Dog gone.

[iluvmua]

Cause of death

Spitz: All three died of drowning; none of the injuries contributed to death.
Baden: Multiple injuries and drowning.
Souviron: No comment. He’s a dentist, not a pathologist.

Death Certificate

Spitz: Undetermined, but definitely not homicide.
Baden: Homicide.
Souviron: No comment. He can’t sign death certificates.

Skull Fractures

Spitz: Caused by a dog bashing the victims against hard things. Postmortem.
Baden: Caused by a human. Antemortem.
Souviron: Blunt force trauma inflicted by something. Probably teeth.

Puncture wounds

Spitz: Caused by the incisors of a large, non-homicidal animal (dog).
Baden: Caused by turtles, not dogs.
Souviron: Animal claws.

Injuries to Stevie’s face

Spitz: Rough tongue of an animal licking the face.
Baden: Face rubbing against a tree or rock.
Souviron: Tongue of a small dog, raccoon, turtle, crawfish, or opossum.

Injuries to lips and/or ears

Spitz: Minnows or dogs; postmortem.
Baden: Turtles; postmortem.
Souviron: Feet or claws of an animal ( Stevie’s bottom lip antemortem; top lip postmortem).

Additional points, based on Cruecial’s notes:

Baden said Peretti’s claims of satanism in relation to the mode of death were wrong. Fact: Peretti was never asked, nor did he ever mention a word about satanism in his trial testimony.

Souviron said knife wounds almost always show bone deflection & there was no bone deflection in this case. Fact: He’s full of ****. A knife wound can cause injury and death without ever touching a bone. And some killers like to inflict shallow cuts and gouges. It's called torture. They get off on it.

Is there a judge in this country who would give these three clowns a second thought?

We will have to wait and see if they make it past the hearings first

 

[Mary456]

Well if he's saying a dog or coyote shook the boys by the head while they were in the water, he's full of it IMO.

According to a supporter who attended the hearings and took notes, this is Spitz's testimony:

Per Spitz, all of the wounds were attributed to animal predation. He said it was the work of a large animal, most likely a dog.

When asked if injuries found on the ears could be attributed to having been forced to perform oral sex, Spitz disagreed with this as he said injuries would have had to have been found on both ears, not just one.

Please note: Dr. Peretti, who actually examined the bodies, testified - and presented photos to the jurors - that all three boys had contusions and scratches to both ears, not just one.

Burnett asked if Spitz would have considered the deaths 'homicides,' and if he would note thusly on the death certificates. To this, Spitz answered that he would have noted death was 'undetermined.'

Please note: Spitz believes the boys were not victims of a homicide. They were not murdered.

Other wounds attributed to animals were the injuries to Stevie Branch's face. Spitz determined these were caused by the rough tongue of an animal 'licking' the face.

Those wounds went all the way through the skin and muscle of the face, into the mouth cavity. I wonder how long a dog would have to "lick" to get through all that? Just a thought.

There were suggestions by the State that dogs could certainly not have tied up the victims or thrown them into the ditch.

He continued to insist that the injuries were not manmade, but caused by an animal.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Yeah well, there goes his credibility.

 

[Nova]

Yeah well, there goes his credibility.

Unless the "supporter" who supposedly took notes is a trained court stenographer, I'd withhold judgment.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Those wounds went all the way through the skin and muscle of the face, into the mouth cavity. I wonder how long a dog would have to "lick" to get through all that? Just a thought.
There were suggestions by the State that dogs could certainly not have tied up the victims or thrown them into the ditch.
He continued to insist that the injuries were not manmade, but caused by an animal.

Spitz stated further that, when a body is submerged in water, the flesh is softened. So, IMO, yes a licking animal could have removed a considerable portion of the epidermis, even down into the dermis, given enough time and a non resistant victim. As to dogs tying up the victims, obviously they did not. Spitz stated that the deaths were "undetermined" IMO because, looking only at photos and autopsy reports, he did not have enough information to determine the cause of death. I don't recall him saying that it was not a homicide; he just said that the wounds attributed by Peretti to a knife were actually caused by post-mortem animal predation. Personally, I believe that the boys were killed and the bodies were tied up post-mortem for transport from the murder scene to the discovery ditch. IIRC, the defense only gave Spitz information on the bodies themselves, not any information that would indicate that it was possible that two different scenes were involved. Again, I tend to believe Spitz more than Peretti because Spitz, as the author of the textbook on forensic pathology, is more credible than Peretti whose thoughts about turtles are a little bizarre IMO.

 

[Mary456]

Spitz stated further that, when a body is submerged in water, the flesh is softened. So, IMO, yes a licking animal could have removed a considerable portion of the epidermis, even down into the dermis, given enough time and a non resistant victim.

The bodies were facedown, pressed into the mud at the bottom of the ditch.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It is my opinion that the bodies were predated upon in a different location where there was also standing water - in a manhole. Whatever predated on the bodies, possibly alligator snapping turtles and/or raccoons, did the damage there, not in the discovery ditch. Also, even though the bodies were found face down doesn't mean that the current couldn't have changed the position of the bodies. However, I do believe that the murderer did press the bodies down to slow down their discovery. If this had been a Satanic ritual, the bodies would have been left "on display" in some way. This is just another proof that there was no Satanic ritual involved in this crime.

 

[Mary456]

I tend to believe Spitz more than Peretti because Spitz, as the author of the textbook on forensic pathology, is more credible than Peretti whose thoughts about turtles are a little bizarre IMO.

I tend to believe Peretti because, unlike Spitz, he actually performed the autopsies. He saw the bodies firsthand.

Nothing illustrates the danger of using only photos, especially if they're cherry picked by the defense team, than Spitz's comment about the ear injuries:

When asked if injuries found on the ears could be attributed to having been forced to perform oral sex, Spitz disagreed with this as he said injuries would have had to have been found on both ears, not just one.

All three boys had bruises and scratches to both ears. It's in the trial transcript.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

But there was no semen found from either the anal swabs or the oral swabs of the victims. The dilation of the anus on the victims was not caused by sodomy but by relaxation at death. Peretti, IMO, was trying to tailor his testimony to support the prosecution's case. This is why it often helps to get another opinion. In fact, the defense got several - four I believe. So, if Spitz missed some scratches on the ear, it doesn't detract from the fact that there was no physical evidence of sexual activity, either orally or anally, on any of the victims. The wounds that Peretti attributed to the "lake knife" were caused by "scraping" the knife across the flesh. Why would you use a knife to scrape? If you have a knife, you stab. The wounds that Peretti claimed to be stab wounds, those around Chris' genitals, are now attributed to animal predation. Examining photos is an accepted method of determining how wounds were caused, as long as the person examining the photos has extensive experience with this type of examination. That's why I can accept Spitz and the other pathologists over Peretti. Peretti simply made too many mistakes (or intentionally misled the jury at the behest of the prosecution). It's all about politics in a small town.

 

[justthinkin]

Spitz stated further that, when a body is submerged in water, the flesh is softened. So, IMO, yes a licking animal could have removed a considerable portion of the epidermis, even down into the dermis, given enough time and a non resistant victim. As to dogs tying up the victims, obviously they did not. Spitz stated that the deaths were "undetermined" IMO because, looking only at photos and autopsy reports, he did not have enough information to determine the cause of death. I don't recall him saying that it was not a homicide; he just said that the wounds attributed by Peretti to a knife were actually caused by post-mortem animal predation. Personally, I believe that the boys were killed and the bodies were tied up post-mortem for transport from the murder scene to the discovery ditch. IIRC, the defense only gave Spitz information on the bodies themselves, not any information that would indicate that it was possible that two different scenes were involved. Again, I tend to believe Spitz more than Peretti because Spitz, as the author of the textbook on forensic pathology, is more credible than Peretti whose thoughts about turtles are a little bizarre IMO.

Spitz is unbelievable in this instance, in that, most people can easily deduce that 3 eight year old boys who have been hog-tied, and drowned are murder victims. That he couldn't unequivocally state this was a homicide is ludicrous. What this proves to me is he is willing to claim or say anything on behalf of the defense even if it further destroys his own reputation as his behavior in the Phil Spector trial did.

Once an expert, now only an expert witness. Sad.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Don't get me wrong; I think it was a homicide. However, in Spitz's defense, just because the bodies were hog-tied doesn't indicate murder unless you can determine that either the bodies were tied post-mortem and that the COD is evident or that the hog-tying was the COD in some way. The knots were not tied for restraint but for transport. I base this on the kind of knot used, a half-hitch which is just a loop. If the boys were alive when tied, they could have easily worked the knots loose. So, the hog-tying did not contribute to the death IMO.

 

[Mary456]

Peretti, IMO, was trying to tailor his testimony to support the prosecution's case. This is why it often helps to get another opinion. In fact, the defense got several - four I believe.

Yes, and all of them contradict each other.

So, if Spitz missed some scratches on the ear, it doesn't detract from the fact that there was no physical evidence of sexual activity, either orally or anally, on any of the victims.

There was strong evidence of forced oral sex when considering the mouth and ear injuries on all three boys.

Branch:

Lips abraded with cuts.
Inner lips bruised and cut with hemorrhage.
Gums extensively hemorrhagic.
Both ears bruised with overlying linear scratches.

Byers:

Abrasions of the lips, mucosal surface of lower lip lacerated.
Frenulum bruised (this is particularly indicative of forced oral sex)
Multiple bite marks on mucosal sufaces of left and right cheeks.
Both ears bruised with overlying linear scratches.

Moore:

Cuts, contusions, and swelling of upper and lower lips.
Both ears bruised with scratches.

The wounds that Peretti attributed to the "lake knife" were caused by "scraping" the knife across the flesh. Why would you use a knife to scrape? If you have a knife, you stab.

Not if you want to torture your victim.

 

[Nova]

Yes, and all of them contradict each other.



There was strong evidence of forced oral sex when considering the mouth and ear injuries on all three boys.

Branch:

Lips abraded with cuts.
Inner lips bruised and cut with hemorrhage.
Gums extensively hemorrhagic.
Both ears bruised with overlying linear scratches.

Byers:

Abrasions of the lips, mucosal surface of lower lip lacerated.
Frenulum bruised (this is particularly indicative of forced oral sex)
Multiple bite marks on mucosal sufaces of left and right cheeks.
Both ears bruised with overlying linear scratches.

Moore:

Cuts, contusions, and swelling of upper and lower lips.
Both ears bruised with scratches.



Not if you want to torture your victim.

Am I the only male who reads here?

Mary, look at your "evidence of forced oral sex" and then think about what that would do to the rapist! I realize "oral rape" is possible, but I believe it almost always involves intimidating the victim into compliance (with a weapon, threats, other violence, etc.), not just brute force.

Trust me, a penis is ill equipped against teeth.

***

As for torture, when and where was that happening? And how did the WM3 keep their victims quiet as others searched the woods? (The WM3 had no way to transport the victims any significant distance.)

 

[justthinkin]

Don't get me wrong; I think it was a homicide. However, in Spitz's defense, just because the bodies were hog-tied doesn't indicate murder unless you can determine that either the bodies were tied post-mortem and that the COD is evident or that the hog-tying was the COD in some way. The knots were not tied for restraint but for transport. I base this on the kind of knot used, a half-hitch which is just a loop. If the boys were alive when tied, they could have easily worked the knots loose. So, the hog-tying did not contribute to the death IMO.

If the boys drowned then the hog-tying certainly could have contributed to their demise. After all, Jessie described one of the little boys bodies as jerking around in the water. If the child had been knocked out, hitting the water could have revived him somewhat. Which by the way, how would it have occurred to Jessie to say that, him being such a mentally impaired kid, if he wasn't there?????

I never said anything about hog-tying being the cause of death anyway, but whether it occurred before or after death, that it was done at all indicates a homicide. Spitz has shown his true colors, green for dollars.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

As I said, I, too, believe it was a homicide. Here's a possible scenario: the bodies were tied for transport by a person or persons unknown. This person found the boys dead. Maybe they were playing in a manhole and fell from the ladder up the side, one pulling the other two after him. The fall caused the head injuries and unconsciousness. The water in the manhole caused the drownings. This unknown person, maybe afraid that he/she would be suspected of the crime because of some sort of connection with the manhole (close to his/her home or work), decides to move the bodies. The bodies have already been predated upon by animals. This unknown person, having not been prepared since he/she didn't commit the crime, tied the bodies for transport with the only thing available, the shoelaces. Then the bodies are transported to the discovery ditch. I agree that this is a bit far-fetched (at least the part about the person moving the bodies not having been the murderer), but it is a possible explanation of how the deaths were not murder but a horrible accident.

 

[ziggy]

Nova: good point on the forced oral sex. I don't have one, but I was thinking the same thing..."forced" oral sex is usually by compliance through intimidation and fear, not rough physical acts.

The problem with whatever Jesse said is that since the entire interrogation was not taped, we have no idea what was said to him - things that could have given him ideas about the theorty LE were developing etc. It's all suspect and sketchy because the WMPD tainted it.

 

[iluvmua]

Am I the only male who reads here?

Mary, look at your "evidence of forced oral sex" and then think about what that would do to the rapist! I realize "oral rape" is possible, but I believe it almost always involves intimidating the victim into compliance (with a weapon, threats, other violence, etc.), not just brute force.

Trust me, a penis is ill equipped against teeth.

***

As for torture, when and where was that happening? And how did the WM3 keep their victims quiet as others searched the woods? (The WM3 had no way to transport the victims any significant distance.)

well, my guess is that the torture happened in the woods where the boys were found.

I'm pretty sure they would be able to keep them quite.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

And I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be able to keep them quiet. Three eight-year-old boys would yell bloody murder (no pun intended) if a stranger or three tried to do something to them. A stepfather, however, who may have had a gun, would have been able to keep them quiet. They would have gone with him willingly, at least at first. However, I believe that he found them playing in the manhole sometime between 6:30 pm and 7:00 pm and murdered them there and transported the bodies to the discovery site after the searching was suspended for the night around 3 or 4 am. The supposed stabs were not deep enough to be considered "torture" and Peretti said that they were made by scraping the knife across the flesh, not by stabbing. Again, why use a knife if not to stab? Just doesn't make sense. Torture would involve deeper cuts than those on the bodies.

 

[justthinkin]

Each perp grabs a child, pulls him in to his chest, holds him there with his left arm and hand, and punches him in the head with his right fist. It wouldn't take long to make an eight year old unconscious.

The kids don't scream because older brothers have done this to them before in jest, so they have no idea they are about to be killed. Instead they are yelling obscenities at their attackers, and kicking and fighting against being held. It is already too late for them when they realize they are going to die.

These little boys know who Damien and Jason are, if not their names, because they've seen them walking through their neighborhood when the little boys were out on their bikes, and have most likely exchanged taunting calls with the WM3 or Damien, at the very least.
The above is how I think it happened.

To claim that any lacerations occurring before death were not torture is absurd no matter how the wounds were inflicted. If instead, a child is deceased, then no, it is not torture, but if done by a human would be disfiguring the body or overkill. Any animal predation occurring on a still living person is torture no matter how deep the wounds are. If the skin is broken repeatedly in numerous places it hurts.

CR, if you are going to play out that manhole theory then you have to be able to go into it and say exactly how each boy was subdued, what the other two were doing while the killer was busy with the first boy, and beginning with an adult male standing outside the manhole cover, and the three little ones down inside the pipe. Take it from there, and let's hear it. I'm not looking for how a hair got transferred here. I want to know exactly how the crime went down or your best effort to describe how it occurred. Did the killer go down the manhole himself, did he pull the boys out? How was he able to subdue the three without them running farther back in the sewer. How much water was down below the manhole cover if there was water at all? Reenact the crime. You can stop when you get to transporting the bodies because we've heard all that before. FYI, people who carry guns to crime scenes usually use them, so leave out the gun you introduced. No wait, to be fair, I want you to come up with two scenarios, one with the killer having a gun, and one without.

If we are to believe this manhole theory, there has to be a logical progression.

 

[Nova]

If the boys drowned then the hog-tying certainly could have contributed to their demise. After all, Jessie described one of the little boys bodies as jerking around in the water. If the child had been knocked out, hitting the water could have revived him somewhat. Which by the way, how would it have occurred to Jessie to say that, him being such a mentally impaired kid, if he wasn't there?????

I never said anything about hog-tying being the cause of death anyway, but whether it occurred before or after death, that it was done at all indicates a homicide. Spitz has shown his true colors, green for dollars.

Your second paragraph shows a misunderstanding of how scientific testimony is supposed to work.

Your common sense (and mine) concludes that no one would hog-tie a body that had died from natural causes or suicide. I'm sure Spitz would agree.

But testifying as an expert, Spitz is obligated to acknowledge that the hog-tying per se didn't cause the death and therefore can't prove scientifically whether that death was homicide.