Evidence

[Userid]

My definition of "evidence" is much more rigid:

My physical "evidence":

The blue fibers still clutched in MM's hand when the bodies were found. (Quite honestly, this could be one and only true smoking gun of this entire case, in my view.)

The blue candle wax found on one of the boys' shirts.

The foot print at the crime scene.

The mystery binding used on MM that hadn't originated from any of the boys' shoes.

The yellow stain on the shoelace hole of one of the shoes.

I am not counting the markings/scrapings on the body, in that I am choosing to separate wounds from what is physical evidence. Basically, this is all there is, as far as physical evidence goes.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

That's interesting. I didn't know about the candle wax and yellow stains. I did hear something about 'foreign DNA' found on SB's genitals, but I don't know if it was a hair or something else. I also don't know if that DNA was ever compared to TH's DNA. Is it certain the fibers were blue? Peretti doesn't mention a color in his autopsy report.

thank you for clarifying about the adoption. Is anything known about CB's real Dad? Maybe he could have ID the necklace?

That would be Ricky Murray. According to JMB, he left Melissa before CB was born: 'Now, Ricky was not there when Christopher was born. Ricky left Melissa before the baby was born. They were legally married four (more) years, but they didn't live together but about a year and a half out of that 4 years'. He sounds like a real criminal, judging from JMB's interview with the WMPD. He molested Ryan, tried to set Melissa on fire with lighter fluid and spent some time in jail for a hit-and-run.

 

[Aynia]

The blue wax really bothers me because of the link with the blue Damien candle. But anyway, I'm thinking no one would carry a wax to the scene and pour over it's wax around... anything in this case is making sense to me right now. The more I read the less I know!!!!

 

[KAYTOM]

I'm looking at this case (again ) and I'm wondering, if there was to be a new investigation, what would the actual evidence be? Is there anything concrete at all? (Except the Hobbs hair that can easily be dismissed with secondary transferring, unfortunately), what concrete evidence do we have?
I'm not counting on confessions or hearsay or something similar, because those can be easily ruled out.
IMHO there's nothing that could bring those 3 little boys justice: (

I'd hope that the technology today could retrieve viable skin cells off the bindings. They apparently found one that wasn't good enough for testing, and I think they have some sort of vacuum dna collector they can use now. Apparently another 20 year old cold case was solved when they vacuumed a rock used as a murder device. Here it is:

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/...than-csi-hightechdnavacuumcrackscoldcase.html

 

[Userid]

That's interesting. I didn't know about the candle wax and yellow stains. I did hear something about 'foreign DNA' found on SB's genitals, but I don't know if it was a hair or something else. I also don't know if that DNA was ever compared to TH's DNA. Is it certain the fibers were blue? Peretti doesn't mention a color in his autopsy report.

I forgot about the foreign DNA on SB -- I would also include that in my evidence, in addition to the foreign DNA found on MM's clothing. There was DNA found that was tested to see if it was sperm, but the test was inconclusive. I believe this was found on MM's pants, which were very muddy once recovered.

As far as I can remember, it was confirmed that the fibers were blue later, when the crime lab studied the evidence microscopically.

I am unsure if the DNA was ever compared to TH, but if I had to guess, I would say it wasn't -- because the only parent the police really, seriously investigated was JMB (believe it or not, he is the only one, which is unfathomable).

The blue wax really bothers me because of the link with the blue Damien candle. But anyway, I'm thinking no one would carry a wax to the scene and pour over it's wax around... anything in this case is making sense to me right now. The more I read the less I know!!!!

Yes -- I believe the WM3 should have never been convicted, and although I can't wholeheartedly believe that any or all of them are innocent, I do lean heavily toward them not being the perpetrators. That said, there are 2 bits of "evidence" that do cause me to pause: the blue candle wax, as you said; and JB's newly replaced combat boot laces that were recovered from his trailer. The boots were extremely muddy, and the laces were brand new. It is thought that MM was tied with simply one long lace cut in two, and a combat boot lace would have fit this specific length. Also, the boots were black. Now please, don't assume that I'm insisting this proves the WM3 guilty, because I'm not -- I'm just saying, it is quite the coincidence and it is an element you don't hear much about on these forums.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Also found at the scene was a dufflebag (containing men's clothing and a Bic razor), a men's brown coat (but GG told JMB - who found the coat - that the coat had been there for a while; how GG knew this is a mystery) and a partial hand print. I don't know if any of these things were ever tested, though.

Also of interest might be this phone call ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu57ti78okA ) between JMB and TH. IIRC, this call happened in the few days between the parents being notified of the mtDNA findings and the public being informed. JMB, having been convinced of the innocence of the WM3 and the probable guilt of TH, was trying to work with JD (ex-FBI profiler) to get an incriminating statement from TH. At the time, JMB with the help of his then-wife got palm prints from TH. These prints were turned over to the police for testing, but I've never heard anything about the results. Guess they didn't match any of the "suspects" that the wmpd had determined to be guilty. (I learned this from reading Greg Day's book, Untying the Knot, which is the story of JMB.)

 

[zencompass]

The brown coat with the bic razor in the pocket really bothers me. Was it ever taken into evidence? I also would really like to know about the palm print. There is so much evidence which was not presented at the trials that I hope and pray will come out eventually when the case is reopened.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

The brown coat probably had nothing to do with the murders. Ryan Clark said it had been there for some time: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ryanclark.html
I can't hear the phone conversation between JMB and TH. Is there a transcript somewhere of the call?

 

[Userid]

Also found at the scene was a dufflebag (containing men's clothing and a Bic razor), a men's brown coat (but GG told JMB - who found the coat - that the coat had been there for a while; how GG knew this is a mystery) and a partial hand print. I don't know if any of these things were ever tested, though.

Also of interest might be this phone call ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu57ti78okA ) between JMB and TH. IIRC, this call happened in the few days between the parents being notified of the mtDNA findings and the public being informed. JMB, having been convinced of the innocence of the WM3 and the probable guilt of TH, was trying to work with JD (ex-FBI profiler) to get an incriminating statement from TH. At the time, JMB with the help of his then-wife got palm prints from TH. These prints were turned over to the police for testing, but I've never heard anything about the results. Guess they didn't match any of the "suspects" that the wmpd had determined to be guilty. (I learned this from reading Greg Day's book, Untying the Knot, which is the story of JMB.)

Wasn't there also a pair of jeans and an black sweatshirt recovered, both adult sized? And if so, were these recovered with the brown coat?

I've read so much on this case that perhaps my memory isn't the sharpest, but I thought, instead of a duffel bag, it was a plastic bag that contained "a bunch" of disposable razors.

It's fine if you consider these items as evidence, but I don't. This area was a known hangout for all sorts of people in the area: teens, adults, bums. I suppose it's possible that the person who committed these crimes was a bum living in the crime scene for days or even weeks before, whom the boys had "discovered," but I would have to ponder that scenario more before adopting it.

I would imagine GG told JMB that the coat had been there a while simply based on the condition of the coat once it was recovered. I don't think it would be hard to determine, as it was probably muddy, dusty, etc. The black sweatshirt and jeans, however, I do think were in fairly good condition.

EDIT: here are clothes I'm referring to. There was also a "sleeve shirt, sized large" recovered (next to the jeans). http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/clothing_246.JPG

 

[Compassionate Reader]

No matter how much one reads or how long one has been studying this case it seems that the information is endless. I believe those clothes were deemed to be of the same origin as those in the bag. However, I'm not sure at all about that. Like you, I've read so much over the years that it all runs together. Also, my "search" skills aren't the best, and I find searching on Cally's impossible! Of course, the area was used by vagrants and the like, but I still find it strange that GG wasn't interested in the adult clothing found in the woods.

 

[Graznik]

The candle wax that has been brought up in this thread doesn't bother me at all. First off, if it's candle wax, it could've come from anywhere really. It's not that uncommon of a candle. I believe my mother had some blue candles in the early 90s... Second, was it even confirmed that it was blue candle wax? IIRC, it was sort of exaggerated in order to fit in with the whole satanic ritual murder motive. They really didn't have any evidence of a ritual, but gosh darn' it there was some blue candle wax and blue is almost black! Again, IIRC, it was just blue and waxy. Now, what's blue and waxy? A blue crayon. A lot less dramatic, especially when you consider that it was found on the t-shirt of an 8 year old.

Regarding what I would consider evidence... I would like to see some hard physical evidence, like DNA. However, I'm not gonna beat around the bush here, I believe the perp was most likely someone who knew the boys as is often the case with crimes like these. Now, TH is very high up on my list even though I'm far from 100% convinced and not too keen on pointing fingers - I like to keep an open mind. However, because of that, a lot of DNA evidence could be explained away as secondary transfer. I find it highly unlikely, but what I think doesn't really matter. So it would really be of utmost importance to test any and all possible DNA found on the bodies. The WM3 have already been ruled out by DNA testing - who else could be ruled out?! Just test EVERYTHING. Identify all DNA present.

Sadly, all that testing might not be possible, and that's where slightly more circumstantial things, such as the lock box, come in to play.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

One problem I have always had with the secondary transfer is this: JMB had long hair back in 1993 and punished CB just about an hour or so before the murders (I think the murders took place somewhere between 18:30 and 19:00). Not one hair of JMB was found at the crime scene, even though he had just been interacting with CB. So we are supposed to believe that TH's hair(s), who claims he never saw SB that day, just magically appear at the crime scene through secondary transfer? And I completely agree that all evidence should be reviewed again. When that is done, the DA should make a decision how to move forward with this case, JMO.

 

[Graznik]

One problem I have always had with the secondary transfer is this: JMB had long hair back in 1993 and punished CB just about an hour or so before the murders (I think the murders took place somewhere between 18:30 and 19:00). Not one hair of JMB was found at the crime scene, even though he had just been interacting with CB. So we are supposed to believe that TH's hair(s), who claims he never saw SB that day, just magically appear at the crime scene through secondary transfer? And I completely agree that all evidence should be reviewed again. When that is done, the DA should make a decision how to move forward with this case, JMO.

I completely agree!

The only reason I brought up secondary transfer in my post was because some people think it's plausible and because I at least like to try to keep an open mind.
I also don't think it's bloody likely that the hair belonged to someone within the nought point something percentage of the population at large that share a maternal ancestor with TH. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No.

However, the hair found on a tree stump that matched DJ's mtDNA, was secondary transfer IMHO. TH's and DJ's accounts of that day would support that. IIRC, it could also belong to a much larger percentage of the population at large.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Upon re-reading, the Bic razor was found in the brown coat pocket. JMB took it out to see what it was and then replaced it. Here's my problem with these "extra" clothes: the long-sleeved shirt and pants were collected, but there's no notation that the brown coat was. Yes, the area is frequented by transients, and therefore these things may not be related to the case. However, why were some of the items collected (and supposedly tested) and others were not? Is it just more evidence of the incompetence of the wmpd, or is it something else?

 

[Userid]

I completely agree!

The only reason I brought up secondary transfer in my post was because some people think it's plausible and because I at least like to try to keep an open mind.
I also don't think it's bloody likely that the hair belonged to someone within the nought point something percentage of the population at large that share a maternal ancestor with TH. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No.

However, the hair found on a tree stump that matched DJ's mtDNA, was secondary transfer IMHO. TH's and DJ's accounts of that day would support that. IIRC, it could also belong to a much larger percentage of the population at large.

The truth about the hair is that it could have belonged to about 1,000 people in the area; one of them, of course being TH. However, it was not a direct match to TH.

I know people think that's the smoking gun in this case, but for me personally, it really isn't. I think it's probably a little bit better than the fiber evidence the Prosecution tried to use against the WM3, but not that much better and probably more comparable than anything.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'm assuming that the 1,000 figure represents 1.5% of the population in West Memphis at the time. However, there's something else to consider. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. The 1.5% figure represents the percent of the world's population that share a maternal ancestor with TH. So, if the donor of the hair is not TH, it must be someone with whom he shares a maternal ancestor. That's the advantage of mtDNA. It's passed down, from generation to generation, basically unchanged (with occasional irregularities) from mother to child.

 

[zencompass]

Thanks Compassionate Reader! I had not known or understood what mtDNA meant until you explained it. It's astonishing how much that narrows down the percentage of individuals a particular hair belongs to.

 

[Userid]

I'm assuming that the 1,000 figure represents 1.5% of the population in West Memphis at the time. The 1.5% figure represents the percent of the world's population that share a maternal ancestor with TH. So, if the donor of the hair is not TH, it must be someone with whom he shares a maternal ancestor.

Point being? A "maternal ancestor" could anyone (man or woman) connected to TH's mother, TH's mother's mother, TH's mother's mother's mother, TH's mother's mother's mother, TH's mother's mother's mother's mother, TH's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother, TH's......well, I think you get the point.

Yes, the 1,000 (estimated) figure is from the 1.5%. The 1.5% is from the official percentage reported: "1.5% of the population could be the source of the ligature hair." TH is a part of that group of 1,000.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I know what a maternal ancestor is. My point is that whoever the donor of the hair is, it has to be someone who has a genetic link to a maternal ancestor of TH. So, just saying it could be "anyone of 1,000 people" is not quite the truth. I wanted to make that clear.



ETA: Let me explain probability for a moment. When something is said to have a 99% probability of happening, that is what is called a "theoretical" probability. There are two basic kinds of probabilities - theoretical and experimental. Generally speaking, theoretical probability is often based on experimental probability. For example, if a baseball player has a batting average of 0.250, that means that so far he has gotten a hit 25% of the time he has been at bat, less the walks. Does that mean that, if he comes to the plate four times in a game, he will get at least one hit? No! Similarly, if 1,000 represents 1.5% of the population of West Memphis at the time of the murders, it doesn't necessarily follow that there were 1,000 people in the city at the time of the murders who share a maternal ancestor with TH. To find out how many people in the city of West Memphis at the time shared a maternal ancestor with TH, everyone in the population would have to be questioned and their ancestry checked. Then, those who qualified would be the possible donors. That would create what is called the "sample space" for the question. Then, we could accurately say that the probability of the hair belonging to TH is one out of however many are in the sample space. If there were no other people in West Memphis at the time of the murders who shared a maternal ancestor with TH, then the probability that the hair is TH's would be 100%. That's why these distinctions are important. Sorry for being so technical.

 

[Userid]

I don't think I ever said that it could be "anyone of 1,000 people," just pointed out that it could be up to 1,000 people (1.5%) within the maternal bloodline of TH. I figured the "within the maternal bloodline of TH" was already a given here and didn't bear repeating, but I can understand your argument from a strictly semantics-type of standpoint.