Tommy Gibsons's body still missing despite father's conviction

[Janel "Jaycee" Miller]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

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.

[jets4life]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

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?

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by Janel "Jaycee" Miller

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.

Originally Posted by jets4life

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.

[jets4life]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

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.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by jets4life

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

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.

[jets4life]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

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.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

Originally Posted by jets4life

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.

[Ray Range]

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?

[TheCars1986]

I think it was this song.

[Ray Range]

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?

[tvscript124]

Originally Posted by economistman192

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.

[tvscript124]

Originally Posted by jets4life

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????"

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by tvscript124

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.

[jets4life]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

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.