The Trial of The Century

The trial of Sueanne Hobson was Johnson County’s version of the “Trial of the Century.” Mrs. Hobson was a striking woman, one universally described as attractive. She was stylishly dressed each day in court and her outfits drew as much commentary as any evidence or testimony presented at trial that day.  She had married Ed Hobson in late 1978, and less than eighteen months later, her stepson, Chris Hobson was murdered. Mrs. Hobson’s biological son, Jimmy Crumm had been one of the gunmen along with a friend of his from Shawnee Mission South High School, Paul Sorrentino. Behind it all, Jimmy had pointed out that it was his Mother who was the mastermind. Crowds would be lined up hours in advance, as people hoped to get a seat to the trial. Mrs. Hobson’s attorney was the former Johnson County prosecutor. There was a lot of doubt surrounding the courtroom ability of then District Attorney, Dennis Moore. Johnson County at the time was a bedroom community, a collection of suburban towns outside Kansas City. People in Johnson County were generally conservative and held a healthy dose of respect for law and order. The people generally did not tolerate legal gamesmanship to get criminals free on technicalities.

After Chris’s body was found on May 3, 1980, police set about confirming his identity, noting his wounds, and letting the coroner do his thing. It was gross, and those that were there noted that they would never, could never forget the smell. Thanks to the efforts of Leila Anderson, the police had their suspects in mind, and late in the evening of May 3, they set out to make their three arrests. The three would be interrogated into the early morning hours of May 4. Mrs. Hobson was a stone wall, admitting to nothing. Paul Sorrentino was defiant until the police played him the recording of the phone call he had the previous day with Ms. Anderson. Jimmy Crumm was chirping like a bird. He seemed relieved to be telling this story and getting it off his chest.

Mrs. Hobson’s trial started in late April, 1982. On May 7, 1982, Mrs. Hobson was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder by a Johnson County jury. I was fifteen years old at the time, and my world was black and white. I knew at the time she was guilty. In the forty years since, my world has acquired many shades of grey to color over most of my black and white. Life’s complexities and experiences have taught me that things are not always as they seem. I have become much more educated on our legal system, and time, age and experience have taught me so much about discernment.  Mrs. Hobson maintained her innocence all the way through, from the point of her initial arrest to her parole and release from prison. I believe at this point I needed to go back and relive those events, with the benefit of hindsight, to satisfy my own curiosity in this case. Did she deserve the benefit of the doubt? Was she railroaded by the legal system? Was she indeed guilty?

In determining Mrs. Hobson’s innocence or guilt to my own satisfaction, I knew I could not rely on the same feelings I had at fifteen. Instead I needed solid, well-grounded, reasoned thought. I do not know if I have succeeded, but I have a thought process in place that I find satisfactory. I had to consider the evidence against Mrs. Hobson, and the source of that evidence, primarily her son, Jimmy Crumm. Let’s look at who Jimmy was in 1982 when he testified against his mother at trial. Most of the information comes from Thomas O’Donnell’s book, Crazymaker. Another book that was useful was Family Affairs by Andy Hoffman, who profiled the Hobson’s in 1981 for the Olathe Daily News and followed the trial closely. Another piece of note was written by Tom Leathers, publisher of a rag called The Town Squire.

I believe that we need to start by remembering Jimmy as he was in 1980. Mrs. Hobson’s own attorney paints us a picture of Jimmy during his closing statement at her trial. “When Jimmy Crumm came to move into that house, things went bad because Jimmy brought with him his drugs, Jimmy brought with him his predisposition for thievery. Jimmy didn’t go to school, Jimmy dropped out of school. He drops out of school and he drops acid. He does cocaine, it’s found in the house.” (O’Donnell, 407) O’Donnell described Jimmy earlier in the book: “The boy (Jimmy) was an extremely poor student. His grades in Raytown South Junior High and Raytown High were generally “failure” or “inferior” and, if anything, they got a little worse as he grew older.” (O’Donnell, 63). We see Jimmy the poor student, the kid who long before April 17, 1980 had dropped out of Shawnee Mission South and had no hope of graduating. Yet, what the defense attorney implied here was that Jimmy fabricated the story about his mother’s involvement in this murder. Why?

I make some assumptions at this point. I never knew Jimmy Crumm, so I can only go by what others said. We see a young man of below average intelligence. I believe it is reasonable to assume that his reading and comprehension skills were below grade level and that his language skills and vocabulary were below average. In reading accounts of the trial, we learn that Jimmy read at a ninth-grade level as a high school senior. And the defense attorney would have us believe that this is the kid who fabricated a story that was so spectacular, so horrifying, yet so bulletproof and airtight that the Overland Park Police Dept bought it hook, line and sinker? That the District Attorney so bought it that he would run with it at trial, even knowing that any run of the mill defense attorney could poke a thousand holes in it? This kid who spent his teenage years whacked out on every drug in the book made up that story? Could Jimmy have made it up? Yes. Is it reasonable to assume that he did? No. I find the possibility so slight that I am comfortable calling it impossible. The defense attorney wanted me to believe the impossible. That was unreasonable. At this point, my only fallback was that Jimmy was telling the truth.

Jimmy was simple. Mrs. Hobson was complex. I do not mean to imply that Mrs. Hobson was smart, and intellectually complex. She was not either smart or intellectually complex. But she clearly had more worldly sophistication than Jimmy. Which brings up to the story of Chris’s murder. This story is complex. It has several different twists and turns. Why would Jimmy testify against his mother? What was Jimmy’s motivation to lie? Jimmy had already been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Testifying at Mrs. Hobson’s trial would not change any of that. Jimmy really did not want to testify at his Mother’s trial. What made Jimmy testify? I believe Jimmy’s attorney, Ed Byrne, convinced him to testify. I believe that Mr. Byrne was the only person that Jimmy felt like he could trust in this whole matter. He could not trust Dennis Moore. He could not trust his own mother or her attorney. Mr. Byrne despised Mrs. Hobson, hated her with every ounce of his being. He was afraid that if Jimmy did not testify, that Mrs. Hobson would be found not guilty. He would not let that happen if he had any way to stop it.

Jimmy’s appearance in court was of someone who was resigned, defeated. He spoke quietly, without any defiance. He was the only one who did not appear to parse every word. Jimmy testified first about his relationship with his Mother, which was bizarre (the relationship, not the testimony). After Mrs. Hobson divorced her first husband, Jimmy went to live with his Dad, and would not have any contact with his Mom for almost 10 years. She made no effort to contact him. Then, he recounted the events of April 17, 1980. April 17 was intentionally picked because Ed would be a union meeting at work. Mrs. Hobson knew this, but Jimmy, who lived in his own apartment by this time, would have had no prior knowledge of Ed’s meeting that evening. Jimmy recounted how he and Paul had decided not to do the deed that night. When they told Mrs. Hobson this, she was beside herself, and told him it was too late to back out. He did it to please his Mom and get her off his back.

Jimmy testified that this was not Mrs. Hobson’s first attempt to kill Chris. In February she had Jimmy take Chris out hunting one day. Jimmy was instructed to shoot Chris. She was visibly upset when both boys came back very much alive. In March, she dumped 8 Quaaludes tablets in his ice cream. Chris fell asleep for an extended period of time, but he woke up. Finally, the plan was to take him out on April 17. Mrs. Hobson testified at trial that all she wanted Jimmy to do was “talk to” Chris. Chris had been accused of telling on Jimmy regarding some stolen credit cards (Chris did no such thing), and of hitting Mrs. Hobson (again he did not do any such thing) and of spreading vicious rumors about Suzanne (Chris did spread some vicious rumors about her). This raises far too many questions in my mind. Was Ed told that Jimmy was coming over to “talk to” Chris? No. Why was a shotgun taken from the Hobson home, why was it needed? If all Jimmy was supposed to do was talk to Chris, why was Paul Sorrentino necessary? Whose idea was it to bring Paul in? The kid who was reluctant to do this in the first place (Jimmy), or the woman who was relentlessly hounding Jimmy to take care of Chris? It was Mrs. Hobson’s idea. What was in it for the boys? A new car for Jimmy, and motorcycle repairs for Paul.

I had to consider more than just Jimmy’s story. I looked hard at Suzanne Hobson’s testimony. Suzanne was Chris’s stepsister, and Jimmy’s sister. She was an eighth grader at Indian Creek during the 1979-80 school year. Suzanne was never considered a suspect in the case, but she was brought to the Overland Park Police Station early on the morning of May 4,1980 for questioning. During her interrogation, she volunteered some damaging information against her Mother, notably that she overheard both her Mom and Jimmy talking about the need to “get rid of” Chris. Suzanne was most definitely an accessory to this crime but was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. When she testified at her Mother’s trial, she attempted to stonewall Dennis Moore, then she attempted to change her story. At this point, Dennis Moore approached the bench and asked to have Suzanne deemed a “turncoat witness,” which would give him far greater latitude in questioning her. The motion was granted. Moore then proceeded to make mincemeat out of Suzanne on the witness stand. Dennis Moore would get her to confirm what she told police on May 4, 1980. This would turn out to be the key testimony in the trial.

So which story from Suzanne was the truth? Was it the story she told the Overland Park police on May 4, 1980 or was it the story she tried to tell at her Mother’s trial? To me, one was raw, where she was asked questions and she answered them. At trial, we saw a Suzanne that had been exceedingly coached, and was attempting to give pat answers. She had clearly been taught to expect the questions that Dennis Moore asked her. My assessment is that the Suzanne we saw on May 4, 1980 was a far more honest one that the Suzanne we saw on the witness stand. My impression of Suzanne at the trial was of a 15-year-old sassy, smartass girl who knew more than the DA. And she was going to show him up and embarrass him. All in the name of protecting her Mom. Big mistake. Dennis Moore got her to admit to everything she told the police on May 4, 1980. In the end, her testimony was damaging to her Mother.

There were several others who testified. Of particular note was Margie Hunt, a close friend of Mrs. Hobson’s who turned against her. She testified for the prosecution. Margie is the one who went drinking with Mrs. Hobson on April 18, the day after the murder, in what was clearly a celebratory occasion. Her testimony was particularly damaging, but the defense attorney’s attempt to condescend to her completely backfired and basically showed himself to be a first-rate ass. The defense attorney’s disrespect also garnered Margie the sympathy of the jury. Ernestine Bean was another of Mrs. Hobson’s friends who testified for the defense. Dennis Moore then got her to contradict several aspects of Mrs. Hobson’s testimony, further damaging her case and making it easier to find her guilty. Finally, Mrs. Hobson’s mother, Ruth Sallee, testified for the defense, and she was a disaster. She had a fractured relationship with Mrs. Hobson and came across as goofy.

Mrs. Hobson’s defense attorney, Hugh Kreamer, was a former prosecutor in Johnson County, so he knew the courts like the back of his hand. In addition, he was dying of cancer. He would pass away just five months after Mrs. Hobson’s trial ended. Hugh’s son, Scott Kreamer, assisted him in this case. Scott was not familiar with criminal law. He handled lots of divorce cases, as he found that’s where the easy money was. As an aside, Scott represented my Mom in her divorce case in 1991. But Hugh had a flair for the dramatic in the courtroom. He did a great job of cross examining both Jimmy and Paul in this case and came surprisingly close to exonerating Mrs. Hobson with his questioning. But he made plenty of mistakes, the biggest being putting Mrs. Hobson on the witness stand and giving Dennis Moore his shot at her. Mrs. Hobson was a tough nut to crack, but Moore focused on the wallet found at Metcalf South. He pounded home that there were three different stories surrounding the wallet, and in the end, he made her out to be a liar. Kreamer also mishandled Margie Hunt, and could not counter the damage that Suzanne Hobson did to her Mother. Scott appeared to be in it primarily for the money and made sure the Hobson’s deeded over their condo on 103^rd Terrace and Nall before the trial began.

In reading the book, Crazymaker, author Thomas O’Donnell does a good job of building psychological profiles of each of this saga’s main characters. For the months and days before April 17, 1980, he paints a picture of a Mrs. Hobson who is nervous, impatient, jumpy, and always on edge. From April 18 on, we see a Mrs. Hobson who is at peace, relaxed and happy. She even goes out with a friend, Margie Hunt, on April 18, the day after the murder, and has some celebratory drinks. Contrast this with Ed Hobson, who has no idea what has happened to his son.  He is frantic, spends his days searching for Chris, and is on the phone with the Overland Park police several times a day. Mrs. Hobson obviously does not share his concerns (how he does not see this is beyond me). Mrs. Hobson does not even tell Ed that she knows what happened to him. Meanwhile, Mrs. Hobson is giving away Chris’s clothes and his bedroom furniture. His body had not been found yet! She knew he was dead, and she had Ed completely fooled. She was talking about redecorating Chris’s room and making it into a den. Would it not make sense to be concerned at this point? Would you not be hoping to hear news that he was safe and that he would be returning home soon? Who thinks of giving his stuff away at this point? Who talks about redecorating his room at this point? Someone who already knows that Chris is dead.

In summary, I believe the testimony of Jimmy Crumm, even if he is not a “credible” witness in the traditional sense of the word. He told the truth, as making up a story like this was too complex for him at that time. Hell, it was probably too complex for me to make up! Suzanne Hobson’s answers to the police on May 4, 1980, were raw, simple and most likely honest. Her answers in court were rehearsed, coached and hard to believe. Mrs. Hobson’s own story changed way too often. She was caught in her own lies. I am privy to information the jury might not have had, although I have tried my best to myself in the shoes of a juror. My reasoning satisfies me, and it leads me to two very unmistakable conclusions: 1) Sueanne Hobson was guilty as hell and 2) she should never have been paroled.