Mr Bojangles

[kyleb]

I responded to your question because you directed it at me by quoting me when asking it, and because I was genuinely curious to know if you were so unfamiliar with the evidence in this case that you were unsure if the hair CR claims "is believed to belong to a morgue attendant" actually exists. That said, perhaps if you actually took the time to click on links like the Bode report page CR linked and you casually dismissed after I relinked it you might able to answer your question on your own, but as long as you're intent making arguments without bothering to familiarize yourself with the evidence on record first I've no interest in humoring them.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Well, opinions are what they are, but I'm more interested in facts. In that regard, can you not name the name of the morgue attendant you've alleged is believed to be the source of the hair, or provide any actual evidence to support such a belief beyond your assertion that there was a black morgue attendant in West Memphis at the time?

Can you tell me what "Mr. Bojangles'" real name is? Just because I cannot name the morgue attendant doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. As I've said before, the only proof is the word-of-mouth statements (none of which were recorded) that there was an African American morgue attendant in West Memphis at the time of the murders.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the Negroid hair fragment was from "Mr. Bojangles" or an unnamed morgue attendant or someone else? And, again just out of curiosity, how do you believe that it got on the sheet?

 

[primitivefuture]

The Bojangles employees cleaned up the blood evidence before the police arrived.

Fogleman: Ok. In fact, he left blood and mud all over the restroom, right?

King: Yes sir.

Fogleman: He left it on the wall, the floor -

King: Um hmm

Fogleman: - on the door knob -

King: Yes sir.
Fogleman: - on the - out in the hall.

King: It wasn't actually on the hall floor, it was on the hall wall where he might have staggered.

Fogleman: Ok. And y'all cleaned that up, isn't that right?

King: Yes sir.

Fogleman: Y'all tried to clean it all up, didn't ya?

King: Yes sir.

Fogleman: And that was before Detective Ridge and Allen arrived, isn't that right?

King: Yes sir.

Fogleman: Ok. So y'all had made efforts to clean it all up before they ever came - right?

King: Yes sir, 'cause they came the next night.

Fogleman: Now when uh - Patrolman Meek came to the drive-in window, were you aware that she was trying to find 3 missing 8-year-old boys?

King: No sir.

Fogleman: Ok. And when she came there, this person wasn’t there anymore, isn't that right?

King: Yes sir, he had already left.

Fogleman: Ok. And when she came there, this person wasn’t there anymore, isn't that right?

King: Yes sir, he had already left.

Fogleman: So what we've got - after that man left, is we don't have an area that has just a few little drops of blood, but he had got blood and mud all over the place - right?

King: Yes sir.


http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/martyking.html

The blood and mud was cleaned up before Ridge and Allen arrived, but not before Meek arrived. The fact that she took the employee's statement through the drive through window and didn't even enter the restaurant to take a peek at the "blood and mud all over the place" is mind blowing. Regardless of if it had to do with the murders or not. Regardless of whether she was, at that time, searching for missing boys rather than murdered boys. A disoriented man wandering anywhere covered in blood and mud is worthy of investigation. In my opinion, for a police officer not to have a look at the scene in the restaurant bathroom is beyond negligent, whether the man had already left or not. And as others have said, due to her negligence as well as ridge's and Allen's, we'll never know if that incident was related to the crime or not. Shameful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cappuccino]

The blood and mud was not completely cleaned up before Ridge and Allen arrived anyway. As Marty King testifies further down that page....

Davidson: Uh - were you working the day of May 6th of 1993?

King: Yes sir, I opened that morning.

Davidson: And um - did anything occur on that day?

King: Well, an off duty officer came in and - by the name of Billy Covington, a friend of mine, and I was telling him of the event that happened the night before and it kind of struck him in a strange way. He said,“Don’t clean that blood off the door handles or the wall or anything, and I will get back with you in a little while.”

Davidson: Ok. And then what happened?

King: Uh - later on that afternoon 2 detectives came out and took a report
as far as what I had seen, uh - description of the gentleman, and then they took blood scrapings off the wall in the women’s restroom, off the men’s door in the hallway and off the wall in the hallway.

Davidson: Was that Detectives Ridge and Allen?

King: Yes sir.

Bryn Ridge testified that the blood evidence from Bojangles restaurant never made it to the lab because he lost it.

 

[primitivefuture]

The blood and mud was not completely cleaned up before Ridge and Allen arrived anyway. As Marty King testifies further down that page....



Bryn Ridge testified that the blood evidence from Bojangles restaurant never made it to the lab because he lost it.

Yep. The more I read about this case, the more surprised I am that the WMPD was ever able to accomplish anything at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UdbCrzy2]

The blood and mud was cleaned up before Ridge and Allen arrived, but not before Meek arrived. The fact that she took the employee's statement through the drive through window and didn't even enter the restaurant to take a peek at the "blood and mud all over the place" is mind blowing. Regardless of if it had to do with the murders or not. Regardless of whether she was, at that time, searching for missing boys rather than murdered boys. A disoriented man wandering anywhere covered in blood and mud is worthy of investigation. In my opinion, for a police officer not to have a look at the scene in the restaurant bathroom is beyond negligent, whether the man had already left or not. And as others have said, due to her negligence as well as ridge's and Allen's, we'll never know if that incident was related to the crime or not. Shameful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think at this point the boys were only missing.

 

[gheckso]

I think at this point the boys were only missing.

"Reported missing" being more accurate. They could well have been in trouble at this stage.

As I read it I think primitivefuture is fully aware that the boys were only reported missing at this stage, however, primitive is clearly demonstrating the lack of responsible police work.

 

[primitivefuture]

I think at this point the boys were only missing.

Yes. That is what I said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[reedus23]

I think at this point the boys were only missing.

You're not suggesting that the handling of the Bojangle's lead was an example of how to conduct an investigation, are you?

 

[gheckso]

That's an example of brutally twisting someone's words around, and suggesting the incident at Bojangles was an actual lead regarding these murders is equally absurd.

Who suggested it was an actual lead regarding these murders?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

IMO, the main thing we learned with the "Bojangles" incident is just how sloppy the wmpd is in an investigation!

 

[Pisces Cloud]

IMO, the main thing we learned with the "Bojangles" incident is just how sloppy the wmpd is in an investigation!

Agreed. Even if no children had gone missing, they should still have investigated this incident more thoroughly, IMO.

 

[fr brown]

I read somewhere (reddit?) that Mr. Bojangles, wet, covered in mud and blood, in a women's restroom, was not the perpetrator because the perpetrator had "cleaned up" the blood at the crime scene and was therefore more organized than Mr. Bojangles.

One of the things I noticed in the Ruff program was that the pipe the kids would have walked over was almost submerged at one point. Water levels must change there. Isn't that a more likely explanation for a relatively clean crime scene?

And since it's generally thought (now) that turtles are responsible for the mutilations post-mortem, that leaves the scalp wounds. They have the reputation of bleeding copiously so there would have been some blood to get on Mr. Bojangles.

 

[Userid]

I read somewhere (reddit?) that Mr. Bojangles, wet, covered in mud and blood, in a women's restroom, was not the perpetrator because the perpetrator had "cleaned up" the blood at the crime scene and was therefore more organized than Mr. Bojangles.

One of the things I noticed in the Ruff program was that the pipe the kids would have walked over was almost submerged at one point. Water levels must change there. Isn't that a more likely explanation for a relatively clean crime scene?

And since it's generally thought (now) that turtles are responsible for the mutilations post-mortem, that leaves the scalp wounds. They have the reputation of bleeding copiously so there would have been some blood to get on Mr. Bojangles.

I actually believe that the majority of the wounds on all three victims were man-made. There might have been some animal predation, but it was the minority of wounds. I say that because of the half-moon injuries. You can see these injuries on CB and SB in particular; and I want to say that they were present on MM, but I can't say for certain (it's been a while). Also, in addition to the half-moon shapes (which look like they were made with some sort of instrument), there are also dash marks that are perfectly spaced apart. These dash marks, again, could not have been made by an animal's jaw -- they are too perfect and even -- and they are located in CB's nether-region, which is supposedly where animal predation occurred. Coincidence? I think not.

There is a reason why Ruff didn't actually show these injuries -- and no, it wasn't because they were too gruesome. When these injuries are cropped, they are not gruesome. Ruff didn't show them, because he didn't want to -- because it doesn't fit the narrative of animal predation. Even with the skull wounds, Ruff just glosses over it and never brings it up again.

The fact of the matter is this: if the skull wounds -- or the wounds I just mentioned -- were made by a man-made object during the commission of this crime, common sense would lead one to believe that the instrument was used in the majority of cutting injuries inflicted -- especially when you consider the dash marks and the half-moon shapes on the other two victims.

The water level has always risen and fallen in the bayou. It's unknown though how high the water would rise in the discovery culvert, but yes, it could explain why the crime scene was so clean, especially if the crime occurred closer to the culvert itself.

Ruff's Bojangles experiment proves little because Marty King, when police (Bryn Ridge) arrived at Bojangles after just pulling out the bodies, observed that Ridge's pants looked just like Bojangles', where the mud went up to the knee.

Lastly, I don't believe Bojangles was involved in the crime. I could be wrong and King's observation is compelling, but I don't think a man in a cast could have committed this crime.

 

[fr brown]

I actually believe that the majority of the wounds on all three victims were man-made. There might have been some animal predation, but it was the minority of wounds. I say that because of the half-moon injuries. You can see these injuries on CB and SB in particular; and I want to say that they were present on MM, but I can't say for certain (it's been a while). Also, in addition to the half-moon shapes (which look like they were made with some sort of instrument), there are also dash marks that are perfectly spaced apart. These dash marks, again, could not have been made by an animal's jaw -- they are too perfect and even -- and they are located in CB's nether-region, which is supposedly where animal predation occurred. Coincidence? I think not.

There is a reason why Ruff didn't actually show these injuries -- and no, it wasn't because they were too gruesome. When these injuries are cropped, they are not gruesome. Ruff didn't show them, because he didn't want to -- because it doesn't fit the narrative of animal predation. Even with the skull wounds, Ruff just glosses over it and never brings it up again.

The fact of the matter is this: if the skull wounds -- or the wounds I just mentioned -- were made by a man-made object during the commission of this crime, common sense would lead one to believe that the instrument was used in the majority of cutting injuries inflicted -- especially when you consider the dash marks and the half-moon shapes on the other two victims.

The water level has always risen and fallen in the bayou. It's unknown though how high the water would rise in the discovery culvert, but yes, it could explain why the crime scene was so clean, especially if the crime occurred closer to the culvert itself.

Ruff's Bojangles experiment proves little because Marty King, when police (Bryn Ridge) arrived at Bojangles after just pulling out the bodies, observed that Ridge's pants looked just like Bojangles', where the mud went up to the knee.

Lastly, I don't believe Bojangles was involved in the crime. I could be wrong and King's observation is compelling, but I don't think a man in a cast could have committed this crime.

The show suggests that the cast was actually a removable brace held in place by velcro. I've worn these: tying a knit would be painful but doable. (Come to think of it, I used to play the piano when in a plaster cast for a broken elbow, probably not very well.)

If Mr. B had been wearing a full cast, I think they should have been able to find out where it had been put on and/or removed, assuming it was done locally. I hope they didn't miss that opportunity.

I agree that Ruff's experiment doesn't prove much: he makes a seamless transition from speculating that the perpetrator might have crossed the bayou (and thus wouldn't have been muddy on arriving at the restaurant) to assuming that that's what any perpetrator would have done to get from A to B. I don't think that's valid. It was getting dark; it seems like someone could keep his distance from the highway if he wanted to and Mr. B was in no state to be making these sort of calculations anyway.

 

[Userid]

The show suggests that the cast was actually a removable brace held in place by velcro. I've worn these: tying a knit would be painful but doable. (Come to think of it, I used to play the piano when in a plaster cast for a broken elbow, probably not very well.)

If Mr. B had been wearing a full cast, I think they should have been able to find out where it had been put on and/or removed, assuming it was done locally. I hope they didn't miss that opportunity.

I agree that Ruff's experiment doesn't prove much: he makes a seamless transition from speculating that the perpetrator might have crossed the bayou (and thus wouldn't have been muddy on arriving at the restaurant) to assuming that that's what any perpetrator would have done to get from A to B. I don't think that's valid. It was getting dark; it seems like someone could keep his distance from the highway if he wanted to and Mr. B was in no state to be making these sort of calculations anyway.

True -- it was not a plaster cast. It was reported that it was blue and that there was velcro, so that was accurate in Ruff's experiment; although I can't recall Bojanles' was in a sling or not.

 

[pirategirl79]

I've always wondered if "Mr. Bojangles" saw something near turtle pond (where the bodies were found) and was beaten with a threat not to talk about what he saw.

 

[fr brown]

I've always wondered if "Mr. Bojangles" saw something near turtle pond (where the bodies were found) and was beaten with a threat not to talk about what he saw.

I suppose anything is possible.

It has the virtue of getting rid of the "bizarre coincidence" factor, but at the cost of over-egging the pudding.

I guess the question is, can we find out more about Mr. B at this late date? Why was he in the area? If he was at the crime scene, why did he go toward Bojangles? Where might he have gone after that? If he was homeless, how did he get food, etc.?

Maybe these questions have been asked. I don't know.

 

[fr brown]

I read that when Mr. B left Bojangles, staff watched him go to the dumpster and then head south.

 

[fr brown]

I don't have a problem with Ofc. Meek taking a report on Mr. Bojangles through the drive-thru window. Bojangles had already left the restaurant so instead of getting out of her car, Meek went looking for a bleeding man. She had no reason at that time to think anyone else might be injured. I take her at her word.

What I don't understand is why the detectives were seemingly reluctant to investigate Bojangles after the boys' bodies were found. The manager (I think) told a customer who happened to be an off-duty police officer about Bojangles. The cop told him to stop cleaning up the scene and he'd pursue it. It was after that that Ridge showed up, took samples and then lost them.