Frank Peretti had been wrong about knife wounds, and Brent Turvey had been wrong about human bite marks. It was all starting to make more logical sense.
Experiments clearly demonstrated that the bite marks on all three bodies corresponded exactly with test bites inflicted by alligator snapping turtles. Interestingly, it was our personal attorney, Steve Mark, who first discussed this possibility with Fran Walsh, simply by speculating about other alternatives to the court testimony and researching the types of animal predators indigenous to the area. Steve and Fran developed the idea over a series of emails.
This confirmed for me that it was not, in fact, a lust murder or, as I had already concluded, a ritualized, satanic crime. Whoever killed these three boys did so because of a specific reason having to do with the offender and at least one of the victims.
This did not start out to be a murder. It was perpetrated by someone whose initial intent was not to kill the victims, but rather to taunt, punish, and/or “teach them a lesson.” The reason for this conclusion is that the offender did not immediately kill the victims. They were alive for a period of time as they were being stripped naked and hog-tied. It is my opinion the offender went too far with his taunting and punishment and knew he would be implicated if he let the children go free because he knew the victims and lived in the immediate area.
There was another rational and logical criminal reason why the offender hid the victims, their clothing and bicycles in the creek and drainage ditch. The offender did not want the victims to be found immediately, because he needed time to establish an alibi for himself. This was one of several reasons I discounted the Mr. Bojangles connection and considered the homeless man a coincidental red herring.
I believe the three boys came into the woods of Robin Hood Hills by the most common method from the neighborhood side, crossing the large drainage pipe. It is inconceivable that they carried their bikes across this very narrow-width bridge. Nor is there any evidence they entered the woods at another location or were killed somewhere else and disposed of in Robin Hood Hills. It required much balance crossing the bridge, and the risk of falling off the bridge while carrying their bicycles was high. The boys would have left their bicycles hidden in the tall grass and weeds before they each walked across the pipe bridge. This is an important aspect of the crime to consider, because the offender, in all probability, would have spotted the bikes, crossed the pipe and committed the crime. Then he would have thrown them into the bayou drainage ditch after crossing back over the pipe bridge and heading in the same general direction where both he and the victims lived.
I believe the UNSUB was looking for the boys, or at least one of them, when he spotted the bikes. The most likely explanation is that they were not where they were supposed to be; and when he found them, he was already angry. It is even possible that when he found them, they were involved in some kind of sexual discovery and therefore fully or partially undressed, which would have fueled his anger even further. It is also possible that one or more of them simply mouthed off to him, which increased his need to punish or humiliate them.
At some point, he lost control of the situation, or realized he had gone too far. This might have been where the blunt-force trauma to the boys’ heads came in. He could have had a closed knife, the butt of a gun or some other object with which he struck them. If one did mouth off, most likely Chris Byers, based on what his parents and others said about his cockiness and impulsivity, then he might have been struck harder, and that represented the point of no return. He could easily be identified by the victims; so in his mind, he had to destroy the evidence—he had to kill them. Had he been a stranger or a drifter, he could have just gotten the hell out of there, and he would have been relatively safe. Not so with someone known to the boys.
I would classify this individual as an “organized” offender and describe him as being self-centered, egocentric and narcissistic. He resents people, but he does not avoid social situations. He looks at social situations as an opportunity to manipulate and use others for his own personal gain. The organized type is known for his cunning and is methodical in his everyday activities. Because of his criminal intellect, based on his previous criminal activities, he is seen as adaptive and flexible when criminally active; however, he prefers to perpetrate crimes in close proximity to where he either resides or is employed—his “comfort zone.”
The organized type is cognizant of not leaving evidence at the scene that could be forensically linked to him. Stripping the victims, hog-tying them, using sticks to submerge and hide the victims’ clothing, throwing their bicycles in the water, all reflect the offender’s criminal mind.
It is not uncommon for the organized type of offender to be overly cooperative postoffense. Because he lived in the general neighborhood and knew the victims, he realized law enforcement would be asking him questions relative to the case and his whereabouts at the time. The organized offender’s cooperation is intended to deflect suspicions away from him as a suspect.
Due to the brutality exhibited by the offender at the scene, it can be said with confidence that he would have the reputation from past behavioral “problems” as having an unpredictable and extremely explosive and violent personality. He probably came from a bad background in which there was family violence and/or he was physically abused. Although this crime may, in fact, be the first time he has killed anyone, it is not the first time he has violently attacked someone.
Damien and Jason had no indicative violence in their pasts; and while Jessie was known for a hot temper, he channeled his aggression into pursuits such as wrestling. He was also known to be very gentle with children and often babysat in his neighborhood. Though the three were raised in a culture in which corporal punishment was common, none were abused.
Predicting the age of an offender at the time of a crime is difficult. Both chronological age and behavioral age need to be considered. However, based on the method and manner of death of the three victims, coupled with the offender’s behavior postoffense, which included secreting the bodies and disposing of the clothing and bicycles in the water, what can be said with a high degree of certainty is that this triple homicide was not a crime perpetrated by a youthful offender or offenders, or one without any history of past violent behavior. It is inconceivable to me that three teenagers could pull off a crime like this and not leave any evidence of themselves behind. I have never seen it done.
While the violence-prone UNSUB responsible for these homicides may not have killed before, he did not simply evolve and emerge on May 5, 1993, as a triple murderer. He had been “working up” to that capacity for years or decades before. He would almost assuredly have some kind of violence, cruelty and anger management issues in his background.
In any case involving the murder of children, investigators always look to the family and immediate adult social circle first, just as in the JonBenét Ramsey case. In all my years of experience, I have never seen a mother or other woman perpetrate this type of crime. So had I been an initial investigator, I first would have looked closely at the father and two stepfathers. If none of them panned out, I would move out in concentric circles of closeness; while at the same time, I would follow up on all forensic evidence, possible witnesses and other leads.
Another potential area of inquiry would be the nearby Mayfair Apartments complex that was known to house transients and sometimes had been a residence for drug users and sellers and paroled sexual offenders. It was unlikely that the three boys would have known any of the residents, but not impossible. Perhaps one of the residents could have spotted one or more of the boys and followed them. An experienced sexual offender would have developed techniques for talking to and controlling potential victims. And since he lived in the area and would be known for his criminal past, he would have to cover up the crime as best he could. I would have tried to find out if anyone had suddenly left the area right after the murders.
With what I knew from the pathologists’ reports, I discounted
the likelihood of this possibility. There was no evidence of any sexual bodily penetration; and though nude bondage can certainly have a sexual context, the boys’ bodies were forced into strange contortions, and nothing appeared to have happened based on the bondage.
So none of the evidence pointed to multiple offenders, teens, ritual or symbolism, Satanism or sexual assault.
In sum, I found not one shred of evidence and nothing in the behavioral backgrounds of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin or Jessie Misskelley Jr. to suggest that any were guilty of murder.
CHAPTER 23
WEST MEMPHIS HEAT
When I sent my report to Dennis Riordan, the response was dramatic. As Steve Mark recalls, “Fran and Lorri particularly were very pleased, as well as relieved that the foremost FBI profiler had validated three points: It was not a satanic murder; the three teen defendants could not have carried it out; and that this was a personal cause homicide, suggesting the offender knew at least one of the victims. So far, it had been like a one-sided tennis match. Suddenly, with John’s report, the tempo of the match shifted and all the spectators looked up and said, ‘Whoa!’ ”
What my profile and analysis showed, the Jackson-Walsh team said to me, was that both they and the police investigators had been looking in the wrong direction and concentrating in the wrong area in trying to figure out who killed the three boys. If it was not a satanic killing, and not likely a stranger murder, where should they be looking?
“What John’s report did,” says Steve, “was refocus the team in a specific direction, away from strangers and toward those who had some relationship to the victims. Specifically, it made them devote more attention to Terry Hobbs as a potential person of interest.”
I remember it was hot as hell when I went down to West Memphis in 2007 at the request of Lorri, Fran and Peter. Five people had died from the heat. I was grateful for the air-conditioning in the Holiday Inn in Memphis, where I was staying.
The heat was representative of the oppressive daily burdens many of the residents faced. This was a population of tough, hardworking people, most of whom had not had the advantages of higher education, influential social contacts or opportunities to get ahead. Of the people I came in contact with, most of them smoked—and smoked a lot—and few had had access to good medical or dental care. They lived in small houses or trailer park communities, and the American tradition of upward mobility was severely limited in West Memphis. There were so many stressors in their lives that alcohol, domestic violence, divorce and other social problems were rampant.
But I also noticed that no matter what they had to face, these were people of abiding faith. Churches of various denominations were all over the place. The locals were also friendly and hospitable, and those who weren’t instinctively wary of an outsider like me poking around into their personal business greeted me warmly and welcomed me into their lives.
One of my first stops in West Memphis was the police station. I went there with Lorri, a Memphis investigator named Ron Lax, who was working with the defense, and his associate Rachel Geiser. As we sat in the file room going over additional evidence, cops passed by in the hall with curious looks on their faces.
The inspection confirmed what the investigators told me after I submitted my written report: Though WMPD had talked to John Mark Byers several times and looked into his background, they had never interviewed Todd Moore or Terry Hobbs. Given the nature of the crime, this was a pretty staggering oversight.
One item we came across that surprised me was that Damien was not the only one who had contacted my unit at Quantico. So had WMPD. I would have been unit chief at the time, but I knew nothing about it.
It was an over-the-phone consultation. We did a lot of those, in which a local chief or detective would call and describe a case rather than send all of the materials. We would try to give them guidance as to what type of individual to look for and what strategy to follow. In this case, the police talked to two other agents in the unit, who gave them advice about what kinds of questions to ask during door-to-door canvassing. There was no record of any follow-up at the time.
When I returned home from this trip, I happened to get a call on another matter from Ken Lanning. Ken had offered advice in the JonBen ét Ramsey case while he was still in the FBI that the prosecution team hadn’t liked and was subsequently shut out of the investigation. I asked Ken if he’d ever had anything to do with the West Memphis murders before he retired.
“Oh, yeah,” he replied. “Someone from the prosecutor’s office called me based on the guide I’d written, described the case and told me they were pursuing it as a satanic murder.”
“What’d you tell them?” I asked.
“I said I thought they were letting the theory drive the investigation. I said, ‘If you bring up that this is a satanic murder, they’ll laugh you right out of court.’ ”
“What happened then?”
“Nothing. They never called me back. Next thing I know, I’m reading about it in the papers—that the motive is satanic ritual.”
During my years at Quantico, I had learned never to dismiss anything Ken Lanning had to say—a lesson lost on at least these two prosecution teams. The only thing Ken was wrong about, as it turned out, was that the West Memphis district attorneys were not laughed out of court, and that is precisely where the tragedy of murder was compounded with the tragedy of miscarried justice.
Todd Moore had a strong alibi: He was working at his job driving a truck during the time the boys went missing. After he got off work, he and Mark Byers went looking for them together. Other people saw them.
While Terry Hobbs was with other people for most of the day and evening, there was about a two-hour window—from about 6:40 to 8:30 P.M.—when he wasn’t with anyone else. This was tantalizing as a potential clue because he had said he was with his friend David Jacoby the entire afternoon and evening. Jacoby had contradicted this, saying they were only together for about an hour and a half. Moreover, Terry claimed he hadn’t seen Stevie all day, having left for work before the rest of the family arose. But a neighbor, Jamie Clark Ballard, stated that she had seen Terry calling after Stevie near his house about six-thirty on the evening of the murders. Stevie was on his bike, and Chris and Michael were running behind him. All three boys were laughing.
About two weeks after the murders, Terry left town. He said staying there was too much to handle. Clearly, we needed to get more information on him.
Dana and Michael Moore each flat-out refused to talk to me, and John Mark Byers and Pamela Hobbs were unresponsive. But Terry Hobbs, now split up from Pam, agreed to see me. I hadn’t had the opportunity to prepare or do any real background investigation on him. But I didn’t want to lose what might be my only chance to meet with him, so I figured I’d better take the offer while I had it.
Terry and I met on a Monday evening from about eight to ten in a garden restaurant at a mall outside Memphis. He was pleasant and considerate, and he had a reasonable-seeming answer to every question I posed. He came across as a father still grieving after all these years. He had loved Pam and Stevie, and he deeply regretted the factors that led to his divorce. I know how the loss of a child can put an unbearable strain on a relationship, and he implied that everything in the marriage had been going downhill since the murders.
I mentioned that I understood he’d had a tough childhood; his father had been pretty rough on him. Terry shrugged and dismissed the observation, as if to say that it was no worse than most and that he had gotten past it. We ended our conversation amiably and I said I might want to talk to him again at some point. I left the interview thinking that I might have been barking up the wrong tree.
I met again with Ron and Rachel. We went through every record or reference we could find on Terry. With two professional private detectives working the case, that turned out to be quite a lot. Rachel interviewed his ex-wife and learned of a highly disturbing incident involving a former neighbor named Mildred French. She and Ron assembled a co
mplete dossier. A new portrait of Terry Hobbs was beginning to emerge.
But before we tried to approach him again, I wanted to talk to his best friend David Jacoby, the one who the police believed provided his alibi for the night of the murders.
Jacoby lived in a single-level house with white siding with a yard surrounded by chain link fencing. When I approached, I saw him sitting shirtless in the yard under an umbrella, apparently working on his business papers. At the time, he was working as a driver for a trucking company out of Little Rock. I was in “Bureau casual”: I had taken off my dark suit jacket and tie. Still, he was far more appropriately attired for the heat than I was. I could already feel the sweat developing in all the old familiar places.
There was a female pit bull chained up that looked as if it had recently had a litter. I originally wanted to be a veterinarian and I still notice such things. I also noticed that if I took a couple of steps in the wrong direction, the dog would have the opportunity to decide physically if I were welcome or not.
Fortunately, it didn’t turn out to be an issue. David Jacoby looks like a civilized version of the traditional mountain man, with a craggy face framed by a full head of grayish-brown hair and a long, untrimmed graying beard. His manner was completely civilized as well. When I told him who I was and what I was there for, he courteously asked me to sit down.
What I wanted him to do, I explained, was take me through the timeline of May 5, 1993. The story that had emerged originally was that after Terry dropped Pam off at the restaurant where she worked, he went over to David’s house to play guitar with him. At two points in the evening the two of them had gone out to look for Stevie. But the real question was: Was he with Terry the entire evening? He had avoided talking to the media, but answers he had given to investigators, including Rachel, had contradicted some of the earlier assumptions, including that he had been with Terry the whole time in question.
Law & Disorder Page 32
