Sueanne Hobson

I did a double check to see if I had already blogged about this case but it does not look like it. I try to appear organized and mark ones on my list I have done but then I find some that I check and sure enough I have already done them. There was also a time a while back where I thought I would be smart and research a bunch of cases at one time and basically write them out and post them when I got around to it. That was a bad idea. At my age I am lucky to remember what I researched yesterday, let alone any longer than that. I found myself doing double time by going back and reminding myself what a particular note in my research meant and in the end abandoned that way of doing things. In the process I had already researched many cases that I eventually just did not compose and decided I would just re-do them again later. I suspect this is one of those cases!

One of the reasons that this case stuck with me was not so much how senseless and vicious the crime itself was (although it was both), or even who participated in the crime (which was shocking), but because of the actions of the victims father. In fact, it is his behavior that have shocked most people. Now, I am not one to bash someone for their method of grieving or even their ability to forgive but Ed Hobson's behavior goes way beyond either of those things as you will read on and learn.

On April 17, 1980 Ed Hobson reported his thirteen year old son Christen “Chris” Hobson missing to the police in Overland Park Kansas. At this point Chris was Ed's only child. He had apparently had a daughter who had died via a gunshot wound to the chest in 1972. It was said that the death was ruled a suicide but that Ed had never believed that. Then in 1976 his wife passed away from cancer. A few years later Ed went on to marry Sueanne. Sueanne had two children, James “Jimmy” Crumm Jr. who would have been about fifteen at the time of their marriage and was living with his father, and Suzanne who was thirteen in 1978. I cannot tell you if Suzanne was also a Crumm but I would gander to guess that she was not. By 1980 she had the surname of Hobson so I can only assume that Ed adopted her and it is rare when there is more than one child from the same relationship that one child is adopted, but as we all know I could be wrong with this assessment. While there was information that Jimmy had lived with his father for eight years before moving in with Ed and Sueanne in May of 1979, some five months after the marriage began, there was nothing ever stated about Suzanne so again, I can only assume she had always lived with Sueanne. It appears that by March of 1980, seventeen year old Jimmy was no longer living with the Hobson's. The story was that Jimmy had gotten involved heavily with drugs and alcohol and had even stolen credit cards from the couple and they had kicked him out. There were also stories that Ed and Sueanne had become aware at least of the theft because Chris had told them. There were those who said Jimmy was extremely angry with Chris for this and this anger is what would later lead to his death.

There seemed to be just as many people who believed that it was not just Jimmy who was angry at Chris, but that that anger had also come from Sueanne. In fairness, I was never able to determine why Jimmy had been living with his father from the age of about eight to sixteen without his mother, but what I can say is that in the 1970's for a man to get custody of a child was a bit unusual. Whether a judge ordered it, which means Sueanne would have had to have some pretty evil demons it seems in her closet, or she had allowed him to live there willingly is unclear. Nor can I tell you what happened or occurred that Jimmy began living with his mother and step-father at the age of sixteen. The fact that he lived with his father at all seemed to be a bit of a footnote in the articles I read. There also never seemed to be any real information about anything prior to him moving, although admittedly Sueanne would apparently testify at her son's trial about this era, even the appeals papers I read did not mention specifics.

What we do know is that again, Ed and Sueanne were living in their home with Chris and Suzanne, but not Jimmy,at the time that Chris disappeared. A few days later Chris' wallet was found at the local shopping mall. The question was whether the boy had ran away. It was not until May 3^rd, some two and a half weeks later that there was another clue. It seems that two boys were out fishing and been looking for worms when they stumbled across a shallow grave in what has been described as both a field, and a wooded area. Investigators went to the scene and it appears that while they had to wait for an official identification, they had their suspicions that they had come across the body of Chris Hobson. Aside from the fact that people cannot bury themselves, the three gunshot wounds the body suffered told them that this was no accident or suicide.

Although I could find not information has to why, it appears that investigators had brought in Jimmy Crumm to be question very, very quickly. According to reports it did not take long before Crumm confessed but his confession was a doozy. According to Crumm he, and his sixteen year old friend, Paul Sorentino had taken Chris from his home late that night and had taken him to the area in which his body was found. They had brought a shovel and a shotgun (that belonged to Ed Hobson) with them and instructed Chris to dig a rather large hole. The story was that they supposedly told him they needed the hole to bury some drugs they had. Once the hole was dug they told Chris to sit in the hole and it was then that either one or both of them had shot him. He had been shot once in the arm, once in the face and once in the back of the head. The two teenagers had then laid his body in the hole and covered it up with dirt. But, Jimmy's confession was not over. According to Jimmy this was all done at the behest of his mother. He told authorities that his mother had previously tried to poison Chris' ice cream but when that failed she had come to Jimmy and apparently Paul supposedly telling them that she wanted Chris “gone by Christmas” because she did not want to buy gifts for the boy that she obviously did not like. Jimmy claimed that his mom had promised him a car and Paul the money to fix a motorcycle he had in exchange for the murder.

Investigators then went to talk to not just Sueanne but also Suzanne. It appears that Sueanne was interviewed first and while she would deny being involved in the murder she would claim that Jimmy had told her the following day. She did admit that it was she who had taken Chris' wallet, leaving it at the local mall to throw off investigators, all in attempts to “protect her son.” Suzanne would at first appear to detectives to be “holding something back” but after further talking to her Suzanne would tell them that she overheard her mother talking to the two boys about the plan to murder Chris. It appears that by the end of the day authorities would have three people in custody for the murder of Chris Hobson... his stepmother, his stepbrother and his stepbrother's friend.

I would find little in my research that gave me specifics on what occurred over the next few months, I did discover a few things, mostly through appeals that were filed. It seems that after arresting and charging Sueanne in the murder authorities would dismiss the charges. Also, about four months after the murder Ed Hobson would divorce Sueanne. However, it appears that they reconciled a few months later, before she was later re-charged and went to trial. In the meantime Paul Sorrentino, who apparently was telling pretty much the same story as Jimmy Crumm agreed to plead guilty to aiding and abetting to first degree murder. While I never saw anything pertaining to investigators considering the death penalty I have to wonder if it was not threatened due to the fact that even though he pleaded guilty Sorrentino still received a life sentence apparently. It did not become illegal to issue the death penalty to a minor until 2005.

Jimmy Crumm went on trial and was convicted of first degree murder in May of 1981. Again, whether the state had asked for the death penalty is unclear. At the time of his trial his mother had still not been re-charged for her alleged role. She was to testify at her son's trial but when she arrived she brought her lawyer. The judge agreed to a stipulation that due to the fact that she could be re-charged that she could not be asked about anything leading up to or including the murder of Chris Hobson. This is the portion in which I mentioned that it was here that people may have gotten an idea about Crumm's life with his father and what led him to live with the Hobson's. Although we have to remember that at least this portion of the testimony was related to the court from a woman who not only knew she was on a thin line of being charged again in the same murder, but knew her son had alleged her involvement. Even if we look at the other side of this and believed that Sueanne was not involved, this was her son's trial. If she seemed too harsh about him or his behavior she may have come off as trying to divert attention away from her. If she seemed too nice and soft then she could be accused of simply trying to protect her son. My point here is that I am unsure that her testimony should have, or even did, have any bearing. In the end it appears that the only defense that was alleged was insanity based on drug and alcohol use. Of course there was the battle of experts presented. The defense side said he was too impaired by “severe alcoholism” and drug use to distinguish between right and wrong and the prosecution experts said he did know the difference. I have had many discussions here about my feelings on the way insanity is determined in the justice systems and while it was debated here, and I still do not agree with the scale in which it is determined, I am uncertain that I think it makes a difference here as I am unsure that is the defense I would have taken. However, it should be noted that from all the research that I did on this case it appears that from beginning to end Jimmy Crumm's story remained consistent, which tends to lean towards the fact a suspect is telling the truth. I will say that I would have liked to have heard more about the alleged issue that Sueanne wanted Chris “gone” by the Christmas season. Did this refer to the previous year and plans had failed? When did the alleged poisoning of the ice cream occur? I ask this because April is a long way from the upcoming Christmas season. And, I, along with most people are “blown away” and the supposed motive.

To be fair, I cannot tell you when Sueanne was once again arrested and charged with Chris' murder, but she was. And by the time she went to trial in May of 1982, a year after her son, she and Ed were at the very least back together, if not remarried already. It was said that he had given the deed to his home to her defense attorneys for payment. He was standing by his wife. At her own trial both her son and her daughter testified against her. Paul Sorrentino was there too to tell his story apparently. Now, whether authorities had any evidence beyond the word of the teenagers that Sueanne was involved.... I cannot say. What I can say is that at this point she not only denied being involved in any way in the murder, she also now denied planting Chris' wallet at the shopping mall. Initially she said she had left the wallet to protect her son, but by the time of her trial she was saying she had not done so and had only told them that... again... to protect her son. I find this “flip-flop” unbelievable. If you are going to lie to protect your child as she claimed in court she had done in her initial interview, you are not going to say “Yeah, he killed my stepson but I took the wallet to the mall to protect him.” You're going to protect him from a murder charge, not protect him from maybe a “tampering with evidence” charge. But, now at trial all bets are off apparently and she is not protecting him from anything anymore. At least that was apparently her story. At her trial (and maybe prior but I cannot say) she did admit knowing that Jimmy was going to take Chris out to “talk to him.” It was unclear though if he was supposed to be talking to him about issues with Sueanne, or Suzanne (it became confusing). But again, Sueanne denied encouraging Jimmy to hurt Chris, let alone kill him. I suspect that the defense decided they needed to concede this part a bit because it was known that Jimmy had used Sueanne's car when he picked Chris up. I would guess they could argue that Jimmy stole Ed's gun (and later supposedly disposed of it) without her knowledge but it would be less likely that he took her car without her knowing and she not report it later.

It appears that the jury, no matter what all the evidence they were shown, did not believe the defense or Sueanne as they convicted her. She too was given a life sentence and yet Ed remained loyal although he seemed to have hidden that loyalty for a while.

As I stated the two divorced a few months after the murder but reconciled rather quickly. The story was that Sueanne “demanded” he stop drinking (it apparently was a problem, the question was, how long had it been a problem?) and seek grief counseling before she would remarry him. But, it appears they did so before her trial in 1982. They divorced again in 1993 and there are conflicting stories as to who had filed for the divorce. Some say it was Sueanne, who out of the goodness (ugh!) of her heart wanted Ed to move on, while others say it was Ed who filed. But again that would not last. It seems once again, while she was still in prison they remarried in 2004. Just how public this information was, or just who knew about it is unclear. For his part it seems that Ed did seek grief counseling and joined a group called Parents of Murdered Children (POMC). In fact, he because very well respected and was a member of the board of the group. This group advocated for the continued incarceration of murderers and from outward appearances Ed was right there with them.

Ed would stand up at meetings and tell his story and the story of his murdered son but it appears that as the years went on he would steer clear from mentioning that his wife (or ex wife, which ever she was at any given moment) was involved and had also been convicted. The group had advocated against the release of both Crumm and Sorrentino each time they were up for parole. Crumm would be paroled in January of 1999 after serving nineteen years and Sorrentino would be paroled in April of 2000. It is unclear how many parole hearings they had before they were released but from all accounts POMC, Ed included petitioned the board each time against their release. For her part Sueanne came up for parole for the first time in 1989 and by all accounts Ed was there advocating for her release, but again, it is unclear just who knew about it. By October of 2010 Sueanne was facing her ninth hearing with the parole board.

It was just after this hearing apparently, but it seems before the board's decision, that the members of POMC learned that not only was Ed not fighting her release, he was advocating for it. Some say there was a period of time in between the first and the ninth hearing that Ed appeared to be uncaring one way or the other but few suspected he wanted to see her released, let alone continue a life with her. They all learned this when he stood up at one of the POMC meetings and instead of the usual story where he stopped after mentioning that his son had been killed by his stepson and his friend, he announced that his wife was in prison for the same crime and he was doing everything he could to get her released. This went against the whole core of the beliefs of members and apparently caused many issues. Whether Ed ever returned to the group, or if he was even welcome was unclear.

What is clear is that Ed got his wish. In February of 2011 the parole board released her. It seems that Ed had apparently long ago moved into Sueanne's childhood home in Prairie Village Kansas. I suspect this may have been where he went after losing his house for her defense. Neighbors obviously knew who he, and Sueanne were because even neighbors had gone to her parole hearing asking she not be released and allowed to live in their neighborhood. The parole board felt different obviously and it is said that Sueanne and Ed remain married and still live in that home. For their parts it has been reported that Jimmy Crumm is in Texas and Paul Sorrentino, Florida. I could not find if Sueanne has contact with either of her children.

In the decade between the boys being released and Sueanne being granted parole there seemed to be some differing of opinions on whether she deserved to be released also. Some argued that Crumm and Sorrentino were the “actual” murderers and served less time than she had, therefore she deserved parole. Of course there were those who used the “but for” theory. If you don't know the “but for” theory it is easy when it comes to the law. There is another name for it and to be fair I cannot recall what it is since most call it “the but for theory.” Using this case obviously I will show you how it works. It seems unlikely that Crumm and Sorrentino would have murdered Chris “BUT FOR” the fact that Sueanne had pressured them and/or offered them some sort of “reward” or payment. By using this theory it shows the culpability that Sueanne had over the situation. Another reason that the prosecutors continued to argue for her continued incarceration was the fact that Sueanne would never accept blame for her role. She never admitted pressuring or enticing the teenagers to commit the crime. Not only did it seem in the fact of damning evidence that she had “thrown” her son under the bus per se, few seemed to believe what they thought were her excuses for the things had to concede to.

When it comes to crimes there seems to be nothing more evil than the cold blooded murder of a child, a second close is a mother who will blame her own child to save herself. This behavior can lead you back to the questions of why Jimmy Crumm lived with his father for so many years. If Jimmy had never gone to live with his mother, would Chris Hobson be alive? I would bet if Jimmy Crumm were asked this question he would likely say that his mother would have found another way to get rid of Chris Hobson. According to him she had already tried once before. It appears she was just able to manipulate him to do her bidding for her.