Evidence

[Compassionate Reader]

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.

IMO, the injuries were caused by someone who knew the little boys. I don't think a random truck driver would have been this brutal in his attack. If the killer were a passing driver, I'd think that the bodies would have been either dumped in the Mississippi or taken to another city/state for disposal. Why would the truck driver/killer leave the bodies in that wooded area? He/she would have had a big tractor/trailer truck to use to transport the bodies. That reasoning, in addition to the nature of the attacks, is why I discount the truck driving killer theory.

Of course, I could be wrong. There could have been a psychotic truck driver on the loose at the time, but I believe, had that been the case, similar crimes would have been committed and discovered. So, unless such a psychotic truck driver had been around and had then either died or overcome his psychoses, I don't give credence to this theory any more.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

IMO, the fact that there was dual lividity present on all the bodies is significant. It means that in all likelyhood the bodies were moved at least an half hour after their deaths. In my view, that rules out a lot of suspects, including 'mr Bojangles', the WM3, the WMPD (the witness-to-a-drugdeal-theory) and any trucker.

 

[Userid]

IMO, the injuries were caused by someone who knew the little boys. I don't think a random truck driver would have been this brutal in his attack. If the killer were a passing driver, I'd think that the bodies would have been either dumped in the Mississippi or taken to another city/state for disposal. Why would the truck driver/killer leave the bodies in that wooded area? He/she would have had a big tractor/trailer truck to use to transport the bodies. That reasoning, in addition to the nature of the attacks, is why I discount the truck driving killer theory.

Of course, I could be wrong. There could have been a psychotic truck driver on the loose at the time, but I believe, had that been the case, similar crimes would have been committed and discovered. So, unless such a psychotic truck driver had been around and had then either died or overcome his psychoses, I don't give credence to this theory any more.

Fair enough. If I were a trucker, I wouldn't want to be driving with 3 bodies in my trailer; I'd want to dispose of them as quickly as possible -- just trying to give a reason why they were disposed were they were.

Lethal Matthew, was dual lividity found with the 2 victims who died from drowning, and if so, do you believe they drowned somewhere other than the creek they were eventually found in?

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Lethal Matthew, was dual lividity found with the 2 victims who died from drowning, and if so, do you believe they drowned somewhere other than the creek they were eventually found in?

Yes, to quote from the coroner's report:
'MM - lividity in buttocks and back'
'SB - lividity in left buttocks and back'
'CB - lividity in buttocks and back'
'All three bodies show signs of post mortem staining in face and chest'

IMO, there are a few possibilities here:
-MM and SB drowned in the creek where they were found while lying on their backs and were turned around more than a half hour later (extremely unlikely)
-MM and SB drowned in the creek where they were found and the posterior lividity happened antemortem (this can happen in rare cases of circulatory failure)
-MM and SB drowned, but in a different waterbody than where they were found
-MM and SB didn't drown, but died due to their basilar skull fractures. This is my theory. Drowning is a hard CoD to determine, according to forensic pathologists. Water in the lungs and sphenoid sinus does not necessarily equal drowning.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

IMO, it's important that the "staining" on the face and chest of all three victims is indicative that the bodies were in the "face down" position less time than they were on their backs, where full lividity was present, although not fixed. IMO, again, that indicates that the bodies were first on their back and were moved to the face down position later. Yes, Lethalmatthew, that would rule out a trucker. I'd just never thought of it!

So, the evidence supports the fact that we have three bodies that were moved from one location to another some time before lividity could become fixed. This site gives us the following information:

"It is worth noting that lividity begins to work through the deceased within thirty minutes of their heart stopping and can last up to twelve hours. Only up to the first six hours of death can lividity be altered by moving the body. After the six hour mark lividity is fixed as blood vessels begin to break down within the body."

The first body (MM) was discovered at about 1:45 pm on May 6th. Lividity was not fixed (it would "blanch to pressure"). So, if we were to base TOD on lividity alone, death would have occurred no earlier than 7:45 am and no later than 1:15 pm. However, I don't think that's possible, given the searching that began around dawn, unless, of course, the boys died after the initial attack - in fact, quite some time after. That's why I've always said that TOD is meaningless in this case. What we need to determine is TOA - the time of the initial attack. However, the lividity is useful in that it establishes that the bodies were moved. I believe that the time frame I mentioned above is off because of the submersion of the bodies. However, I've never found anything that states that lividity is affected by submersion. Just another of the wonderful mysteries of this case!

 

[Lethalmatthew]

The first body (MM) was discovered at about 1:45 pm on May 6th. Lividity was not fixed (it would "blanch to pressure"). So, if we were to base TOD on lividity alone, death would have occurred no earlier than 7:45 am and no later than 1:15 pm. However, I don't think that's possible, given the searching that began around dawn, unless, of course, the boys died after the initial attack - in fact, quite some time after. That's why I've always said that TOD is meaningless in this case. What we need to determine is TOA - the time of the initial attack. However, the lividity is useful in that it establishes that the bodies were moved. I believe that the time frame I mentioned above is off because of the submersion of the bodies. However, I've never found anything that states that lividity is affected by submersion. Just another of the wonderful mysteries of this case!

It's indeed a very interesting topic in this case! AFAIK, lividity is not affected by whether or not the bodies are placed in the water, but it is affected by temperature. The water temperature was estimated to be about 60°F, which isn't very cold. ToD can't really be estimated by lividity alone, like this study shows: http://www.indmedica.com/journals.php?journalid=9&issueid=70&articleid=887&action=article . In this study, some bodies had fixed lividity after just a couple of hours, while others after more than 24 hours. Personally, I think the green vegetable matter found in SB's stomach is more helpful. PH stated that she made green beans on the day of the murders, what happened to be SB's favorite food. I think SB went to his house shortly after PH, TH and Amanda left to Catfish Island, to eat something before going out to play some more. So that would be around 17:00. Green beans (also known as string beans) spend approx 40 minutes in the stomach before it goes to the intestines: http://www.freetrainers.com/forums/t/33135/?state=c3RhdGUocGFnZSA9IDAp#278233 . Perhaps it took a little longer on that day for whatever reason, but it couldn't have taken more than 2 hours, I think. And I think it's unlikely that we are dealing with some ingenious criminal mastermind who force-fed SB to set a different ToD. IMO, ToD is probably somewhere between 18:30 and 19:00, and is only shortly after the ToA.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Personally, I think that SB ate the green beans during the time when TH was at DJ's "playing guitars. In fact, I believe that he was so engaged when TH returned about 6 pm to 6:30 pm. I don't think SB was expecting TH to return that quickly. I think TH surprised SB, causing him to run out to be seen by the neighbors around 6:30 pm. I wonder if it's possible that the quality of the green beans could have affected the speed of digestion causing them to remain "partially digested" for a while longer. I wonder what effect a blow to the head would have on the length of the digestive process, too. I still believe that the initial attack occurred around 6:45 pm to 7:15 pm with death (from injuries sustained) occurring some time later, most likely in the range suggested by Peretti. If TH is the killer and he returned to move the bodies in the wee hours of May 6th (possibly between 3:00 am and 5:00 am) and if two boys died of drowning as Peretti implied, that would explain the dual lividity. The partially digested vegetable matter might have been a result of a slowed down digestive process - a result of the blow to the head. The outside temperature, which was most probably in the low 80's at the time of attack (the high for the day was 86 degrees Fahrenheit) could have also affected the process of rigor and livor, if the bodies weren't immediately placed in the water but were in a secluded place, like a pipe or manhole, for some hours.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

CR, do you think the lividity on SB and MM occured antemortem?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't think that lividity can occur antemortem. It results from the pooling of the blood after the heart stops beating, IIRC. I think that the head trauma might have caused a slowing down of bodily processes, but lividity? I don't think so - but I could be wrong!

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I don't quite follow. How is the posterior lividity in your view caused if the bodies were put in the water facedown?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Sorry if I was unclear. The posterior lividity was caused because they were in another location (manhole, drainage pipe) on their backs before they were put into the water face down. I estimate that they were in the first location from about 7:30 pm on May 5th until about 5:00 am on May 6th, or about 9.5 hours. Then, they were moved and were in the discovery ditch from about 5:00 am on May 6th until the police found the bodies and removed them, which was about 2:30 pm, or about 9.5 hours, also. However, I'm speculating that the water in the discovery ditch slowed down lividity, causing it to be still unfixed when the bodies were discovered. Part of the time they were in the first location, they were alive, barely. IMO, that's where most of the animal predation occurred, including the degloving of CB. I think that there was a small amount of water in the manhole/drainage pipe - enough to attract the turtle (or turtles) that degloved CB. I think he bled out there and was actually dead when placed in the discovery ditch. I think that the other two could have been alive when placed in the discovery ditch. Of course, it's possible that Peretti got it wrong and they, too, succumbed to their injuries (primarily the basilar skull fracture) in the first location. As others have pointed out, a CoD of drowning is often misdiagnosed, if that's the right word. So, either Peretti was wrong about SB and MM dying from multiple injuries with drowning or it's as I outlined above. Those two were alive when placed in the discovery ditch and died shortly thereafter. If the boys had been placed in the discovery ditch at the time of the initial attack, lividity would have been fixed by the time they were discovered, unless submergence in water slows lividity tremendously because I believe that approximately 19 hours passed between the time of the initial attack and the discovery of the bodies in the ditch. (OMG! Sometimes I don't even make sense to myself! I hope you can follow what I've said.) :gaah:

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I gave up trying to establish anything in connection with the autopsies, TOD, COD. After reading a few pages about the subject, it really became apparent how messed up the whole investigation at the crime scene really was. If you read through this well written,and even for a dummy like me, pretty well explained document, it becomes obvious.

https://forensicmd.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/early-postmortem-changes1.pdf

There are some interesting things in this document, like patterns caused by lividity that can be mistaken as contusions, or the following excerpt rings a bell.

Cadaveric Spasm
Cadaveric spasm is a somewhat controversial entity that describes immediate rigor mortis
that typically involves one group of voluntary muscles involved in a final desperate act
associated with intense physical effort or extreme psychological stress. Examples would
include vegetation in a clinched hand of a drowning victim.

The Green beans were mentioned again, CR referred to the quality of the beans, I can only underline that the time it took PH to cook this meal for three (25-30 min.) makes me think the beans were processed or frozen.

As far as I'm concerned, the motive is the most important element in this crime, and there is nothing visible for me to suggest it was anyone else except someone who the boys knew.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Sorry if I was unclear. The posterior lividity was caused because they were in another location (manhole, drainage pipe) on their backs before they were put into the water face down. I estimate that they were in the first location from about 7:30 pm on May 5th until about 5:00 am on May 6th, or about 9.5 hours. Then, they were moved and were in the discovery ditch from about 5:00 am on May 6th until the police found the bodies and removed them, which was about 2:30 pm, or about 9.5 hours, also. However, I'm speculating that the water in the discovery ditch slowed down lividity, causing it to be still unfixed when the bodies were discovered. Part of the time they were in the first location, they were alive, barely. IMO, that's where most of the animal predation occurred, including the degloving of CB. I think that there was a small amount of water in the manhole/drainage pipe - enough to attract the turtle (or turtles) that degloved CB. I think he bled out there and was actually dead when placed in the discovery ditch. I think that the other two could have been alive when placed in the discovery ditch. Of course, it's possible that Peretti got it wrong and they, too, succumbed to their injuries (primarily the basilar skull fracture) in the first location. As others have pointed out, a CoD of drowning is often misdiagnosed, if that's the right word. So, either Peretti was wrong about SB and MM dying from multiple injuries with drowning or it's as I outlined above. Those two were alive when placed in the discovery ditch and died shortly thereafter. If the boys had been placed in the discovery ditch at the time of the initial attack, lividity would have been fixed by the time they were discovered, unless submergence in water slows lividity tremendously because I believe that approximately 19 hours passed between the time of the initial attack and the discovery of the bodies in the ditch. (OMG! Sometimes I don't even make sense to myself! I hope you can follow what I've said.) :gaah:

I think I see what you mean, CR But wouldn't you agree that the second scenario would be impossible without antemortem lividity? After all, if SB and MM were alive (even just barely) when placed facedown in the water, they couldn't develop lividity on their backs and buttocks. And, as you said, antemortem lividity almost never occurs (although it can happen: https://books.google.nl/books?id=-A...AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=antemortem lividity&f=false ). So it's most likely that SB and MM had a different CoD than drowning, or that SB and MM drowned in a different waterbody.

I read something interesting in the document posted by CL:
'Livor can be difficult to see in those with anemia or significant blood loss as well as dark pigmented persons'
So you'd think that CB would have a different pattern of lividity, since he was, IIRC, determined by Peretti to have died by exsanguination. However, the coroner didn't note that, so perhaps that would be an extra indication that the degloving took place after death?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think that SB and MM died from "dry" drowning - from the basilar skull fractures. I think they died, as did CB, in the manhole/drainage ditch some time in the wee hours of the morning of May 6th. I think that CB was close to death when he was degloved, but that the blood was still flowing. So, he suffered exsanguination, which is why Peretti didn't say he drowned. I think Peretti got it wrong as to CoD - what a shocker! I think that's where the posterior lividity began to develop - in the first location. Then, when the killer moved the bodies shortly after the ToD, the staining developed. I think it was less pronounced than the posterior lividity because the bodies were under water and the water was warm whereas, when the boys died, they were above ground, with maybe a small amount of water present (which attracted aquatic predators). Does that make sense to you?

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Yep that makes sense

 

[zencompass]

When I read police officer John Slater's Affidavit and the bolded part (by me) in particular it was evident to me that not only were the bodies not there when he searched the early morning of May 6th but the fact that S.J. was right there and was the first to spot the shoe made me incredibly suspicious of S.J.


" I, John P. Slater, declare as follows:

1. My name is John P. Slater. I am over eighteen years of age and otherwise competent to make this statement. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein.

2. I have extensive experience as a law enforcement officer. In addition to serving as a police officer in West Memphis, and among other law enforcement positions I have held, I have served as Assistant Chief of Police in Swifton, Arkansas; a deputy sheriff with Ozark Acres SID in Middleford, Arkansas; a special agent with the Tenth Judicial Drug Task Force in Hamburg, Arkansas; and as a K-9 deputy sheriff with the Chicot County sheriff’s department in Lake Village, Arkansas.

3. I was a police officer in West Memphis, Arkansas, in May, 1993. At that time, I already had five years’ experience as a law enforcement officer. I had already received a substantial amount of law enforcement training prior to 1993. Prior to May, 1993, I had received eight commendations for my performance in the line of duty; in 1991 I was named “Officer of the Year” for me department.

4. Although I began my employment with the West Memphis Police Department as a patrol officer, by May 5, 1993, I had moved into the criminal division. My direct supervisor at that time was Lt. Fred Boskey.

5. I was on duty on my regular shift from approximately 11:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 5, 1993, to approximately 7:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 6, 1993.

6. Around 5 or 5:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 6, 1993, I was radioed by Lt. Boskey. Lt. Boskey directed me and two other officers to meet him at a parking lot in east West Memphis.

7. At that location, I was advised by Lt. Boskey that due to some miscommunication, word had not been passed to us that there were three young boys who had been missing since early in the evening of May 5 and that a search was underway in which we were needed to assist.

8. Lt. Boskey and I then drove to the end of McAuley Drive West, to the point at which the street ends and a footpath leads to a pipeline crossing of the diversion of Ten Mile Bayou.

9. Lt. Boskey and I followed the footpath to the pipe and crossed the diversion of Ten Mile Bayou on the pipe itself. We walked around the wooded area on the other side of Ten Mile Bayou and searched it thoroughly for approximately 30 minutes.

10. Lt. Boskey and I specifically searched the area of the large ditch running into the bayou. I am aware that this is the location where the bodies of the three victims were found later in the day on May 6, the same day we thoroughly searched the area.

11. At the time Lt. Boskey and I searched that area, the bodies of the victims were not present in the ditch.

12. If the bodies had been present at the time we searched the area, I am confident that we would have located them. We were thoroughly examining every part of the area, including every part of the ditch feeding into the bayou, and were assisted by our heavy-duty flashlights and the fact that some predawn light was available.

13. I did not communicate this information to the detectives investigating the murders. I did, however, speak with Lt. Boskey on other occasions about our personal knowledge that the bodies of the victims were not present at that location during the time period when we searched. We also talked about the fact that this was inconsistent with the version of events being presented by the State in the prosecution of Mr. Echols, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Misskelley. We were aware that the facts within our personal knowledge contradicted the version of events being presented by the State."


I believe Slater's evidence 100% and after reading his facts, I knew that the bodies had been moved to the discovery site sometime after 5:30 the morning of Thursday May 6th. Officer Slater went out of his way to give his facts concerning his observation that the bodies were not in the discovery sight when he was searching. His supervisor had radioed him at 5:30 a.m. which meant that after that he did have some daylight breaking in addition to the high powered flashlights they were using. He knew that the bodies and shoes were not there when he searched that area. He was adamant of this and he was also very aware that his evidence contradicted what the WMPD was pursuing and especially the critical fact that his evidence is contrary to everything that Jessie M. so called "confessed". In fact, Slater's evidence shows clearly how the "confession" led by the police was absolutely wrong and never happened that way and never happened with Jessie, Damien or Jason there. I trust Slater's evidence almost more than anything else in this case, other than the hair linking TH to the evidence. JMO

 

[zencompass]

To make a short story even longer - it was the above evidence from police officer Slater that absolutely ties in with the manhole theory.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

To make a short story even longer - it was the above evidence from police officer Slater that absolutely ties in with the manhole theory.

That's true zen, the Boskey and Slater statement would definitely fuel the manhole theory. I remember reading about a later statement from one of the two, confirming their original statement, I will see if I can find it. It's definitely worth looking into the time-lines of some suspects for the period of time after this took place, and the time that the boys were discovered. GK can probably help us there.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

When I read police officer John Slater's Affidavit and the bolded part (by me) in particular it was evident to me that not only were the bodies not there when he searched the early morning of May 6th but the fact that S.J. was right there and was the first to spot the shoe made me incredibly suspicious of S.J.

It's good that you bring up the Slater affidavit! I have a few questions wrt his statement. Firstly, I wonder what his affidavit really proves. It's hard to prove a negative. I mean, if Slater said he saw the bodies there at 5:30, that would proof that the bodies were there. However, the fact that he didn't see the bodies doesn't necessarily mean that the bodies weren't there, IMO. Especially since the bodies were submerged, and the clothes were pushed down in the mud with a stick. Secondly, why didn't Slater speak to the investigators? He himself admits that he never talked to the detectives. Also, why didn't lt. Boskey make an affidavit?
In short, I believe that Slater believes that the bodies weren't there at 05:30. However, I'm not sure if I believe that the bodies weren't there at that time. But let's say for the sake of argument that Slater is absolutely correct and that the bodies weren't there at 05:30-06:00. That would mean that the bodies were moved there in broad daylight. That's an extremely risky thing to do. I'm not sure about who was searching where on the morning of the 6th, but I think someone would notice a man moving bodies to the Robin Hood Hills.

 

[zencompass]

Good question Lethalmatthew! Because of the short distance between the manhole and the discovery ditch the perpetrator could have easily moved the bodies that short distance.

He was out "searching" as far as anyone knew and he simply watched when the officers left the discovery ditch to move onto other areas. Slater and Boskey were the only two officers searching around that time. The perpetrator knew when the coast was clear to move the boys and that time was perfect and this timing happens to fall right within Compassionate Reader's theory. With hindsight, so much of this does fall into the "manhole theory".

As for Slater's Affidavit, I see him as one of the very few truthful WMPD at that time. If he had been head of the department there would have been a different outcome. Very different. JMO