I have always been fascinated with the case. This is one of those cases where things don't mesh. Tommy is playing in the front yard. No big deal, this is 1991 and they are in the middle of nowhere which is hardly a haven for kidnappers. Larry goes for a jog, sees a stray cat, shoots the cat. No big deal so far and for anyone with kids I can attest that if I knew a stray cat was wandering around my home I would do the same thing since I have young kids playing outside. It probably isn't a "well" cat lets just say. So I get Larry doing that.

He comes back from his jog and Tommy is missing. Or Tommy is shot inadvertently from the bullet and Larry covers it up. I would take it to the bank that there is a 99.9% chance that it is one of these scenarios. But which one? There was no blood found of Tommy. There were no signs that the body was placed in the trunk, no blood in there. You would think if a toddler got shot there would be a trail of blood. There was no blood found on Larry.

The actions of Larry are suspicious however. He goes to work when everyone is looking for his son. Strange, and in a way similar to the actions of Darlie Routlier with the silly string. Just a weird way to act when your son is missing.

But in reality all there is, is circumstantial evidence against Larry. His daughter in 1994 claimed Larry beat Tommy until he was limp. Something I don't think even the judge bought since he only gave him 3 years. I have never bought that story at all.

Anyway, its easy to make fun of Larry, and I do it too, but just like in the case of Paul Pollis there is absolutely no evidence of a crime being committed. Which is why this case has always bothered me

I have always been fascinated with the case. This is one of those cases where things don't mesh. Tommy is playing in the front yard. No big deal, this is 1991 and they are in the middle of nowhere which is hardly a haven for kidnappers. Larry goes for a jog, sees a stray cat, shoots the cat. No big deal so far and for anyone with kids I can attest that if I knew a stray cat was wandering around my home I would do the same thing since I have young kids playing outside. It probably isn't a "well" cat lets just say. So I get Larry doing that.

He comes back from his jog and Tommy is missing. Or Tommy is shot inadvertently from the bullet and Larry covers it up. I would take it to the bank that there is a 99.9% chance that it is one of these scenarios. But which one? There was no blood found of Tommy. There were no signs that the body was placed in the trunk, no blood in there. You would think if a toddler got shot there would be a trail of blood. There was no blood found on Larry.

The actions of Larry are suspicious however. He goes to work when everyone is looking for his son. Strange, and in a way similar to the actions of Darlie Routlier with the silly string. Just a weird way to act when your son is missing.

But in reality all there is, is circumstantial evidence against Larry. His daughter in 1994 claimed Larry beat Tommy until he was limp. Something I don't think even the judge bought since he only gave him 3 years. I have never bought that story at all.

Anyway, its easy to make fun of Larry, and I do it too, but just like in the case of Paul Pollis there is absolutely no evidence of a crime being committed. Which is why this case has always bothered me

You make some good points.

I will say that I was always skeptical of the official theory with regard to Larry shooting the cat and the bullet somehow striking Tommy while he was playing in the yard. The mechanics of it just seem very improbable to me. I'll go so far as to say that had I been on a jury and been presented with this theory alone, I would probably vote to acquit because, based on what we were shown, it's nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt. Not even close, IMO.

All that being said, I do feel very strongly that Larry Gibson did, in fact, kill his son. I don't know how, but I don't think the daughter's testimony should be completely ignored. The police seemed to suspect that her story about the abduction scenario was coached. Also, Larry himself did many strange things during the immediate aftermath of Tommy's disappearance that would suggest, to me anyway, that he had a hand in it.

As to his conviction, I'm really torn. On one hand, they never found the body which is troubling because you can't prove murder. However, given the daughter's testimony, Larry's post disappearance actions and the extreme unlikelihood of an abduction, I think Larry was guilty of something and deserved to serve some time.

You make some good points.

I will say that I was always skeptical of the official theory with regard to Larry shooting the cat and the bullet somehow striking Tommy while he was playing in the yard. The mechanics of it just seem very improbable to me. I'll go so far as to say that had I been on a jury and been presented with this theory alone, I would probably vote to acquit because, based on what we were shown, it's nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt. Not even close, IMO.

All that being said, I do feel very strongly that Larry Gibson did, in fact, kill his son. I don't know how, but I don't think the daughter's testimony should be completely ignored. The police seemed to suspect that her story about the abduction scenario was coached. Also, Larry himself did many strange things during the immediate aftermath of Tommy's disappearance that would suggest, to me anyway, that he had a hand in it.

As to his conviction, I'm really torn. On one hand, they never found the body which is troubling because you can't prove murder. However, given the daughter's testimony, Larry's post disappearance actions and the extreme unlikelihood of an abduction, I think Larry was guilty of something and deserved to serve some time.

Good points. They do say a dead cat was found in the area which corroborates Larry's story. He is telling the truth with that I believe. I am not sure though if they ever found the bullet. That's the troubling thing. Maybe someone else knows. If the bullet was never found then it leads to the theory that it may have struck Tommy. Or law enforcement just didn't look hard enough - a possibility too.

Here is why I am skeptical of two things: number one, anything the daughter says should be thrown out the window. She claimed several days later that Tommy was kidnapped by two people. Yet at the time you'd think a kid would have run and yelled to her mother. She didn't. So I don't really believe that story. Then three years later she claims Tommy was limp after Larry beat him and Larry gets three years for it. He denies this happened and serves his time and STILL no body of Tommy. This accusation screams of the daughter being coached by Larry's ex-wife. I personally don't believe it happened.

Secondly, if Larry had accidentally shot Tommy and dumped his body he sure didn't have a lot of time to do it. When he comes home you would think his wife would find something amiss with him. You know, blood somewhere on his hands, on his shoe, on his shirt or anything like that. She has divorced him and apparently turned on him and yet if she knew about Tommy being killed that way you'd think it would come out by now. What mother doesn't want her son's body found? The guilt would overwhelm you.

Also lastly, I have personally sent Larry a message on Facebook no less. He was very interested in talking about the case. I asked him how his relationship with his daughter is now. He says its good. He also believe Tommy is still alive and hopes that maybe he joined the army or got arrested somewhere along the way in hopes that he is fingerprinted.

Okay, maybe he's lying to me. Who knows. He has a legion of followers since he is now a country singer and you'd think those people would know his story but still believe him. If he has a good relationship with his daughter now then the question would be why? If she did see what she saw and it was true would you be close to your father knowing he killed your brother, covered it up, served little time and STILL didn't admit to it? Or, does she realize she was coached by the mother, or someone else and feels guilty about what she did to her dad.

I have just come to the conclusion that I don't think Tommy was shot accidentally. But for the life of me, I have no clue what really happened since you would think Larry's ex-wife would go to great measures NOT to cover up for him now

I've always thought the "stray bullet killing Tommy" theory was pretty farfetched, but I do think the most likely scenario is that Larry lost his temper, beat his son and accidentally killed him. That would explain how Larry was able to dispose of the body without leaving any traces of blood.

Watching the interview with Larry's wife, I just got the vibe that she was a longtime victim of abuse who witnessed her husband beat her son, and was so afraid of Larry that she was scared enough to cover up for him. Years later, she finally works up the courage to take the kids and leave her husband and wants to make him pay for Tommy's murder. However, since she covered up for him before, she runs the risk of her testimony not being credible or even facing criminal prosecution herself, so she coaches her daughter into telling the story about what really happened. For all we know, the story the daughter told is the truth, but because it's the testimony of a child who has already changed her story, it's not strong evidence for a murder conviction, so Larry gets a very light sentence for second-degree manslaughter.

I've always wondered if Larry's wife was the one who wrote that anonymous "spot in the road" letter, and if "spot in the road" refers to a location where Tommy's body is buried.

I don't think the scenarios presented in the segment are what happened, but I really think Larry is responsible for Tommy's death.

A few items I take issues with:

1. Larry's behavior in the interview. You can see him glance to the left more than once in the interview. One time is when he addresses the confrontation by LE with him about his responsibility - he said "it's possible." Another time was after the LE scenario was presented he said "It's ridiculous....I didn't do anything...."
My guess is Judith was sitting to his left and he was watching her reactions to his statements. If she knew something, she could give it away to the interviewer.

2. Larry lied about leaving the property. Judith stated he left because he was going to check on his private car. Why would that even be a priority if his son is missing, possibly abducted?

3. He went to work, stating that they thought they would find Tommy somewhere he "would be embarrassed, that we should have looked..." Again, if your son is missing, your own embarrassment wouldn't matter to you over the safety of your child.

4. The picture of Larry holding Tommy with that one arm grip has always bothered me. Larry looks smug and controlling, and Tommy looks uncomfortable and scared.

I've thought of another scenario. Maybe Tommy used to like to tag along with Larry on his jogs (or just in general) and Larry just wasn't having it this day and couldn't get Tommy to stay in the yard. Maybe he tied him to a railing on the deck or something to get him to stay. Tommy gets upset, maybe tries to follow or run or something, and the rope/cord/whatever strangles him.
With this scenario, no one is directly responsible for the death of Tommy. Larry knows that this accidental death will be looked at suspiciously, so they decide to bury the body. Larry has to go make a car switch to do it so he's a little less conspicuous.
Larry could pass the polygraph because in his mind, he didn't directly cause the death of Tommy.

Maybe that's far-fetched, but I really can't believe that Larry had no part in Tommy's disappearance and/or death.

4. The picture of Larry holding Tommy with that one arm grip has always bothered me. Larry looks smug and controlling, and Tommy looks uncomfortable and scared.

I've thought of another scenario. Maybe Tommy used to like to tag along with Larry on his jogs (or just in general) and Larry just wasn't having it this day and couldn't get Tommy to stay in the yard. Maybe he tied him to a railing on the deck or something to get him to stay. Tommy gets upset, maybe tries to follow or run or something, and the rope/cord/whatever strangles him.
With this scenario, no one is directly responsible for the death of Tommy. Larry knows that this accidental death will be looked at suspiciously, so they decide to bury the body. Larry has to go make a car switch to do it so he's a little less conspicuous.
Larry could pass the polygraph because in his mind, he didn't directly cause the death of Tommy.

Maybe that's far-fetched, but I really can't believe that Larry had no part in Tommy's disappearance and/or death.

That picture does look different for sure. Tommy looks to be maybe one years old then. I won't take a lot of stock into how a baby looks in a picture because there are times when my own one year old son would prefer not to be held as well but it does sort of tie into the way that UM probably picked the picture which made Larry look the most incriminating since he is the chief suspect in this case. I mean surely they had one of Larry smiling don't they?

the guy killed cats for fun for Christ's sake (excuse my French). I don't see how he could be innocent, especially after the testimony of his wife and daughter.

the guy killed cats for fun for Christ's sake (excuse my French). I don't see how he could be innocent, especially after the testimony of his wife and daughter.

I don't know that he did it for fun. Supposedly there was a problem with to many stray cats in the area and people started shooting them to cut down their numbers, although I do admit I'm not real sure what problems cats cause that are bad enough problems to resort to shooting them, even if there are a lot of them. Did PETA exist when this case happened? Cause I'd imagine they would be all over this.

the guy killed cats for fun for Christ's sake (excuse my French). I don't see how he could be innocent, especially after the testimony of his wife and daughter.

That's about the only thing about Larry that I liked. I mean, who likes cats anyway? :D

the guy killed cats for fun for Christ's sake (excuse my French). I don't see how he could be innocent, especially after the testimony of his wife and daughter.
Agree!

Some random thoughts about this case:

-I find it interesting that this case is still classified as "Non-Family Abduction" according to law enforcement and the Charley Project. Could there be other evidence that was not shown on UM that leads credibility to the abduction theory?

-It's interesting that LE theorized that Larry coached his daughter to tell the story about the unidentifed couple, yet they accept the story 3 years later about her seeing Larry beat her brother until he was limp without question. Couldn't it be just as likely that Larry's ex-wife was coaching her daughter to change her story? Not saying she did, but it's just as likely IMHO. Also, according to the Charley Project website, her story changed from what she initially told police. She very well could have lied out of fear for Larry, but she also just as likely could have been lying the second time.

-Larry's story seemed to be somewhat true, since they did find a cat shot on or near his property. But Larry's actions after his son disappeared speak volumes about this case, IMO. He was told he didn't have to report to work (I'm guessing he was granted bereavement) but he still dressed in his uniform and left his house for a half an hour while the search for his son was still going on. Why would he do this? Unless (like he says) he was out "searching for signs of Tommy or the unidentified couple", but still he only looked for a whole 25 minutes...who's going to find anything in that small time frame?

-Larry also told searchers to call it quits because it started snowing. Why would anyone who's son was missing care about weather conditions? He also allegedly stayed at his house while others canvassed the property and the area looking for his son. Doesn't sound like Larry was all that concerned in looking for his son, does it?

-While there isn't any real evidence that a crime was committed, Larry's actions after his son disappeared is what sealed it for me. No innocent person acts in the same manner Larry did. Especially if they truely believe their son was abducted. It appeared, to me at least, that Larry went on UM more as a way to clear his name rather than actually appeal for anyone to come forward with information locating his son. There's no doubt in my mind that he had a hand (possibly inadvertently) in his son's death and coverup.

This sick man beat up his wife, his ex-wife, and his children. The wife told the truth in 1994, stating that Larry Gibson accidentally beat his son to death. All he got was 3 years in prison. What a joke. He should have got life.

Anyone who watched the UM episode can see clearly that Gibson was lying.

This sick man beat up his wife, his ex-wife, and his children. The wife told the truth in 1994, stating that Larry Gibson accidentally beat his son to death. All he got was 3 years in prison. What a joke. He should have got life.

Anyone who watched the UM episode can see clearly that Gibson was lying.
You sum up my feelings nicely.

Food for thought:

Found a link to an article from 1995 which says that they hypnotized Larry's daughter (shortly after Tommy went missing) to get a more accurate account of what she witnessed. She stuck to the story of seeing two unidentified people abducting him. You would think if she did in fact see her father beat Larry, she would have said this under hypnosis.

That's about the only thing about Larry that I liked. I mean, who likes cats anyway? :D

I love my cat (and animals in general), and anybody who would go out of their way on purpose to harm or kill them is definitely no friend of mine.

I don't want to defend this guy, but killing stray cats is not a sign that the person is cruel or deranged or anything. Ferrel cats are a problem, especially out in the country. They are also very hard to trap. And it's not like we have animal control out here.

Don't get me wrong; the guy sounds like a jerk, but not because of the cat thing.

Maybe he killed the cat the same day or a day before, but it was unrelated to what happened to Tommy? But since he knew the cat carcass was out there, he built his story around it so that it would sound more plausible.

I love cats (a lot more than dogs) and have a pet cat, but I could see the reasoning behind Larry killing the cats on his property. For one, if he's being truthful they were feral. I wouldn't want any stray cat to come attack my small children or my other pets. So I could see how someone would justify doing what Larry did (with regards to the cats, not his son).

I still think shooting the cat makes Larry Gibson a jerk for a number of reasons. Even his wife said when she heard the shot she hoped Larry "knew where Tommy was." Me too, if it went down just as Larry claims it went down. I would never fire a handgun--and I do believe it was a .45, so it wasn't exactly a potato gun--without absolutely ascertaining someone, let alone my own child for God's sake, was absolutely out of the line of fire. All Gibson seemed to care about was shooting a hole into that animal when he really should have been worrying about where he was putting his stupid muzzle.

4. The picture of Larry holding Tommy with that one arm grip has always bothered me. Larry looks smug and controlling, and Tommy looks uncomfortable and scared.

Yes, me too.

He was holding that poor child like he was nothing more than a sack of flour. And the look on his face has always made me angry.

I love cats too (as I am typing this, my own Maine Coon is napping on my chair behind me), and understand that feral cats can be a hazard of their own. However, Larry didn't shoot a feral cat. He shot the pet of his neighbour, Jennifer Cline, who you can imagine, was upset about what Larry did. Still, even Ms. Cline stated she did not believe that Larry shot Tommy.

The police thought otherwise, and Larry did not help his case. He "hypothetically" agreed that it is possible he could have accidentally shot Tommy: "It could have happened that way. And it's possible. It's the only thing that makes sense." But he denied moving the body. Later, he suggested that his half-brother, Michael, could have found Tommy and moved him in secret.

The police affidavit said that although Larry passed his polygraph test, "results indicated both he and his wife knew more than they let on".

If Larry didn't shoot Tommy, or accidentally kill him, then the only other possible explanation was that Larry sold Tommy to the couple in the car. That would explain why he was did not bother looking for Tommy. If he genuinely suspected that his son had been abducted, he never would have told Robert Gadecke that "where Tommy is, you can't help him", and order the searchers to go home when it started snowing. Any theory one subscribes to, the path keeps heading back to Larry Gibson as being involved in his son's disappearance.

I love cats (a lot more than dogs) and have a pet cat, but I could see the reasoning behind Larry killing the cats on his property. For one, if he's being truthful they were feral. I wouldn't want any stray cat to come attack my small children or my other pets. So I could see how someone would justify doing what Larry did (with regards to the cats, not his son).

Whether or not you like cats is hardly the most worthy topic on these boards for an argument, so I don't want to go on and on about it, but I do want to state the following. Feral cats are not sociable animals and generally tend to avoid people altogether, so I would say the likelihood of a child being attacked by a stray cat for no apparent reason is very small. And, not saying this to you directly, but more of just an open statement to the general public: if stray cats are knocking over your trash cans, digging up your flower bed, leaving dead mice on your lawn, or any number of ridiculously normal "cat" behaviors, all I can say is just get over it. It is so NOT justified to kill it over something so inane.

Feral cats are not sociable animals and generally tend to avoid people altogether, so I would say the likelihood of a child being attacked by a stray cat for no apparent reason is very small.

This is definitely true. A child that does manage to grab one of those cats will probably be attacked, and that's concerning--not just for the injuries, but the potential for those animals to transmit disease. As most of us have probably personally experienced, however, feral cats tend to take off as fast as they can from approaching humans.

And, not saying this to you directly, but more of just an open statement to the general public: if stray cats are knocking over your trash cans, digging up your flower bed, leaving dead mice on your lawn, or any number of ridiculously normal "cat" behaviors, all I can say is just get over it. It is so NOT justified to kill it over something so inane.

Cats are looking for food and shelter. It's simple: people shouldn't make it available. Secure the garbage. (People will do it for raccoons, coyotes, and bears--if cats are the problem, take the same precautions.) Make sure cats have no access to anyplace underneath your home, such as the area below the porch. It's sure a hell of a lot cheaper (and far more sanitary and humane) than purchasing ammunition, shooting the animals, and disposing of the remains.

Whether or not you like cats is hardly the most worthy topic on these boards for an argument, so I don't want to go on and on about it, but I do want to state the following. Feral cats are not sociable animals and generally tend to avoid people altogether, so I would say the likelihood of a child being attacked by a stray cat for no apparent reason is very small. And, not saying this to you directly, but more of just an open statement to the general public: if stray cats are knocking over your trash cans, digging up your flower bed, leaving dead mice on your lawn, or any number of ridiculously normal "cat" behaviors, all I can say is just get over it. It is so NOT justified to kill it over something so inane.

I would never do it, I was just saying how I could see the argument being made for doing it. I would have just called animal control myself. I definitely do not agree with the fact that he was shooting around his property at animals without even knowing where his 2 year old son was, however.

And I think we should start a separate cat appreciation thread.

FWIW, at the time of the broadcast, Larry's wife said that she heard Larry shoot his gun, and then she heard Tommy still outside playing. If she's telling the truth here, that would make the shoot through the cat scenario impossible.

Larry's story seemed to be somewhat true, since they did find a cat shot on or near his property. But Larry's actions after his son disappeared speak volumes about this case, IMO. He was told he didn't have to report to work (I'm guessing he was granted bereavement) but he still dressed in his uniform and left his house for a half an hour while the search for his son was still going on. Why would he do this? Unless (like he says) he was out "searching for signs of Tommy or the unidentified couple", but still he only looked for a whole 25 minutes...who's going to find anything in that small time frame?

He's not going to find anything. My guess is that he was stashing Tommy's body during this time.

Larry also told searchers to call it quits because it started snowing. Why would anyone who's son was missing care about weather conditions? He also allegedly stayed at his house while others canvassed the property and the area looking for his son. Doesn't sound like Larry was all that concerned in looking for his son, does it?

Again, speaking from my momma perspective, if my little one was lost or potentially abducted, I sure as hell wouldn't tell anyone to call off the search because it started snowing. The REVERSE would apply. I would want them to find my daughter even faster because it was snowing and I wouldn't want her to get hypothermia. Also, I would hope they could potentially locate her by her tracks in the snow. This little tidbit just tells me that Larry knew Tommy wasn't going to be found, nor did he want him to be found. He also didn't want anyone stumbling upon the location where he stashed Tommy's body.


Again, it's amazing how parenthood changes one's perspective on these old cases. IMHO, Larry Gibson is a waste of space. I vote guilty.

He's not going to find anything. My guess is that he was stashing Tommy's body during this time.


I think he was as well. I was just saying that his story of "looking for Tommy for 25 minutes" was absurd. Although some of the evidence against him was pretty shaky, like his "it's possible" comment to police, the likelihood that he killed Tommy is exponentially high.


Again, speaking from my momma perspective, if my little one was lost or potentially abducted, I sure as hell wouldn't tell anyone to call off the search because it started snowing. The REVERSE would apply. I would want them to find my daughter even faster because it was snowing and I wouldn't want her to get hypothermia. Also, I would hope they could potentially locate her by her tracks in the snow. This little tidbit just tells me that Larry knew Tommy wasn't going to be found, nor did he want him to be found. He also didn't want anyone stumbling upon the location where he stashed Tommy's body.

It's funny you mention that, because as a parent now with a 2 year old son, I would NEVER leave him unattended in the front yard while I went for a jog.

I love my cat (and animals in general), and anybody who would go out of their way on purpose to harm or kill them is definitely no friend of mine.

Hear, hear! Give it up for the kitties!! And, yes, we should have a cat appreciation thread!!!

I have always been fascinated with the case. This is one of those cases where things don't mesh. Tommy is playing in the front yard. No big deal, this is 1991 and they are in the middle of nowhere which is hardly a haven for kidnappers. Larry goes for a jog, sees a stray cat, shoots the cat. No big deal so far and for anyone with kids I can attest that if I knew a stray cat was wandering around my home I would do the same thing since I have young kids playing outside. It probably isn't a "well" cat lets just say. So I get Larry doing that.

Wow. Managing to dismiss letting his 2-year-old play outside unattended AND shooting an innocent animal, all in the first paragraph. Though it should be noted the OP had a tendency to start threads like this.

He comes back from his jog and Tommy is missing. Or Tommy is shot inadvertently from the bullet and Larry covers it up. I would take it to the bank that there is a 99.9% chance that it is one of these scenarios. But which one?

You would be broke friend. Even in the extremely unlikely case that it was an accidental shooting, that doesn't mean Larry shouldn't have been more aware of his surroundings. See Cheney, Dick.

There was no blood found of Tommy. There were no signs that the body was placed in the trunk, no blood in there. You would think if a toddler got shot there would be a trail of blood. There was no blood found on Larry.

I think the general consensus now is that he beat him to death. I know there's been a lot of cases of parents abusing their children to death, but this has to be one of the worst. How he could get that mad at a 2-year-old is beyond my comprehension. The man has problems.

The actions of Larry are suspicious however. He goes to work when everyone is looking for his son. Strange, and in a way similar to the actions of Darlie Routlier with the silly string. Just a weird way to act when your son is missing.

Two totally different things actually. At least Darlie grieved the rest of the video. Larry, on the other hand, gave one of the most emotion-less interviews in the history of UM. To put this into perspective, I think Mark Nichols interviewed better. And I think he's guilty as heck.

But in reality all there is, is circumstantial evidence against Larry. His daughter in 1994 claimed Larry beat Tommy until he was limp. Something I don't think even the judge bought since he only gave him 3 years. I have never bought that story at all.

Sadly, criminals get light sentences all the time. It's not indicative of their innocence. Louise Woodward shook a little baby and smacked it on the counter and killed him and got 9 months.

Anyway, its easy to make fun of Larry, and I do it too, but just like in the case of Paul Pollis there is absolutely no evidence of a crime being committed. Which is why this case has always bothered me

Over the years, I've softened my stance on a few people. Namely, Paul Pollis and Jule Caylor, because I think there are solid arguments for their possible innocence. Larry Gibson, on the other hand, is someone I always thought was guilty and have never waivered on. There is literally nothing presented in the segment that would leave me to believe he is innocent.

They need to search the woods and trails by his former house. I think his going out in his cop car was a way to throw his coworkers off, and that Tommy's body is probably a lot closer to home. Somewhere on Larry's jogging trail, I would imagine.

I actually thought that possibly Larry accidentally shot Tommy and hid his body in a panic. Still a despicable thing to do, but not as despicable as beating your kid to death. But his wife's testimony about hearing Tommy playing after hearing the shot kind of confirms that this wasn't true. I think it's possible that Larry shot the cat, prior to that Tommy got close to the cat, and after shooting it Larry freaked out at how close Tommy was to being shot, so he beat him until he died.

Larry goes for a jog, sees a stray cat, shoots the cat. No big deal so far and for anyone with kids I can attest that if I knew a stray cat was wandering around my home I would do the same thing since I have young kids playing outside. It probably isn't a "well" cat lets just say. So I get Larry doing that.I don't. Stray cats usually avoid people, if I saw a stray cat I would assume it was on its way somewhere else. And it usually is. I live in an area with many stray cats, and no one has ever been attacked by one. This part of the story has always seemed ridiculous to me. Still does.

I don't. Stray cats usually avoid people, if I saw a stray cat I would assume it was on its way somewhere else. And it usually is. I live in an area with many stray cats, and no one has ever been attacked by one. This part of the story has always seemed ridiculous to me. Still does.

According to Larry, if you believe him and on this particular aspect of the story I do, he and his neighbors tried to round the cats up and take them to animal shelters but the shelters wouldn't take them. So the neighbors agreed to get rid of them by shooting them. As weird as it sounds, it seems true.

I think the judge who only sentenced him to three years in 1994 has his doubts that the garbage bag story is true. Why else give him that light of a sentence?

There is a very unnerving and bizarre way Larry acts though. He screams of sociopathic and I never like an interview where the person doesn't even look sad. How is that possible? But the thing is it is all circumstantial. How does Larry not even leave a trace of evidence behind? And to this day no body of Tommy? He has got to be the luckiest murderer in UM history if he actually did it because he would have had barely any time to cover up Tommy's body and then dump it only to have it never be found.

His car trunk doesn't have a trace of Tommy, there is no evidence of foul play, and he was able to do this in a narrow window as well.

Has his story changed over the years i my question?

where can one watch this particular segment?

where can one watch this particular segment?

On YouTube, search "pennsylvania bank robbery miss terri" and it's on the channel of the first video listed.

On YouTube, search "pennsylvania bank robbery miss terri" and it's on the channel of the first video listed.

Yeah, wow. Lots of UM segments there. Why is the Tommy Gibson one so hard to find otherwise? It is not on the FilmRise ones. Neither are some other cases like Jeffrey MacDonald for instance. I cannot find that UM segment anywhere for some reason and that was a darn good one.

Did Larry have enough time to dump Tommy's body if that is what happened. He goes jogging, shoots the cat, that much we know for sure. There was a dead cat found. Let's say the bullet goes through the cat and hits Tommy. He comes back and sees this and somehow turns into Al Capone with the flick of a switch and is able to not only conceal this from his wife who is right in their home as well as somehow sneaking away with his patrol car, but also is able to dump Tommy's body in his trunk and not have any blood show up as I am sure the police used the ultra violet light to examine this.

But he is able to dump his own son's body somewhere where it hasn't been found by a hiker or a dog or an animal digging things up in over 30 years and he does this in less than half an hour and then comes inside the house and does not have blood or anything on him instead he just looks like he was jogging? Nah, can't buy it. Larry may never have sat well with me, but I have lots of doubts about if he killed Tommy simply because I just don't see that he had enough time to do it. The timelines just don't work.

I would like to hear from people as to what they think happened and just how Larry would have had enough time to do what he did without anyone noticing and without Tommy ever being discovered.

This is one of those cases where I may not like the demeanor of the person suspected of killing someone, but it just seems physically impossible for the things that are said to have happened to have happened. How does Larry go from a normal father going for a jog to finding his son dead and covering it up and dumping a body that no one has found for 30 years all within less than a half an hour? He wouldn't be able to think straight like that. I don't think Larry had enough time to do the things he is said to have done.