The Shoe Lace Bindings

[gheckso]

That's interesting if it is a facial hair. I've tried to find that cited on the web, but I can't; if you (or anyone) can find it, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I believe this is the hair in question: Page 7
Hair

 

[Compassionate Reader]

IMO, it's not critical to establish that it was a facial hair. I have heard that stated many times over the years. I'm sorry, but I can't recall the initial source of the statement. However, it is evidence that a prosecutor could use in a case. Although the defense would argue that the hair is not unique to TH, it was much weaker circumstantial evidence that convicted Damien, Jason and Jessie. Therefore, IMO, it is something that should be considered, especially when taken in conjunction with the other circumstantial evidence pointing to TH which is, IMHO, much stronger than the circumstantial evidence that convicted Damien, Jason and Jessie.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I believe this is the hair in question: Page 7
Hair

Seems to be, and coincidentally, it is identified as a "possible beard hair." That is probably the source of the "facial hair" statement. Thanks!

 

[Userid]

I believe this is the hair in question: Page 7
Hair

I'm a little confused -- is the "red hair fragment" the same as the "possible beard hair" fragment on page 7, or are those 2 different strands -- and how do we know which strand came from which binding? I ask because I've also heard that hair strands were found on the bindings of Chris Byers as well -- has anyone else heard this? I see "animal hairs" found within that report on page 5, but again, it doesn't specify where they were found (unless I'm missing something).

 

[Userid]

IMO, it's not critical to establish that it was a facial hair. I have heard that stated many times over the years. I'm sorry, but I can't recall the initial source of the statement. However, it is evidence that a prosecutor could use in a case. Although the defense would argue that the hair is not unique to TH, it was much weaker circumstantial evidence that convicted Damien, Jason and Jessie. Therefore, IMO, it is something that should be considered, especially when taken in conjunction with the other circumstantial evidence pointing to TH which is, IMHO, much stronger than the circumstantial evidence that convicted Damien, Jason and Jessie.

You're channeling Dennis Riordan to a Tee here (from that presser in 2007, I believe it was) -- that's not a knock on you or anything, but I had to say it. I like it, and I agree -- for both parties (WM3 and Hobbs), all the evidence thus far is circumstantial, but the circumstantial evidence against Hobbs is slightly more compelling than anything used to convict the WM3.

I agree it should be considered, but it doesn't prove Hobbs' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for me.

 

[LordYAM]

Hobbs behavior in the lawsuit with natalie maines was also suspicious. The fact that he claims not to remember what happened when his "beloved" stepson vanished is kinda odd too

 

[Userid]

Moving back towards the topic at hand, I think the laces were most likely applied at the scene (even though the attacks took place elsewhere). I feel as is the killer(s) wanted to ensure that the unconscious boys had indeed passed, so before throwing them in the water, their limbs were tied to ensure this and to prevent them from paddling out of the water once the killer(s) left the dump site.

Although, the abrasions may prove that they were tied for longer (than they would have been if they were tied at the dump site and immediately submerged). Nonetheless, I feel that the laces were used either to ensure drowning or to restrain them while still alive; not for hauling purposes. I almost feel like it would have been harder to transport bodies that are awkwardly tied in that fashion.

I also feel that the killer(s) may have accidentally dumped the shoe with the lace in while they were in the process of disposing the bodies, and that is why they had to resort to using one of their own laces. This would mean that the 2 boys found together were disposed of before Moore and the clothes. If there were at least 2 killers working together, confusion could have arose with one disposing of the clothes and the other disposing of the bikes and/or binding the victims.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

<respectfully snipped>

I feel that the laces were used either to ensure drowning or to restrain them while still alive; not for hauling purposes. I almost feel like it would have been harder to transport bodies that are awkwardly tied in that fashion.

I respectfully disagree. The manner in which the boys were tied is almost identical to how hogs are tied for slaughter. The bindings make convenient "handles" for transporting the pig carcasses. Of course, this ties in with the fact that TWH worked in a hog butcher house when he was a teenager.

I also feel that the killer(s) may have accidentally dumped the shoe with the lace in while they were in the process of disposing the bodies, and that is why they had to resort to using one of their own laces. This would mean that the 2 boys found together were disposed of before Moore and the clothes. If there were at least 2 killers working together, confusion could have arose with one disposing of the clothes and the other disposing of the bikes and/or binding the victims.

This is possible, IMO. My explanation was that the missing lace was broken when the killer(s) tried to use it to bind MM. Improvising, one of the killer's own laces was used. It was too long, so it was cut into two pieces. Therefore, the other lace was left in the shoe.

 

[Userid]

The problem I've always had with that theory is, if you're carrying them by those strings, would they really be strong enough to hold? A lot of people refute that they could've been tied while alive strictly because the bindings weren't tightly tied, and even a moderate amount of struggle would've untangled the knots.

 

[reedus23]

The problem I've always had with that theory is, if you're carrying them by those strings, would they really be strong enough to hold? A lot of people refute that they could've been tied while alive strictly because the bindings weren't tightly tied, and even a moderate amount of struggle would've untangled the knots.

My own personal thoughts are that the bindings probably simply served multiple purposes. Restraint. Transport. Dominance. Sick enjoyment. Regardless of the purpose, the fact that this fashion was used tells me, personally, that CR may have a good point. I just haven't seen many people bound as these boys were. It suggests to me some previous familiarity with that fashion of binding.

 

[Userid]

My own personal thoughts are that the bindings probably simply served multiple purposes. Restraint. Transport. Dominance. Sick enjoyment. Regardless of the purpose, the fact that this fashion was used tells me, personally, that CR may have a good point. I just haven't seen many people bound as these boys were. It suggests to me some previous familiarity with that fashion of binding.

True, it could be for more than one purpose. I always thought that the way they were tied indicated the lack of anything else to bind them with. If the killer(s) had stronger rope, they could've tied their wrists together and their ankles together, but shoestrings would not have been strong/long enough to wrap around wrist to wrist and ankle to ankle. In other words, the killer(s) were limited to how they could bind with what they had at their disposal (the shoelaces).

 

[gheckso]

I'm a little confused -- is the "red hair fragment" the same as the "possible beard hair" fragment on page 7, or are those 2 different strands -- and how do we know which strand came from which binding? I ask because I've also heard that hair strands were found on the bindings of Chris Byers as well -- has anyone else heard this? I see "animal hairs" found within that report on page 5, but again, it doesn't specify where they were found (unless I'm missing something).

This page gives a better explanation than I can I'm afraid. I trust I can post the link here?
Link 1
Link 2

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I’ve been looking at the shoes and bindings the last few days, and I think CR is pretty much spot on in post #1. Because all the links are broken, I decided to put this table up which I found somewhere, maybe it is the same one that is being addressed:



This topic has been discussed over and over, so I will just keep to one or two ideas I had. If you look at the length of each lace, 5 of six are about 30“ or thereabouts, and the 45“ does look a bit out of place. Cr’s suggestion that the second 30“ Black lace broke was also my original thought. My second thought was that the Black laces from SB were quite new according to PH, and the CB shoes were only a couple of days old according to JMB, so the white laces from MM were probably the oldest. After saying this, I have had new laces that have bust very quickly.


Other things:

I can’t really make anything of the knots, could be haphazard, could be intentional to confuse. The knots are pretty basic as far as I have heard. My knots are always the same, and very basic, in fact I would hardly know any other knot than the one I tie my shoes up with. What IMO is very telling, is the method used to tie legs to arms. A traditional wrist to wrist, ankle to ankle, would have been enough to restrain, and would have been enough to submerge limbs in shallow water, this was a specialised way of binding. I think the perp made his biggest blunder here, along with throwing the bikes in the bayou.

If he was trying to stage some sort of „bondage“ scene, it was not well thought out. A serial, or sexually orientated perp, would probably always have his tools handy. Handcuffs, cables, strings, ropes, I don’t think he would fiddle around pulling laces out of shoes. Thinking this murder was performed by a paedophile because he had the opportunity doesn’t work either. A paedophile singles out victims, two or three boys at once is not an opportunity, and paedophiles operate alone, two paedophiles is one too many.

So why the bindings in this way ?

1. To stage a sex crime.
2. To transport a short distance.
3. To dissociate. This type of binding made the naked bodies of the three little boys look like something familiar to the perp, three slaughtered pigs. This made the unbearable task of disposing of the bodies, and suppressing the atrociousness of what he had done, easier.

One last interesting thing, I will add this to my list of psychological / symbolical pointers. CB and SB once again got the same treatment:

CB Left side white lace, right side black lace. Bodies together in ditch. Facing South
SB Left side white lace, right side black lace. Bodies together in ditch. Facing South

MM Left side Black lace, Right side Black lace. Body alone in ditch. Facing North


As usual, JMO.

 

[Userid]

I believe the boys were tied this way, simply because it was the best way to tie the boys, with what the killer(s) had at his disposal (i.e. the shoelaces). Tying the boys wrists together with their shoelaces would have been both more difficult and too risky (not sufficient). The point was, the killer wanted these boys to both not be able to stand/walk and not be able to have control of their arms -- therefore, there was only one other way to accomplish this, and that would have been a traditional hogtie fashion (where both ankles are tied to both wrists with one rope, together). A traditional hogtie fashion wasn't possible because shoelaces aren't adequate enough; as the width of both wrists and ankles together would have been far greater to tie around than the width of each child's individual limb, especially when only having shoelaces at your disposal.

Another thing to remember is this: the lace that tied MM, is one long lace. What appears to be an aiglet at the bottom of MM's left lace isn't an aiglet. The bottoms of both laces represent frayed ends, not aiglets (although, at first glance they do look like aiglets). In other words, MM's left lace and CB's right lace should not be mistaken as belonging to the same pair of shoes. What I gather from the graphic is that, MM's lace was one long lace, cut in the middle to make two. Also, there is one lace that is missing from the crime scene: one lace was found still in CB's shoe, and only 4 were used on the boys (the white laces from one pair of shoes, and one lace from each of the other 2 boys').

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Gotta go to bed, but that's the chart! Will discuss this more manana!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I've said this before, but, for the "newbies" IMO the manner of the tying was copied from how a slaughtered animal is tied in a slaughter house for transport. TH worked in a slaughter house as a teenager. IMO, that's where he got the idea.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

After studying these images for a while, I'm quite sure these are the shoes TH has on in this photo. They are called "DS L.A. Gear Double Lace Kareem Abdul Jabbar OG Vintage Basketball Shoes" STYLE # 4041 and were produced in the '90's (1992). Notice the red "band" on the tongue, with the globe under it. These are double laced shoes.



The photo von TH was dated 2/14/93.

 

[Cappuccino]

If anybody ever manages to figure out the shoe laces, they deserve a Nobel prize. As far as I can figure from studying the facts of this case, the following things are true....

1) Michael was wearing white shoe laces.

2) Christopher's shoe laces were brand new, (he was wearing shoes bought only two days before he was murdered).

3) Steven was wearing high topped sneakers, which had longer laces than the other two boys' shoes.

4) One of Christopher's laces was left intact in his shoe.

5) Steven and Christopher were both tied with one white lace and one black lace each.

6) Michael was tied with two black laces, but there were no aiglets at the end of his ties. It looks like Michael was tied with one long black lace cut in two rather than two black laces.

Make sense of that, I dare you.

 

[Userid]

I think the shoelaces of at least 2 pair of shoes were removed at one time (hence the white/black pattern for the 2 victims).

CB's shoes were also high tops, but nonetheless, (with regards to SB's shoes being high tops) the strings on a kid's sized pair of sneakers would still be relatively short compared to an adult sized pair. It almost seems like the killer removed CB's lace at the same time he did with the other 4 shoes, initially thinking it was long enough to cut in half to bind MM, but once he did so, he either mis-cut it to where one binding was too short to tie, or he cut it correctly in the middle, but the 2 bindings were still too short to use. In the chaos of it all, he had to resort to using one of his own laces, perhaps while pinning MM at the same time.

To me, this phantom lace indicates that MM was tied either first, or last.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Yes, I agree with you Cappuccino, I can think of better things to blow a brain fuse with.

The shoes, laces could have had a bearing on this case in 1993, from this viewpoint:

1. The laces were compared with each other.
2. The lace left in the shoe was removed and compared with the other black laces, and with the lace that was apparently cut in half.
3. If the lace cut in half was assumed to be foreign to the others, the houses of the immediate suspects (The Parents), should have been searched.

As far as I can see, the lace left in the shoe of CB, was never removed. I can't find documentation of this. Furthermore as I posted in the TH viable suspect thread post #891,
the lace and the sock both left in the shoes, did not receive there own evidence numbers, thus after their initial listing as evidence, they were not mentioned any more, at least I can't find them.

It must also be remembered, that a hair found, in the possibly foreign lace used to bind MM, could be linked to TH. If this lace is not from one of the boys, the chance of that hair being secondary transfer, sinks rapidly IMO.

In 2015, what significance do the laces have ? It doesn't really say much about the perp, whether the laces came from MM's or SB's shoes. Even the knots could be interpreted as being this or that, tied by one person, tied by a number of people, as they are pretty basic knots, no special knowledge or training was needed.

The way the boys were bound tells us more about the perp IMO. This is a special way of binding. Who would do it ? I've only got four answers, maybe others can help here.

1. A butcher
2. Someone who hunts.
3. Someone who has knowledge of bondage.
4. A military person, policeman, prison officer, ex-convict, scout leader.

It seems like a lot of possibilities, but how big a portion of the population would these groups represent, and which suspects could be a member of one of these group ? I am pretty sure it wasn't DE, JM, and JB who collectively knew and carried out this binding method.