick and Perreti kept saying, “Or a 2×4”. We know that the boys’ clubhouse was right next to a pile of 2x4s which again supports the notion that the boys were discovered right by their clubhouse.)

LG Hollingsworth

The Murder Weapon

This is a final note I’d like to make. David Jacoby is the key to this case. It is an indisputable fact that Jacoby lied to police and under penalty of perjury in order to protect Hobbs from either being further investigated or arrested. If you read Jacoby’s interview and declaration, they both give Hobbs an alibi and they both make it impossible for Hobbs to have committed the crime without Jacoby having noticed something peculiar about Hobbs. These statements have protected Hobbs for seven years. Then, in 2013, Jacoby was summoned to court over the alleged confessions of Buddy Lucas and LG Hollingsworth. It was only then that Jacoby publicly admitted that Hobbs had left for two hours that night.

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/21810828/new-allegations-surface-in-the-west-memphis-3-murders

Since Jacoby knew that Hobbs was with Pam at 9pm, he clearly meant that Hobbs had left for the two hours that Jacoby had previously claimed they were together. This is so hugely significant and yet lost on so many. This statement proves- indisputably- that Jacoby lied. He actually interfered in a police investigation and he admitted it publicly. This is where you ask yourself why Jacoby would lie to protect Hobbs and also why he would openly admit he lied in 2013. I think those questions have easy answers. Jacoby is adamant to anyone who listens that Hobbs is not his friend. So that would prove that there are only two reason why Jacoby would lie to protect Hobbs: it’s either because he participated in the murders himself or he knows Hobbs did it and he has known it for many years. And why would Jacoby publicly and openly admit that he lied under penalty of perjury and to police back in 2007? I believe it is because the truth had finally and for the very first time, been exposed. Jacoby likely felt at that time that the only thing to do to protect himself was to put himself as far away from Hobbs as possible. Is there any other reason why he’d admit on national television that he lied? What this shows us is that Jacoby knows the truth. Jacoby knows something. And it’s about time we started putting some pressure on him for some real answers.