Evidence

New Posts

Compassionate Reader said:
Without the statement from SJ, I'm not so sure that DE would have been a suspect. The reason that the wmpd brought JM in for questioning was because VH said that JM knew DE, IIRC. That's where it began. VH was in the station with her son trying to straighten out her own legal tangle. IIRC, VH was in the station around the time the boy's bodies were discovered. She knew that her son was friends with the murdered boys. IMO (and it's just my opinion), she saw a way to unwind her own personal tangle. Of course, if the wmpd had conducted an evidence-led rather than suspect-driven investigation, we might not have had the cluster****** that we have in this case!

Again, IMO, DE, JB and JM were "railroaded" because of the pressure on the police to solve the case. Remember, it had been almost a month since the murders with no arrest. Of course, due to SJ's statement, DE and JB were suspected (and questioned) early on, but there was no evidence against them until JM was coerced, or brow beaten, into his pitiful statement. Then, after the "clarification" required by Judge Rainey, the police arrested DE and JB based on what most people believe to be a false and coerced statement.

Welcome, thared33! Oh how I miss the information we lost on the BB!
Click to expand...

DE would still have been a suspect because of the softball girls and because of the Hollingsworth's supposed sighting of him on the service road. It wasn't just Jones and Driver or the WMPD who "railroaded" them. That's my point. The evidence was iffy if not complete b.s. at best, granted, but there was more to it than Jones and Driver. Factor in all these things with an over-anxious and inexperienced police department, and you have a recipe for disaster.
 
thared33,

As to JM's multiple statements, I attribute those to his mental deficiency. As a high school teacher, I taught many with JM's mental deficiencies. Too often they can be manipulated into saying whatever they think the interrogator wants to hear. Sometimes it's an attempt to hide their deficiencies. Sometimes (IMO, most of the time) they simply keep saying whatever they think will make the questioning/interrogation stop. Unfortunately, the questioning makes them so uncomfortable that they just want it to stop and will say whatever they think will accomplish this purpose.

I agree that it's difficult for one with "normal" mental capabilities to understand how anyone can continue to tell such convoluted stories that increasingly implicate that person, but, believe me, I've seen it happen - many times. When a student with limited/low IQ is questioned by anyone without an understanding of the effect the low IQ has on the ability to tell a coherent story, the tale told is driven by the questions. Those with low IQ's simply cannot tell a narrative that makes any sense. That's why JM was continually prompted by his interrogator and why his statements reflected what the interrogator wanted to hear and continued until he was able to talk to his father. Once JM talked to his father, JM has made no self-incriminating statement and has maintained his original statement - he wasn't there and he doesn't know who committed the murders.
 
Cher, do you know why the Black Board shut down? That was by far the best one out there (and why I joined). I remember in the late days logging in and seeing a message about how the board was being taken over by certain individuals, or something like that. I never got to read Paid's entire manhole theory and now I wish I would've gone through all of it.

CR, after thinking about this for a few days... maybe the last confession really was just for a cheeseburger sammich? I guess I can compare it to how some kids kill each other over a pair of shoes or a Playstation 3 or something. The officer(s) made it apparent that one was bought for him which was right before being asked if he had been threatened/promised anything.
 
:dunno:
thared33 said:
Cher, do you know why the Black Board shut down? That was by far the best one out there (and why I joined). I remember in the late days logging in and seeing a message about how the board was being taken over by certain individuals, or something like that. I never got to read Paid's entire manhole theory and now I wish I would've gone through all of it.
Click to expand...

thared33, if you asked me why the Titanic went down, that would have been easier to answer. The Blackboard ?........rumours, rumours. Perhaps the "older" members have more ideas.
 
I remember reading someone that said it got shut down because "(we) were getting too close to the truth." Highly doubt that was why; just thought I'd share it anyway.
 
First, the version of the BB that CL posted (thanks) was version 2 of same. There was one other version that followed. The third version began in 2009 (about the time I started posting there). Eventually, I was an admin there. Only one person knows the real reason for its demise - and it ain't me! However, the admins at the time believed it had something to do with "getting too close to the truth" because it happened not too long after the bite mark video was published. The person who knows why has gone "underground" for reasons unknown. That is all I know.
 
The video has been temporarily removed from the public domain by the owner. He hopes to repost is again. It, IMO, showed how the wound on SB's brow region was a match to the partial denture of TH found, years later (but identified by TH during the Pasdar deposition as his), in a lock box with a few other odd items. I can give you a link to someone who tries to "debunk" the video, but the entire original video is not shown. So, having seen the original, I am not impressed by the attempt to "debunk" it. I will post the original video when it becomes available again. Here is where I originally posted the link. You might find the ensuing discussion interesting.
 
Me personally, I was never convinced that that was actually a bite mark, at least a human one. It has that weird X-shaped thing in the middle of it which looks like the end of a tool or something. On top of that... why would a murderer BITE the victim? I can't fathom that, especially when in my mind, the killer would probably be aware of leaving fingerprints and other evidence (bite marks). Maybe I need to look at the evidence again.

PS: What's with this Skating Rink video floating around on YouTube? I don't know the significance of it.
 
See I never thought it was a human bite mark either (I kind of assumed it came from an animal), but Dr. Cowart's video is very convincing and thorough. I now believe it might well be a human bite mark.

The x-shaped thing in the middle has bothered a lot of people. Me? Not so much. I find it highly unlikely that the perp would've whipped out something like a philips screwdriver just to inflict that one wound, 'cause IIRC it's not a reoccurring wound pattern on any of the boys. Furthermore, and this is pure speculation on my behalf as well as personal experience, I took a tumble down some stairs a couple of years ago now and basically landed on my left elbow. It left an almost identical x-shaped mark. So I reckon it could be just about anything and it's probably something really random that has nothing to do with the mark around it.

I'm gonna assume you're talking about the surveillance footage. It basically shows people leaving and entering the skating rink in WM, as well as some footage from inside of the rink where you can spot Damien and Domini for a brief moment. I'm not sure of the significance of it. It was such a long time ago since I saw it floating around that I've forgotten haha.
 
thared33 said:
Me personally, I was never convinced that that was actually a bite mark, at least a human one. It has that weird X-shaped thing in the middle of it which looks like the end of a tool or something. On top of that... why would a murderer BITE the victim? I can't fathom that, especially when in my mind, the killer would probably be aware of leaving fingerprints and other evidence (bite marks). Maybe I need to look at the evidence again.

PS: What's with this Skating Rink video floating around on YouTube? I don't know the significance of it.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. This isn't a human bite mark, as far as I'm concerned. The video that has been circulated was done by a family dentist with 20 years experience -- not a forensic odontologist -- and he bases his conclusion by only focusing on a cropped shot and using a home computer program (i.e. without the actual partial, measurements of the wound, photos, molds, etc.). It's a noble effort, but one that doesn't add up. If you see the the more grotesque photo of SB's entire left side of his face, you can clearly see what the dentist assumes are "bottom teeth marks" are anything but, and extend far past his cropped shot to be much longer than a human under-bite. Couple that with the fact that these crescent moon wounds can be found not only farther down SB's face-cheek, but also on another victim's face (CB -- which can never be mistaken for a bite mark), and it's easy to determine that it isn't a bite mark. And that's not even mentioning the x-mark yet.

Here is the debunking video; but be warned: this is graphic, since it takes into the account the wounds as a whole over the entire face -- particularly in the very beginning. [video=youtube;Yz3clmJlwAM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz3clmJlwAM[/video]

The skate rink video is surveillance that was done by the WMPD before any arrests were made and while they were in the initial phases of their investigation. They have much surveillance of the skate rink (who enters, as well as inside) where you can see DE, DT, and JB. They also surveillance all the victims' funerals (to see if the killer would show up there). Those are also on youtube; just search for them, if you're so inclined.
 
The debunking video mentions that it could have been a belt buckle that caused the pattern. Do we have any pics of TH wearing a buckle around that time?
 
To my knowledge, TH didn't wear a belt with a buckle. If you could see the original video, that "debunking" video would be shown to be the sophistry that it is. As I said before, the "debunking" video doesn't show the entire original video, and the person who made it isn't even a dentist, let alone a forensic odontologist. He/she makes it look convincing, but there's no science behind it. As the article from Mara Leverit points out, none of the experts that stated, under oath, that the wound was not a human bite mark had seen even a photo of TH's partial, which wasn't discovered at the time of the Rule 37 hearings,when they made their statements. Also, Dr. Cowart pointed out that he has shown his work to several forensic odontologists, including Dr. Mincer, the prosecution expert who ruled out a human bite mark, and none of them could find fault with his work. It's just an example of additional information coming out that changes opinions. That's pretty convincing, IMO. I just hope that the original video is available again soon!
 
thared33 said:
Thanks CR.

Cher, I've been snooping here without an account ever since the Black Board shut down actually. I never lost interest, just took some breaks :)

The reason I'm still around is because I'm still undecided. The case can go in any direction and always could have. I'd like to think there's a smoking gun out there but at this point we'll probably never know. It drives me up a wall!

There's not much on DE. I saw PL1 circa 1995 and to this day I still have piercings, wear black, listen to wild music, and from time to time, I still make awfully incriminating remarks when I know I shouldn't :laughing:

There's basically nothing on JB.

JM though.... ohhh boy. I don't mean the first confession, I mean the police car one with Stidham present for the taped portion. I'm not saying I believe it, but I just can't fathom... WHY? Did he confess for a cheeseburger sammich?

Other than the weird JM confessions there's nothing on them. I'm still hoping for a breakthrough someday
Click to expand...

Cher Lockhomes said:
thared33, thanks for curing my curiosity. I'll put this link in again for former Blackboard members who want to get nostalgic.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090504071654/http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?board=2.0

A lot of the posts are still there on this page. If you click on the blue arrow, top right hand corner, there are a few more pages there, but most of the posts are missing.
Click to expand...

OMG.....thank you for this! Oh, how I miss the BB.

ETA....don't know why it double quoted. Didn't mean to.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
To my knowledge, TH didn't wear a belt with a buckle. If you could see the original video, that "debunking" video would be shown to be the sophistry that it is. As I said before, the "debunking" video doesn't show the entire original video, and the person who made it isn't even a dentist, let alone a forensic odontologist. He/she makes it look convincing, but there's no science behind it. As the article from Mara Leverit points out, none of the experts that stated, under oath, that the wound was not a human bite mark had seen even a photo of TH's partial, which wasn't discovered at the time of the Rule 37 hearings,when they made their statements. Also, Dr. Cowart pointed out that he has shown his work to several forensic odontologists, including Dr. Mincer, the prosecution expert who ruled out a human bite mark, and none of them could find fault with his work. It's just an example of additional information coming out that changes opinions. That's pretty convincing, IMO. I just hope that the original video is available again soon!
Click to expand...

Here is the problem with assuming it's a bite mark: in doing so, you'd have to assume that those 3 marks under the brow, are the under-bite. Quite simply, you don't have to be a dentist or a rocket scientist to see that those 3 markings (the crescent moons), in particular, could never be from an under-bite -- and there would need to be an under-bite, for the "over-bite" to register on the forehead (meaning, the killer couldn't have used just his upper teeth to make this impression).
 
According to Dr. Cowart's original video, they were more like drag marks. Those marks were in the eye socket, making the contact there more of a "glancing" blow, so to speak. The marks from the partials were in the eyebrow area, where there is more of a flat surface, making the "bite" more pronounced and recognizable.
 
I know the dentist's position and I still disagree vehemently. You can't have drag marks on the bottom teeth, but not the top. Makes zero sense. It's not like the top teeth dug so deep that they stuck into the skull of the victim, while the bottom teeth didn't sink in at all and thus were able to leave drag marks. Also, it's not like the victim could have moved his forehead separate from the area just beneath his brow -- they both would have moved in the same direction. People just need to use their heads sometimes. You don't need to be an expert to know this.

Even if those somehow were drag marks (which they're not), there are still large spaces between the bottom "teeth." These spaces are an unnatural distance to be those between teeth.
 
TH, IIRC (from the original video not the "debunking" crap) had some missing lower teeth as well. I don't know why he didn't have a lower partial as well. I can only speculate that the missing lower teeth were not as noticeable as the uppers. Partial dentures are expensive. So, maybe that's the explanation. All I know is that a dentist who routinely makes impressions for partials understands the situation much better than a non-dentist. Again, it's about the credibility of the expert. Again, the soft tissue in the eye socket (which is in a different plane than the brow area) would be, IMO, less prone to allowing a "perfect" impression than the area above the brow where the upper partial left its tell-tale impression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 242 more.
Total: 3,153 (members: 243, guests: 2,910)

Online statistics

Members online
243
Guests online
2,910
Total visitors
3,153
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,966
Messages
18,016,591
Members
229,562
Latest member
beefalo
Back
Top