The story was on again this afternoon. Here is some more information.

MAN CONVICTED IN KILLING; SON'S BODY STILL MISSING
THE SEATTLE TIMES
March 19, 1995
Author: JEFF BARNARDAP
Estimated printed pages: 2

GLENDALE, Ore. - For some residents who have never given up trying to find little Tommy Gibson, there is only way to settle things: tell them where his body is.
"I wish he would own up to it so we could find the child and put him away right," said Ron Marriott, who has been searching for Tommy since the 2 1/2-year-old disappeared in 1991. "That would clean it all up."

The boy's father, Larry Gibson, was convicted of manslaughter Thursday. The former deputy sheriff in this southern Oregon timber town had been charged with murder.

Gibson, 34, claimed he last saw Tommy playing alone in the yard when he went for a jog.

District Attorney Ted Zacher argued that Gibson had a history of abusing his children and killed his son in a rage after the boy disobeyed orders to stay near the house.

A suspect from the beginning, Gibson was arrested in April in Montana, where he moved his family in 1992 and worked as an insurance salesman.

The verdict "doesn't settle anything," said Marriott, a member of the South Douglas County Search & Rescue Team. "It just says more people than us thought he was guilty."

That first night Tommy was missing, Marriott and other rescue members were standing in the snow warming up around a campfire.

Gibson told them to give up their search and go home.

"When the father of a missing child tells you to go home and it's snowing, that's not usual," Marriott said.

At that point, they quit looking for a lost boy and started looking for a body.

They concentrated on a remote area up an old logging road around a creek. State police investigators figured Gibson had dumped his son's body there. The body was never found.

Gibson's wife, Judy, took their three daughters and moved out last year, leaving her estranged husband to move in with his grandmother in Montana.

Then Gibson's 8-year-old daughter, Karen, told authorities in April she had seen her father hit Tommy, load him in the back of his patrol car and drive away the day the boy disappeared. It was the first evidence hard enough to bring an indictment, and Gibson was charged.

Karen, holding a teddy bear while testifying, was the prosecution's star witness in the six-week trial.

Alan Scott, Gibson's lawyer, said Gibson maintains his innocence and he would appeal. "I know he wants the search to continue for Tommy."

The verdict was enough to make Bob Gaedecke, a retired logger who heads the search and rescue team, feel vindicated. As recently as three weeks ago, he was out training his new bloodhound, Bubba, still looking for the boy's body.

"Maybe 'til they put me in a box, I'm going to look for an answer to this puzzle," he said
Edition: WEEKEND
Section: LOCAL NEWS
Page: B2
Index Terms: MURDERS AND ATTEMPTED MURDERS; SENTENCES OF CRIMINALS; MISSING PERSONS
Dateline: GLENDALE, ORE.
Copyright 1995 The Seattle Times
Record Number: 2110935

I think its important to note that since this article was published Larry Gibson has been released from prison and is persuing a career in music.

I think its important to note that since this article was published Larry Gibson has been released from prison and is persuing a career in music.
How was it he was convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Was it a heat of passion incident?

How was it he was convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Was it a heat of passion incident?

This is just a guess, but I got the impression that Gibson didn't mean to kill Tommy. Perhaps they were unable to prove intent, and the charges had to be reduced.

I'll see if I can find more articles about Gibson's conviction.

I have no doubt Larry Gibson was involved in the disappearance and probable murder. It's incredible to me the typical sentencing guidelines for this type of manslaughter conviction is 16-18 months in that state, according to one website I looked at, and apparently Gibson was sentenced to only 3 years.

However, this case provides further evidence of two things that frustrate me to the point of high decibel disbelief: creative law enforcement and absolutely zero clue regarding probability. The initial theory of the bullet killing the cat then hitting and killing the son is so insanely ludicrous it's mind boggling it could even be theorized, let alone presented as a likely occurence by law enforcement to a national television audience. Just think of the necessary permutations and chain of events that have to line up. What, was this a 4 foot tall cat? The shot would have to be at a downward trajectory. Or else it bounced or richocheted at just the perfect angle to hit the son and kill him. You could literally stand there all your life and fire one shot after another TRYING to make that happen, without success.

I'm a big believer in truth stranger than fiction, but when you have law enforcement dreaming up and embracing scenarios like that it's absolutely scary because those theories are presented to juries by lawyers wearing expensive suits and with all the prerequisite schooling and positive citations. Unless the jurors understand probability and appropriately hear the Monty Python theme song, or similar, jingling in the background when prosecutors present blather like that, you get the inevitable unjust convictions.

This case fascinated me. I really don't know what to think. While watching the segment, something about Larry told me that he seemed guilty. But the fact that his daughter didn't reveal that she saw her dad beat her brother to death until after she and her mother moved away from him makes the whole thing questionable. It's obvious that the daughter is very impressionable; after all, it seems as if Larry got her to fabricate a story about a yellow truck that was in the area with its license plate taped to the rear window (I personally believe there is no way that she could have the capacity to remember something like that in such detail, along with a great description of the two people who supposedly took her brother away). I think it's very possible that her mom could have helped her fabricate this new story of Larry beating his son to death just because her mom wanted to get back at Larry.

I really think Larry is involved in it somehow, but all the details are so sketchy. This was one of the best segments I've seen in a long time.

Mr. Fuji, If I remember correctly the description of the male and female in the truck(along with the plate in the window) were given by a neighbor that was driving up the street near the Gibson home. This info has come under question do to the fact that the day at which she recalled this inofrmation is disputed. I think the Gibsons daughter coraborated the story after the fact whe t the lil' girl told the soppsed details to her Grandmother. I may be a little off on the details by I believe that's the jist. However the unaccounted time and patrol car mileage, along with the fact that Gibson sr. left the area where his son had supposedly "JUST" gone missing does not look good nor is it adequetly explainable. I don't have children but I went crazy looking for a fish that hid in the rock pile of a fish tank, and that was in a 6 x 2 ft tank!

:D

I have a similar article Justin sent to me and the police theorize that Tommy disobeyed Larry when he told him to stay near the house and ventured down the hill because he wanted to see the cat his dad had shot. They believe Larry flew into a rage and killed Tommy and double bagged his body when he buried it as he knew the police dogs wouldn't be able to locate it. They said Larry had a history of abusing his children. I believe someone from the board had also spoke with the K-9 Rescue Team who was involved in helping search for Tommy and they said his clothes were found but no body. They believe that Larry killed Tommy in the kitchen which could be why the daughter claims to have seen it.

I always wondered who "spot in the road" was and what was in that letter.

Mr. Fuji, If I remember correctly the description of the male and female in the truck(along with the plate in the window) were given by a neighbor that was driving up the street near the Gibson home. This info has come under question do to the fact that the day at which she recalled this inofrmation is disputed. I think the Gibsons daughter coraborated the story after the fact whe t the lil' girl told the soppsed details to her Grandmother. I may be a little off on the details by I believe that's the jist. However the unaccounted time and patrol car mileage, along with the fact that Gibson sr. left the area where his son had supposedly "JUST" gone missing does not look good nor is it adequetly explainable. I don't have children but I went crazy looking for a fish that hid in the rock pile of a fish tank, and that was in a 6 x 2 ft tank!

:D
i don't mean to make this thread humorous, but your fish comment was so damn funny!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have kids and I would do whatever it took to find them. the thought of my child missing is a nightmare i wouldn't want nor do i like to see any parent go thru. but back to the fish thing. I had a crab that i couldn't find in my aquarium and I was there searching and searching and searching. That stupid little F****** was wedged up inside a rock decoration!!!!:mad: :crazy:

Mr. Fuji, If I remember correctly the description of the male and female in the truck(along with the plate in the window) were given by a neighbor that was driving up the street near the Gibson home. This info has come under question do to the fact that the day at which she recalled this inofrmation is disputed. I think the Gibsons daughter coraborated the story after the fact whe t the lil' girl told the soppsed details to her Grandmother. I may be a little off on the details by I believe that's the jist. However the unaccounted time and patrol car mileage, along with the fact that Gibson sr. left the area where his son had supposedly "JUST" gone missing does not look good nor is it adequetly explainable. I don't have children but I went crazy looking for a fish that hid in the rock pile of a fish tank, and that was in a 6 x 2 ft tank!:D
Well, the neighbor did see the truck and the license plate, but she did not see who was in the truck. Remember, she said that all she saw was silhouettes, and didn't get a good look at who was inside. Larry Gibson said in an interview that his daughter told him that she saw a man with long, scruffy hair and jeans along with a woman who took Tommy. Larry claimed that she also told him that she saw a license plate or a sticker in the rear window of the truck. So, she did remember all those details, which to me seems farcical and quite convenient that she didn't remember them in her interviews with the police, but only after the neighbor claimed to have seen something similar.

I have a similar article Justin sent to me and the police theorize that Tommy disobeyed Larry when he told him to stay near the house and ventured down the hill because he wanted to see the cat his dad had shot. They believe Larry flew into a rage and killed Tommy and double bagged his body when he buried it as he knew the police dogs wouldn't be able to locate it. They said Larry had a history of abusing his children. I believe someone from the board had also spoke with the K-9 Rescue Team who was involved in helping search for Tommy and they said his clothes were found but no body. They believe that Larry killed Tommy in the kitchen which could be why the daughter claims to have seen it.

I always wondered who "spot in the road" was and what was in that letter.

Indeed an intriguing case and I'm learning plenty more details from today's posts. Mostly they confuse me. If Larry killed Tommy in the kitchen, where was the wife? Why doesn't she have first hand knowledge and not merely accepting what the daughter says? On the UM segment the home looked like a trailer, and certainly not very large. The segment showed the wife watching TV when Larry returned from his supposed 47 minute jog.

The theory about killing him in the kitchen doesn't ring probable to me. Larry Gibson might have been enraged at the son for leaving the vicinity of the home, but you would think the apex of that anger would occur immediately, out in the yard near the dead cat. Bringing him home should have been enough to chill the anger, unless the brutal blows had already happened outside. I know from psychological studies that parents who hurt/kill a child almost always do it away from view of other children, not in front of them, regardless of age.

Also, where were the clothes found? And what is the "spot in the road" reference?

I've never heard that double bagging theory before. I thought dogs had sniffers 1 million times, or more, superior to ours. You wouldn't think an extra layer of plastic would thwart that. If that's all it takes, no wonder so many bodies are not located.

Yeah, I wasn't sure about the double-bagging either. It's interesting!

I believe the person who stated they think Tommy was killed in the kitchen was one of the people handling the search dogs. I agree it isn't very plausible, I just assumed they thought that because maybe Tommy's scent was strong in there. That person also stated they found Tommy's clothes buried but I'm not sure where. I didn't realize search dogs couldn't sniff through multiple bags either but thats what the policeman stated (and remember Larry Gibson WAS a policeman at the time this occurred).

As far as "spot in the road" goes someone anonymously sent the police a letter and signed it "spot in the road". I can't remember if it implicated Larry or not (maybe someone here remembers) but the letter writer seemed to have additional info about the case and RS urged them to come forward. I'm just curious who the letter writer turned out to be. I would have been very interested to read that letter.

If Larry Gibson is truly guilty of any involvement in Tommy's disappearance, then he should come clean about it. Maybe it could result in the recovery of Tommy or his remains.

I'm making this suggestion based on the fact that we have double jeopardy laws. Larry Gibson has already been convicted in the case, and served time in jail. Therefore, even if new evidence surfaces, he cannot be retried for the disappearance or death of Tommy.

Just a thought.

This case was recently uploaded to the taboo site. Gad, our dynoguy pulled no punches in his description of Larry Gibson in the opening segment. :lol: By far the most blunt I've ever seen.

Anyway, I looked at some related threads tonight and saw DarkDante's mention that Gibson turned to a career in music. I checked it out and here's a web page I found. He rambles on and on about his career and his father's background in music but no mention of the little difficulty in Oregon. All he says is, "I came home to Montana in 1996 and moved here to Townsend."

Yeah, after that brief stint in jail.

http://www.awa-awards.org/musician.html

Hey, maybe CRicci can visit and give us a review of his talent. :lol:

http://www.awa-awards.org/images/larry/larrybw.jpg

It's possible!

He's in TOWNSEND?!?! :faint:

Ahh, man! Montana's a big state, but I can't stand this guy!

I am heading that way fairly soon. Maybe I WILL take one for the team and go check out his music. :lol:

This case was recently uploaded to the taboo site. Gad, our dynoguy pulled no punches in his description of Larry Gibson in the opening segment. :lol: By far the most blunt I've ever seen.

Let me provide specifically what I'm referring to. This is dynoguy/jpenn's summation on the video site:

"A father kills his todler son and tries to make it look like he just vanished. Take a close look at Larry being interviewed - there is guilt written ALL over his face."

It's definitely the same Larry Gibson from that Montana link. Check the eyes and facial structure. There's also no mention in that link that he had any involvement in law enforcement. And the reference to the 20-year-old daughter is the same one -- Karen -- who was 4 and a half in 1991, prominent in the UM segment, and who eventually said Larry Gibson struck Tommy and put him in his patrol car. She was apparently the star witness at trial.

Yeah, I concur. It's totally him.

I am so planning a field trip out to Townsend.... lol

He stated in the UM video that he passed a lie dectecter test. Is this true? The UM segment never mentions how he passed one....???

I just found this: Could this be Larry Gibson's myspace page???
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=163835259

-Ben

Something was bothering me about that Larry Gibson link all day and I finally figured it out while washing my car. Look at this section near the beginning:

"I'm 47 years old, divorced with four children. The little girls live with their mother and my oldest (20) is out on her own now."

I wonder if the number four includes Tommy? After all, Larry Gibson's claim is he's completely innocent, that Tommy vanished and likely was abducted. You wouldn't think he would concede that Tommy is dead if he asserts innocence and a body was never found. But there's no mention of a boy.

I'm not sure how many children the Gibson's had after the incident in 1991. As far as I know, Karen was the only other child mentioned in the UM segment. I suppose it's possible they had three more children before the 1995 trial and divorce, but I would guess that two is more likely, unless they had twins. I wonder if he is indeed including Tommy among the four but prefers to leave out anything inconvenient, like a mention of a missing son, similar to avoiding all mention of jail time or the controversial aspects of his past?

Oh that is Larry Gibson, I am sure of it. It looks just like him. Remember that newspaper article earlier in the thread that said that Gibson's wife packed up their three daughters and left him in 1993 or 1994? Was Gibson originally charged with first degree murder? Or was it second degree murder? I know he was originally charged with murder of some type however the jury acquitted him of murder as well as the more severe manslaughter charges, they convicted him of 2nd degree manslaughter, he got 3 years and was released after serving 18 months. I did find that incredible how Gibson seems to leave out all these big parts like how he probably murdered his son, most likely he didnt plan to kill him but it still probably happened, also how he never mentions how he was convicted of a felony and how he spent a year and a half in an Oregon prison. I bet those folks he is with there in Montana for the most part have no idea about his past.

Oh that is Larry Gibson, I am sure of it. It looks just like him. Remember that newspaper article earlier in the thread that said that Gibson's wife packed up their three daughters and left him in 1993 or 1994?

Thanks kadrmas. You answered my question about the four children. Obviously he is including Tommy in the count in the present tense, which is creepy and pathetic if he did play a part in the disappearance/presumed death.

I bet those folks he is with there in Montana for the most part have no idea about his past.

Yeah... when I heard he was in Townsend, my first instinct was to go to one of his shows and ask him to play his son Tommy's favorite song... but I thought that might be crossing the line a bit.

I any event, it looks like he didn't age very well at all. So in essence, he got punished with the ugly stick.

I guess my description of the case on YouTube was a little tacky but I can't help it. That Larry Gibson just plain disgusts me. There was no emotion from him whatsoever during the entire segment. He just didn't come accross as a worried father who doesn't know where is son is. To me, Larry Gibson came across worse than Chad Noe, Paul Pollis and Judy Groezinger.

By the way, are you guys absolutley sure that the singer is the same Larry Gibson? I have my doubts. Wouldn't he mention in his profile that he used to be sheriff? I don't think that's him.

Dynoguy, Larry Gibson was never a sheriff, he was a Douglas County, Oregon sheriff's deputy, not to be cocky, but as you know there is a big difference between being a sheriff and a sheriff's deputy.

It is hardly surprising, at least to me, that Gibson would neglect to mention his little incident where he was arrested and charged with the murder of his toddler son and how he was a cop nonetheless that was arrested by his own agency for the crime and how he was acquitted of murder charges but convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter and how he was sentenced to 3 years and released after 18 months, it is hardly surprising that he would neglect to mention all of that. It would destroy his already shell of a singing career to do that. I compared the facial characteristics and stuff and I think it is him. He grew a beard trying to look like Charlie Daniels or something and probably also to conceal his apperance so it would be harder for him to recognize.

By the way, are you guys absolutley sure that the singer is the same Larry Gibson? I have my doubts. Wouldn't he mention in his profile that he used to be sheriff? I don't think that's him.

Dude, that is totally him! :eek:

He says he has four kids because he maintains the position that Tommy wasn't murdered, but rather was kidnapped and has never been found.

Don't forget that he has been and may still be maintaining a website asking for information on Tommy's whereabouts.

He's probably quite convinced himself he didn't do it, that the child was abducted. That's how it seemed in those emotionless interviews he gave on the UM segment. How else could he live with himself?

Very strange egotistical behaviour though. A murder suspect giving detailed interviews for a segment he must rationally know will strongly suggest he is a killer? Then trying to develop a public career in music/entertainment.

Shudder...

This was an interesting case in that some were correct that Larry Gibson did kill Tommy, but incorrect in the method. The main theory had Larry accidentally shooting Tommy while trying to kill the cat. This seemed believable to me as I couldn't imagine why anyone would want to hurt a child, particularly that young (2 years old), but apparently Larry was worse than I thought. As far as the truck sightings go, there's no doubt he put those people up to it (getting them to claim that they saw them.) I'm shocked he's pursuing a music career given his past.

I wouldn't buy any of his cd's:lol:

Here is Tommy Gibson's website: http://www.computerfighter.com/tommy.htm

I had a crab that i couldn't find in my aquarium and I was there searching and searching and searching. That stupid little F****** was wedged up inside a rock decoration!!!!:mad: :crazy:[/QUOTE]

My first time posting ever !:wave:
We had a lot of fish disappearing in our tank. When cleaning out the filter, we found a small platy (still alive) after a week.:eek:

The Gibson case is a very contrived one. What really strikes me is how aloof both the mom and dad are.

It's totally the same guy. If you eliminate the "/tommy.htm" and just go to www.computerfighter.com, you'll see that it's an internet hosting business based out of... you guessed it. Montana.

It's interesting to me that he's been convicted of manslaughter, yet still claims that Tommy is alive and that SOMEONE knows what happened to him. Anyone else tripped up by this?

Does anyone know what the mother testified to in court? I'm wondering where she was when it happened and who all was there because if he hit his son till he went limp like the daughter said I don't believe that anyone in or around the house at the time could have not heard what was going on. I can't see a kid not crying or making noise while being hit like that. I believe Larry Gibson killed Tommy (and didn't get near enough time for it) I just don't know that I believe that the mom didn't know what happened.

Wow, I just watched this for the 1st time and Larry Gibson in my opinion is so guilty. He does mention he passed a lie detector test......anyone know of this? I think it is possible that he accidentally shot Tommy and then panicked and disposed of the body. Otherwise, what motive would he have had to kill Tommy besides anger? The mother didn't come off to saddened either. The whole scenario that Larry gave was unbelievable, with the cat and the time descrepencies.....bologna.
Oh and the wannabe country superstar, that looks just like our friend Larry. I can't believe the gall of this guy.


That of course.........is just my opinion.

Well since Larry has not admitted killing his son the body will never be found. Afterall Larry I believe was originally charged with 1st degree pre meditated murder which I think was a stretch, at trial the jury found him guilty of the lowest charge they could without an acquittal, 2nd degree manslaughter and Gibson got a 3 year prison sentence and he was paroled after a year and a half. I do think Larry accidentally killed his son and panicked and decided it would be better for him to dispose of the body and come up with a bogus theory about what happened to his son rather than just admitting he accidently shot him.

last i knew on this case he plead guilty but still maintains his innocense

Is this him? If so, he has a Facebook page, too.

http://www.cowboyentertainer.com/larry.html

Is this him? If so, he has a Facebook page, too.

http://www.cowboyentertainer.com/larry.html

Yup, that's him all right. Am I the only one who's totally sickened by the thought of a man who killed his son winning music awards and supposedly gaining a fan base?

One thing that's really interesting is that on his blog site, and on his facebook page, unlike most up and coming artists who want publicity, he has to preview all comments before they are posted. I wonder why? My guess is that the vast majority of his fans probably have no idea that this man killed his child, and at the very least, was a known child abuser...

It really makes you sick.

Yup, that's him all right. Am I the only one who's totally sickened by the thought of a man who killed his son winning music awards and supposedly gaining a fan base?

One thing that's really interesting is that on his blog site, and on his facebook page, unlike most up and coming artists who want publicity, he has to preview all comments before they are posted.

It really makes you sick.

I agree, but what can you do. The guy served his time.


I wonder why? My guess is that the vast majority of his fans probably have no idea that this man killed his child, and at the very least, was a known child abuser...

Actually I'm beginning to wonder if most of his fans do know of the crime and that's why they listened to his music. They say there is no such thing as bad publicity. It's like those people that buy art drawn by serial killers. The art is probably mediocre, but people will buy it because of the fact a killer drew it.

I'm willing to bet that Tony Alamo's music has a strong following know after his arrest.
That and those god-awful jackets he created. YUCK!! As if the guy was unlikeable enough....

Even if he remembered killing Tommy and where he left him and decided to come clean, a body still might not be found as the landscape might have changed. :( This happened when Ted Bundy attempted to identify the location of one of his victims.

I've talked to Larry before. No kidding. He IS the same person as the country music star which is what people have bee saying. So I sent him a message a while back via Facebook or Myspace (have to look it up) and told him I recognized him from the UM segment. I asked him if there was any news with Tommy.

He still claims he hopes Tommy is alive and maybe someday joins the army or gets arrested so that he can be fingerprinted and discovered. He claims no one proved him wrong about his own theories (I assume Tommy going missing by the abductors?). Now his wife split up with him (I always thought that if she dolled herself up she'd look pretty good) and she took custody of the girls. Despite going to jail based on his daugther's sketchy testimony he states as they have grown up he has a great relationship with the girls now.

So, to be honest I think he's pretty receptive if someone would drop him a line. He sent a message within hours back to me and he never knew me. But he does seem to have a wealth of fans at least in that area.

Bottom line I feel is that Larry is in denial about what he did to Tommy or the world owes him a HUGE apology for our accusations.

I'm sure that people here have seen this article I just stumbled across but thought I would post it anyways.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19950225&id=PXgVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vOsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3697,5940672

I think they mentioned on the update, or I read somewhere, that Larry Gibson's wife testified against him at trial. I'm wondering if anyone knows what she said?
In the episode, she says that after the gunshot she could hear Tommy playing on the porch, but in the article the half sister said Larry called her in a panic saying that he accientally shot his son.

A poster here said that he now has a good relationship with his daughter, even though she witnessed him beat him and take off with him, as well as testify in court. Yet she currently has a good relationship with him even though he continues to deny involvement?

Really a bizarre case with the family, but interesting none the less.

Thanks for the article and welcome! I do think Larry killed his son (not sure why Tommy is still profiled on the "Missing" tv show when his father has been convicted of his murder) but the question is did he kill him in a fit of anger or accidentally shoot him? The little girl's testimony albeit young seems a bit much to make up especially since the article said she was then afraid of him and didn't want to see him again. On the other hand, it makes no sense that Larry would have let his daughter see him bury Tommy like she claims to have witnessed. Larry has already been convicted and served his pathetic little jail sentence, why doesn't he just come clean and confess and lead authorities to his body so his son can have a decent burial? Thats the least he can do for him.

One thing that I've always been really curious about is who was the author who wrote the letter and signed it "spot in the road". I would love to know what was in that letter and who the author was. Has anyone read anything about that over the years in articles or online?

Is the text of that "Spot in the road" note readable anywhere?

Is the text of that "Spot in the road" note readable anywhere?

Not that I know of. Thats why I'd love to look at it. They showed Robert Stack holding it and from what he said it seemed to contain a lot of info that possibly pointed to Larry Gibson. Any theories on who could have written it?

His wife is my guess.

Scratch that, doesn't make any sense that she would then defend him on the show.

Perhaps a family member? It's a hard guess, since they lived in a fairly wooded, secluded area. Maybe a neighbor nearby who was a witness but afraid to come forward? Since we've never read the note, for all we know, "Spot in the Road" could have had some sort of bogus scenario that wasn't true but was conjecture on the part of the writer. That's why I want to read it as badly as you, CD.

While Larry's wife defense of him on the show is troublesome to me, I dont think it would be out of the realm of possibility that she did so out of fright for her own life and possibly that of her other children. I mean, if the guy is willing to kill his own son, whats to say that he wouldnt have threatened or carried out some violence against other members of his family that could have put him behind bars.

I gotta say, this guy sickens me, and if you look at him during the UM story, as well as his country music site that hes trying to peddle, the guy has the cold and evil eyes. Ive gone to the site, and if you do as well, I urge you to look at the picture portion of it. EVERY picture literally, he has the same blank and cold stare, without a smile that almost everyone hes pictured with seems to have in a normal way that people do when their picture is taken.

Granted, thats not means to say the guy is a murderer, but to me, the fact that his own family testified against him, is more than enough reason to think that he did infact kill Tommy.

I also will say this. I think the story of his daughter Karen makes the most sense to me, and much more than the original one that police felt that Tommy was shot after Larry killed a cat on his property. From what I gathered in watching the story, the family lived on a wooded property, and had Tommy infact been shot, the cleanup of blood and other evidence would have been very hard for Larry to do. From what Ive seen, there was none found at the residence, so to me, the striking death of Tommy seems to make a lot more sense to me.

I just hope this guy pays for what he did in the next life. He truly sickens me, and I just pray for Tommy's soul and hope that he gets true and fair justice someday for what his father did to him.

I hate Larry Gibson.

First he shoots cats for no reason, then it turns out he did kill his son. :angryfire

While Larry's wife defense of him on the show is troublesome to me, I dont think it would be out of the realm of possibility that she did so out of fright for her own life and possibly that of her other children. I mean, if the guy is willing to kill his own son, whats to say that he wouldnt have threatened or carried out some violence against other members of his family that could have put him behind bars.

I gotta say, this guy sickens me, and if you look at him during the UM story, as well as his country music site that hes trying to peddle, the guy has the cold and evil eyes. Ive gone to the site, and if you do as well, I urge you to look at the picture portion of it. EVERY picture literally, he has the same blank and cold stare, without a smile that almost everyone hes pictured with seems to have in a normal way that people do when their picture is taken.

Granted, thats not means to say the guy is a murderer, but to me, the fact that his own family testified against him, is more than enough reason to think that he did infact kill Tommy.

I also will say this. I think the story of his daughter Karen makes the most sense to me, and much more than the original one that police felt that Tommy was shot after Larry killed a cat on his property. From what I gathered in watching the story, the family lived on a wooded property, and had Tommy infact been shot, the cleanup of blood and other evidence would have been very hard for Larry to do. From what Ive seen, there was none found at the residence, so to me, the striking death of Tommy seems to make a lot more sense to me.

I just hope this guy pays for what he did in the next life. He truly sickens me, and I just pray for Tommy's soul and hope that he gets true and fair justice someday for what his father did to him.

Facts is and what should matter in cases. Neurotypical socializers love to pretend to possess the ability to read guilt in someone by looking in the person's eyes or facial countenance, but that's palpably, from a wholly empirical standpoint, nonsensical in determining a potential suspect's guilt. If one does that, then at least be consistent and use that intuitive paradigm continuously and in every case. Matched against a psychic placebo via usage of a statistical hypothesis test, I doubt the results are any better than cold reading.

The fact is there are many personality types in the world. Larry Gibson may have a genetic or learned disposition toward being a cold person. The set of a cold person has too many subsets to determine guilt. Subsets could include a philosophical stoic (me, for example, who deals with things as they come), sociopaths, and those involved with law enforcement often have that trait. When a crisis arises, that personality disposition could easily lead a neurotypical socializer to conclude if one is guilty of a crime. That's obviously a drawback to a justice system where one's freedom can easily be determined by such intuitionists who will often times be wrong simply because the set of personalities of humans has too many subsets to determine one's guilt; it's an issue of variance. It's an enormously abused ecological fallacy. In other words, facts and logic matter.

A lie detector test judges nervousness in response to a question relative to responses to standard questions (e.g. "Did you kill this person?" compared to "Is your name 'John'?"). A sociopath, like the Green River Killer, can easily pass a test like this since nervousness - not always though sometimes a product of guilt - may not resonate during questioning. I would be shocked if Larry Gibson didn't take a polygraph test; he was a cop and would have been expected to take one. If he has no remorse over the case and felt confident that no body equates to no conviction, then passing a polygraph test is not surprising; the Green River Killer also passed the test. False positives and false negatives occur at enough of a frequency that it's evidentiary utility is questionable at best and can lead to wrongful convictions at worst.

This case is still unsolved in my estimation. There are a number of facts in this case that must be accounted for. He apparently jogged about two miles over ~45 minutes. That's clearly a lie unless he was at least a standard deviation below the mean in height (and he isn't). As someone of average height, around my best, I can walk three and a quarter miles. That's just walking with a ruck-sack approaching eighty pounds in hot weather. He clearly would have covered more ground in that time.

The principle issue I have with the case is the eye witness testimony given by the daughter. Though she claims to have seen him attack the kid in the kitchen, there was something greater going on than she's saying or he had the family live in fear whilst brainwashing her about that mysteries vehicle. Consider the wife. Where was she, why did she keep silent if present, and why did she defend him so staunchly to the point of collectively attacking the integrity of state investigators for interviewing the husband? That needs to be accounted for; until then, the case is still unresolved. Not to mention, it's entirely possible the wife forced her child to testify against the father. In bitter divorce cases, occurrences such as this are not unprecedented. This is not to say Larry Gibson did not commit murder (he almost certainly did); however, Larry's estranged wife needs to account for her position with respect to the events that transpired on that day.

Pivotal evidence pointing to his guilt, besides the eye witness testimony, is the child not being discovered. The abduction was almost too good to be true; clearly, whoever did this crime had clear knowledge of how to evade police dogs. His obvious inconsistencies matter too. Though arguing one being inconsistent indicates guilt (which it does not; the human mind tends to be rather forgettable vis-a-vis daily occurrences and episodic recall) is an obvious fallacy, the physical evidence of poor mileage does indicate there was more to his daily activity that day than he had indicated. Troubling enough, I would have hoped an eye witness would have come forward to assert the deputy's presence; it's hard not to notice a car owned by the sheriff's department. That could have pinpointed him elsewhere, away from the house, toward a point of seclusion, and toward a possible burial ground where the body could have been recovered.

To a poster, you made a good note on the statistics of a projectile striking the child. That's simply unlikely.

Larry's a strange dude. I've heard lots of folks around here say that his whole family is a bit "out there." I've spoken to him several times a couple years ago when he was cooking at a local cafe and didn't care fore him, even before I learned of the case and his time in jail.

Also, he's trying to be a Cowboy star, which is quite different than a mainstream Country entertainer. The reason I bring that up is that the Western industry tends to endorse the myth of the cowboy and the entertainers frequently have a persona that is mysterious or even mythical. I guess that's neither here nor there.

He will answer questions about the case but is very short and rehearsed in his replies. He definitly isn't going to be up front about it.

Larry makes me sick. I personally think the story about shooting the cat and hitting Tommy by accident is bull. I think the daughters story makes much more sence and is probably what actually happend. I think Larry was an abusive father and struck Tommy too hard and killed him. There are so many bogus and wierd statements made by him and actions like calling off the search early. And the fact that he is trying to become some sort of Cowboy star is rediculous. I wonder if he wrote a song about his missing ( or dead) son? Probably not.

I still remember when the segment first came out way back in the day, did any of you beleive he was guilty then I had a feeling he was getting his daugther to lie.

Larry makes me sick. I personally think the story about shooting the cat and hitting Tommy by accident is bull. I think the daughters story makes much more sence and is probably what actually happend. I think Larry was an abusive father and struck Tommy too hard and killed him. There are so many bogus and wierd statements made by him and actions like calling off the search early. And the fact that he is trying to become some sort of Cowboy star is rediculous. I wonder if he wrote a song about his missing ( or dead) son? Probably not.

Wasnt the daugthers story that two complete strangers kidnapped him from outside his room window,its been along time I might be mistaken but thats how I remembered it.

Wasnt the daugthers story that two complete strangers kidnapped him from outside his room window,its been along time I might be mistaken but thats how I remembered it.


Yes, that was the daughters original story. But years later she told someone that she had made that story up and that her father struck Tommy and then put him in the back of a car.

While I do believe Larry to be responsible for his son's death there was a lot of problems with the testimony against him. For instance his wife who did not throw him under the bus until she divorced him. She and Larry were going through a nasty divorce and custody battle for their daughter and then suddenly she starts saying how abusive Larry was and her daughter suddenly starts saying the same thing. Even if the daughter was telling the truth about Larry allegedly beating Tommy until he went limp and then putting him in the back of his patrol car, the problem is her testimony changed so many times it is hard to determine when she is credible? In fact even though it was not revealed in the segment, in addition to their daughter and Tommy, the Gibson's actually had two other children.

Now in this case, Larry was not charged until 3 years after Tommy's disappearance. 3 years might not sound like a long time but in a criminal case it is an eternity as witnesses stories change, people's memories are not as good. Larry I believe was originally charged with either first degree murder or second degree murder, I can't remember which? Prosecutors argued two different theories and I think that is also what contributed to the lesser verdict as it confused the jury. First the prosecutors argued that maybe Gibson accidently shot Tommy because he shot the cat and the bullet went through the cat and hit Tommy. Then they turned around and argued that Larry had a history of abusing children but did not point to specific allegations of abuse before Tommy's death. Then they turned around and argued a third theory that Larry was under a lot of stress at the time Tommy disappeared because in addition to his job, he had to care for the children alone during the day while his wife took college classes.

Gibson is a native of Montana and after he resigned from the Sheriff's Office because he was going to be fired if he didn't quit, he and his wife and their three remaining children moved back to Montana. In 1994, Gibson and his wife separated and his wife took the kids and moved back to Oregon. It was only then that his estranged wife and his daughter changed their stories and said that they saw Gibson 'lose it' and that Gibson had lost his temper with Tommy and had hit the boy repeatedly until the boy went limp. Gibson then panicked when he realized that Tommy was dead and put the boy in a black trash bag and took the bag to his patrol car, put it in the trunk and drove away.

Larry was acquitted of first and second degree murder as well as first degree manslaughter. He was convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter which was basically the lowest thing he could be convicted of without being acquitted outright. The Statute for Second Degree Manslaughter in Oregon reads like this:

Manslaughter in the second degree
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the second degree when:
(a) It is committed recklessly;
(b) A person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide; or
(c) A person, with criminal negligence, causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person, as defined in ORS 163.205 (Criminal mistreatment in the first degree), and:
(A) The person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of the victim or another child under 14 years of age or a dependent person; or
(B) The person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment, as defined in ORS 163.115 (Murder).
(2) Manslaughter in the second degree is a Class B felony.

Second degree manslaughter in Oregon is a Class B felony which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. However at the time of Gibson's case, Second degree manslaughter was a Class C felony which is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. It was changed to a Class B felony in 1994 but since Gibson's crime occurred in 1991 he had to be punished based on the old laws. So the most he could have got for the charge he was convicted on was 5 years and his sentence scoresheet due to his lack of a prior criminal record, he was sentenced to 3 years in prison. He was paroled from prison in 1996 after serving 18 months.

Yes, that was the daughters original story. But years later she told someone that she had made that story up and that her father struck Tommy and then put him in the back of a car.

Okay hard to know whos telling the truth,I didnt beleive any of them the first time around. The dad seemed quite arrogant im surprised he got such a light sentence in the end if its man slaugther you dont go lieing to the police first off about what happended to your son knowing full well youd killed him and trying to lead them on a wild goose chase for an imaginary kidnapper he should have gotten more time tacked on for that aswell.

Larry got a three year sentence. In my honest opinion I don't believe the daughter's testimony. I think it "screams" being coached by her mother. Kids are probably the most honest human beings in the world. If she truly saw her father strike Tommy to the point of him going limp and then stuff him in the trunk then she would have said that originally. You think a cop/detective can't squeeze that information out of a 5 year old? So I think that story is a lie. Evidently the judge must have as well in order to give Larry such a light sentence.

This case troubles me. I literally have talked to Larry over Facebook. I asked him questions about the case. He states that he and his daughter have a "wonderful" relationship now. He still has hopes for Tommy showing up. His hope is that he got either arrested or joined the army so that his fingerprints will show up. That's what he said.

I think there is a strong possibility he accidentally shot Tommy and in a panic he dumped him. This doesn't make him a cold blooded murderer, and not an evil man, but what he's done all these years has been wrong for hiding the truth if he is lying. If this story is true, I often wonder why there wasn't some blood of Tommy's that popped up somewhere.

Larry's belief is that Tommy was kidnapped, to this day. He believes he is alive. Larry is either a sociopath and a good actor or a man that everyone of us owes an apology too. I don't think the kidnapping theory has been taken seriously enough though. I think Karen made the story up that she "saw" two people taking Tommy, maybe Larry coached her, but in the end it is entirely possible that he was abducted right under the noses of everyone. It's happened, we know this.

Tommy was playing outside in what looks like a very deserted house that they live in. His mother probably never worried about him. This is 20 years ago, in a small town with a society that was less paranoid about this stuff. It is possible his mother let her guard down and Tommy went missing.

Larry got a three year sentence. In my honest opinion I don't believe the daughter's testimony. I think it "screams" being coached by her mother. Kids are probably the most honest human beings in the world. If she truly saw her father strike Tommy to the point of him going limp and then stuff him in the trunk then she would have said that originally. You think a cop/detective can't squeeze that information out of a 5 year old? So I think that story is a lie. Evidently the judge must have as well in order to give Larry such a light sentence.

This case troubles me. I literally have talked to Larry over Facebook. I asked him questions about the case. He states that he and his daughter have a "wonderful" relationship now. He still has hopes for Tommy showing up. His hope is that he got either arrested or joined the army so that his fingerprints will show up. That's what he said.

I think there is a strong possibility he accidentally shot Tommy and in a panic he dumped him. This doesn't make him a cold blooded murderer, and not an evil man, but what he's done all these years has been wrong for hiding the truth if he is lying. If this story is true, I often wonder why there wasn't some blood of Tommy's that popped up somewhere.

Larry's belief is that Tommy was kidnapped, to this day. He believes he is alive. Larry is either a sociopath and a good actor or a man that everyone of us owes an apology too. I don't think the kidnapping theory has been taken seriously enough though. I think Karen made the story up that she "saw" two people taking Tommy, maybe Larry coached her, but in the end it is entirely possible that he was abducted right under the noses of everyone. It's happened, we know this.

Tommy was playing outside in what looks like a very deserted house that they live in. His mother probably never worried about him. This is 20 years ago, in a small town with a society that was less paranoid about this stuff. It is possible his mother let her guard down and Tommy went missing.

Just thinking about this a-hole having a free life and even having time to have a Facebook makes me sick. Why don't you ask him why did he find it necessary to shoot poor, innocent cats on that mountain too?

Just thinking about this a-hole having a free life and even having time to have a Facebook makes me sick. Why don't you ask him why did he find it necessary to shoot poor, innocent cats on that mountain too?

Well, I can't stand cats for the life of me, personally I didn't mind that part of the segment :D

No honestly, I figured if I or anyone came at him with guns a blazing he just simply wouldn't respond. I didn't want that.

Since Larry Gibson's post-conviction country music career is discussed in this thread, I thought I'd give it a little bump.

I can't post the direct links here, but if you're curious about Mr. Gibson's musical abilities, you can watch videos of him performing at the forbidden video site. Just type in his name and looks for a series of videos from a user named "westco2995" and you'll see plenty of footage of Larry playing guitar and singing country music on stage. He has a white beard and looks a LOT older now, but once you hear his voice, you'll unmistakably know it's him.

It probably will not shock any of you to learn that comments have been disabled for those videos since I'm sure Larry doesn't want anyone bringing up his checked past.

He also owns the domain computerfighter.com...

Registrant:
Broadwater Computer Services
Box 996
Townsend, MONTANA 59644
US

Domain name: COMPUTERFIGHTER.COM


Administrative Contact:
Gibson, Larry larry@computerfighter.com
Box 996
Townsend, MONTANA 59644
US
406-266-3946 Fax: 406-266-3486

From the site..
Broadwater Computer Service provides complete computer repair and service throughout Montana and Idaho.

Also:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/larry-gibson/2/716/b04

A man of many talents.... musician, computer expert..

What a messed up case. Tommy would be about the same age as my son, 24 years old.

I think I have to go with the majority and say that Larry Gibson is responsible, as much as I hate to think that a parent could kill their own sweet child (accidentally or on purpose) and then roughly dispose of the body, denying the innocent baby a decent burial. Just disgusting and disturbing on so many levels.

I've been watching this segment, hadn't seen it in a LONG time. Who the heck shoots a stray cat in the deep woods, one shot, and then immediately goes from cat killer to responsible environmentalist by searching for the one shell casing to avoid littering?

Him admitting that he looked for that one casing makes me think it was involved in Tommy's death (shell casing was evidence) and had nothing to do with shooting a cat. He could have probably killed a cat later to make his story look more believable. I just don't get the point of shooting a cat and then trying to recover the shell casing.

I do have to say that the abduction scenario is interesting, considering that this happened the same year that Jaycee Dugard was pulled into a passing vehicle 3 months after Tommy went missing. If Tommy's abduction was a lie, it couldn't have been inspired by Jaycee's case, but it certainly has similarities: A man and a woman pulling up close to the kid's home and committing the abduction in the daytime with witnesses.

I had a crab that i couldn't find in my aquarium and I was there searching and searching and searching. That stupid little F****** was wedged up inside a rock decoration!!!!:mad: :crazy:

My first time posting ever !:wave:
We had a lot of fish disappearing in our tank. When cleaning out the filter, we found a small platy (still alive) after a week.:eek:

The Gibson case is a very contrived one. What really strikes me is how aloof both the mom and dad are.[/QUOTE]
There was some point in the episode where the mother says something like, "The police question everything I say and look for inconsistencies..." and it's like, "Sure they do, honey, that's called POLICE WORK." I felt that she was protecting her husband, consciously or unconsciously because she didn't want to face the truth - I'm sure this wasn't the first time he had gone too far and of course the daughter was scared of him. Maybe she didn't feel safe telling until they weren't living together any more. Sad case.

I've talked to Larry before. No kidding. He IS the same person as the country music star which is what people have bee saying. So I sent him a message a while back via Facebook or Myspace (have to look it up) and told him I recognized him from the UM segment. I asked him if there was any news with Tommy.

He still claims he hopes Tommy is alive and maybe someday joins the army or gets arrested so that he can be fingerprinted and discovered. He claims no one proved him wrong about his own theories (I assume Tommy going missing by the abductors?). Now his wife split up with him (I always thought that if she dolled herself up she'd look pretty good) and she took custody of the girls. Despite going to jail based on his daugther's sketchy testimony he states as they have grown up he has a great relationship with the girls now.

So, to be honest I think he's pretty receptive if someone would drop him a line. He sent a message within hours back to me and he never knew me. But he does seem to have a wealth of fans at least in that area.

Bottom line I feel is that Larry is in denial about what he did to Tommy or the world owes him a HUGE apology for our accusations.

Unless you are a complete sociopath, I wonder how you can wake up every morning, knowing that you killed someone and you can never change that.

I think maybe it is easier for people who do it by accident. I think men who accidentally kill their children while disciplining them, blame the children for not being made of the stronger stuff. A child that young could have their neck broken from a slap by a very strong man, or could fall back and/or hit their head on something. I can totally see him killing Tommy accidentally for disobeying and telling the daughter when he realized Tommy was dead that he was going to take him to the doctor only she noticed that he put him in the trunk of the car instead of the backseat. Speculation, but it feels right.

His wife is my guess.

Scratch that, doesn't make any sense that she would then defend him on the show.

Perhaps a family member? It's a hard guess, since they lived in a fairly wooded, secluded area. Maybe a neighbor nearby who was a witness but afraid to come forward? Since we've never read the note, for all we know, "Spot in the Road" could have had some sort of bogus scenario that wasn't true but was conjecture on the part of the writer. That's why I want to read it as badly as you, CD.


It might also have been a police officer or someone who was afraid to come forward because they were frightened of him. Someone who knew he was lying - I'm curious who gave him the polygraph test....

I think we all know you convict someone of a crime because of their affect in a TV interview. But when I watch this segment, something is definitely off in both parents. When Larry talks about going to the rest stop to see if Tommy is there, he says something like, "I didn't find him there in any condition...." What does that mean, dead or alive?

His son hasn't been found, which for most parents who lead to increasing panic and horror, and he decides to go to work even though his supervisor tells him he doesn't have to come in. So basically his supervisor cares more about his son's welfare than he does? My feeling is that he had to get that squad car out of their before the police dogs showed up and began sniffing and leading everyone to the trunk of the car. And why did he have to get into his uniform and go to work that day anyway? That doesn't seem like the kind of town that is going to descend into chaos if one officer takes the day off to look for his son -which Larry says he began to do anyway, so why did he have to go into work and let strangers find his son. The later on that night, he calls off the search party.

I think that some of these men get on UM thinking that will "read" better than the do for the viewing audience, not knowing that the camera, just like it can pick up bad acting, can also act as a sort of polygraph test as well and people can psychically feel that something is not right. Larry goes on saying over and over, "There is no fact to prove my daughter is lying, there is no fact to prove I had anything to do with this..." things to that effect, almost challenging someone to find out that he is lying. I think "Spot in the Road" was one of his wife's relatives, who was used to the issues of abuse in that family, but didn't want to go on record for fear of what might happen if Larry wasn't arresting.

Also:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/larry-gibson/2/716/b04

A man of many talents.... musician, computer expert..

Just had a look at that Linkedin profile and saw a gap of quite a few years after his stint as Deputy Sheriff in Oregon. Gee, I wonder why... :rolleyes:

Okay, I re-watched this segment recently and there was one detail I'd never noticed before: Larry Gibson's brother was apparently at the house at the time Tommy went missing. In the re-enactment where Larry returns from his jog and asks where Tommy is, you can see another adult male sitting down in the house. Soon afterward, you hear Larry briefly mention in his interview that his wife and brother had no idea where Tommy was and went searching for him.

This is the only mention we hear of Larry's brother in the entire segment, but if he was there that day, it's somewhat surprising he wouldn't appear on UM to defend Larry or at least provide his own account of what happened. I used to think that Larry's wife was the source of the anonymous "Spot in the Road" letter, but now I have to wonder if Larry's brother might have known some incriminating information and was very anxious to get it off his chest.

Okay, I re-watched this segment recently and there was one detail I'd never noticed before: Larry Gibson's brother was apparently at the house at the time Tommy went missing. In the re-enactment where Larry returns from his jog and asks where Tommy is, you can see another adult male sitting down in the house. Soon afterward, you hear Larry briefly mention in his interview that his wife and brother had no idea where Tommy was and went searching for him.

This is the only mention we hear of Larry's brother in the entire segment, but if he was there that day, it's somewhat surprising he wouldn't appear on UM to defend Larry or at least provide his own account of what happened. I used to think that Larry's wife was the source of the anonymous "Spot in the Road" letter, but now I have to wonder if Larry's brother might have known some incriminating information and was very anxious to get it off his chest.

GOOD CATCH! I had never once noticed that before in all these years.

It might also have been a police officer or someone who was afraid to come forward because they were frightened of him. Someone who knew he was lying - I'm curious who gave him the polygraph test....

Frightened of him huh, frightened of the Pillsbury Doughboy. His wife wasn't scared of him, first off she was just as good of a shot as he was, with her own handgun that he purchased for her, as well as being nearly as good in hand to hand combat. As for his daughters, no they were not scared of him either, in fact when his wife would yell at them to get them to clean up after themselves it was to Larry that they would run. Ands here is another very interesting tidbit of information, how about the missing persons posters that were put up all around the area? Did any of you know that for months, maybe longer someone was marking them up with messages that implicated the Roseburg County sheriffs office? And for those of you that wish to say oh it was Larry going around and doing it, yeah, it was occurring while he wasn't even in the state. Oh but Mutt and Jeff the two so called detectives investigating the case refused to even look into even after a lot of people called in to report the situation. Not only that, but when the posters were mentioned they got very defensive about it. As for the shooting of the cat, I personally would have done the same thing, 50 or better feral cats running around the place, attacking my own cats, as well as the possible threat they would pose to my family.

Frightened of him huh, frightened of the Pillsbury Doughboy. His wife wasn't scared of him, first off she was just as good of a shot as he was, with her own handgun that he purchased for her, as well as being nearly as good in hand to hand combat. As for his daughters, no they were not scared of him either, in fact when his wife would yell at them to get them to clean up after themselves it was to Larry that they would run. Ands here is another very interesting tidbit of information, how about the missing persons posters that were put up all around the area? Did any of you know that for months, maybe longer someone was marking them up with messages that implicated the Roseburg County sheriffs office? And for those of you that wish to say oh it was Larry going around and doing it, yeah, it was occurring while he wasn't even in the state. Oh but Mutt and Jeff the two so called detectives investigating the case refused to even look into even after a lot of people called in to report the situation. Not only that, but when the posters were mentioned they got very defensive about it. As for the shooting of the cat, I personally would have done the same thing, 50 or better feral cats running around the place, attacking my own cats, as well as the possible threat they would pose to my family.

You must be a friend.

Frightened of him huh, frightened of the Pillsbury Doughboy. His wife wasn't scared of him, first off she was just as good of a shot as he was, with her own handgun that he purchased for her, as well as being nearly as good in hand to hand combat. As for his daughters, no they were not scared of him either, in fact when his wife would yell at them to get them to clean up after themselves it was to Larry that they would run. Ands here is another very interesting tidbit of information, how about the missing persons posters that were put up all around the area? Did any of you know that for months, maybe longer someone was marking them up with messages that implicated the Roseburg County sheriffs office? And for those of you that wish to say oh it was Larry going around and doing it, yeah, it was occurring while he wasn't even in the state. Oh but Mutt and Jeff the two so called detectives investigating the case refused to even look into even after a lot of people called in to report the situation. Not only that, but when the posters were mentioned they got very defensive about it. As for the shooting of the cat, I personally would have done the same thing, 50 or better feral cats running around the place, attacking my own cats, as well as the possible threat they would pose to my family.

Is that you Larry?

I used to think that Larry's wife was the source of the anonymous "Spot in the Road" letter, but now I have to wonder if Larry's brother might have known some incriminating information and was very anxious to get it off his chest.

That's a good possibility; there's also his half sister, whom he confessed killing Tommy to. Larry claimed (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19910524&id=UWFWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vPADAAAAIBAJ&pg=7070,2076723) that Michael (the half brother), who lived with the Gibsons, could have moved Tommy's body.

Larry's confession of killing Tommy to Deb Calek, his half sister: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19961272928P2d344_11270.xml/STATE%20v.%20GIBSON. Apparently Larry was also accused of abusing his daughter Lisa, who was born after Tommy's disappearance/death, as well as hitting Tommy and Karen

The state argues that the evidence about Lisa is relevant to show defendant's state of mind when he struck Tommy and Karen before Tommy's disappearance. Tommy's mother testified that, a few days before Tommy disappeared, she heard a loud noise coming from the kitchen where defendant and Tommy were at the table. Tommy screamed and was lying on the floor next to his fallen-down high chair. He was holding his hands over his face, and his face had red, finger-shaped marks on it. Tommy's mother told defendant not to hit the children so hard. Defendant responded that he did not believe that he had hit Tommy too hard.

Tommy's mother also testified that defendant either hit or pushed Tommy out of the way more than once every day in the days leading up to Tommy's disappearance. She said that the blows often left welts and bruises on the side and back of Tommy's thighs. She attributed defendant's conduct to his being angry whenever Tommy "got in his way," such as when defendant wanted to watch television. She testified that, although it happened less often, defendant also struck Karen in a similar way before Tommy disappeared. A friend of Tommy's mother testified that she once witnessed defendant knock Karen to the ground because Karen interfered with his television viewing. Karen
[928 P.2d 350]
landed on her shoulder and face and had red marks on her cheek.
Unlike the defendant in Johns, defendant does not claim that his striking of Karen or Tommy before Tommy's disappearance was an accident. Rather, he claims that his actions constituted reasonable disciplinary measures. His conduct toward Lisa in 1993 does not have a tendency to make it more likely that he was acting recklessly when he struck Karen or Tommy in or before 1991, even if his acts toward Lisa were reckless in the sense that they caused injury to her..

^That made me feel sick. Who could lay their hands on their own two-year-old like that? And other small child? :( If the account is true, then Larry Gibson is an extremely volatile man, enraged even by his television viewing being interrupted.

The above ''knows so much'' creepy post reminds me of another thread on here...

Paul Polis... I mean, Larry? ;)

^That made me feel sick. Who could lay their hands on their own two-year-old like that? And other small child? :( If the account is true, then Larry Gibson is an extremely volatile man, enraged even by his television viewing being interrupted.

The above ''knows so much'' creepy post reminds me of another thread on here...

Yes truly disgusting behavior. I have a 16 month old son, and he was kind of hyper (overtired I think) and scratched me in the face today and it drew blood. Never once did the thought cross my mind to even spank him or smack his hands or any other form of physical discipline. People who do that make me sick.

Yes truly disgusting behavior. I have a 16 month old son, and he was kind of hyper (overtired I think) and scratched me in the face today and it drew blood. Never once did the thought cross my mind to even spank him or smack his hands or any other form of physical discipline. People who do that make me sick.

Larry Gibson has to be one of the most revolting people ever profiled on UM.

That's a good possibility; there's also his half sister, whom he confessed killing Tommy to. Larry claimed (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19910524&id=UWFWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vPADAAAAIBAJ&pg=7070,2076723) that Michael (the half brother), who lived with the Gibsons, could have moved Tommy's body.

Great find! I always wanted to find out more information about that barely glimpsed half-brother. I can see why Michael didn't bother going on UM to defend his brother since Larry is essentially trying to pin the blame on him here. So... according to Larry's story, he MIGHT have accidentally shot Tommy when firing at the stray cats, but Michael just decided to go hide the body without his knowledge?!

Yeah, I'm convinced more than ever that Michael is the author of the "spot in the road" letter.

If Larry Gibson was repeatedly beating his children and leaving welts and bruises, his wife should be held somewhat accountable. I don't believe there was any evidence brought out at the trial that Larry beat his wife, but there was repeated testimony that Larry would hit his kids when they got in his way and his wife would just tell him to not hit them that hard. :mad:

No this isn't Larry, I'm from the unheard of side of the family, Tommy is my Nephew. I have no clue what occurred in Oregon that day, But unlike everyone else I can base my opinion off of knowledge that I have. The Christmas before Tommy disappeared I watched Larry sit on my living room floor for 3 hours playing Duck hunt with Tommy. I cant personally say I would have been able to do such a feat and seemed to still be rational. I lived with them after Tommy's disappearance for a time and I never saw anything like what is being described here. Now if any of this is true, then my sister failed to ever relate any of it to the rest of her family, possibly with good reason, I know of at least 6 of us that would have went and done extreme bodily harm to Larry if it had been related. Now also growing up with my sister I hate to say this but she used to be very vindictive. Now the fact that Karen changed her story only after having lived alone with her mother gives me reason to question it. As for the reports of abuse, that also only came up after the divorce so again I have to question that. Now as for the half sister on the other side, or Larry's half brother I have no clue as to what transpired there. But having lived with him, as well as worked jobs with him I never saw any indication of a violent nature that would lead me to believe he did it at this point. Also if you consider how many times they had to plead down his case before they finally got any type of conviction seems a little questionable. From what I know, there was only two pieces of circumstantial evidence that pointed towards him having anything to do with Tommy's disappearance, firstly Karen's testimony which I have commented on, and secondly when he was polygraphed they did some type of a regional knowledge test or something to figure out if there was an area close to his residence that he was more knowledgeable about, which is where they claim he hid the body if a body does exist. It was a place he frequented while jogging and went to target practice so it stands to reason he would have more knowledge about it. It just seems to me that the investigation was a little shady, due to the time that had past, and the lack of any physical evidence In the end, if he did do it, he will be judged far harsher when he must stand before his maker. Every day I pray that my nephew is out there some where alive and happy, not to vindicate Larry, for he is an odd person in many respects, but because my nephew will have enjoyed the life he richly deserved, which is to say he would be living it.

What about the testimony from Larry's sister saying he called repeatedly saying, "I killed Tommy"? She even clarified and said he didn't say "they think I killed Tommy" or "I might have killed Tommy". He was definitive to her in this phone call.

What about this? Was this in the episode or in trial testimony? Anywhere I can find this?

Also, the newspaper clip linked to above says a spent .45 case was found in a dresser under some kid's underwear. Strange...

I also think Larry's hope that Tommy gets arrested or joins the service and gets fingerprinted is bunk. I can't imagine Tommy was fingerprinted at 2 1/2. They didn't start offering fingerprinting to kids until the later 90s, and that wasn't usually until the kid was at least in school.

Tommy's page is now buried on Larry's site and you really have to hunt for it.

Crazy to hear about the family's side of things. Unfortunately, I do believe little Tommy is dead, and if Larry really did indeed kill his son, as many of us believe, then that's a damn shame. I honestly don't believe they'll find Tommy's remains, as bones that small would deteriorate and get strewn around by weather and animals over time, but I hope I'm wrong, and that something will turn up so the family has something to bury. This is one of the most tragic cases Unsolved Mysteries covered, an utter sense of a child betrayed by his father. :(

What about the story that when police first arrived (before Larry's wife turned on him and supposedly coached their daughter), Karen blurted that Daddy hurt Tommy real bad, but Larry's legal defense soon shut her up? According to Karen's supposed story, Larry hit Tommy with a hard object, possibly a gun, and shoved him and the object in a sack, which doesn't sound as if he accidentally shot him.

Well Larry's website is still up and his Facebook page is well.... interesting lol. He is fully grey now well of course because the UM segment was over 20 years now. No mention of Tommy or any sign he is actively 'looking' for him.

It's interesting he passed a polygraph tho. Or so he said.

Xeah if he passed the polygraph then why did he spend time in prison?

Xeah if he passed the polygraph then why did he spend time in prison?

Polygraphs are indadmissible in courts here in the US. Essentially they are just tools for law enforcement to use in order to gain confessions.

As a father. His actions if portrayed correctly in the segment. Leads me to become highly suspicious. I mean he lied about leaving the first time. When confronted her admitted it. I wouldn't tell the searchers to go home no sense whatsoever. Until my kid was found I wouldn't just ASSUME he was OK somewhere. Very strange behavior.

So does that mean in any case if a lawyer tells the court 'Oh he/she didn't pass a polygraph test the judge wouldn't take it into consideration? Does that also mean a jury cant base their verdict on a polygraph?

So does that mean in any case if a lawyer tells the court 'Oh he/she didn't pass a polygraph test the judge wouldn't take it into consideration? Does that also mean a jury cant base their verdict on a polygraph?

They can't say that in court. The polygraph results (although there are exceptions) can not be brought out in court. It's more of an investigative tool for law enforcement.

BUMP

This (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7715254,-123.3347897,3a,75y,15.58h,82.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sogVrPwOhkgoYwG0n9a2tPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the driveway leading up to where Larry Gibson and his family lived at the time. Look at how desolate that area is now. It was probably more so back then when Tommy disappeared. I can understand why the abduction theory was never taken seriously to begin with. Who would be driving around this desolate area and pull into a driveway and luck into finding a 2 year old playing by himself out in the front yard?

And if Larry did beat Tommy to death, why incorporate the shooting at the cat into his story? And also mention that he looked for the shell casing (why?) before continuing with his jog? And something else I've never noticed until re-watching this one was that when Larry returns from his jog and goes into the house, there is his wife and another guy sitting in the living room. Here's (https://image.ibb.co/dYTT1S/larrygibson.png) a screenshot, the guy is circled. Larry says that wife, their daughter, and his brother were looking for Tommy. The brother must be the guy depicted in this scene. I still think Larry did it, I'm just curious as to why the brother was never looked at as a potential person of interest or even mentioned at all outside of a passing remark.

I'm just curious as to why the brother was never looked at as a potential person of interest or even mentioned at all outside of a passing remark.

Because the fat guy running around and shooting cats was suspicious enough.

Because the fat guy running around and shooting cats was suspicious enough.

Right, but in the segment, Larry's wife says after she heard the gunshot, she could still hear Tommy outside playing. While Larry went off on his cat shooting jaunt through the woods, if Tommy was still alive playing out front, that leaves the mother and Larry's brother as the adults who were still around while Tommy was alive. And if the wife was covering for Larry, and the prevailing theory is that he shot Tommy while trying to shoot a cat, I don't know why more scrutiny wasn't placed on the brother as someone who could have possibly helped in moving the body and hiding. The segment says Larry was gone for 47 minutes for his jog, and went off for about 25 minutes to check rest areas in the area. I don't know if that's enough time to conceal a body to where it hasn't been found after all of these years.

ETA: Found this (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19910524&id=UWFWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vPADAAAAIBAJ&pg=7070,2076723) article which does mention his brother:

Investigators found inconsistencies between statements by Gibson and his wife, Judy, and his half-brother, Michael, the document added. For example, Gibson told one investigator he picked up the brass shell ejected by his pistol when he shot the cat, but he told another he couldn't find it. While Larry Gibson passed a lie detector test given in March, results indicated both he and his wife knew more than they let on, the affidavit said. Benz wrote that he believed Mrs. Gibson suspected her husband and had altered her statements as a result.

Gibson denied moving the boy's body, and said his half-brother, who was living with the family, could have found it and moved it without his knowledge, the affidavit said.

Just saying that it wouldn't be that unusual if Larry shot Tommy, the brother and wife found him, Larry returns, and the 3 of them attempt a cover up of sorts.

BUMP

This (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7715254,-123.3347897,3a,75y,15.58h,82.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sogVrPwOhkgoYwG0n9a2tPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the driveway leading up to where Larry Gibson and his family lived at the time. Look at how desolate that area is now. It was probably more so back then when Tommy disappeared. I can understand why the abduction theory was never taken seriously to begin with. Who would be driving around this desolate area and pull into a driveway and luck into finding a 2 year old playing by himself out in the front yard?

And if Larry did beat Tommy to death, why incorporate the shooting at the cat into his story? And also mention that he looked for the shell casing (why?) before continuing with his jog? And something else I've never noticed until re-watching this one was that when Larry returns from his jog and goes into the house, there is his wife and another guy sitting in the living room. Here's (https://image.ibb.co/dYTT1S/larrygibson.png) a screenshot, the guy is circled. Larry says that wife, their daughter, and his brother were looking for Tommy. The brother must be the guy depicted in this scene. I still think Larry did it, I'm just curious as to why the brother was never looked at as a potential person of interest or even mentioned at all outside of a passing remark.

I still remember when I first noticed the mention of the brother in the segment and was taken by complete surprise. Earlier in this thread, there's a link to this article (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19910524&id=UWFWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vPADAAAAIBAJ&pg=7070,2076723) which mentions that this guy was Larry's half-brother, Michael, and was actually living with the family at the time. It's weird, Larry actually acknowledges the possibility that he may have unknowingly shot Tommy by accident and says that Michael could have moved Tommy's body without his knowledge while he was out jogging, which is a pretty ridiculous assertion.

I think there's a good chance Michael was the author of the "spot in the road" letter and wanted to clear his conscience. It is very odd that he would not appear on UM to defend Larry and was barely given a mention, which tells me he knew something incriminating about his half-brother.

Right, but in the segment, Larry's wife says after she heard the gunshot, she could still hear Tommy outside playing. While Larry went off on his cat shooting jaunt through the woods, if Tommy was still alive playing out front, that leaves the mother and Larry's brother as the adults who were still around while Tommy was alive. And if the wife was covering for Larry, and the prevailing theory is that he shot Tommy while trying to shoot a cat, I don't know why more scrutiny wasn't placed on the brother as someone who could have possibly helped in moving the body and hiding. The segment says Larry was gone for 47 minutes for his jog, and went off for about 25 minutes to check rest areas in the area. I don't know if that's enough time to conceal a body to where it hasn't been found after all of these years.

I'd take the wife's words with a grain of salt. Didn't the daughter testify as to Larry hitting Tommy that day?

They probably didn't focus too much on the brother because Larry was suspicious enough on his own, but I agree with what you're saying. Interrogating the brother could've led to a more solid testimony against Larry. Not sure if he was questioned or not, but good call.

I still remember when I first noticed the mention of the brother in the segment and was taken by complete surprise. Earlier in this thread, there's a link to this article (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19910524&id=UWFWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vPADAAAAIBAJ&pg=7070,2076723) which mentions that this guy was Larry's half-brother, Michael, and was actually living with the family at the time. It's weird, Larry actually acknowledges the possibility that he may have unknowingly shot Tommy by accident and says that Michael could have moved Tommy's body without his knowledge while he was out jogging, which is a pretty ridiculous assertion.

I think there's a good chance Michael was the author of the "spot in the road" letter and wanted to clear his conscience. It is very odd that he would not appear on UM to defend Larry and was barely given a mention, which tells me he knew something incriminating about his half-brother.

I missed that article a few pages back. Now I feel like an idiot. I do think you are on to something about Michael being the author of the letter, and that would make me think that he at the very least knew that Larry shot Tommy (or beat him to death) and kept quiet about it (and possibly helped cover it up). Which begs the question: did Larry's wife also know and either keep quiet or help cover up?

I missed that article a few pages back. Now I feel like an idiot. I do think you are on to something about Michael being the author of the letter, and that would make me think that he at the very least knew that Larry shot Tommy (or beat him to death) and kept quiet about it (and possibly helped cover it up). Which begs the question: did Larry's wife also know and either keep quiet or help cover up?

I know it was alleged at Larry's trial that he often lost his temper and was violent towards his family, and he apparently threatened to kill his wife after they separated. So I suppose she could have been frightened enough of Larry to help him cover things up and remain silent for years.

I know it was alleged at Larry's trial that he often lost his temper and was violent towards his family, and he apparently threatened to kill his wife after they separated. So I suppose she could have been frightened enough of Larry to help him cover things up and remain silent for years.

In another article, they mention that the daughter was placed under hypnosis and made no mention of seeing Larry beating Tommy to death. I wonder if the ex-wife coached the daughter to say that because of how much of a POS Larry had been to them (not to mention shooting Tommy). It seems like the investigators never really wavered that much from the shooting of the stray cat and hitting Tommy theory. They found the dead cat, and a spent slug in one of Tommy's clothing drawers. It seems like the jury that convicted him believed this theory as well, which is why he was convicted of manslaughter instead of murder.

In another article, they mention that the daughter was placed under hypnosis and made no mention of seeing Larry beating Tommy to death. I wonder if the ex-wife coached the daughter to say that because of how much of a POS Larry had been to them (not to mention shooting Tommy). It seems like the investigators never really wavered that much from the shooting of the stray cat and hitting Tommy theory. They found the dead cat, and a spent slug in one of Tommy's clothing drawers. It seems like the jury that convicted him believed this theory as well, which is why he was convicted of manslaughter instead of murder.

Yes, it's likely Larry's daughter was coached, but it would not surprise me if there are elements of truth in her story. Perhaps Larry's wife knew what happened, but in order to avoid admitting that she remained silent about it and potentially being called a liar, she used her daughter to relay the story.

Yes, it's likely Larry's daughter was coached, but it would not surprise me if there are elements of truth in her story. Perhaps Larry's wife knew what happened, but in order to avoid admitting that she remained silent about it and potentially being called a liar, she used her daughter to relay the story.

I agree about the wife's reason for coaching their daughter (not admitting her role in the cover-up and silence), but I always thought she coached her daughter to tell a false story instead of the true one about the shooting for those reasons.

What's weird is that the cops didn't charge Larry with anything until his daughter changed her story to her witnessing Larry beat Tommy to death. But at the trial, he was only convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter and sentenced to 3 years. Which makes me think that the accidental shooting theory was presented to the jury, and that was the one they believed.

My annual Google-check shows that good old Larry G. is still very very close to where I live....

My annual Google-check shows that good old Larry G. is still very very close to where I live....

And he is extremely pro-law enforcement. Which is kind of odd because in the UM segment, he was implying that law enforcement was out to get him in a rush to solve what happened to his son.

My annual Google-check shows that good old Larry G. is still very very close to where I live....

Go see his country act live, and throw your bra on stage.

Go see his country act live, and throw your bra on stage.

Yeah, hard pass on that one. Thanks, though! :D

Yeah, hard pass on that one. Thanks, though! :D

Np. Always trying to help the people anyway I can

To me, the weirdest thing about this case about a missing young boy .... is that they spend so much time worried about the stray cats around the property!

That makes so little sense that it has to be a red herring. I feel there is no reason for the Gibson family to even introduce the cat story unless they need to explain away the sound of a shot that day.

To me, the weirdest thing about this case about a missing young boy .... is that they spend so much time worried about the stray cats around the property!

That makes so little sense that it has to be a red herring. I feel there is no reason for the Gibson family to even introduce the cat story unless they need to explain away the sound of a shot that day.

Yeah and there's a lot that can be inferred from Larry's apparent propensity for senseless cat-killing.

Porter Stansberry kidnapped Tommy.

Porter Stansberry kidnapped Tommy.

:lol: Porter is Rob 2.0.

Porter Stansberry kidnapped Tommy.
:lol: Porter is Rob 2.0.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

ya'll funny

In all seriousness, I will preface what I'm about to say with that I think Larry Gibson killed Tommy.

But even if Larry was an abusive parent (and I believe he was), that doesn't mean that what he did was premeditated. IMO, the most likely scenario is that Larry accidentally shot Tommy, and then with the help of his wife (and maybe brother) covered it up. In the UM segment, Larry's wife says that after she heard the gunshot, she could still hear Tommy playing. If this is true, then Larry would be innocent. I think he accidentally shot Tommy, went jogging, and came back and he and his wife discovered what had happened and then they covered it up.

In all seriousness, I will preface what I'm about to say with that I think Larry Gibson killed Tommy.

But even if Larry was an abusive parent (and I believe he was), that doesn't mean that what he did was premeditated. IMO, the most likely scenario is that Larry accidentally shot Tommy, and then with the help of his wife (and maybe brother) covered it up. In the UM segment, Larry's wife says that after she heard the gunshot, she could still hear Tommy playing. If this is true, then Larry would be innocent. I think he accidentally shot Tommy, went jogging, and came back and he and his wife discovered what had happened and then they covered it up.

I completely agree that everything about his case points to accident followed by a panicked cover-up. Probably a stray bullet, and it’s certainly possible that no one saw him get hit. There’s a tragic case that was profiled on Forensic Files where it was proven that a bullet fired at an outdoor firing range went over a beam, through boards and off a ceiling to killed a boy who was sitting in a “safety zone” indoors. The path of the bullet was as insane as that JFK “magic” bullet yet they proved it happened with forensics

I completely agree that everything about his case points to accident followed by a panicked cover-up. Probably a stray bullet, and it’s certainly possible that no one saw him get hit. There’s a tragic case that was profiled on Forensic Files where it was proven that a bullet fired at an outdoor firing range went over a beam, through boards and off a ceiling to killed a boy who was sitting in a “safety zone” indoors. The path of the bullet was as insane as that JFK “magic” bullet yet they proved it happened with forensics

I remember that episode. I think it was even titled "The Magic Bullet".

I seem to remember one of Danny Paquette's sisters (either in the UM segment or in a book I read about the case) saying there's no way Danny could've been shot from a distance away by a hunter or even someone deliberately sniping him in the woods (as was ultimately proven to be the case) because he was standing behind a bulldozer and the only place the round could've traveled was through an opening on that piece of machinery only two or three feet wide. Yet that's exactly what happened, as his killer even testified. All of this to say that the physics and other scientific principles that comprise the field of ballistics aren't self-evident nor "common sense", yet the public often treats them as though they are.

I think even Larry Gibson himself even touched on this (and perhaps told on himself a bit) when he mentioned "anything can happen" when a weapon is discharged. I'm not sure he meant it literally, but that so many more variables are involved than just the firearm and the projectile.

Since LG has already been convicted and served time, why doesn’t he own up to what he did and lead authorities to the boy’s remains?

Since LG has already been convicted and served time, why doesn’t he own up to what he did and lead authorities to the boy’s remains?

I know this is a months later response, but my best guess would be because there are people who legitimately still believe that he had nothing to do with Tommy's death and that there is a possibility that he is still alive. Confessing would shatter any relationship he has with those people.

He still has an active YouTube account under the name "easygibson". Look at the video called "Life slides" for various photographs of him. There are a couple of Tommy and some of his daughters, who seem to have kept in touch with him.

The world owes this guy an apology if he's innocent and something else happened to Tommy. Like a kidnapping that was initially mentioned by his daughter Karen, but then retracted later.

I do lean on the accidental killing. Shooting the stray cat and then Tommy getting the bullet. Then the cover up. If I were a betting man, that's the one I pick.

But even then, where is the evidence of this? Sure he was a cop, he could have been better at a cover up than an average person but no body is found? No blood? No blood in his patrol car? None on him? If he did dump the body he has very little time to put it somewhere.

A lot of unanswered questions here that I don't like personally. I also don't think the judge believed Karen's report about seeing him beat Tommy until he was limp and then dispose of him. Because he had such a light jail sentence for that.

I completely agree that everything about his case points to accident followed by a panicked cover-up. Probably a stray bullet, and it’s certainly possible that no one saw him get hit. There’s a tragic case that was profiled on Forensic Files where it was proven that a bullet fired at an outdoor firing range went over a beam, through boards and off a ceiling to killed a boy who was sitting in a “safety zone” indoors. The path of the bullet was as insane as that JFK “magic” bullet yet they proved it happened with forensics

There is nothing "magic" about the JFK bullet.

ducks

Did this case make the Filmrise episodes?

It did not, but it is on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAjVfGhUl9c).

It did not, but it is on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAjVfGhUl9c).

I've been looking for this for a while. Couldn't find it. Also, where is the Jeffrey MacDonald episode? I can't find that either. Sure enough it is what I remember it to be, the Gibson episode I mean. Larry said he passed the polygraph. I know if you are a cop you probably have more insight into how you do that. And I know if you are a true sociopath then you can probably pass it as well. But Larry passed it and there have been others that have failed this thing. It is always something that has given me a little pause.

Same. The page that has the Gibson videos is a gold mine for cases that FilmRise left out for whatever reason(s). Quite a few I have yet to watch there.

In all seriousness, I will preface what I'm about to say with that I think Larry Gibson killed Tommy.

But even if Larry was an abusive parent (and I believe he was), that doesn't mean that what he did was premeditated. IMO, the most likely scenario is that Larry accidentally shot Tommy, and then with the help of his wife (and maybe brother) covered it up. In the UM segment, Larry's wife says that after she heard the gunshot, she could still hear Tommy playing. If this is true, then Larry would be innocent. I think he accidentally shot Tommy, went jogging, and came back and he and his wife discovered what had happened and then they covered it up.

" In April 1994, Larry was arrested and charged with Tommy's murder. Police made the arrest after Karen changed her story; she said that she watched from her bedroom window as Larry beat Tommy until he fell limp. She also said that she saw him put Tommy's body in a black trash bag, which he later placed in the trunk of his patrol car.

She said she was so scared of him that she hid in her bedroom closet. When he returned, he told her to tell the police that strangers took Tommy. She claimed that she did not tell police this story initially because he had told her that he would go to jail if she talked. He also said that he would come back and kill her if she did so.

She and Judith testified against Larry at his trial. Judith claimed that he was physically abusive toward Tommy, Karen, and their third child, Lisa (born after Tommy's disappearance). Witnesses, including family members and fellow churchgoers, claimed that Larry had threatened to kill Judith and Karen after the former left him.

His half-sister also testified that he had tearfully confessed to killing Tommy shortly after his disappearance. Prosecutors also claimed that he was repeatedly abusive toward him and stressed at the time because Judith was busy taking college classes."

source: https://unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com/wiki/Tommy_Gibson


One of the problems with these UM forum, is that people take the UM segment as gospel. If one would actually do research on the case, they will know the truth. UM never cared too much about facts of many cases, and often glossed over certain things (in this case, domestic abuse). It was well known that Larry beat his wife and kids when UM ran this segment, but they conveniently omitted it. It was not "sexy" enough for NBC, so they went with the ridiculous "shooting a cat" angle.

" In April 1994, Larry was arrested and charged with Tommy's murder. Police made the arrest after Karen changed her story; she said that she watched from her bedroom window as Larry beat Tommy until he fell limp. She also said that she saw him put Tommy's body in a black trash bag, which he later placed in the trunk of his patrol car.

She said she was so scared of him that she hid in her bedroom closet. When he returned, he told her to tell the police that strangers took Tommy. She claimed that she did not tell police this story initially because he had told her that he would go to jail if she talked. He also said that he would come back and kill her if she did so.

She and Judith testified against Larry at his trial. Judith claimed that he was physically abusive toward Tommy, Karen, and their third child, Lisa (born after Tommy's disappearance). Witnesses, including family members and fellow churchgoers, claimed that Larry had threatened to kill Judith and Karen after the former left him.

His half-sister also testified that he had tearfully confessed to killing Tommy shortly after his disappearance. Prosecutors also claimed that he was repeatedly abusive toward him and stressed at the time because Judith was busy taking college classes."

source: https://unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com/wiki/Tommy_Gibson


One of the problems with these UM forum, is that people take the UM segment as gospel. If one would actually do research on the case, they will know the truth. UM never cared too much about facts of many cases, and often glossed over certain things (in this case, domestic abuse). It was well known that Larry beat his wife and kids when UM ran this segment, but they conveniently omitted it. It was not "sexy" enough for NBC, so they went with the ridiculous "shooting a cat" angle.

I am certainly not ruling that whole side out. It could be true. One problem though is that the judge didn't seem to believe the story. He sentenced Larry to three years in prison if I recall. That's peanuts. It tells me the judge did not believe the testimony. Maybe it is true, but I never like the idea of a wife telling the story after a divorce happens. There just seems to be so much slant on it when that happens. Could be just me though.

One other thing though, where is his body? Why was it never found? Ever. Not with the shooting the cat theory, not with burying him in a trash bag, nothing. And how much time would Larry have had to bury a body that hasn't been found in 30 years? This is why this case baffles me. Larry does give off a negative vibe, but why did Judith not only not say anything about her son dying, but also come on the segment and DEFEND Larry? Only to then come up with a new story once she left him?

I am certainly not ruling that whole side out. It could be true. One problem though is that the judge didn't seem to believe the story. He sentenced Larry to three years in prison if I recall. That's peanuts. It tells me the judge did not believe the testimony. Maybe it is true, but I never like the idea of a wife telling the story after a divorce happens. There just seems to be so much slant on it when that happens. Could be just me though.

One other thing though, where is his body? Why was it never found? Ever. Not with the shooting the cat theory, not with burying him in a trash bag, nothing. And how much time would Larry have had to bury a body that hasn't been found in 30 years? This is why this case baffles me. Larry does give off a negative vibe, but why did Judith not only not say anything about her son dying, but also come on the segment and DEFEND Larry? Only to then come up with a new story once she left him?

This has always been the problem with the UM forum. People ignore the facts agreed upon in a court of law. You really think a TV show is more reliable than evidence presented in a court of law?

You do realise that Unsolved Mysteries is sometimes legally prevented from what they can and can't say about a potential suspect, since if they did, NBC could have been sued. In addition, why would witnesses lie in their testimony about Larry making threats of killing his family?

This has always been the problem with the UM forum. People ignore the facts agreed upon in a court of law. You really think a TV show is more reliable than evidence presented in a court of law?

You do realise that Unsolved Mysteries is sometimes legally prevented from what they can and can't say about a potential suspect, since if they did, NBC could have been sued. In addition, why would witnesses lie in their testimony about Larry making threats of killing his family?

I agree that UM is famous for not showing all of the details. This is nothing new. I am just wondering why Judith waiting three years before saying anything about her own son being killed. The conviction was largely based on her and Karen's testimony. I never like the circumstantial evidence being the key.

I am not saying Larry didn't do it, I think we all lean to the side that he did it accidentally in some sort of way. But why no sign of the body? Would Judith not at least have known the area at least that Larry put the body? I have talked to Larry before and he was surprisingly open to talk about the case. He states they have a cordial relationship now, him Judith and Karen. Now, is he lying? Yeah, maybe. But if that is true, then what the heck?

I agree that UM is famous for not showing all of the details. This is nothing new. I am just wondering why Judith waiting three years before saying anything about her own son being killed. The conviction was largely based on her and Karen's testimony. I never like the circumstantial evidence being the key.

I am not saying Larry didn't do it, I think we all lean to the side that he did it accidentally in some sort of way. But why no sign of the body? Would Judith not at least have known the area at least that Larry put the body? I have talked to Larry before and he was surprisingly open to talk about the case. He states they have a cordial relationship now, him Judith and Karen. Now, is he lying? Yeah, maybe. But if that is true, then what the heck?


Larry was a serial abuser who terrorised his family, threatening to kill his wife numerous time as well as beating his wife and children.

She was afraid for her life, after Larry killed on of the children. It sounds like she eventually got away from him, and went to the Police, despite Larry's threats.

Larry was a serial abuser who terrorised his family, threatening to kill his wife numerous time as well as beating his wife and children.

She was afraid for her life, after Larry killed on of the children. It sounds like she eventually got away from him, and went to the Police, despite Larry's threats.

I get it. Why didn't she get out when she had the chance though? If it is true that she knew he killed Tommy, why not only keep quiet but then have another kid with him? Surely she could have been offered protection if she came forward. I realize this is easy for me to say and it is hindsight being 20/20 and such but I have just always been bothered by the fact that neither Karen or Judith changed their story until after leaving Larry. I am not accusing her of "coaching" her to say, but why hasn't some evidence popped up about this case? Some physical evidence. That has always bothered me.

source: https://unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com/wiki/Tommy_Gibson


One of the problems with these UM forum, is that people take the UM segment as gospel. If one would actually do research on the case, they will know the truth. UM never cared too much about facts of many cases, and often glossed over certain things (in this case, domestic abuse). It was well known that Larry beat his wife and kids when UM ran this segment, but they conveniently omitted it. It was not "sexy" enough for NBC, so they went with the ridiculous "shooting a cat" angle.

You complain that others do not "research" outside of the UM segments, yet cite the UM Fandom Wiki as if it's some sort of source, lol.

I have addressed this here (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=5335439&postcount=95), where this (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19910524&id=UWFWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vPADAAAAIBAJ&pg=7070,2076723) newspaper article mentions inconsistencies in both Larry and his wife's accounts of the day Tommy disappeared. This (https://www.deseret.com/1995/1/19/19154476/oregon-town-still-divided-over-boy-s-disappearance) article says Larry's daughter was placed under hypnosis and did not mention anything about seeing her father beating Tommy. I addressed that here (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=5335451&postcount=100). Larry Gibson was charged with (https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/1996/144-or-app-523.html) "intentional murder and murder by abuse", but the jury convicted him of 2nd degree manslaughter and he was out of prison in 3 years. In other words, the jury didn't find the "sexy" assertion that he beat his son to death to be credible, but still believed he was responsible for his death and went with the "ridiculous" accidental shooting.

You complain that others do not "research" outside of the UM segments, yet cite the UM Fandom Wiki as if it's some sort of source, lol.

I have addressed this here (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=5335439&postcount=95), where this (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19910524&id=UWFWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vPADAAAAIBAJ&pg=7070,2076723) newspaper article mentions inconsistencies in both Larry and his wife's accounts of the day Tommy disappeared. This (https://www.deseret.com/1995/1/19/19154476/oregon-town-still-divided-over-boy-s-disappearance) article says Larry's daughter was placed under hypnosis and did not mention anything about seeing her father beating Tommy. I addressed that here (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=5335451&postcount=100). Larry Gibson was charged with (https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/1996/144-or-app-523.html) "intentional murder and murder by abuse", but the jury convicted him of 2nd degree manslaughter and he was out of prison in 3 years. In other words, the jury didn't find the "sexy" assertion that he beat his son to death to be credible, but still believed he was responsible for his death and went with the "ridiculous" accidental shooting.

The legal system requires a judge and jury to find a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a person of murder. That certainly does not mean Larry is innocent. It seems you believe him innocent.

Good for you.

The legal system requires a judge and jury to find a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a person of murder. That certainly does not mean Larry is innocent. It seems you believe him innocent.

Good for you.

You quoted me:

In all seriousness, I will preface what I'm about to say with that I think Larry Gibson killed Tommy.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/B4uP3h97Hi2UaqS0E3/200w.gif?cid=6c09b9526cbissujzuh4pagi3wt9bjrybh4ra59oyvfc1wk0&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

The legal system in this case required a jury to find a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because they believed, "A person, with criminal negligence, cause[d] the death of a child under 14 years". The jury was instructed (https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_163.125) to include 2nd degree manslaughter for a reason.

My question has more often been not so much who but how? I am not sure Larry had enough time to dispose of Tommy's body. It is like someone like Mark Fuhrman. He was used as a prop in the OJ trial as painted as a guy who framed OJ, but even if you didn't like him, there was no physical way he could have done all of that within the time frame. I question what Larry could have done as well. Did he really accidentally kill Tommy by gunshot or by hitting him and then be able to dump the body and bury it in a place where no one has found it in 32 years?

No animal dug it up, no humans were walking and saw something unusual. He would have had time to do all of this and then make his body disappear permanently? I want to see how he could do this, but I have difficulty with that.

This wasnt someone like Rob Page who obviously had plenty of time to dump Pam's body and bury it for good.

My question has more often been not so much who but how? I am not sure Larry had enough time to dispose of Tommy's body. It is like someone like Mark Fuhrman. He was used as a prop in the OJ trial as painted as a guy who framed OJ, but even if you didn't like him, there was no physical way he could have done all of that within the time frame. I question what Larry could have done as well. Did he really accidentally kill Tommy by gunshot or by hitting him and then be able to dump the body and bury it in a place where no one has found it in 32 years?

No animal dug it up, no humans were walking and saw something unusual. He would have had time to do all of this and then make his body disappear permanently? I want to see how he could do this, but I have difficulty with that.

This wasnt someone like Rob Page who obviously had plenty of time to dump Pam's body and bury it for good.

Regarding the time factor, do we have anyone else but the Gibsons talking about the circumstances behind the events that led up to Tommy's disappearance?

If not, Tommy could very well have died hours or even days before, which would allow more time to hide the body and other evidence.

My question has more often been not so much who but how? I am not sure Larry had enough time to dispose of Tommy's body. It is like someone like Mark Fuhrman. He was used as a prop in the OJ trial as painted as a guy who framed OJ, but even if you didn't like him, there was no physical way he could have done all of that within the time frame. I question what Larry could have done as well. Did he really accidentally kill Tommy by gunshot or by hitting him and then be able to dump the body and bury it in a place where no one has found it in 32 years?

No animal dug it up, no humans were walking and saw something unusual. He would have had time to do all of this and then make his body disappear permanently? I want to see how he could do this, but I have difficulty with that.

This wasnt someone like Rob Page who obviously had plenty of time to dump Pam's body and bury it for good.


From what I have read, Larry left the house for nearly an hour. There was a discrepancy in the mileage of his patrol vehicle. I believe the odometer showed he put on 7 miles. Hypothetically, if Larry was driving 35-40 mph, he would have arrived at his destination (3.5 miles away) in 6-8 minutes. That would have left him about 40-45 minutes to dispose of Tommy's body.

Considering this was a rural area, and Larry was familiar with the area, he probably had a place in mind to dump Tommy's body that would have been difficult to locate. My guess is he probably brought some digging tools to site site, and completed Tommy's burial in 30 minutes tops.

The problem in the case against Larry Gibson, is they had no body, therefore no physical evidence, and no forensic pathologist to examine how Tommy was killed. My guess is this was the reason Larry received such a light sentence. If police had recovered Tommy's body, Larry would have been looking at a 20 year sentence.

The main reason I believe Larry is responsible for Tommy's death, is that when rescue workers and local volunteers were searching for Tommy the evening of his disappearance, Larry outright told them to "go home and sleep" and try again tomorrow.

Question: Would a rational person try to call off a search for their only son, in freezing temperatures in the country on the initial evening?

Question: Would a rational person ignore his boss, and attempt to report to work within 24 hours of his son disappearing?

Question: Would a rational person lie about his activities during the time his son went missing?

Regarding the time factor, do we have anyone else but the Gibsons talking about the circumstances behind the events that led up to Tommy's disappearance?

If not, Tommy could very well have died hours or even days before, which would allow more time to hide the body and other evidence.

Then that is a whole new kettle of fish we are talking about. I won't say "days" before or anything. It is possible that it was hours before. But even so, this means Judith herself is responsible and compliant with what happened. It means she helped dispose the body, made up the story about Tommy playing outside in the morning and has lied about pretty much everything up to this point. Oh, and she should be behind bars too.

There is no way Tommy died days before.

From what I have read, Larry left the house for nearly an hour. There was a discrepancy in the mileage of his patrol vehicle. I believe the odometer showed he put on 7 miles. Hypothetically, if Larry was driving 35-40 mph, he would have arrived at his destination (3.5 miles away) in 6-8 minutes. That would have left him about 40-45 minutes to dispose of Tommy's body.

Considering this was a rural area, and Larry was familiar with the area, he probably had a place in mind to dump Tommy's body that would have been difficult to locate. My guess is he probably brought some digging tools to site site, and completed Tommy's burial in 30 minutes tops.

The problem in the case against Larry Gibson, is they had no body, therefore no physical evidence, and no forensic pathologist to examine how Tommy was killed. My guess is this was the reason Larry received such a light sentence. If police had recovered Tommy's body, Larry would have been looking at a 20 year sentence.

The main reason I believe Larry is responsible for Tommy's death, is that when rescue workers and local volunteers were searching for Tommy the evening of his disappearance, Larry outright told them to "go home and sleep" and try again tomorrow.

Question: Would a rational person try to call off a search for their only son, in freezing temperatures in the country on the initial evening?

Question: Would a rational person ignore his boss, and attempt to report to work within 24 hours of his son disappearing?

Question: Would a rational person lie about his activities during the time his son went missing?

To answer those last three questions, the answer is no. All of it is strange. People do weird things under stressful circumstances, but my guess is you still want a search party out there looking for your son.

Here is what I don't like about the idea that Larry buried the body. Even with the time he had, it still isn't enough. Let's say he never went jogging. Tommy was dead by the bullet accidentally. Or Larry hits him and he dies. Either way, an accident. Larry is in a panic. I just don't see how you can think calmly enough to do all of this in such a short time. It is March 18th in Montana. It snowed later that night. Not only that, but I suspect the ground isn't very soft either. It is possible it is quite frozen, or at least very hard to dig. Larry does this all by himself, then comes home and pretends to be back from a jog and says "Oh my, where is Tommy?"

Or he does go jogging, finds Tommy's body and panics and puts it in his patrol car. They call the police, Larry still goes around in his patrol car and manages to dump the body somehow, with people already in the process of looking for Tommy. Someone surely would notice the cop father running all over the place. Not only that, but he does such a good job of the burial that no one, animal or human, has stumbled upon it in 32 years? That's the problem to me, it isn't whether or not Larry is suspicious, it is just HOW he could have done all of this. Wouldn't they have also checked in Larry's patrol car for any evidence that Tommy was in there? I am sure they did all of this. I know as well Larry passed a polygraph. I know that doesn't always mean anything, but I just can't wrap my head around this case as to how a body hasn't been found yet. I don't know how you can go from law enforcement officer and married father of two in one moment to a member of the "Goodfellas" and burying your own son within 45 minutes to perfection.

Either Larry is telling the truth................hmmmm.............or there is another side to this story. One that can still implicate Larry, but one that no one has thought about yet. I am just not sure the idea that he could bury the body on his own could happen without a trace.

Here is what I don't like about the idea that Larry buried the body. Even with the time he had, it still isn't enough. Let's say he never went jogging. Tommy was dead by the bullet accidentally. Or Larry hits him and he dies. Either way, an accident. Larry is in a panic. I just don't see how you can think calmly enough to do all of this in such a short time. It is March 18th in Montana. It snowed later that night. Not only that, but I suspect the ground isn't very soft either. It is possible it is quite frozen, or at least very hard to dig. Larry does this all by himself, then comes home and pretends to be back from a jog and says "Oh my, where is Tommy?"

I don't believe it was ever proven that Larry went for a jog. I watched his appearance on the UM segment, and aside from his deceptive body language, he was not in good shape. Aside from that, someone had pointed out that Larry claimed to have jogged 1-2 miles in nearly an hour, when the average person can walk 3 miles per hour. That would mean that there would be discrepancies in the length of time he jogged, if he ever did to begin with.

Just for clarification, this happened in Oregon. The family moved to Montana after Tommy went missing, mainly to get away (Larry was a suspect to the Oregon authorities).

Not only that, but he does such a good job of the burial that no one, animal or human, has stumbled upon it in 32 years? That's the problem to me, it isn't whether or not Larry is suspicious, it is just HOW he could have done all of this. Wouldn't they have also checked in Larry's patrol car for any evidence that Tommy was in there?

My guess is that Larry was very familiar with the area, rural Oregon. There would have been several places that he could have hid the body that authorities could have overlooked. In addition, we have to keep in mind that Larry was a Police Officer, so not only would he be familiar with the methods that Police would have used to be investigating the disappearance, but he continued to work there after Tommy went missing, so he would have intimate knowledge of the investigation.

It's entirely possible that Larry could have moved Tommy's body at some point when Police and volunteers searching for Tommy began to dwindle.

40 years ago, a girl by the name of Tania Murrell went missing in the winter of 1983, in Edmonton. The prime suspect (who passed away in 2016) only had an afternoon to pick up Tania, murder her, and dispose of her body. This was inside a city, and her remains have never been located. So I believe it would be far easier to dispose of a body in a rural settling rather than a relatively large city.

I don't believe it was ever proven that Larry went for a jog. I watched his appearance on the UM segment, and aside from his deceptive body language, he was not in good shape. Aside from that, someone had pointed out that Larry claimed to have jogged 1-2 miles in nearly an hour, when the average person can walk 3 miles per hour. That would mean that there would be discrepancies in the length of time he jogged, if he ever did to begin with.

Just for clarification, this happened in Oregon. The family moved to Montana after Tommy went missing, mainly to get away (Larry was a suspect to the Oregon authorities).



My guess is that Larry was very familiar with the area, rural Oregon. There would have been several places that he could have hid the body that authorities could have overlooked. In addition, we have to keep in mind that Larry was a Police Officer, so not only would he be familiar with the methods that Police would have used to be investigating the disappearance, but he continued to work there after Tommy went missing, so he would have intimate knowledge of the investigation.

It's entirely possible that Larry could have moved Tommy's body at some point when Police and volunteers searching for Tommy began to dwindle.

40 years ago, a girl by the name of Tania Murrell went missing in the winter of 1983, in Edmonton. The prime suspect (who passed away in 2016) only had an afternoon to pick up Tania, murder her, and dispose of her body. This was inside a city, and her remains have never been located. So I believe it would be far easier to dispose of a body in a rural settling rather than a relatively large city.

Larry did not look like a jogger, no. The entire case shrieks of circumstantial evidence against Larry. His behaviour was weird, his actions were weird, and yet he still passed a polygraph. He would have taken an awful risk re-burying Tommy somewhere with the authorities already suspecting him and hot on his tail. I do think the fact he was a cop came in handy to him as he would be like a professional chess player and be one move ahead, knowing the next move.

One thing that bugs me about the cat and gun theory is that if Larry truly did accidentally shoot Tommy - and a dead cat was found on the property - and he comes back to find him dead. Why panic? I get that hindsight is 20/20, but he's a cop, they aren't going to fry him for an accidental shooting of his own son. I honestly doubt he even gets charged if he reports it right away. It would be deemed an accident.

One thing that bugs me about the cat and gun theory is that if Larry truly did accidentally shoot Tommy - and a dead cat was found on the property - and he comes back to find him dead. Why panic?

Because he's an abusive husband and father, and he's just discovered that he accidentally shot his own son. Here's what the case boils down to for me:

-Larry says he came outside on the morning of March 18th, and saw Tommy outside playing. He claims to have told Tommy to stay there and wait for his older sister to come outside.

-Larry, according to his story, jumps a fence and sees a stray cat and shoots at it. He thinks he missed. He spends some time looking for the spent shell but comes up empty handed. Larry's wife says she heard the shot. She also says she heard Tommy outside playing after hearing the shot.

-Larry goes for his jog and comes back approximately 45 minutes later and his wife and brother tell him that they can't find Tommy.

-Larry acts shady by taking his time to search for Tommy and telling the search party to go home because it started snowing.

IMO, based off of the above, I seriously doubt that Larry ever went for his jog. I think he knew right away that he shot Tommy. That is what he was doing for the 45 minutes while "jogging"; he was hiding Tommy's body. I believe the wife probably was fearful of Larry and went along with the story that she heard him playing after hearing the gunshot. I also think the brother was the author of the "Spot in the Road" letter sent to law enforcement, because he suspected Larry was involved in Tommy's death. I do not believe that he beat Tommy to death. Both the wife and the brother would have been a witness to this. And I don't think Larry is cunning enough to beat his son to death and then be clever enough to kill a cat as a cover story. Larry's ridiculous cover story involved having a random couple coming up and abducting Tommy. He could have easily said that Tommy would often try to follow him on his jogs and may have fallen victim to a mountain lion. The dead cat in this case is the key. It makes no sense for Larry to involve that in his story of what happened that day, unless he did shoot Tommy accidentally.

One thing that bugs me about the cat and gun theory is that if Larry truly did accidentally shoot Tommy - and a dead cat was found on the property - and he comes back to find him dead. Why panic? I get that hindsight is 20/20, but he's a cop, they aren't going to fry him for an accidental shooting of his own son. I honestly doubt he even gets charged if he reports it right away. It would be deemed an accident.

I've never bought the "cat" theory. The odds of something like that happening are nearly infinite. Larry accidentally killing Tommy, while beating him sounds far more realistic.

However, I can't accept that Larry did not know where Tommy was, after he told rescuers to "come back in the morning" as snow fell, and temperatures dropped below freezing. I live in Canada, and know how fast a person will freeze to death in that weather, let alone a little child. No parent is going to do a thing like that, unless the kid is dead, and they don't want the body found.

It should be noted that polygraph tests are inadmissible in court, for the reason that a small percentage of people know how to beat the test, and a similar percentage of innocent people fail the test. Through his occupation with Law Enforcement, Larry would be far more likely to pass a polygraph test, since Law Enforcement is aware of the techniques on how to increase chances of passing or failing.

Because he's an abusive husband and father, and he's just discovered that he accidentally shot his own son. Here's what the case boils down to for me:

-Larry says he came outside on the morning of March 18th, and saw Tommy outside playing. He claims to have told Tommy to stay there and wait for his older sister to come outside.

-Larry, according to his story, jumps a fence and sees a stray cat and shoots at it. He thinks he missed. He spends some time looking for the spent shell but comes up empty handed. Larry's wife says she heard the shot. She also says she heard Tommy outside playing after hearing the shot.

-Larry goes for his jog and comes back approximately 45 minutes later and his wife and brother tell him that they can't find Tommy.

-Larry acts shady by taking his time to search for Tommy and telling the search party to go home because it started snowing.

IMO, based off of the above, I seriously doubt that Larry ever went for his jog. I think he knew right away that he shot Tommy. That is what he was doing for the 45 minutes while "jogging"; he was hiding Tommy's body. I believe the wife probably was fearful of Larry and went along with the story that she heard him playing after hearing the gunshot. I also think the brother was the author of the "Spot in the Road" letter sent to law enforcement, because he suspected Larry was involved in Tommy's death. I do not believe that he beat Tommy to death. Both the wife and the brother would have been a witness to this. And I don't think Larry is cunning enough to beat his son to death and then be clever enough to kill a cat as a cover story. Larry's ridiculous cover story involved having a random couple coming up and abducting Tommy. He could have easily said that Tommy would often try to follow him on his jogs and may have fallen victim to a mountain lion. The dead cat in this case is the key. It makes no sense for Larry to involve that in his story of what happened that day, unless he did shoot Tommy accidentally.

I've never bought the "cat" theory. The odds of something like that happening are nearly infinite. Larry accidentally killing Tommy, while beating him sounds far more realistic.

However, I can't accept that Larry did not know where Tommy was, after he told rescuers to "come back in the morning" as snow fell, and temperatures dropped below freezing. I live in Canada, and know how fast a person will freeze to death in that weather, let alone a little child. No parent is going to do a thing like that, unless the kid is dead, and they don't want the body found.

It should be noted that polygraph tests are inadmissible in court, for the reason that a small percentage of people know how to beat the test, and a similar percentage of innocent people fail the test. Through his occupation with Law Enforcement, Larry would be far more likely to pass a polygraph test, since Law Enforcement is aware of the techniques on how to increase chances of passing or failing.

Myself as well, I live in a climate that would be similar to Oregon. I know how hard the ground would be at that time of year. If Larry notices Tommy shot then he does not go for the job and the 45 minutes he was supposed to be gone he never was. I do factor that in, and I still wonder how he can do all of this in 45 minutes. That major 180 of being a father of two to all of the sudden having the skills to bury the body of your son. Without a trace. Even after 30 years. No blood, no trace of him, no body found. No blood in his car I assume. All of this emotion he has it is just strange for me to see him calmly bury a body of a loved one when 45 minutes earlier the visions he'd have had of Tommy was how he had a complete family, a son to carry his name, a son that will give him grandkids, etc. Then a switch goes off and you bury the kid without a trace with no emotion? Man.................

That's the thing, I don't need to see Larry had strange behaviour, it is just all about the "how" with me. And to do all of this and not have Judith complicit in it just seems so unlikely to me.

I heard on a podcast that his dad wrote a song for him after he went missing that he tried to peddle to radio. I found some music Online, but not this song. Does anyone know where I can find the song he wrote for his son?

I think it was this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwOrou64ubU) song.

What a letdown when that loaded lol! I always kind of wonder because how could he go around doing his passion project music thing with a guilty conscience?

I think we all know you convict someone of a crime because of their affect in a TV interview. But when I watch this segment, something is definitely off in both parents. When Larry talks about going to the rest stop to see if Tommy is there, he says something like, "I didn't find him there in any condition...." What does that mean, dead or alive?

His son hasn't been found, which for most parents who lead to increasing panic and horror, and he decides to go to work even though his supervisor tells him he doesn't have to come in. So basically his supervisor cares more about his son's welfare than he does? My feeling is that he had to get that squad car out of their before the police dogs showed up and began sniffing and leading everyone to the trunk of the car. And why did he have to get into his uniform and go to work that day anyway? That doesn't seem like the kind of town that is going to descend into chaos if one officer takes the day off to look for his son -which Larry says he began to do anyway, so why did he have to go into work and let strangers find his son. The later on that night, he calls off the search party.

I think that some of these men get on UM thinking that will "read" better than the do for the viewing audience, not knowing that the camera, just like it can pick up bad acting, can also act as a sort of polygraph test as well and people can psychically feel that something is not right. Larry goes on saying over and over, "There is no fact to prove my daughter is lying, there is no fact to prove I had anything to do with this..." things to that effect, almost challenging someone to find out that he is lying. I think "Spot in the Road" was one of his wife's relatives, who was used to the issues of abuse in that family, but didn't want to go on record for fear of what might happen if Larry wasn't arresting.

I guarantee you that if anyone in my family was missing, let alone a child, work would be the last thing on my mind.

From what I have read, Larry left the house for nearly an hour. There was a discrepancy in the mileage of his patrol vehicle. I believe the odometer showed he put on 7 miles. Hypothetically, if Larry was driving 35-40 mph, he would have arrived at his destination (3.5 miles away) in 6-8 minutes. That would have left him about 40-45 minutes to dispose of Tommy's body.

Considering this was a rural area, and Larry was familiar with the area, he probably had a place in mind to dump Tommy's body that would have been difficult to locate. My guess is he probably brought some digging tools to site site, and completed Tommy's burial in 30 minutes tops.

The problem in the case against Larry Gibson, is they had no body, therefore no physical evidence, and no forensic pathologist to examine how Tommy was killed. My guess is this was the reason Larry received such a light sentence. If police had recovered Tommy's body, Larry would have been looking at a 20 year sentence.

The main reason I believe Larry is responsible for Tommy's death, is that when rescue workers and local volunteers were searching for Tommy the evening of his disappearance, Larry outright told them to "go home and sleep" and try again tomorrow.

Question: Would a rational person try to call off a search for their only son, in freezing temperatures in the country on the initial evening?

Question: Would a rational person ignore his boss, and attempt to report to work within 24 hours of his son disappearing?

Question: Would a rational person lie about his activities during the time his son went missing?

I have to wonder how the searchers and rescue workers took that news. "Your son is missing and you're telling us to go home????"

I guarantee you that if anyone in my family was missing, let alone a child, work would be the last thing on my mind.

I hear you on that whole thing. Larry's actions were bizarre. But I am still trying to find an avenue where he is able to dump the body. He is surrounded by cops and people helping search for Tommy. He drives off, and let's say he does have the body in the car and dumps it. How on earth does he find a place in that small time frame to dump Tommy's body and then have it never be found in 35 years? That's the thing that gets me with this case. Larry can be weird, but weird doesn't make you a murderer. I think Scott Peterson killed Laci and their unborn son. He had motive, he had opportunity and the entire case is drenched with circumstantial evidence. But that's the thing, the only thing about the Peterson case that bugs me is that it lacked physical evidence. He is where he belongs I truly believe, but you still want an open and shut case that ties him to the murders 100%.

That's why I pause with Larry and Tommy. Larry was either the biggest mastermind within a 45 minute window to the point where he somehow managed to make it that no one can ever find Tommy's body - and no witnesses see him dump the body either- or he maybe just is telling the truth.

If his wife is involved in Tommy's disappearance then it wouldn't make sense either. How can this happen? How does the daughter keep quiet? And why all of the sudden does she change her story in 1994 saying that the daughter said Larry put Tommy in a garbage bag? If she was involved Larry could easily say "Uh, you know, you were there when this stuff happened right?"

I just don't know with this one. It reminds me of Paul Pollis. Pollis doesn't necessarily come off great in the interview but he also says some things that make sense. And there is zero proof a crime was ever committed. Not to mention the question of how to dispose a body without witnesses (and his wife was 300lbs if I recall). Whatever Larry and his wife know, if anything, they'll take to the grave.

I hear you on that whole thing. Larry's actions were bizarre. But I am still trying to find an avenue where he is able to dump the body. He is surrounded by cops and people helping search for Tommy. He drives off, and let's say he does have the body in the car and dumps it. How on earth does he find a place in that small time frame to dump Tommy's body and then have it never be found in 35 years?

There is always the possibility that Larry had more time than 45 minutes to dispose of Tommy's body.

That's the thing that gets me with this case. Larry can be weird, but weird doesn't make you a murderer.

I did not find what Larry did as "weird." Only a father who knew his kid was dead, would call off a search for a toddler, who most assumed was lost, and exposed to the elements. That's not weird, that is the actions of someone who had something to do with the death of his son, and wanted the authorities not to find his body.

That's why I pause with Larry and Tommy. Larry was either the biggest mastermind within a 45 minute window to the point where he somehow managed to make it that no one can ever find Tommy's body - and no witnesses see him dump the body either- or he maybe just is telling the truth.

Larry killed Tommy. Period.

If you research the case, after the family moved, the wife fled with their other child (the little girl), to an undisclosed location, and contacted Police immediately to tell them the truth- that Larry had killed Tommy in a fit of rage, after he disobeyed Larry. Larry physically abused all his family to the point that they lived in fear. The wife went along with Larry's story, since she was a battered wife.

The little girl had testified that she saw Larry kill Tommy, then disappear with Tommy. Larry received such a light sentence, since the prosecution could not prove it was intentional (it may have been an accident), and did not have a body to confirm what led to Tommy's death. Larry took a plea deal, and only served a couple of years in jail.

If his wife is involved in Tommy's disappearance then it wouldn't make sense either. How can this happen? How does the daughter keep quiet? And why all of the sudden does she change her story in 1994 saying that the daughter said Larry put Tommy in a garbage bag? If she was involved Larry could easily say "Uh, you know, you were there when this stuff happened right?"

It's called "battered wife syndrome." She lied, because she felt Larry was capable of killing her and her daughter, if they told the truth about Tommy initially. My guess is that Larry probably had a psychological hold on his family, and they lived in absolute fear of him. This was revealed in court, and is why the wife was not charged with anything.

There is always the possibility that Larry had more time than 45 minutes to dispose of Tommy's body.



I did not find what Larry did as "weird." Only a father who knew his kid was dead, would call off a search for a toddler, who most assumed was lost, and exposed to the elements. That's not weird, that is the actions of someone who had something to do with the death of his son, and wanted the authorities not to find his body.



Larry killed Tommy. Period.

If you research the case, after the family moved, the wife fled with their other child (the little girl), to an undisclosed location, and contacted Police immediately to tell them the truth- that Larry had killed Tommy in a fit of rage, after he disobeyed Larry. Larry physically abused all his family to the point that they lived in fear. The wife went along with Larry's story, since she was a battered wife.

The little girl had testified that she saw Larry kill Tommy, then disappear with Tommy. Larry received such a light sentence, since the prosecution could not prove it was intentional (it may have been an accident), and did not have a body to confirm what led to Tommy's death. Larry took a plea deal, and only served a couple of years in jail.



It's called "battered wife syndrome." She lied, because she felt Larry was capable of killing her and her daughter, if they told the truth about Tommy initially. My guess is that Larry probably had a psychological hold on his family, and they lived in absolute fear of him. This was revealed in court, and is why the wife was not charged with anything.

This also tells us that the judge didn't buy the story either. Hence the light sentence. And the lack of physical evidence has always been bothersome. I have a friend and a family member as well going through a divorce. There are horrible things their exes are saying about them and writing them down in custody agreements. It is pure fiction, smearing, and it makes you wonder how the heck they can say the things they say to someone they once loved. One of the guys has his ex so hell bent on making him penniless despite already being soon to be married to a very wealthy man.

There is also another factor to this story. Larry and his wife were home that morning, but so was either his brother or her brother (can't remember which). Isn't there some testimony he has to this whole thing? If he saw Tommy that morning wouldn't it negate Larry's wife's testimony. And to me Karen (the daughter) was being coached to say the thing about Tommy just like she was when she claimed she saw two people kidnap him.

It would surprise people, but I have personally spoken to Larry through social media at one point. He forgives his daughter, says they have a good relationship and that even she realizes her mother coached her to say the things she said. I know that is one side to the story, and again I am not saying Larry didn't do this, but the lack of physical evidence is troubling to have even convicted him in the first place. And he can go full OJ on this whole thing, he can admit like OJ practically did that he committed the murders and even reveal where the body is dumped simply because it would be Double Jeopardy to be tried again.

This also tells us that the judge didn't buy the story either. Hence the light sentence. And the lack of physical evidence has always been bothersome. I have a friend and a family member as well going through a divorce. There are horrible things their exes are saying about them and writing them down in custody agreements. It is pure fiction, smearing, and it makes you wonder how the heck they can say the things they say to someone they once loved. One of the guys has his ex so hell bent on making him penniless despite already being soon to be married to a very wealthy man.

There is also another factor to this story. Larry and his wife were home that morning, but so was either his brother or her brother (can't remember which). Isn't there some testimony he has to this whole thing? If he saw Tommy that morning wouldn't it negate Larry's wife's testimony. And to me Karen (the daughter) was being coached to say the thing about Tommy just like she was when she claimed she saw two people kidnap him.

It would surprise people, but I have personally spoken to Larry through social media at one point. He forgives his daughter, says they have a good relationship and that even she realizes her mother coached her to say the things she said. I know that is one side to the story, and again I am not saying Larry didn't do this, but the lack of physical evidence is troubling to have even convicted him in the first place. And he can go full OJ on this whole thing, he can admit like OJ practically did that he committed the murders and even reveal where the body is dumped simply because it would be Double Jeopardy to be tried again.

We're not going to agree about this, so I will just leave others to read what has been said about the case outside the sensationalist TV program Unsolved Mysteries:



"Larry's trial commenced on January 18, 1995. In late February, his half-sister, Debbie Calek, provided testimony against him, stating that after Thomas went missing she had received a frantic phone call from Larry in which he confessed to killing Thomas, and telling her he may need money to post bail after his arrest. Calek subsequently claimed that, when Karen and her mother Judy stayed with her at her home in Iowa after the disappearance, she made a comment regarding being frightened about her father "putting her in a big hole" like he had Thomas. During this same stay, Judy alleged that Karen first told her that she had witnessed Larry beating Thomas outside on the day he disappeared.

Karen was the prosecution's star witness in the case, and testified against her father over the course of the six-week trial. The defense suggested that Karen had been influenced to adopt the storyline that her father had beaten and killed Thomas by her mother. Court documents prepared by the district attorney presented the series of events: Larry left the family's residence in Azalea at approximately 11:30 a.m. to go for a jog.Thomas followed after his father, who instructed him to wait for his sister to come out of the house. Spotting a cat nearby, Larry purportedly used a pistol to kill it, assuming it to be a stray. When Thomas curiously approached the dead cat, Larry angrily picked him up and carried him to the family's carport, where he proceeded to slap the child in the face multiple times. After realizing that Karen had observed Larry hitting Thomas from the window, he placed Thomas in his patrol car and drove it behind a woodpile on the property, where he placed the child's body in a plastic bag and hid it in the trunk of his vehicle.

It was theorised by investigators that, after volunteer searchers began looking for Thomas, Larry took the child's body and disposed of it in an area known as Swamp Creek, though his remains were not recovered. Karen claimed that her father threatened her against telling authorities what she had witnessed, and felt unsafe to do so until her mother separated from him and they relocated back to Oregon in 1994"

In March 1995, Larry Gibson was convicted of the manslaughter of Thomas, though he proclaimed innocence throughout and after the trial. His conviction called for fifteen to eighteen months' imprisonment, of which he had served twelve while in police custody leading up to (and during) his trial. He was released from prison in 1996.

source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-orlando-sentinel/49968006/


----

Larry Gibson was a man who often beat his children, to the point of death. He was the prime suspect in the disappearance of Tommy Gibson. He was arrested for second degree murder in 1994, after his wife fled from his abuse, and went to law enforcement with his surviving daughter
. Larry Gibson was ultimately convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

In other words, it's the word of Larry Gibson vs three people (his half sister, his only daughter, and his ex-wife).

We're not going to agree about this, so I will just leave others to read what has been said about the case outside the sensationalist TV program Unsolved Mysteries:



"Larry's trial commenced on January 18, 1995. In late February, his half-sister, Debbie Calek, provided testimony against him, stating that after Thomas went missing she had received a frantic phone call from Larry in which he confessed to killing Thomas, and telling her he may need money to post bail after his arrest. Calek subsequently claimed that, when Karen and her mother Judy stayed with her at her home in Iowa after the disappearance, she made a comment regarding being frightened about her father "putting her in a big hole" like he had Thomas. During this same stay, Judy alleged that Karen first told her that she had witnessed Larry beating Thomas outside on the day he disappeared.

Karen was the prosecution's star witness in the case, and testified against her father over the course of the six-week trial. The defense suggested that Karen had been influenced to adopt the storyline that her father had beaten and killed Thomas by her mother. Court documents prepared by the district attorney presented the series of events: Larry left the family's residence in Azalea at approximately 11:30 a.m. to go for a jog.Thomas followed after his father, who instructed him to wait for his sister to come out of the house. Spotting a cat nearby, Larry purportedly used a pistol to kill it, assuming it to be a stray. When Thomas curiously approached the dead cat, Larry angrily picked him up and carried him to the family's carport, where he proceeded to slap the child in the face multiple times. After realizing that Karen had observed Larry hitting Thomas from the window, he placed Thomas in his patrol car and drove it behind a woodpile on the property, where he placed the child's body in a plastic bag and hid it in the trunk of his vehicle.

It was theorised by investigators that, after volunteer searchers began looking for Thomas, Larry took the child's body and disposed of it in an area known as Swamp Creek, though his remains were not recovered. Karen claimed that her father threatened her against telling authorities what she had witnessed, and felt unsafe to do so until her mother separated from him and they relocated back to Oregon in 1994"

In March 1995, Larry Gibson was convicted of the manslaughter of Thomas, though he proclaimed innocence throughout and after the trial. His conviction called for fifteen to eighteen months' imprisonment, of which he had served twelve while in police custody leading up to (and during) his trial. He was released from prison in 1996.

source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-orlando-sentinel/49968006/


----

Larry Gibson was a man who often beat his children, to the point of death. He was the prime suspect in the disappearance of Tommy Gibson. He was arrested for second degree murder in 1994, after his wife fled from his abuse, and went to law enforcement with his surviving daughter
. Larry Gibson was ultimately convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

In other words, it's the word of Larry Gibson vs three people (his half sister, his only daughter, and his ex-wife).

Oh I get it, I am just posting about the conversation I have had with Larry. I try to look at all sides and on more than one occasion have actually been successful contacting - and having multiple conversations - with people who were on UM. Even suspects like Larry. Other times it has been victims' families. This is why it makes me wonder how much Karen ACTUALLY did see that day or how much she was told to remember. She's 4 at this time, I mean, man, that's clinging to something to have a kid that young be your star witness.

Just another strange thing is why did the wife stay with Larry and then have another child with him afterwards? She had a child with Larry after Tommy disappeared. Also, why did the sister in law not just tell the truth at that time? She wasn't in an abusive relationship by any means.

I think Larry likely did much of what you explained. I just wish it was bundled up in a nice tidy package and proven. 35 years later and there is no body.

Oh I get it, I am just posting about the conversation I have had with Larry. I try to look at all sides and on more than one occasion have actually been successful contacting - and having multiple conversations - with people who were on UM. Even suspects like Larry.

In other words, by developing a friendship with the man convicted of killing his child, you no longer have the ability form an impartial opinion on this issue.

I still hold the opinion that if you did this to your own child, you wouldn’t be able to write a song about it. I think he’s a weird guy, but did he do this?

In other words, by developing a friendship with the man convicted of killing his child, you no longer have the ability form an impartial opinion on this issue.

I wouldn't call a singular conversation on social media several years ago by any means a "friendship". I just call it investigative journalism. That being said there was a convicted and accused murderer from UM that I personally spoke with and I don't think that sort of thing just happens daily. Could anyone imagine Jule Caylor talking to a complete stranger about Dottie? I've posted what Larry told me, that is all. Between that and the lack of physical evidence I would prefer to see a more open and shut case on this issue. Even with Larry's conviction in 1994 it is bothersome that it was based on the testimonies of hearsay. Even if I think he did it, it still doesn't put me at rest to convict someone with so little if any physical evidence. I think Scott Peterson was involved in Lacie's death as well, and while this case had a lot more evidence it was still less physical evidence than I'd like to see. Honestly, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

I wouldn't call a singular conversation on social media several years ago by any means a "friendship". I just call it investigative journalism. That being said there was a convicted and accused murderer from UM that I personally spoke with and I don't think that sort of thing just happens daily. Could anyone imagine Jule Caylor talking to a complete stranger about Dottie? I've posted what Larry told me, that is all. Between that and the lack of physical evidence I would prefer to see a more open and shut case on this issue. Even with Larry's conviction in 1994 it is bothersome that it was based on the testimonies of hearsay. Even if I think he did it, it still doesn't put me at rest to convict someone with so little if any physical evidence. I think Scott Peterson was involved in Lacie's death as well, and while this case had a lot more evidence it was still less physical evidence than I'd like to see. Honestly, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

When I mention that we agree to disagree, and address the forum in regards to the facts of the case, most people would just leave it at that. You have made us fully aware that one of your hobbies is to contact people that have been on UM (mainly 30+ years ago), in attempts to prod them about cases that happened a generation ago, and in this case, was concluded long ago, with a conviction.

Believe what you wish, and defend Tommy Gibson until the cows come home, and tell us how he was an innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice. It's not going to change my opinion on the case, as I have said before.

FTR....What you consider "Investigative journalism" can be intrepid as "harassment" by some.

When I mention that we agree to disagree, and address the forum in regards to the facts of the case, most people would just leave it at that. You have made us fully aware that one of your hobbies is to contact people that have been on UM (mainly 30+ years ago), in attempts to prod them about cases that happened a generation ago, and in this case, was concluded long ago, with a conviction.

Believe what you wish, and defend Tommy Gibson until the cows come home, and tell us how he was an innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice. It's not going to change my opinion on the case, as I have said before.

FTR....What you consider "Investigative journalism" can be intrepid as "harassment" by some.

Larry........

I am not sure you are reading my posts all that closely. I believe he was involved because to me it makes the most sense. This is what I think, not what I know. My idea is that a conviction with so little evidence would bother me. It obviously was conflicting for the judge as well I am guessing, hence the super light sentence. If you ever come in contact with someone from UM and have a conversation with them, please, share it for the rest of us. We are true crime fans and fans of the show and any contact is at the very least intriguing.

I still hold the opinion that if you did this to your own child, you wouldn’t be able to write a song about it. I think he’s a weird guy, but did he do this?

If you are a sociopath you can possibly convince yourself that you didn't do it. I am not sure Donny (Jill and Julie's brother) Hansen would write a song about his sisters I am guessing.

My idea is that a conviction with so little evidence would bother me. It obviously was conflicting for the judge as well I am guessing, hence the super light sentence.


This is the perpetual issue with a show such as Unsolved Mysteries. UM has a bad reputation in regards to laying out the facts of a case. Facts usually gave way to sensationalism, and plot lines that would give NBC good ratings.

If one were to ignore Unsolved Mysteries, and look at the actual evidence in the Tommy Gibson case, I am not sure how on Earth anyone could say Larry is innocent, with a straight face. At any rate, the man was convicted by a Judge and jury of killing his only son, and that is really all that matters. Your opinion on the issue does not carry any weight.

Of every single suspect that appeared on UM, Larry stands out for deceptive body language. And what kind of parent would try to call off a search and rescue mission to find their infant son in freezing temperatures (unless of course, he was worried that they would find the body, and charge him with murder)?

If you ever come in contact with someone from UM and have a conversation with them, please, share it for the rest of us. We are true crime fans and fans of the show and any contact is at the very least intriguing.

I will pass, thank you.

Most people tend to frown upon unsolicited messages from random strangers, especially regarding events that happened a generation ago. I've followed this forum long enough to know that Larry is an exception to this rule- he seems to enjoy correspondence regarding his 35 year old case. Most people do not appreciate being questioned about these types of cases, unless they specifically state otherwise.

Finally, I rarely disclose private conversations in general, especially on a public forum.

PS...did you use the alias Clockworkhigh (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/search.php?searchid=4828948)? I only ask, since the name is somewhat similar to yours, and you both post in threads regarding the same cases, albeit a few years apart.

This is the perpetual issue with a show such as Unsolved Mysteries. UM has a bad reputation in regards to laying out the facts of a case. Facts usually gave way to sensationalism, and plot lines that would give NBC good ratings.

If one were to ignore Unsolved Mysteries, and look at the actual evidence in the Tommy Gibson case, I am not sure how on Earth anyone could say Larry is innocent, with a straight face. At any rate, the man was convicted by a Judge and jury of killing his only son, and that is really all that matters. Your opinion on the issue does not carry any weight.

Of every single suspect that appeared on UM, Larry stands out for deceptive body language. And what kind of parent would try to call off a search and rescue mission to find their infant son in freezing temperatures (unless of course, he was worried that they would find the body, and charge him with murder)?



I will pass, thank you.

Most people tend to frown upon unsolicited messages from random strangers, especially regarding events that happened a generation ago. I've followed this forum long enough to know that Larry is an exception to this rule- he seems to enjoy correspondence regarding his 35 year old case. Most people do not appreciate being questioned about these types of cases, unless they specifically state otherwise.

Finally, I rarely disclose private conversations in general, especially on a public forum.

PS...did you use the alias Clockworkhigh (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/search.php?searchid=4828948)? I only ask, since the name is somewhat similar to yours, and you both post in threads regarding the same cases, albeit a few years apart.

I personally think he was involved in the murder. I just don't like the lack of physical evidence