Okay hear me out......is it possible Larry Gibson is innocent?

[Clockworkhigh]

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

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

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.

[Clockworkhigh]

Originally Posted by justins5256

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

[RobinW]

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.

[MissFit29]

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.

[Clockworkhigh]

Originally Posted by MissFit29

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?

[1990 UM fan]

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.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by 1990 UM fan

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.

[Clockworkhigh]

Originally Posted by 1990 UM fan

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?

[chacha6581]

Originally Posted by 1990 UM fan

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!

[TheCars1986]

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.

[jets4life]

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.

[bugnpinky]

Originally Posted by jets4life

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.

[TheCars1986]

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.

[McBevis]

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

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

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.