Evidence

[Userid]

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.

Yup, completely agree Lethalmatthew. I do not believe the bodies were moved there in the daylight at or even dawn: way, way too risky.

I like the manhole theory; I think it's one of the best theories out there, but one has to wonder how possible it would have been to transfer three bodies via this sewer system. Someone on another board once posted a photo of the manhole and the tube that travels from Weaver Elementary to the discovery site. The tube wasn't very big; any adult would have to crouch, if not be on his knees, when traversing this tube. Another thing one has to consider is, how would one actually pull a body (let alone three) through these tubes? As I said, the height of the tube would not have allowed the killer to carry a body. He couldn't drag the bodies because they would have got scraped up and left a ton of evidence behind. I once supposed that perhaps the killer had a "creeper seat" (that thing mechanics use to slide underneath cars when they're working on them) and he just pulled that (with the bodies on top), but again, that would be quite difficult to use -- and the bindings would make that method harder than if they were just piled one on top of the other.

One also has to consider, where is the starting point (where these bodies were originally)?

Back to the original point though, I believe the bodies were in the water when these two cops searched -- they simply just missed them. Having flashlights wouldn't have helped the situation much. I mean, multiple people who were searching the creek in broad daylight still couldn't see through the incredibly murky water to locate the boys. Part of me makes me think that the cops either a) did a half-assed job searching and didn't want to admit it, or b) were embarrassed that they were the first ones responsible for thoroughly searching this area, and they missed them.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I like the manhole theory; I think it's one of the best theories out there, but one has to wonder how possible it would have been to transfer three bodies via this sewer system. Someone on another board once posted a photo of the manhole and the tube that travels from Weaver Elementary to the discovery site. The tube wasn't very big; any adult would have to crouch, if not be on his knees, when traversing this tube. Another thing one has to consider is, how would one actually pull a body (let alone three) through these tubes? As I said, the height of the tube would not have allowed the killer to carry a body. He couldn't drag the bodies because they would have got scraped up and left a ton of evidence behind. I once supposed that perhaps the killer had a "creeper seat" (that thing mechanics use to slide underneath cars when they're working on them) and he just pulled that (with the bodies on top), but again, that would be quite difficult to use -- and the bindings would make that method harder than if they were just piled one on top of the other.

Do you happen to know if there is a map of the manholes in the Robin Hood area (including the Devil's Den area)? I agree that it's unlikely that the perpetrator moved the body through the manholes, and it's just as unlikely that the perpetrator took the (unnecessary) risk to move the bodies in broad daylight, JMO. I'm sure that John Slater is a fine man and good at his job, but I don't take his word as gospel.

 

[Userid]

^ I'm unsure if there is a map or not, but I do know that it was posted on the other board that there were three tunnels that all converged at the discovery site. I'm not sure if this information was attained from a map or some other sort of document. Sorry, I know that doesn't help much.

It should also be noted that, supposedly, the police did in fact search these manholes. Nothing was found.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

^ Thanks anyway
How did the police search the manholes? Did they take a quick look around, or did they luminol test every manhole in the area? If they did a quick search, I don't think they would have found anything even if the bodies were there at some point. However, I would think that some traces of blood would show up during a luminol testing.

 

[Userid]

As far as I know, they entered where they could. I'm not sure if they followed the tunnels all the way to the ditch or not, but they were "in" the manholes.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I saw this document on another forum and was interested what you guys' take on this is:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html
This document is basically a demand by the Echols defense team to examine all the evidence. What surprised me, however, was the following statement: 'Urine was found in the stomachs of two of the boys. See Appendix B (Letter from Inspector Gary Gitchell to Kermit Channel at Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, dated 5-26-93; item (9) "Dr. Peretti mentioned finding urine in the stomach of two boys").' I almost fell from my chair! So what happened here? Was there really urine in their stomachs? If so, why didn't Peretti mention it in the autopsy report? If not, why did Peretti lie about it to Gitchell? Or did Gitchell make it up? Why?

 

[zencompass]

I agree that for most people, moving the bodies in the early morning would be too much of a risk of getting caught. However, T.H. has the personality that thrives on huge risk-taking - we have only to look at the M.F. invasion and assault to see that T.H. didn't consider anything a risk - invading his neighbour's home and assaulting her, shooting his brother-in-law, domestic violence. T.H.'s personality is narcissistic and that includes huge risk-taking as narcissists are "above the law" and consider any means to an end okay with them because they deserve "justice" and are too clever in their own minds to ever get caught. The idea of getting caught would never even occur to these individuals and if they ever did "get caught", well they just lie, lie, lie because no laws apply to them. They are above the law in their minds and certainly believe they are superior to any law enforcement, judges, and of course any people who happen to get in their way.

Narcissists don't have a "conscience" like other people and they can't feel guilt because anything they do - anything - that suits their needs is fine with them.

So.. was moving the bodies from the manhole to the discovery ditch a huge risk? Absolutely but it didn't bother T.H. one little bit. He was just doing "what he needed/wanted to do" - as always!!
T.H.'s past actions demonstrate this again and again. JMO

 

[Userid]

I saw this document on another forum and was interested what you guys' take on this is:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html
This document is basically a demand by the Echols defense team to examine all the evidence. What surprised me, however, was the following statement: 'Urine was found in the stomachs of two of the boys. See Appendix B (Letter from Inspector Gary Gitchell to Kermit Channel at Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, dated 5-26-93; item (9) "Dr. Peretti mentioned finding urine in the stomach of two boys").' I almost fell from my chair! So what happened here? Was there really urine in their stomachs? If so, why didn't Peretti mention it in the autopsy report? If not, why did Peretti lie about it to Gitchell? Or did Gitchell make it up? Why?

This is something you rarely hear about, because it kind of throws the "TH did It" theory out the window (he wouldn't go this route, if this was a simple act of obedience gone wrong, there'd be no need to perform this particular act). That's why I love that other board -- there's good balance there and things that come up there are always very interesting.

When did Peretti lie about it to Gitchell?

Another thing that should be noted is that yellow stains were found on one of the socks, as well as on one of the shoelace holes on one of the shoes.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Sorry, but I took a break for a few days. Sometimes this case just zaps me!

First, I believe that the bodies could have been moved as late as 5:45 am on the sixth, but not much later, because the parents began searching again around 6:00 am. So, IMO, the bodies were moved prior to the Slater/Boskey search and were just missed in the search. As zen said, with the murky water, that's not improbable at all. As to why Boskey didn't make a statement, it's important to remember that Slater didn't make his statement until 2001 - with DE, CJB and JM, Jr. safely in prison. IMO, those two officers were told (a la Joyce Cureton and others) to remain silent for fear of their jobs. IIRC, Slater had left the wmpd by the time he made the statement. I'm not sure about Boskey. There is so much cover-up and corruption in this case that it defies logic!

Second, I don't remember where I read it, but the whole urine thing was a misinterpretation. Peretti had opined that it could be urine, but it was never proven. IIRC, Fogleman (or someone) got wind of it and spread the rumor. Just another example of how ******ed up the investigation was! I believe Peretti cleared it up in one of the Rule 37 hearings. I'll try to find it.



ETA: I just remembered that Boskey was Slater's superior officer at the time. It would have fallen to him to report the information. It may be interesting to determine when he left the wmpd or if he did or if he received a promotion after the case. Just a thought!

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Second, I don't remember where I read it, but the whole urine thing was a misinterpretation. Peretti had opined that it could be urine, but it was never proven. IIRC, Fogleman (or someone) got wind of it and spread the rumor. Just another example of how ******ed up the investigation was! I believe Peretti cleared it up in one of the Rule 37 hearings. I'll try to find it.

Wow, that's really messed up! I hope you can find that document, so we can put this crazy rumor to rest..

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I've asked on that other board. We'll see what they say. I'll ask on Facebook, too. Sometimes that YUKU board has a hidden agenda and they don't always tell all the truth. Just so you know.

 

[Userid]

I've asked on that other board. We'll see what they say. I'll ask on Facebook, too. Sometimes that YUKU board has a hidden agenda and they don't always tell all the truth. Just so you know.

Hmm, you're entitled to your opinion, but I find it interesting you'd say that. I've never really noticed that there, but that's just me. I don't believe anyone is deliberately "lying" about anything there, and if I did, I wouldn't even visit that board and I'd wonder why you would (if you believe that), but I digress.

The thing about "debunking" is that, everything in this case can be debunked. For example, on MM's pants, there was a stain. To put it in layman's terms, the stain couldn't be definitively identified as semen, but it also couldn't be completely dismissed either. The tester ruled that the water and the mud affected the accuracy, but he still did get a "hit" when he tested for the compound that is found in semen. Yet still, you have people claiming that "it definitely isn't semen; it's been debunked that it is semen." That isn't the "whole truth," so to speak.

If there is something that debunks that urine wasn't found in the boys' stomachs, I would love to see it as well. However, it would need to be concrete -- much more concrete than the scenario I introduced above -- for it to be "debunked" for me.

 

[zencompass]

Wow, that's really messed up! I hope you can find that document, so we can put this crazy rumor to rest..

Hey Lethalmatthew! I have searched for the source about urine in the stomachs as well. This is not mentioned in the autopsy reports nor when Peretti took the stand. The only source that this seems to have originated from is S.J. and Sudbury makes a note of it. This is how rumors start from hearsay as it is not mentioned in any official reports.

It will be interesting to see what C.R. discovers as she is excellent at determining correct details as are you! JMO

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

There is no "evidence" of the urine find at Callahans, or anywhere else. It remains a Red Herring.

I don't think spots of urine on the sock or a shoe of an eight year old boy would be too disturbing. Eight year old boys exploit the artistic and physical possibilities of pressurised liquids quite extensively, if I remember correctly from my own childhood.

The ditch itself, would have also had a magnetic fascination on males of all ages, and I would imagine that the concentration of urine in such a ditch would be relatively high anyway.

The initial idea of urine in the boys stomach did not make it's way into the autopsies. IMO, this was thrown in to underline the satanic aspect of the case, which I think most of us will have got over by now.

If the urine did exist, without extensive analysis, it remains another piece of useless information, from which there is much in this case.

Here a couple of posts from people who looked into this story.

http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/2096/Re-UrineKnowledge-or-Rumor?page=-1


http://www.findadeath.com/forum/showthread.php?3326-West-Memphis-Murders/page12

Post #562

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Sorry, but I took a break for a few days. Sometimes this case just zaps me!

We will let you off this time, but don't go away for so long again.:happydance:

 

[Userid]

There is no "evidence" of the urine find at Callahans, or anywhere else. It remains a Red Herring.

Not only on Callahan's, but requested by Damien's defense team (6th bullet point down on "Page" 2). http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I meant "evidence" in the context of the urine being evidence. The request by the defense team was probably their way of trying to eliminate the rumor.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I think Peretti would have written something like 'unidentified liquid found in the stomach' if he came across something he couldn't identify yet. However, he didn't mention any of that. So that makes me very wary of this 'urine evidence'.

 

[Userid]

I meant "evidence" in the context of the urine being evidence. The request by the defense team was probably their way of trying to eliminate the rumor.

Ah, gotcha. I was wondering why the defense team would request something that didn't exist. I read that request as, the evidence does exist; they know it exists, and they want it tested. I really don't think they would be requesting it to simply "eliminate a rumor." Their one and only priority would be to test all of the evidence to prove DE is innocent.

Literally every other item they requested in that list is accounted for and does exist.

It's ironic when I read those who think GG is scheming here. I've read in the past that, he's scheming in that the urine does exist, but he's covering it up because it vindicates/doesn't directly point to the WM3. Now, it's the complete opposite: the urine never existed at all, and GG made it up entirely. I'm not accusing you of this directly, but it's like supporters wanted to believe this urine existed before, to vindicate the WM3; but now, they don't want it to exist because it leads away from their new main suspect, TH.

 

[Userid]

I think Peretti would have written something like 'unidentified liquid found in the stomach' if he came across something he couldn't identify yet. However, he didn't mention any of that. So that makes me very wary of this 'urine evidence'.

Very good point.