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.
