Evidence

[Compassionate Reader]

Based on the letter to the crime lab, Gitchell was only echoing Peretti about the urine. Personally, I've never believed it existed. What I think happened is that Peretti saw some yellow liquid in the stomach (maybe stomach acid, maybe something else) and, being the stellar forensic pathologist that he is, he surmised that it was urine. After all, that would mesh with the State's whole "Satanic ritual killing" BS. He made an offhand statement to that effect, and Gitchell ran with it. Again, I don't think the urine ever existed, and I believe I've read/heard something to that effect. Just wish I could find it!

Here's the link to the letter: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gitchell_letter_5_26_93.html



ETA: Just read something on another board (so I can't post a link - TOS) that convinces me that the whole urine thing was rumor. The poster there stated that the urine rumor originated with SJ, the juvenile officer. He told DE that there was urine in the mouths of the victims according to this statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/dwe.html

Here is the pertinent part of the statement re: urine:

"DAMIEN STATED THAT STEVE JONES FROM THE JUVENILE AUTHORITY HAD BEEN BY TO SEE HIM A DAY OR TWO BEFORE AND THAT STEVE HAD TOLD HIM ABOUT HOW THE BOYS TESTICLES HAD BEEN CUT OFF AND THAT SOMEONE HAD URINATED IN THEIR MOUTHS. HE STATED THAT STEVE STATED THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THE REASON THAT THE BODIES WERE PLACED IN THE WATER SO THAT THE URINE COULD HAVE BEEN WASHED OUT."

Now, as the other poster pointed out, how in the world did SJ know that there was urine in the mouths of the victims before the autopsy was made public????? The interview with BR was on May 10th. DE said that SJ told him about the urine "a day or two before" the May 10th interview with BR. So, the interview between DE and SJ could not have occurred any earlier than May 8th. The autopsies were not performed until May 7th. The assistant ME (FP) didn't finish the autopsies until the afternoon, but SJ knew about the urine within two days???? Also, as the poster on the other board pointed out, no urine samples were taken from DE, CJB or JM, Jr. If urine had been present, wouldn't one think that samples would have been collected from the three suspects?

IMO, this whole urine thing was just another car in the train that was designed (by the wmpd, chiefly JD and SJ) to take DE to Death Row. Maybe some would opine that, if DE knew about the urine this early, he put it there. If so, why was this never brought up in the trial????? Strange, to say the least!

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I tend to agree with the poster on the second link I posted #150 this thread. Peretti possibly put the urine statement out to find out who was leaking information. Everyone bought it, GG included.

If it had exsisted, it would have been mentioned in the autopsies, as LM pointed out, and would indeed have been used in the DE JB trial, as CR pointed out. I think the ETD probably knew, or suspected that it didn't exist by 2002, after demanding the DNA test they certainly knew it, because they didn't get any results.

BTW, I'm not a supporter of anyone (I just think the WM3 are innocent), and I don't think all WM3 supporters generally suspect TH, I've seen other names mentioned. Even though I think TH is the perp, that doesn't mean I am hellbent on this. If someone can come up with something solid that suggests otherwise (a good psychologically based motive for instance), that would be great stuff.The only thing I'm supporting at present, is some good constructive discussion in the quest to find out who killed the three boys.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Now, as the other poster pointed out, how in the world did SJ know that there was urine in the mouths of the victims before the autopsy was made public????? The interview with BR was on May 10th. DE said that SJ told him about the urine "a day or two before" the May 10th interview with BR. So, the interview between DE and SJ could not have occurred any earlier than May 8th. The autopsies were not performed until May 7th. The assistant ME (FP) didn't finish the autopsies until the afternoon, but SJ knew about the urine within two days???? Also, as the poster on the other board pointed out, no urine samples were taken from DE, CJB or JM, Jr. If urine had been present, wouldn't one think that samples would have been collected from the three suspects?

IMO, this whole urine thing was just another car in the train that was designed (by the wmpd, chiefly JD and SJ) to take DE to Death Row. Maybe some would opine that, if DE knew about the urine this early, he put it there. If so, why was this never brought up in the trial????? Strange, to say the least!

And wasn't it until the 27th or something that the autopsy report was finally released to the WMPD? Or am I mixing things up here? Anyways, could it be possible that SJ just said these things to DE to try to get him to make some incriminating statement? He had his mind already made up about who did this :notgood:

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Or perhaps not to get an incriminating statement, but to see how DE would react. If DE would act totally surprised when he heard about urine found in the mouths, SJ would be 'confirmed' in his suspicion that DE was the culprit. And perhaps GG was surprised to hear that SJ had told DE about urine in the mouths, so he asked SJ where he got it from. Perhaps SJ was embarrassed to tell that he made it up, so he said: 'FP mentioned it to me'. And then GG sent a letter to the crime lab asking what had been determined wrt the urine. I'm just throwing some ideas here :thinking:

 

[zencompass]

The source of this rumour originated from S.J. so it looks like a rumour.

 

[Userid]

If you take DE's word for it, then yes, the source is S.J. Whether that word is gospel as some are supposing, we will never know. If I was a non, I could say that DE simply made up that he got this info from SJ -- that he knew this first-hand, and that this proves his involvement in the crime. I'm not saying that exactly; just illustrating how easy it is to dispute. I don't really think it's strong evidence that proves the urine never existed, personally. What is more compelling, is why Peretti wouldn't report it in the autopsies.

I'm confused as to why Peretti would float this out to see who was leaking information. Why would he care? He's a doctor.

If anything, I think that some sort of yellow liquid was found in the victims, but Peretti was too embarrassed to admit he had no effing clue what it was -- so he left it off the report, and he supposed privately to GG that it was urine. Whether it ever turned out to be urine or not, I suppose we'll never know. We know for certain that there was some sort of yellow liquid found on the sock and on the shoelace hole. We also know that it was important enough for DE's defense team to at least inquire about it within a list of other evidence that does in fact exist. Is this really just a coincidence?

 

[Lethalmatthew]

If anything, I think that some sort of yellow liquid was found in the victims, but Peretti was too embarrassed to admit he had no effing clue what it was -- so he left it off the report, and he supposed privately to GG that it was urine.

I think Peretti could have sent the yellow liquid (if he did find it) to some lab for further analysis. I doubt that he would omit this just because it would hurt his pride that he couldn't identify it himself. The big question is: was Peretti ever questioned about this?
The stains on the sock and the shoe could mean something, could mean nothing, in my view. I find it a little difficult to believe that they were urine stains. Why would someone leave one drop of urine behind on a shoe? Could it be some other yellow liquid, like some spilled juice?

 

[Userid]

I guess I would answer your question with a question: why leave one drop of anything behind on a shoe? Without getting into too heavy specifics, and being a male, I can fathom how one drop of urine would have gotten on something. If your name is any indication, I'd imagine you'd also be familiar with a male forgetting to "tap off." I don't want to offend anyone, so I won't go into further detail. Please accept my apologies if that was inappropriate -- that was not my intention.

I suppose it could be spilled juice, mustard, some extract from some plant in the woods. There are a million choices, really.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Here are some excerpts from an interview with Peretti and Channell.

Source:

http://wm3org.typepad.com/blog-deleted-20121011-7krqr/2011/11/two-at-crime-lab-carry-scars-of-three-boys-deaths-wm3.html

But a previously undisclosed May 26, 1993, letter shows that there was little open communication between the Crime Lab and West Memphis police at the time.

Peretti readily acknowledges that he shared as little information as possible with law enforcement in the days after he examined the boys. He believed information was being leaked to reporters who were scrambling for any morsel of information about the case.

The community was in a panic, Peretti says. Some rumors were being reported as facts.

Peretti also admits that he tried to draw the FBI into the investigation because he feared that the West Memphis Police Department was in over its head. The FBI declined.

The pathologist’s silence in 1993 didn’t sit well withGary Gitchell, the lead West Memphis police investigator.

In a threepage letter to Channell three weeks after the bodies were sentto the Crime Lab, the West Memphis police inspector said his department “desperately” needed information from the lab.

The letter contained a list of 16 questions that had yet to be answered, including the most basic: “Time of death?” and “Cause of death?”

“Were the kids sodomized?” “Can you provide a wound diagram and explain injuries the boys received?” “Any residue found under nails of boys?” “Is there anything which would indicate a black male involvement?” “Can you tell us which kid was killed first?”

Paudert says he understands why Peretti was slow to share information with West Memphis authorities.

“He’s got to protect his evidence even though they’re the case agency,” he says. “There are some times when you don’t feel like you can share information because it will get out.”

 

[Lethalmatthew]

I guess I would answer your question with a question: why leave one drop of anything behind on a shoe? Without getting into too heavy specifics, and being a male, I can fathom how one drop of urine would have gotten on something. If your name is any indication, I'd imagine you'd also be familiar with a male forgetting to "tap off." I don't want to offend anyone, so I won't go into further detail. Please accept my apologies if that was inappropriate -- that was not my intention.

Yes, I suppose that's possible, and, as you said, it's also possible that the stain was caused by almost everything else. I wonder if the forensic science of today would be able to narrow it down.

Wow, very interesting article CL! It does worry me that Peretti is so obviously taking sides. I can understand that many people (including me) question many of his findings. He should have a neutral standpoint, JMO.

 

[Userid]

Thanks Cher -- this was a really, really interesting article. Particularly, the part where the state's current medical examiner (Dr. Charles Kokes) agrees with all of Peretti's initial findings.

That would most likely include the "bite mark" not being a bite mark, I'd imagine.

But back to the point of Peretti, you were right: he was wary of information getting out. I still don't believe that he floated a false rumor to sniff out the leaker; I just believe that he held back the info.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

After reading the entire article (thanks, Cher, for posting), all I can say is, "What does one expect from Channell and Peretti?" Those two have consistently maintained that no wrong was done, either by the State of Arkansas generally or by the wmpd specifically. So, for them to reiterate their long-held and stated opinion is hardly surprising. Neither is the fact that the new medical examiner for the State would agree with Peretti. After all, the State of Arkansas distributes his pay check.

I've often thought that there is a widespread cover-up afoot in this case, and these statements make me even more certain of it! Anyone who has never experienced the "good ol' boy" network at work may not believe me, but this is just how it works! It's every bit as strong as the "thin blue line" or any group who stands up for their own at any cost. Sorry for the rant, but I simply can't trust anything that Peretti, Channell or many others involved in this case from the State side have to say. That may appear biased to some, but, based on my years of living in small towns, it's the honest truth!

 

[Userid]

After reading the entire article (thanks, Cher, for posting), all I can say is, "What does one expect from Channell and Peretti?" Those two have consistently maintained that no wrong was done, either by the State of Arkansas generally or by the wmpd specifically. So, for them to reiterate their long-held and stated opinion is hardly surprising. Neither is the fact that the new medical examiner for the State would agree with Peretti. After all, the State of Arkansas distributes his pay check.

I've often thought that there is a widespread cover-up afoot in this case, and these statements make me even more certain of it! Anyone who has never experienced the "good ol' boy" network at work may not believe me, but this is just how it works! It's every bit as strong as the "thin blue line" or any group who stands up for their own at any cost. Sorry for the rant, but I simply can't trust anything that Peretti, Channell or many others involved in this case from the State side have to say. That may appear biased to some, but, based on my years of living in small towns, it's the honest truth!

Guess everyone perceives it in their own way to fit their logic. I don't dismiss that perhaps some sort of cover-up may have occurred, but I don't agree that it went through certain levels of government. I mean, there are people who actually believe that the frigging President (Clinton) at the time had some sort of role in the cover-up. If there was a cover-up, it stopped at the local police level in my opinion: how the bodies were discovered "by accident" while being photographed; the Bojangles evidence "disappearing" -- this is very suspicious to me, but again, it's on a local level. It didn't reach the state and federal levels of government.

People like to also believe that the prosecutors themselves were in on it, and the judge. The only thing the prosecution was trying to do, like all prosecutors, is bend the truth to get a guilty verdict. Unethical, yes -- I'm not defending them -- but to say they were "covering something up" isn't accurate.

The judge's rulings were not fair for the defense, but then again, the defense lawyers were not good lawyers -- this was admitted by both DE and JB; as well as the defense lawyers themselves (Stidham). I think the judge was guilty of bias -- again, not defending it -- but I don't believe he was involved in some grand scheme to cover something up.

In all honesty, there really is no concrete evidence that there was a cover-up that passed the local level, let alone if one ever existed at all; and there's no reason why the current state's medical examiner would need to agree with Perretti against his own free will. That's how I see it, anyway. There is a difference between bias/unethical behavior and a bonafide conspiracy that runs all the way through the top levels of our government.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It could be local. However, based upon their past actions, there are a couple of very corrupt politicians from Arkansas who are now on the National stage and who have been guilty of some pretty heinous acts in the past. IMO, it's possible that someone knows something that could derail a certain campaign. If that is the case, I have no doubt but that they'd do whatever necessary to keep it out of the media.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

IMO, not only the wmpd were out of their depth with this case, Peretti was also overwhelmed. The statement "Peretti admits trying to draw the FBI into the investigation because he feared the wmpd was in over its head", seems to suggest Peretti "admits" that it was over his head too.

As far as corruption goes, there is no doubt about the corruption in the ranks of the CC-DTF and wmpd,.The Clarke White affair, later Applegate, Bradley, Sudbury, Griffin, Davis, Pirani, Sanders, and James Wilson were all charged for different reasons.

Can be read here:

http://www.jivepuppi.com/west_memphis_confidential.html
http://callahan.8k.com/misc/dtf_investigation_3.pdf

Then there is the oddity with Judge David Burnett. and the fire arms. West Memphis Evening Times, November 11, 1993.

How far corruption could actually play into this case I do not know. I don't see a direct involvement with the murders, but as far as the investigation goes, especially the investigation surrounding the WM3, it stinks. How far it reaches up the ladder, well, why not all the way ? The more power important people have in their hands, the better the methods of covering up they have at their disposability. Ask Sepp Blatter. (FIFA)

 

[Userid]

Again, corruption does not necessarily prove a correlating conspiracy regarding this particular case. None of those offenses can be connected to this case.

All the people you listed were nothing higher than the rank of officer (with the exception of Burnett of course, who is everyone's favorite whipping boy).

You'll find this type of corruption in many other city police departments also -- that doesn't mean that every high-profile crime is covered up by said police departments within their respective cities.

 

[Graznik]

I think it's safe to say that at least part of the WMPD were corrupt to some extent.

With this case, it just never ceases to amaze you how inept some people seem to have been - like, the full extent of it - and when it gets to the point of being almost unbelievable it's quite easy to resort to conspiracies and cover ups. Because it's simply unbelievable how this case was handled, right from the WMPD to judge Burnett. Personally, I just don't know what to think.

 

[ninij9]

I was hooked by this case several years ago after watching the Paradise lost docudramas. I never followed too closeIy after seeing those and figured I was done after the WM3 release in 2011. I have recently taken up the case again after randomly coming across a tweet of Damien Echols online. For the first time i am reading evidence myself and I am learning many things not provided in the PL docs. Now I have a question for those that have followed much more diligently than I: Can they reopen the case when officially the WM3 have taken the Alford Plea and pled guilty while maintaining their innocence? Can a new suspect even be charged if the WM3 are legally guilty? I have serious misgivings now as to the innocence of the WM3, but these questions are more of a legal nature than opinion. Thanks in advance to any of you that can help explain to me. I find I am once again sucked deep into this crime partly because of the horrific nature of the attacks (poor poor boys) and, I will admit partly because I find Damien terribly charismatic (I hate to admit this).

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Right after the release, there was a press conference at the Clinton School. Ellington was present. He said there that he would consider any new evidence presented by the defense team. That is where things now stand. Supposedly, certain evidence has been presented to Ellington. Apparently, he doesn't think it sufficient to reopen the case.

JMB and PH filed an FOIA suit against the State of Arkansas, asking to see certain items of evidence belonging to their sons. This was post-release. They were denied the opportunity to see the evidence. IMO, that means that the case isn't "really" closed, although the wmpd and the State of Arkansas maintain that the case is closed.

In short, if the case were truly closed, the personal belongings of the victims would be returned to the parents. The fact that those belongings have not been returned indicates, at least to me, that the door is at least slightly open to reopening the case. IMO, if the citizens of Arkansas continue to put pressure on the State of Arkansas and Ellington specifically about this case, it can and will be reopened. Only time will tell.



ETA: Here is the link to the Clinton School Q & A session.

http://www.clintonschoolspeakers.com/lecture/view/west-memphis-three-past-present-and-future/

 

[Miranda!]

What is there? The hair (which can't directly be linked to TH himself), the bite mark (junk science from an amateur dentist), the depos (years after the fact), the Ballard sighting (hearsay). Did I miss something? Remember, although incredibly creepy, the Mildred F. incident is completely separate from this particular case and wouldn't prove TH's propensity to kill 3 male children.

I have been AWOL for quite a time and am only now catching up on this thread. I have ket biting my tongue not to chip in so very late in the day. However this post demands it!

The 'junk science' issue has been dealt with.

'Amateur dentist'? The dentist referenced earns his professional living as a dentist so calling him an 'amateur' is really stretching things;
You also, I think, earier, made a mention of lack of experience 'reading' teeth and bite impressions! Any dentist who has patients who need dentures takes impressions of their bite!

Using an item with known dimensions in order to calibrate the size of the unknown object in a photgraph is a 'common sense' solution to a problem. Actually a sign of intelligent problem solving!

Last of all, one of the forensic odontogists who had a chance to review 'this Dentist's' work had actually testified as an 'expert' on behalf of the state and knows the case. He did not know of the existance of the partial when he gave testimony. He also, coincidentally, was either a Professor or Lecturer when 'this Dentist' trained, and remembered him.

Maybe you did not mean to be quite so scathing in your use of the word 'amateur'. If that is the case then I apologise for my rebuttle and can only say it is down to linguistic differences in the use of English English as opposed to American English!


btw The Mildred F incident bears out Pam Hicks' comment that TWH is the tpye to get revenge. NOT a nice person.