West Memphis Three: Statement Analysis of Terry Hobbs Interview

 Upon request, I am analyzing the statements concerning the "West Memphis 3" but wish to point out that excellent analysis already exists done by Mark McClish, author, instructor, and website owner of www.statementanalysis.com   


As many know here, I consider Mark's work (and now his research) to be of consistent high quality.  I have recommended his online course, seminars, and book, especially prior to taking the LSI courses, to readers.  I hope my analysis adds to his work, as I sometimes will work up a psychological profile along with detecting deception.  This will be the first in a series of analysis, which will also highlight what a false confession looks like, and how the principles of Statement Analysis can be applied when a subject has been coerced into confessing.  Some of this will include examples outside of the West Memphis 3 case.  The edited transcript is from Mark's website.  


His online course is not only essential for law enforcement, but it is affordable and valuable to journalists, and any readers here interested in justice and discerning deception.  It is not solely for investigators.  I urge readers here to consider enrolling in the online course, from the comfort of their own home, at their own pace.  




I.  Introduction:  


1.  West Memphis 3
2.  Who is Terry Hobbs?


1.  From Wikipedia:

The West Memphis Three are three men who were tried and convicted of the murders of three boys in West Memphis, Arkansas on May 5, 1993. During the trial, the prosecution put forth the idea that the only purported motive in the case was that the slayings were part of a Satanic ritual.

Damien Echols was sentenced to death, Jessie Misskelley, Jr. was sentenced to life imprisonment plus two 20-year sentences, and Jason Baldwin was sentenced to life imprisonment.    

In July 2007, new forensic evidence was presented in the case, including evidence that none of the DNA collected at the crime scene matched the defendants, but did match Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of one of the victims, as well as a friend of Hobbs' whom he had been with on the day of the murders. 




Terry Hobbs was not interviewed by police initially, but was later when a hair belonging to Hobbs was found in a knot used  on one of the shoe strings to tie up one of the victims. 


Many now believe that Terry Hobbs killed the boys, and not those convicted. 


The internet has much information on this case.  We will limit ourselves to the Statement Analysis. 




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEcihYnzrcM 

Police:        Did you go into the woods before you picked up Pam?

Hobbs:   sure   

Please note that "sure" is different than "yes" or "yes, I did" and "sure" is commonly used to

agree to something. Why did he choose "sure" rather than "yes"?

Police:        You did?

The officer seeks clarification and may not have expected this reply. 

Hobbs:    (silence) shakes head in agreement. 

Police:        You remember about what time that was?

Hobbs:    6 - 6:30.   

In Statement Analysis we note not only any time mentioned in a statement, but how the time was worded as important. 

Police:        OK, who was with you at that time?

Hobbs:    David.

Note that "David" is first name only, suggesting familiarity.  We do not know if the subject assumes that the police officer knows David or not.  By the officer's next question, we learn that he

knows which "David" this is, which then does not allow us to know whether the response was 

familiar (that is, close, friendly) with Terry alone, since using the first name only caused the 

interviewer to know who he was addressing. 

Police:        David Jacoby.   Anybody else?

Hobbs: Just a lot of neighborhood people. Cause there was people on 3 wheelers,

                4 wheelers, motorcycles, bicycles, on foot. That was you know, help calling, helping us look     for 3 kids.

 "Just" is a word that seeks reduction, or minimizing.  When he describes people on 3 wheelers, 4 wheelers, motorcycles, bicycles, and on foot, it seems like more than "just" a lot of neighborhood people.  He said they were helping "us", (plural noted), and they were searching for "3 kids"; but does not mention his step son.  The absence of his step son's name (or identifying his step son as missing) is noted.  

Police: Is there anything that you saw that you uhh, was it daylight or dark when 

                you all went out there the first time?

A compound question should be avoided as it allows the subject to choose which to answer.  Here, he is asked what he saw, but also the choice of daylight or dark. 

Hobbs:    Daylight.

Police:        Daylight? Was there anything out there that that struck you as unusual or 

                odd that you saw?  

 The interviewer recognizes the error and seeks clarification: 

 Hobbs:    Nothing other than I wouldn't have been out here, this is not a place I hang

                out, No. And we were told at one time that there was something that covered

                up a hole or something and they thought they mighta been in that hole so some

                of them little kids that knew where that place was at said that they'd go 

                check it. I think uhh, that little Byers boy. The one that was alive. There's

                another one alive. I can't think of his name, but I think he was gonna go with

                some of the people that was there and check, but I don't know what they's 

                talking about.

Police:        Was that suppose to be out there in the wooded area also?

 Hobbs:     Uh huh

 
Note the change in pronoun as he goes from plural, to singular, to plural.  This inconsistency is a strong indication of deception.  The topic of the manhole covers came as some theorized that the boys would go down manhole covers like "Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles" 


Please note that "you know" can be a habit, and we should note where this habit appears, and where it does not.  It is an indication that the subject is acutely aware of the interviewer's presence, which should cause us to take note of the questions that triggered this response, as well as questions that did not.  It can be long to do, but can produce a pattern where sensitivity is noted.  Note also the distancing language of "them little kids."  
We must also note any change from "kids" to "boys" by the subject.  Note here that when he used the word "boy" he reported the child to be alive.  
We also flag anything reported in the negative as significant.  He reported that he did not see, but heard about.  Anything in the negative is important.  


In the early slaughter that took place at Midway, an escaping pilot said, "then we didn't see any more Zeroes" (in the negative)  after firing his handgun at two of them.  He reported what he and his co pilot did not see, which, given his survival, explains to us the heightened sensitivity:  he survived after being shot twice and out of ammunition.  Seeing another Japanese Zero (plane type) would have meant death.  We do not immediately declare something reported in the negative as deceptive, but as "sensitive" and then it is up to the analyst to draw a conclusion:  why is this so sensitive?  Why is it important?  It may be important for obvious reasons (the WWII pilot sample) or it may be sensitive due to deception:  "I didn't see anyone run across the parking lot..." offered allowed the interviewer to now know that someone ran across the parking lot.  In both samples, they are flagged as "sensitive"; with one being highly important and the other being an attempt to deceive during a planned robbery. 


When the subject gets to the point of what he did see, what does he describe?


Mark McClish wrote:  


"Twice Hobbs was asked about anything unusual that he "saw." He then tells the officer that in viewing the wooded area he determined this is not a place that he would hang out at. He then goes on to tell the officer about something that he did not see but only heard about. He was not asked what he heard but was asked about what he "saw." The information that Hobbs volunteers to talk about is the manholes! Despite being told that the boys may have been playing in a hole Hobbs does not choose to look into it. He wants us to believe that a kid and some people were going to check it out but he used the word "think" which means he is not certain if they were going to look for the boys in the manholes. He concludes his statement about the manholes by saying, "I don't know what they's talking about." After bringing up the idea the boys may have been playing in some manholes, he quickly tells the officer that he does not know anything about it. This is very suspicious. There is a good chance that Hobbs did not hear about the manholes the night the boys disappeared but this was information he already possessed. "


Excellent conclusion.   This is what an analyst must do:  as he works through a statement, he seeks to come to conclusions.  He does not declare deception on a single indicator, but looks in context.  Statement Analysis is not taking a word and putting it under a microscope.  It is a larger view, based upon building principles. 





Police: Well all I'm asking you is if there is anything that you feel might be, uhh,

                might be pertinent, or, or have some value uhh to this case at all. That we 

                might forward to the prosecuting attorney if, if necessary...

That the police officer received this offered information about a manhole may have caught him by 

surprise, as the theory had been talked about by investigators.  "Well" is a pause; time to think. 

Hobbs:    I know I seen umm a picture, and I don't know if this means anything. I seen

                a picture that uh, Damien Echols sitting on my couch at my house with Chris 

                and Mike, no Stevie and Mike, on each side of him, I think. Have you seen that?

Here we have another pause (ummm) as time to think.  Note that what comes next is described in the 

negative about having value:  "I don't know if..." which now brings us to conclude that which follows is sensitive:  "I seen a picture"   This describes what he has seen.  But then he says "Damien Echols sitting" which is body posture inclusion.  When the subject has the need to describe body posture, it is a signal   that the analyst should be on the alert for strain or stress.  Why the need to describe body posture?     We  highlight "sit, stood, sat, stand, etc" as tension increasers and here is a sample of why:

"My boss said to me" is plain.

"My boss stood and said to me" is stronger, as we see the importance (or increase in tension) of the body posture entering in.  We often find this used in correlation with "told" rather than "said", increasing the 

authority:

"My boss stood before me and told me..." is even stronger, as the tension is increased.  This last one may indicate a correction or disciplinary. 

Here, is there a reason for him to describe the scenario as he did?  He then changes names, which is to be noted.  Note ownership in pronouns of the couch and house as singular. 

Police:        Uh No sir I have not, where did you see that picture?

Hobbs:    Well I think Gary Gitchell had it and I don't know how he got it. And they said

                it was my couch, and I don't know, I don't remember that, now Of course I know 

                we didn't know Damien Echols or none of them boys. But I don't know how, if that

                was our couch, that, that picture got tooken. But I've heard about this picture 

                somewhere out here.

This is an indication that he is lying.  The police officer knew to ask about it, but the officer did not ask  him if he knew how the person got it.  Note that "I don't know" is repeated (sensitivity noted) and that he tells him what he does not remember.  "Of course" is used when he wants the interviewer to accept,        without question, what comes next, which is also in the negative.  Note again the change in pronoun 

from "I" to "we" as an indication that he is lying.  The inconsistency between seeing and hearing about would be plain to the interviewer.  He ends on a question, which makes it highly important.  Is it an attempt to tie someone else into the case?  That the couch went from "my" couch to

"our" couch is just another indicator of deception.  

Police:        You said that uhh. Just going to touch back again on this picture that you 

                were talking about. You actually saw this photograph? Or did you just hear 

                about it? You said the one with Damien and, and the two boys.

Hobbs:    Yeah, I've heard about it, but I don't remember if I've seen it, seems like

                I seen it somewhere.

Police:        You heard it from who?

 

Hobbs:    I don't, Mark?

Police:        Mark Byers.

 

Hobbs:    Mark Byers, yeah. He said that someone's got this picture and it's of my couch,

                he said Gary Gitchell told him it was Terry's couch. Seems like Gary talked to

                me about that one time.

A broken sentence is indication of withheld information, as the subject has stopped himself at this point.  


Mark McClish wrote:   "The officer saw that earlier Hobbs contradicted himself so he now asked for clarification about whether he saw or heard about the picture. Hobbs says he heard about it but does not remember if he saw it. When asked whom he heard it from he starts out answering "I don't" as if he was going to say "I don't know." He then apparently asked "Mark?" to which the officer replied "Mark Byers." 

Hobbs:    You know I don't, I don't know what happened out there in the woods that night, or day,    whenever.  But for them to try to blame it on Mark, blame it on me, blame it on, and not, not let              somebody rest from this.    

The broken sentence, repeated, and offered in the negative is important.  What is the topic or the 'target' of such high sensitivity?  Answer:  It is about what happened.  This should indicate to the investigators that Hobbs knows what happened and that he is being deceptive, and seeking to blame another. 


In our next analysis, we will look at what a false confession looks like and how Statement Analysis can discern between a false confession (given for various reasons) and a true confession.