Evidence

[Userid]

I watched the debunk Video and I do see the half circles all over the side of SBs face. Does anyone think the killer picked up a pipe and held it in one hand while jabbing him in the face with the end of it. (If he used the handle of a knife he risks slicing his hand) It could have been cut uneven to make half circles instead of full circles. There could still be a bite mark as well on the forehead as an additional injury.

I've been thinking about the type of instrument that could leave those type of rounded markings: a hammer, sledgehammer? The fact of the matter is, it could be anything; it could even be some sort of random household object that you would never even think would be used in such an act.

The butt-end of a pipe is a very good guess; perhaps with part of the cylindrical tube chipped off at the bottom, hence the half shape.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

I've been thinking about the type of instrument that could leave those type of rounded markings: a hammer, sledgehammer? The fact of the matter is, it could be anything; it could even be some sort of random household object that you would never even think would be used in such an act.

The butt-end of a pipe is a very good guess; perhaps with part of the cylindrical tube chipped off at the bottom, hence the half shape.

Thanks, yeah I had to think of something that a killer who followed the kids into the woods could use to make those kind of facial lacs and then be turned around and used to make those terrible head wounds. A small construction or plumbing type pipe could be available on the ground around the kids played at. It would also have to be scary enough to keep the other kids somewhat paralyzed in fear. Another poster on a different board had a theory about rebar.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I never believed the Ballard sighting, and this just confirms my suspicion. Supposedly, no one from the police department ever contacted the family to interview them -- but obviously, she and her family's address were on the WMPD's radar very early in the police reports, before the WM3 were even arrested.

From these notes, it seems like the police had talked to JCB at one of these addresses, most likely at 809 N. 14th. They took her name and address down. Wonder why she wouldn't have told the police about her supposed sighting then?

EDIT: I just re-read it, and it looks like it was JCB who had "saw the boys going south before 6." Patty Smith said she saw "nothing." JCB was at Patty Smith's residence when she was questioned by police. Guess that little explanation of hers stating "oh, the cops never asked me anything -- that's why I never came forward" really is nothing but b.s.

This is a bombshell.

Here, she clearly states it was before 6. Twenty years later, she states it was at 6:30.

Yes, that's very plausible. JCB was a friend of RC, who was a good friend of Britt S. Britt S was the son of Patty S, so I think it's definitely possible that JCB would hang out at Patty's house. JCB should be questioned about this, JMO.

 

[Graznik]

Am I the only one that
a.) wasn't impressed by the "debunk" video at all?
b.) doesn't connect the JCB note in the margin with the saw boys go south note? Why would the officer not have written her name on top or at least in connection with the note?

Userid, I'm gonna assume it's speculation on your part that JCB was at PS's house or do you have a source? Just curious.
I'm not quite sure what to think of her 2009 affidavit. It might have been what happened, it might not have been. The thing that I find speaks to its advantage is that she didn't just see the boys, she remembers actually speaking to them (or at least CB). It's just not just "Oh I think I saw them three little boys going x on y at z o'clock but it might have a o'clock and there might have been b amount of boys". JCB's memory of the situation seems vivid. However, that doesn't mean that it was what actually happened that afternoon. I still like to take it in to consideration.

 

[Userid]

Am I the only one that
a.) wasn't impressed by the "debunk" video at all?
b.) doesn't connect the JCB note in the margin with the saw boys go south note? Why would the officer not have written her name on top or at least in connection with the note?

Userid, I'm gonna assume it's speculation on your part that JCB was at PS's house or do you have a source? Just curious.
I'm not quite sure what to think of her 2009 affidavit. It might have been what happened, it might not have been. The thing that I find speaks to its advantage is that she didn't just see the boys, she remembers actually speaking to them (or at least CB). It's just not just "Oh I think I saw them three little boys going x on y at z o'clock but it might have a o'clock and there might have been b amount of boys". JCB's memory of the situation seems vivid. However, that doesn't mean that it was what actually happened that afternoon. I still like to take it in to consideration.

Yup, it's speculation -- but what isn't in this case? But it's based on some interesting facts I obtained from another board. It is based on a very sound theory; it isn't as much of a stab in the dark as you'd think. I will not post it here because I would feel like I am "stealing" said poster's info/thoughts -- sorry in advance; but I'm also not posting because, in all honesty, it's not going to change your mind anyway, so it isn't really worth it, so why risk the plagiarism?

You ask why he wouldn't have written it on top -- a valid question, that's impossible to answer -- but I would ask why he made it a note to write it right next to PS address, if a) she wasn't there and b) the cop didn't talk to her. Why write it in that spot in the margin? Why not write it at the very top of the page (above the 817 address -- plenty of room there, too); or at the very bottom, separate from all the other addresses?

But best guess: the cop most likely wrote it there, on the side, because he wasn't sure just how much room he would need initially -- so he wrote it off to the side. Another scenario: he took JB's name and street down first in the margin, while she was at PS's house (to distinguish her from living at the PS address) -- then ran out of room, and wrote the bit of info she had given (after giving her name and street) afterward.

This is an impossible question to answer, as I am not the cop, but just think about it for a second here: who else can be attributed to that blurb, on that piece of paper? Everyone else's answers are clearly identifiable. That one blurb ("Before 600 saw boys going south") is literally the only one that isn't directly connected; and JB's info is the only one that it could be on that page!

And no, you're not the only one that "wasn't impressed with the debunk video at all." You're in the grand majority, for better or worse, so don't worry.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Graznik wrote:

Am I the only one that
a.) wasn't impressed by the "debunk" video at all?
b.) doesn't connect the JCB note in the margin with the saw boys go south note? Why would the officer not have written her name on top or at least in connection with the note?

No, your'e not the only one Graznik.:fence:

 

[Graznik]

Yup, it's speculation -- but what isn't in this case? But it's based on some interesting facts I obtained from another board. It is based on a very sound theory; it isn't as much of a stab in the dark as you'd think. I will not post it here because I would feel like I am "stealing" said poster's info/thoughts -- sorry in advance; but I'm also not posting because, in all honesty, it's not going to change your mind anyway, so it isn't really worth it, so why risk the plagiarism?

You ask why he wouldn't have written it on top -- a valid question, that's impossible to answer -- but I would ask why he made it a note to write it right next to PS address, if a) she wasn't there and b) the cop didn't talk to her. Why write it in that spot in the margin? Why not write it at the very top of the page (above the 817 address -- plenty of room there, too); or at the very bottom, separate from all the other addresses?

But best guess: the cop most likely wrote it there, on the side, because he wasn't sure just how much room he would need initially -- so he wrote it off to the side. Another scenario: he took JB's name and street down first in the margin, while she was at PS's house (to distinguish her from living at the PS address) -- then ran out of room, and wrote the bit of info she had given (after giving her name and street) afterward.

This is an impossible question to answer, as I am not the cop, but just think about it for a second here: who else can be attributed to that blurb, on that piece of paper? Everyone else's answers are clearly identifiable. That one blurb ("Before 600 saw boys going south") is literally the only one that isn't directly connected; and JB's info is the only one that it could be on that page!

And no, you're not the only one that "wasn't impressed with the debunk video at all." You're in the grand majority, for better or worse, so don't worry.

Well, I simply wanted to know if there was information available that had been overlooked. I was genuinely curious, that was all.

Oh, it's not going to change my mind so it's not worth it? So, you really do have me down for someone who's both firmly placed in the "TH dunnit" corner (I am going to assume it's what your eluding at) and narrow minded? To be quite honest, and lets not beat around the bush here, I consider TH the most viable suspect simply because that's where the evidence is pointing right now, IMO. And my opinion is a combination of theories put together by others (mainly the Manhole Theory and versions of it) and my own research about this case. So far, no one has been able to present anything else to rival TH as a possible perp. That's the reason why I am always interested in other theories, rehashing the case all together, and have an interest in actually trying to understand what others see as problematic with TH as a perp. Although I have an opinion, and I will express it, I try to avoid tunnel vision best I can.
However, people who are quick to criticise the possibility of TH being the perp and/or the Manhole Theory seldom put another theory forward themselves. Now I get that it's not something you just pull out of your arse, but I still think it's a real shame and I would be very interested in any alternative theory if such was made available.
So DO share information and theories. I completely understand you not wanting to "steal" another person's theory or research - that's fine. But please don't do so on the grounds that my mind is made up and hence not worth changing. Take me out of the equation all together.

Regarding, JCB, why did those Keystone Kops do anything?! Maybe they were told by PS to go see JCB, maybe because PS was aware of the info that JCB would provide in '09, maybe it was completely unrelated, maybe it was info provided by someone else present at PS' house, maybe it was a random person on the street. The WMPD were sloppy note takers, incredibly sloppy note takers, and this only proves it further. Regardless of who made that statement, it's incredible that they didn't make sure to attribute it to the right person, or any person, in the notes. Anyone that takes plenty of notes should've experienced the importance of being neat in order to be able to go back, check the notes, and actually make sense of them. I think I gathered that within my first month at uni. But then again, hey, you might be right.

 

[Userid]

Graznik, fair enough. I didn't mean to infer that you are narrow-minded, but then again, I see why you would interpret it that way. It's simply been my experience that, anything anyone tries to refute, it never changes anyone's mind anyway -- so what's the point (generally)? It was more a general comment and general observation than a personal indictment against you.

I know it's the typical approach to automatically bash the WMPD in these types of arguments. Listen, I know they botched many, many areas in this case. But I find it incredibly hard to believe that, if JCB's name was given by PS, that the police would not follow up on this lead. I know, I know -- they're idiots, etc. -- but like I said, this was early in the investigation; they were absolutely desperate for any information pertaining to this case. They were already making their rounds in the neighborhood. In my view, they would have followed up on this lead.

I also find it curious how everyone here is missing the obvious: even if JCB didn't give that blurb (which I firmly feel she did at PS house, but I digress), you have two sightings of the boys at or just before 6 pm. JCB places the boys playing in her backyard at this time.

So I guess my point is, even if you think JCB didn't give this blurb, you have more evidence against her sightings that day; and even more people, in addition to the already numerous amount (MM's mom and sister, Posey, Rico, Woody, etc.) who place them in the same exact area.

 

[Graznik]

TBH, I kind of did interpret it that way.
I can see where you are coming from. A lot of people are very firm in their beliefs due to years and years of research. Compared to most, I'm pretty new to this case. I only really started researching it after the Alford Pleas. At one point I didn't even bother looking in to it, even though I was aware of it through the likes of Eddie Vedder, Henry Rollins, L7, Patti Smith, etc., because "of course the WM3 were guilty you wouldn't put an innocent man on death row, duuuh"! Such a facepalm moment in hindsight, and it only took me about an evenings worth of research to change my mind.

Personally, I don't much enjoy arguing. You know, the going back and forth over the one same issue endlessly until not changing your mind almost becomes a point in itself... But I think fresh ideas, brought forward on reasonable evidence (not just left field speculation), should always be considered - discussing options as opposed to arguing. Especially if someone has the guts and brains to put forward a whole theory. Lord knows I've never been able to do that myself. Furthermore, it's always a lot more interesting if someone is arguing FOR something instead of AGAINST it.

Well, you might well be right. But then where on earth is her statement from back then? Like you said yourself, we have several sightings on record.
I must say, that the only sighting i trust 100% is that of MM's mother and sister. There is no way on earth DM got that wrong. The others? Negotiable.

 

[Userid]

TBH, I kind of did interpret it that way.
I can see where you are coming from. A lot of people are very firm in their beliefs due to years and years of research. Compared to most, I'm pretty new to this case. I only really started researching it after the Alford Pleas. At one point I didn't even bother looking in to it, even though I was aware of it through the likes of Eddie Vedder, Henry Rollins, L7, Patti Smith, etc., because "of course the WM3 were guilty you wouldn't put an innocent man on death row, duuuh"! Such a facepalm moment in hindsight, and it only took me about an evenings worth of research to change my mind.

Personally, I don't much enjoy arguing. You know, the going back and forth over the one same issue endlessly until not changing your mind almost becomes a point in itself... But I think fresh ideas, brought forward on reasonable evidence (not just left field speculation), should always be considered - discussing options as opposed to arguing. Especially if someone has the guts and brains to put forward a whole theory. Lord knows I've never been able to do that myself. Furthermore, it's always a lot more interesting if someone is arguing FOR something instead of AGAINST it.

Well, you might well be right. But then where on earth is her statement from back then? Like you said yourself, we have several sightings on record.
I must say, that the only sighting i trust 100% is that of MM's mother and sister. There is no way on earth DM got that wrong. The others? Negotiable.

I think it's important to note that, just because it isn't on Callahan's, does not mean it doesn't exist. People seem to think this, but Callahan's doesn't contain every single bit of information containing to the case -- it has a good amount, but not all; it may exist, it may not. For example, for ages people thought that TH and MM's father were never investigated in the slightest: never gave any sort of samples, nothing, since it wasn't on Callahan's. But it's a fact that MM's father did provide a hair sample. You're not going to find any evidence of that on Callahan's, but it happened.

I like new ideas too, but they're generally dismissed very quickly. Believe me, I would know. I say that because, I am not convinced about TH's guilt and I am in the grand minority, which is fine -- but it is hard to have a discussion and provide new ideas/theories at times, because people are just so quick to dismiss everything if it doesn't point to TH. Again, that is a general sentiment.

 

[Graznik]

That's true, and often forgotten. Callahan's is extensive, and you will be able to find almost everything on there. Almost. However, I'm sure I've seen at least consent forms on there regarding hair and blood that includes two or more of the fathers. Not just JMB.
Still, the only statement I find non-negotiable is that by DM's mother and sister. The rest, including JCB, is up for debate AFAIC, although I will not completely dismiss any one of them.

What I do find however, is that when we have such a waste database available it's of great benefit if it is used to support claims, ideas or theories. Although it doesn't include every teeny tiny piece of information or evidence, it does include most of it. So if you can't find support for a theory there... Well, then you may be out on thin ice.

I think the problem is that new ideas and theories have to be really well supported by known facts at this point. Regardless of whether or not you believe in TH's possible guilt, there are a lot of facts out there that support it. Not everyone will agree that the theories are good, but they are the best ones we've got at the moment. If someone wants to put forward a whole new theory right now it almost has to go up against that, or be very open ended and intended for discussion. Although, I find that ideas in general are discussed quite freely here on Websleuths.

Edited to add: Can't seem to find consent forms or a list of people who gave hair samples. Must have gotten it all muddled up... :/
(all the yous in this post are collective yous, just to be on the safe side. )

 

[Userid]

I see what you're saying but the thing is, we are all just people on a message board. We (the royal we) will never be able to obtain a lot of facts pertaining to a different theory because, for one thing, facts in this case at all are at a minimum, and two, because we don't have the resources the documentary film makers had (i.e. a team of high powered defense attorneys/experts researching this case and all of the case files). Nothing will ever be good enough to go against the TH theory, in that respect. We've all gone over the "evidence" on Callahan's. It still doesn't help; if it did, this case would be solved. All we have is conjecture.

I don't believe in TH's guilt because I don't want to make the same mistake I (and probably the majority of us) did with JMB. The evidence against, in my view, isn't strong enough and the sources are very unreliable. I'd go over it, but I feel like I've already done that ad nauseam.

I have many theories on the case; some more drawn out than others. In a limited/weak way, I feel like JM could have been a part of this, separate from DE and JB (he used their names in place of the other true killers). In a stronger way, I feel like OB could have had a hand in this (wouldn't have to worry about neighbors, since they were his family; his son knew the victims well; his sighting, implying the boys were wearing green backpacks/shorts and were running away -- diversionary tactic; in addition to the dump site being accessible via back routes/trails from his yard -- this site would have been the farthest he could get from his house/backyard up until the highway, without being seen by anyone else and free from any passing motorists or houses). Granted, I can't provide as strong a case as the documentaries, but sometimes just posing the possibility at all is useful, at least for me.

 

[Graznik]

I'm not sure I totally agree, or maybe we're just talking about slightly different things. All I was trying to say it that there's a vast material available on Callahan's, enough to outline possible scenarios. I was not referring to anything that would require the resources the old defense teams had. Just the possibility of a bit of back up and a decent "foundation".

No worries, you've made your stance clear in the past.

The fact that you mention OB is very interesting. He has honestly never crossed my mind as a possible perp. Care to elaborate a bit further? Why him out of all people when we've got, say, JKM (kind of a rhetorical question, I don't really consider JKM a possible perp although he makes a viable suspect)?

 

[Graznik]

Ugh, what it all always comes back to IMO is the fact that there's a need for some serious DNA testing. Some serious DNA testing that's probably never gonna happen unless there is some groundbreaking breakthrough and that seems less and less likely as time goes by. :gaah:

 

[Lethalmatthew]

What motive could OB have? Personally, I still think TH is by far the most viable suspect. He has motive and oppurtunity, plus the evidence that directly points to him. That doesnt mean that I take everything that points to TH's guilt as gospel. For example, I have serious doubts about the Ballard affadavit and the allegations made by the Hicks family. I try to keep an open mind

 

[Userid]

I'm not sure I totally agree, or maybe we're just talking about slightly different things. All I was trying to say it that there's a vast material available on Callahan's, enough to outline possible scenarios. I was not referring to anything that would require the resources the old defense teams had. Just the possibility of a bit of back up and a decent "foundation".

No worries, you've made your stance clear in the past.

The fact that you mention OB is very interesting. He has honestly never crossed my mind as a possible perp. Care to elaborate a bit further? Why him out of all people when we've got, say, JKM (kind of a rhetorical question, I don't really consider JKM a possible perp although he makes a viable suspect)?

Yeah, our wires are somewhat crossed. I'll just leave it at that (end of the work day, getting tired).

As far as OB goes, I'd point you to jivepuppi or the documents page on Callahan's (just search by last name). Here's the jivepuppi page: http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_obs.html

You'll have to forgive me if I don't source every single thing. I've read a lot about this in a lot of different place, and sometimes, I just don't feel like scrounging through every site and sourcing everything. I'm just lazy that way.

What I do know:

Knew the boys well (via son their age, who was friends with the victims), would have gained their trust.

One of the confirmed last witnesses to not only see but come in contact with the boys.

Had somewhat of a violent arrest record; threatened violence (castration to be exact) against neighbors' child.

House was in proximity to dump site. Logical place to dump them, in that he obviously couldn't dump them in his yard. Dump site is the furthest point he could get, as it is boxed in by the highway and Blue Beacon. It would have been a relatively quick back and forth; and it would have provided strong cover from any passing motorists/houses, in that there would be none.

Only one to report the boys in shorts and with backpacks. Stated boys were "in a hurry" going to pick up CB. Why? A diversion, in my opinion. To divert attention away from himself and infer that they were running away.

Could have had help disposing, since he lived right next to his father. Wouldn't have to worry about being seen by said neighbor, on his way to the dump site across the bayou.

CB's brother and his friends reported of hearing 5 loud splashes in the bayou near the Goodwin entrance (where the boys were last seen) while they were in the woods searching, which scared them so much, they ran back out to Goodwin (they called out the victims' names after hearing the initial splashes, only to be answered by more splashes). This would have been close by OB's house, as the bayou ran through OB's own backyard.

From jivepuppi: "After having received tips from several children about having been threatened by the driver of a white van, the police put together a list of all white vans registered in Crittenden County. A white van was registered under the name of Rex A. Hester at 1200 WE Catt. This is the husband of officer Diane Hester." OB owned this van, at the time of the murders.

Also owned a truck wash (not Blue Beacon, but another). If the murders didn't take place at his house (this theory supposes the murders did, but just to offer something else), what better place than a truck wash you yourself own, with high-powered hoses; and a van to transport the bodies? Also, could the van be the source of the blue fiber found in MM's hand?

That's all I can think of right now.

 

[Graznik]

No worries, I was pretty knackered as well.

Fair enough about not sourcing every single statement. I've read enough about OBjr and the B clan to kind of be familiar with the statements they made. However, I had never ever though of him as a viable suspect. Even though, as Jivepuppi point out, others did.

What time frame are we looking at here? It seems like OBjr had an alibi for at least the early hours of the evening (just what I gathered from memory and a quick browse of the Jivepuppi page you linked). And have we got any other information on him, apart from what's on Callahan and Jivepuppi?
Also, what could his motive have been? Or at least, what could have triggered/caused the crime?

 

[Userid]

From what I recall, he claims he took his son to t-ball practice at the same time he last saw the boys and went missing. I'm unsure if that was ever corroborated or his "alibi" was ever even followed up on by the WMPD.

When you hear others who think OB is a good suspect, they give a lot of the same motives as every other suspect in the case: it was an act of discipline gone wrong, boys saw something shady he was doing (act of molestation taking place), etc. The motive is conjecture, just like it is with every other suspect. Asking why these 3 8 year old boys were killed in general is quite honestly the most impossible thing to answer, as far as what exactly motivated the killers to do so. Quite honestly, it could be anything.

Some believe that the abduction took place before he and his son left for practice, he stashed the boys (at home, or at the truck wash), went to the practice and purposefully took his son to establish an alibi, and committed the murder afterward. He committed the murder because he had already kidnapped the boys, and really had no other recourse.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Sometimes I get so frustrated with all the dead ends in this case that I revive my first suspicion - that a trucker killed the boys in his truck, dumped them in the ditch, washed out his truck and went on his way, never to be seen again. Of course, the injuries to the boys don't support that idea, but it was my first thought. I've never suspected DE, JB or JM, Jr. I did suspect JMB for a time, and TH is now my number one suspect. However, as many others have said, I'm open to any reasonable explanation.

 

[Userid]

Sometimes I get so frustrated with all the dead ends in this case that I revive my first suspicion - that a trucker killed the boys in his truck, dumped them in the ditch, washed out his truck and went on his way, never to be seen again. Of course, the injuries to the boys don't support that idea, but it was my first thought. I've never suspected DE, JB or JM, Jr. I did suspect JMB for a time, and TH is now my number one suspect. However, as many others have said, I'm open to any reasonable explanation.

I still don't totally discount this theory. When you say, "the injuries don't support this," can you elaborate how so? It seems like these injuries were caused by fists, a blunt-force object, and maybe a knife -- all of these can be utilized in any environment. Sometimes I feel like the "rebar" mark on SB's leg could have been caused in the back of a semi-truck trailer.