Christopher Byers as primary victim...

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

kyleb said:
Sure, and for some people everything Neil Armstrong said is trash, that's just how positions of misplaced faith work.
Click to expand...

Not even close to the same thing..

Neil Armstrong was an educated Astronaut who went into space and landed on the moon. FACT.

That people don't believe that puts them in another category not him.

Misskelley is mentally challenged and was not telling the truth and it can be proven that he did not tell the truth. I do not believe his motives were to scam people but to help to be part of the solution. I believe that his accounts are completely fluff, not because he was trying to lie but that he was trying to help.
 
Ausgirl said:
I've looked at some crimes where a knife was used for some things and not others, injured some victims and not others, etc - it very well could indicate that there was more than one killer too.

I realise the animals theory is both popular and backed up by experts -- but frankly? I am not one bit liking how every faction of opinion and legal team etc has experts to back up and directly contradict the other side's experts, and there's just SO many sides, isn't there?

How many experts have contradicted other experts in this case? Really, someone ought to make a list, lol.

Idk. Sorry for the mini-rant, I just sometimes find heavily biased and/or suspect-based POV's frustrating to deal with (where professional examination of evidence is concerned ;) ) on several levels, most importantly being that even the hard evidence gets wobbly and even non-existent, once folks that are heavily invested in, and therefore forever superglued to, one particular theory get through with it. And that messes with the truth, which sometimes takes a back seat to winning or being 'right', eh.

I think I am not very convinced so far that animals made all the wounds on those bodies, just now. Unless they were animals with knife-like teeth and really poor appetites, seeing as they just sort of sucked on the bodies a bit and put a few holes in, rather than consuming any satisfying portion of them. Yes, being a bit facetious there, but I think it's not a bad point.
Click to expand...

It can get very frustrating I know.I know what you mean about the animal predation.I myself do not feed into the manhole theory....but don't mind that others do.;)
 
LunaticFringe said:
I'm going by what Jessie said.
Click to expand...
Rather, you're constructing fallacious arguments to disregard what Misskelley said throughout his many confessions, be it about Baldwin having mutilated Christopher Byers with an approximately six inch long lock blade or otherwise.

Ausgirl said:
I think I am not very convinced so far that animals made all the wounds on those bodies, just now.
Click to expand...
Have you seen any wounds which you are convicted were made by animals? Regardless, you comments about the unlikelihood of animals inflicting all the wounds wounds and without bothering to actually eat any substantial portion of flesh touch on an excellent point, and do your comments about how different people will use knifes in different ways.

ScarlettScarpetta said:
Misskelley is mentally challenged and was not telling the truth and it can be proven that he did not tell the truth.
Click to expand...
Proclaiming what can be done in rejection of what has been done is yet another aspect of how positions of misplaced faith work.
 
kyleb said:
Rather, you're constructing fallacious arguments to disregard what Misskelley said throughout his many confessions, be it about Baldwin having mutilated Christopher Byers with an approximately six inch long lock blade or otherwise.


Have you seen any wounds which you are convicted were made by animals? Regardless, you comments about the unlikelihood of animals inflicting all the wounds wounds and without bothering to actually eat any substantial portion of flesh touch on an excellent point, and do your comments about how different people will use knifes in different ways.


Proclaiming what can be done in rejection of what has been done is yet another aspect of how positions of misplaced faith work.
Click to expand...


For the love of God,Sheldon Cooper.You make my brain ache.:dunno:
 
LunaticFringe said:
It can get very frustrating I know.I know what you mean about the animal predation.I myself do not feed into the manhole theory....but don't mind that others do.;)
Click to expand...

Me neither. :)

I don't hold to any particular theory, but I do believe that there ought to be a definitive, unequivocally known cause for the injury to CB's penis, seeing as it was inspected by a variety of medical persons, and that there's a heap of potential causes for an injury like that. Knife, dragging over something sharp, ripped off via a cord tied and pulled hard..

But as there's as many varied opinions as there are theories, it seems, I do find that this one fact is able to be argued at all very frustrating. Wounds caused by a sharp-edged metal instrument are not the same as wounds caused by a jagged bit of rock or steel, or animal teeth, or the ripping of flesh. They just are not the same, the end. It bothers me greatly that the nature of this particular wound is not set in inarguable stone.

Surely, medical experts -ought to- be able to tell (and agree on, if their impartiality is not compromised) the most basic method by which that skin and tissue came loose.

On my list of things to do now is a comparison of the various medical opinions on how that happened. Who said what, who was paid by whom to say it, and how much sense it makes it conjunction with the actual wound.

Because only one answer is right, eh. Just - which one?
 
I would be inclined to a knife as a weapon if there were any true and undisputed knife wounds. I don't know of any. As to the animals not consuming any of the bodies, my theory is that they were scared off (possibly by the searchers) before they could do much damage. Sorry to be graphic, but the penis was, IMO, consumed by animal predation. IMO, that's about as far as the animals got before being disturbed.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
I would be inclined to a knife as a weapon if there were any true and undisputed knife wounds. I don't know of any. As to the animals not consuming any of the bodies, my theory is that they were scared off (possibly by the searchers) before they could do much damage. Sorry to be graphic, but the penis was, IMO, consumed by animal predation. IMO, that's about as far as the animals got before being disturbed.
Click to expand...

I agree. I do not believe that a knife was a weapon. I think that a blunt object (used for convenience purposes, i.e. on the ground) was the weapon of choice in these murders.
 
Ausgirl said:
Surely, medical experts -ought to- be able to tell (and agree on, if their impartiality is not compromised) the most basic method by which that skin and tissue came loose.
Click to expand...
As you noted previously, experts can have heavily biased points of view, and the only way to determine the correct one is to actually examine the evidence, which in the case of wounds is primarily the autopsy photos themselves and what those who actually examined Christopher Byers' body has said about those wounds. That said, the autopsy photo shown in PL2 doesn't provide nearly enough detail at DVD quality rightly examine the wounds, and it was horrific enough at that low resolution that I'd really prefer not see it in higher detail. However, having read much of what various experts from both said have said about those wounds over the years, I wouldn't doubt that at least something much like a knife was involved even if Misskelley never said so. I'm curious to hear what you wind up getting from what the many experts have said on such matters though, particularly regarding wounds for which autopsy photos of reasonable resolution are available.
 
IIRC, the only "expert" who testified that a knife was used was Peretti. The defense experts, although disagreeing about some things, all agreed that the wounds were not caused by a knife. IMO, the wounds which Fogleman tried to link to the Lake knife by abusing a grapefruit were a combination of animal predation and marks created by dragging the dead bodies a short distance. This type of injury can be seen in cases were a victim was dragged along a roughly paved surface (or concrete) and are sometimes referred to as "road rash." Some of the scrapes could also be the result of contact with a rough concrete surface without dragging, like some of the wounds on the top of MM's head. IMO, he could have been dropped onto a rough concrete surface from a distance of maybe 10 feet.
 
kyleb said:
As you noted previously, experts can have heavily biased points of view, and the only way to determine the correct one is to actually examine the evidence, which in the case of wounds is primarily the autopsy photos themselves and what those who actually examined Christopher Byers' body has said about those wounds. That said, the autopsy photo shown in PL2 doesn't provide nearly enough detail at DVD quality rightly examine the wounds, and it was horrific enough at that low resolution that I'd really prefer not see it in higher detail. However, having read much of what various experts from both said have said about those wounds over the years, I wouldn't doubt that at least something much like a knife was involved even if Misskelley never said so. I'm curious to hear what you wind up getting from what the many experts have said on such matters though, particularly regarding wounds for which autopsy photos of reasonable resolution are available.
Click to expand...

Not related to expert testimony, and probably quite OT, but..

One thing which comes immediately to mind, re the knife.. It struck me odd that in photographs ostensibly proving the serrated knife with the compass on the end was used, only two (IIRC) abrasions match up with the knife. The other two don't - one has a dark abrasion in the gap of the blades' points (how the absence of a point can cause damage, I don't know) and the other doesn't match the location of a point, except in a general way (where the other two match much more closely).

So I'm suitably 50/50 on that particular type of weapon being the cause of those injuries, based on that picture alone.

I've a busy week ahead, but will get around to collating some opinions on the weapons when I do get time for tedious document searches.

One would think, though, that tissue samples of the wound edges would have proved conclusive in sharp knife vs animal bite. The two are nothing alike. I'm astounded that the question even exists.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
Some of the scrapes could also be the result of contact with a rough concrete surface without dragging, like some of the wounds on the top of MM's head. IMO, he could have been dropped onto a rough concrete surface from a distance of maybe 10 feet.
Click to expand...

I'd expect to see neck damage, skull damage, more evidence of that sort of drop, though, especially damage specific to a head first drop from 10 feet up.

As someone who fell off a hotel balcony head first at around that age, and suffered no fractures at all, however, I do happen to be living proof that fractures aren't a forgone conclusion. But I was not bound, unconscious or incapacitated at the time. And one child isn't THREE children free of broken necks, which one would expect from the weight of a body collapsing on top of a head.

And yes, for those who may be thinking it, falling off a hotel balcony head first might indeed explain a LOT. :propeller:

::floorlaugh:
 
gheckso said:
All three suffered skull fractures
Click to expand...
^ But are these inarguably proven to be due to a fall, rather than blunt force trauma? I believe the two types of inury can be distinguished quite clearly from one another, unless I am horribly wrong about that (but I don't think I am.. something worth checking up on there..) I'd really have to see some pretty solid evidence of a fall type fracture, anyway, before I'd accept all three were dropped on their heads.

Not saying its impossible, by a long shot. But still.. some evidence would help.
 
Ausgirl said:
So I'm suitably 50/50 on that particular type of weapon being the cause of those injuries, based on that picture alone.
Click to expand...
Just to make sure we're on the same page before getting into the particulars of your comments regarding wound constancy, are you referring to this photo, or could you provide a link to whatever photo you are describing? Out of the various photos of different wounds presented as consistent with the survival knife during the trial, that one I linked is the only one I've found in high enough quality to rightly make any determinations from. It's also not what sold me on the survival knife having been used though, but rather these wounds on Stevie Branch's forhead which Peretti took to have been inflicted with a belt buckle while Turvey and many since have imaged to be human bite mark. Best I've been able to tell the consistency between those wounds and the survival knife was first noticed in 2002 as detailed in this old forum post, and this image demonstrates what is described there.
 
kyleb said:
Just to make sure we're on the same page before getting into the particulars of your comments regarding wound constancy, are you referring to this photo
Click to expand...

Yup.

Look, I am not even trying to argue guilt or innocence here, but pointing out what a farce that knife is as "evidence" of anybody's guilt.

Arkansas Supreme Court-12/23/96

3. Evidence -- substantial evidence of appellant Echols's guilt. -- *snip by Aus* ...and the serrated wound patterns on the three victims that were consistent with, and could have been caused by, a knife found in a lake behind appellant Baldwin's parents' residence; where, given the testimony of a witness that she had seen Echols carrying a similar knife and the testimony of the owner of a knife collector service regarding that type of knife, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Echols or Baldwin disposed of the knife in the lake;

^ Could have? Really? 'Could have' counts for evidence in a murder trial, in Arkansas?

'Similar'? Not conclusively the one Echols owned, then? Just one that's pretty 'similar'. Again, this counts as evidence? I am amazed and dismayed by this.

Consistent? Well, if you don't count the parts that are not consistent at all, sure.

I think this a desperate reach, and a poor example of what ought to constitute evidence in a murder trial, where there's no room, IMO, for wishy washy 'could have's and 'similar to's to be put forward to a jury as evidence of guilt, let alone cherry picking perception of proof the knife was even used (by this I mean the alignment of the points to the wounds in that picture you linked, kyle.)
 
Oh -- and I remember some expert or other stating that the end of the knife where the compass used to be could have caused that sharply incised X in the middle of the 'bite'-like wound.

Baloney.

In court photographs of that same knife, there is NO x-shaped anything, anywhere. Nothing remotely like it. There's a hole in the end of the knife, the end.

Another example where something completely nonexistent apparently has the power to make marks on a human body. In Arkansas, anyway.
 
Ausgirl said:
Look, I am not even trying to argue guilt or innocence here, but pointing out what a farce that knife is as "evidence" of anybody's guilt.
Click to expand...
You're trying to argue farcical standards of evidence which would exclude consistency of shoe prints, fibers, and even mDNA among many other forms of circumstantial evidence which could have come from a perpetrator and which are commonly accepted on such grounds in court.

Ausgirl said:
Oh -- and I remember some expert or other stating that the end of the knife where the compass used to be could have caused that sharply incised X in the middle of the 'bite'-like wound.
Click to expand...
The X isn't sharply incised, it's a blunt force injury much like a spit knuckle, skin being tight across forehead bones much as it is across knuckles. Furthermore, given its position right at the center of the semicircle, particularly in the context of the body of evidence as a whole, one has to imagine quite an aliment of the stars to dismiss the likelihood of that x mark having been inflicted by the compass which had been in the end of that survival knife.
 
kyleb said:
You're trying to argue farcical standards of evidence which would exclude consistency of shoe prints, fibers, and even mDNA among many other forms of circumstantial evidence which could have come from a perpetrator and which are commonly accepted in court.
Click to expand...

No, I'm actually not.


kyleb said:
The X isn't sharply incised, it's a blunt force injury much like a spit knuckle, skin being tight across forehead bones much as it is across knuckles. Furthermore, given its position right at the center of the semicircle, one has to imagine quite an aliment of the stars to dismiss the likelihood of it having been inflicted by the compass which had been in the end of that survival knife.
Click to expand...

If the compass had been in the end, with the compass appearing to be convex, and being convex enough to cause skin to split in at least two separate directions on impact, then it's doubtful IMO the lower, circular part of the knife's handle could have caused the circular shaped wound as well.
 
Ausgirl, please tell me: why would you accept a boot consistent with prints as evidence, but not a knife consistent with wounds?
 
Those injuries to me do not look a knife. Not a little bit. It looks to me to be a scraping or a rake like instrument. Not at all a knife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 89 more.
Total: 1,672 (members: 90, guests: 1,582)

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
1,582
Total visitors
1,672
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,891
Messages
18,194,346
Members
233,623
Latest member
cassie.ryan18
Back
Top