My Theory

[Pensfan]

I don't know about that. I would like to know about the rain myself. I've found on JivePuppi's website the rainfall for the days leading up to the 5th, but not after the 5th.

However, I'm no luminol expert, but I would think if Luminol can read through bleach and everything else people have used to clean up blood, surely it can read through blood that's been soaked into the ground? Even after a rain?

Luminol can't "read" through bleach. Luminol reacts to bleach.
http://www.hartnell.edu/faculty/jhughey/Files/Luminol_Inhibition.pdf

This site says that Luminol will still luminescence on surfaces even after rain.
http://www.securityandsafetysupply.com/news/lp-32.htm

There was luminol testing done at the site and a lot of blood was found. The jury never heard the results of these luminol tests because they were suppressed by motion of the defense in both trials. Although in science labs, luminol's reaction to blood was well known, but LE using luminol at crime scenes was a fairly new occurrence in 1993 and not accepted by some courts as scientific evidence.

You can read these documents at Blink on Crime.

 

[Cappuccino]

If they were killed in the manhole, wouldnt it have been easier and more convenient to just leave them there. Why tie them up and bring them to the woods.

That's one of the problems I have with the Manhole Theory. I don't think they were killed where they were found, but I do think that the most obvious reason for moving the body of any murder victim is that the place where they were killed would incriminate the killer. Ie, they were killed in someone's home, back yard, or some other place associated with the murderer.

I don't see how a manhole would incriminate anybody any more than the BB woods.

 

[Cappuccino]

Luminol can't "read" through bleach. Luminol reacts to bleach.
http://www.hartnell.edu/faculty/jhughey/Files/Luminol_Inhibition.pdf

This site says that Luminol will still luminescence on surfaces even after rain.
http://www.securityandsafetysupply.com/news/lp-32.htm

There was luminol testing done at the site and a lot of blood was found. The jury never heard the results of these luminol tests because they were suppressed by motion of the defense in both trials. Although in science labs, luminol's reaction to blood was well known, but LE using luminol at crime scenes was a fairly new occurrence in 1993 and not accepted by some courts as scientific evidence.

You can read these documents at Blink on Crime.

As I pointed out the last time you made the bolded claim, that's a very misleading statement. The luminol tests carried out at the crime scene showed positive reactions, but that doesn't mean blood was found. Luminol also reacts positively with many other substances, eg, saliva, rust, potassium permanganate, animal proteins, vegetable enzymes, and other organic fluids and tissues.

So it is really not surprising that luminol sprayed round a patch of woods where critters live, and there's plenty of vegetation, would show positive reactions, it doesn't mean a murder was committed there.

Its also misleading to say that it was somehow connected to luminol being new in 1993 - luminol is simply not blood specific and never will be, no matter what Blink tries to tell people.

I'd suggest people ignore the so called "expert" on the case, Blink, who doesn't even know there are two Jason Baldwins, and read proper forensic science instead...

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/luminol

 

[Pensfan]

As I pointed out the last time you made the bolded claim, that's a very misleading statement. The luminol tests carried out at the crime scene showed positive reactions, but that doesn't mean blood was found. Luminol also reacts positively with many other substances, eg, saliva, rust, potassium permanganate, animal proteins, vegetable enzymes, and other organic fluids and tissues.

So it is really not surprising that luminol sprayed round a patch of woods where critters live, and there's plenty of vegetation, would show positive reactions, it doesn't mean a murder was committed there.

Its also misleading to say that it was somehow connected to luminol being new in 1993 - luminol is simply not blood specific and never will be, no matter what Blink tries to tell people.

I'd suggest people ignore the so called "expert" on the case, Blink, who doesn't even know there are two Jason Baldwins, and read proper forensic science instead...

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/luminol

Do you have a link showing critters messily eating with horseradish or using bleach out in the woods? ;^)

 

[krimekat]

Were you aware that it had rained between the time the murders were committed and when the luminol tests were done?

I have no idea how much rain fell, only that it did rain. I would be curious to know if anyone knows what kind of a rain it was, light, a good soaking, a downpour, what?

It was the beginning of the historic Flood of '93 -- spent lots of time filling sand bags that summer just up the Mississippi River in StL . . .

and I agree that there most likely was lots of animal activity in the area the boys were found -- lots of scat, not to mention the HUGE drainage ditch which can be racing with water at times; wonder how sound the sewer system in West Memphis was in 1993?

Lots of agriculture in the area, too, which could taint the water quality of the drainage ditch.

Just by looking at the crime scene pictures, any one can determine how high the water could get at any given rainfall -- very eroded & muddy.

 

[Cappuccino]

Do you have a link showing critters messily eating with horseradish or using bleach out in the woods? ;^)

Luminol reacts with - saliva, rust, potassium permanganate, animal proteins, vegetable enzymes, and other organic fluids and tissues, such as human and animal urine and fecal matter.

Do you really need a link to tell you that critters s*** in the woods?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Anyone have an answer to this?

Your question was why move the bodies?

There are two schools of thought on this one. One school of thought is that, since Chris' brother, Ryan, while searching for the little boys, had mentioned to the killer that the little boys might be playing in the manholes (although he didn't mention this to LE at that time), the killer, hearing this mentioned, felt the need to move the bodies, afraid that Ryan might mention it to LE. The killer spent the evening of May 5th in and out of the woods, according to his own statement, but never reported seeing/hearing the commotion Jessie described. IMO, he was "keeping watch" on the bodies because he wanted to move them later, either because he was afraid of evidence left in the manhole that could link to him or because he was afraid that the bodies would be discovered quickly.

The other school of thought, and very few people see this as a possibility, is that the killer wanted the bodies found and was surprised that LE had not found them on the night of the 5th. One of his actions after the murders is the genesis of this line of thought. About two weeks after the murders, he left his wife (temporarily) because she just couldn't "get over" the death of her son. If the bodies were not found quickly, his wife would not be able to accept her son's death. Since he simply couldn't accept his wife's natural grieving process, it stands to reason that he wouldn't accept the natural continued search for the boys if their bodies had not been found. Therefore, the killer wanted the bodies found quickly and moved them to a location where he thought that they would be found more quickly.

Although the second possibility is intriguing, I am more prone to accept the first possibility. Personally, I believe that they were killed in the manhole and that the killer was afraid that he had left some evidence there. Additionally, although some water would be in the bottom of the manhole, the killer might not have believed it to be enough the wash away evidence as he believed that the water in the ditch might have done.

When were the bodies moved? IMO, in all probability, the bodies were moved between 3 am and 5 am on the 6th of May. Most of the searching had stopped by around 3 am, and, as soon as he was sure that everyone was at home in bed and in an exhausted sleep, he returned to the manhole, pulled the bodies out, hogtied them and transported them the short distance to the ditch.

 

[Pensfan]

Damien Echols WAS KNOWN to go down manholes into the sewer. (Goodbye manhole theory supposedly proving some other bad dude did this! :seeya: )

Interview with Deanna Holcomb on 5-11-93
Q. (Detective Ridge) Does Damien have a special hiding place?
A. (Deanna Jane Holcomb) In the sewers man holes. Tried to get me to hide in one time when we ran away.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/holcomb.html

Notice that in this interview, Deanna also mentions that Damien Echols kept skulls of dead animals in his room (just like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ed Geins). Deanna also stated, "Damien once told me that he had never killed anyone but wondered what it would feel like."

Does anyone know the Callahan link discussing Damien Echols stomping a dog to death and then wearing its intestines like a necklace?

 

[Pensfan]

Here is the testimony and link about Damien Echols stomping a dog to death, slicing it open, and pulling out its intestines. He was trying to make the eyeballs pop out of the dog when he was stomping it. There is another link in Callahan's that is testimony that Damien Echols wore the murdered dog's intestines like a necklace. Does anyone have that one?
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/joehb.html

 

[Cappuccino]

Unless nons are prepared to give up on all pretence of believing Jessie's confessions, then yes the manhole theory does contradict the theory that the wm3 did it.

That nonsensical rumour about the dog is off topic.

 

[Pensfan]

Damien Echols was known to hide in manholes. Deanna Holcomb answered that manholes were Damien Echols's "special hiding place".

This ridiculous manhole theory is more likely to be true if Damien Echols later returned to the crime scene and took the dead little boys back to his special hiding place, a manhole. This is the behavior of carnivores that carry off their prey and Damien Echols exhibited carnivorous behavior. (Damien Echols stated that he drank blood because it gave him special powers and he tried to suck blood from another teen's arm.) If the little boys went into the manhole, it was because Damien Echols carried them there (his favorite hiding place), but later returned them to the slow moving stream.

 

[Cappuccino]

And Jessie just got confused I suppose? Or was he trying to throw 'em off by not mentioning all this about manholes?

 

[Pensfan]

And Jessie just got confused I suppose? Or was he trying to throw 'em off by not mentioning all this about manholes?

Ugh. This is your ridiculous theory, but I'll help you with it. Damien Echols, the young man with untreated schizophrenia and carnivorous behavior, returned later by himself to find his prey. He then carry his prey (the boys) off to his special hiding place, the manhole. Later, he carried the bodies back to the slow moving stream.

 

[Cappuccino]

Ugh. This is your ridiculous theory, but I'll help you with it. Damien Echols, the young man with untreated schizophrenia and carnivorous behavior, returned later by himself to find his prey. He then carry his prey (the boys) off to his special hiding place, the manhole. Later, he carried the bodies back to the slow moving stream.

Its not my theory, ridiculous or otherwise, I've said several times I don't suscribe to the manhole theory. What I'm responding to is your assertion that the manhole theory is compatible with the wm3 committing the crime - which has now transmogrified into Damien alone carrying the bodies aimlessly back and forth from a manhole to the drainage ditch.

The manhole theory may have its faults, but its several magnitutes less ridiculous than the scenario you have posited above.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'll put this here, but I said much the same thing in another thread.

First, Deanna Holcomb is a former girlfriend of Damien's. She could be lying. And just because Damien liked to "hang out" in manholes (if this is true) doesn't prove that he committed the murders. As Cappuccino said, where is this tidbit of information in Jessie's stories?

It never ceases to amaze me that some people believe that some teens are telling the truth and others are lying. They accept as gospel truth the "stories" of a mentally challenged teen, a juvenile delinquent, a couple of tween girls who supposedly overheard a conversation and an estranged girlfriend with an obvious axe to grind, but discount as lies the testimony of those teens who actually interacted with one or more of the WMFree on May 5, 1993.

Second, the little boys were all "into" Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles at the time of the murders. All of the parents knew this, as most parents know of their child's likes and dislikes. TH almost let it slip at one point, starting to mention TMNT specifically but backtracking at the last minute. TH also mentioned the fact that Ryan, Chris' brother, suggested searching in "something that covers a whole or something," at the same time indicating with his hands the approximate size of the opening of a manhole. These statements are in his Pasdar depositions, IIRC.

IMO, the three little boys would not follow Damien and his friends down into a manhole as they didn't know them and, if they had seen them around town, they would probably have been afraid of Damien because he looked different. They are much more likely to respond to one of their fathers. They could have either allowed him into the manhole (which is not what I believe happened) or (IMO the more likely scenario) exited the manhole when he appeared at the opening and ordered them out.

So, again, IMO, TH went to the manhole (probably around 7 pm) and either went down into it or called them to come up. If he went down, he was attempting to discipline Stevie and it got out of hand. He had two witnesses who saw it happen and who were trapped with him at the time in the manhole. So, he silences them as well. If TH simply called down and ordered the boys up, then Stevie, the first to emerge, was probably backhanded and knocked unconscious, but TH may have believed that he killed Stevie at that time. The other boys, upon emerging, received similar blows to silence them. IMO, either way it happened, it began with Stevie being disciplined and the others being murdered to eliminate witnesses.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Your question was why move the bodies?

There are two schools of thought on this one. One school of thought is that, since Chris' brother, Ryan, while searching for the little boys, had mentioned to the killer that the little boys might be playing in the manholes (although he didn't mention this to LE at that time), the killer, hearing this mentioned, felt the need to move the bodies, afraid that Ryan might mention it to LE. The killer spent the evening of May 5th in and out of the woods, according to his own statement, but never reported seeing/hearing the commotion Jessie described. IMO, he was "keeping watch" on the bodies because he wanted to move them later, either because he was afraid of evidence left in the manhole that could link to him or because he was afraid that the bodies would be discovered quickly.

The other school of thought, and very few people see this as a possibility, is that the killer wanted the bodies found and was surprised that LE had not found them on the night of the 5th. One of his actions after the murders is the genesis of this line of thought. About two weeks after the murders, he left his wife (temporarily) because she just couldn't "get over" the death of her son. If the bodies were not found quickly, his wife would not be able to accept her son's death. Since he simply couldn't accept his wife's natural grieving process, it stands to reason that he wouldn't accept the natural continued search for the boys if their bodies had not been found. Therefore, the killer wanted the bodies found quickly and moved them to a location where he thought that they would be found more quickly.

Although the second possibility is intriguing, I am more prone to accept the first possibility. Personally, I believe that they were killed in the manhole and that the killer was afraid that he had left some evidence there. Additionally, although some water would be in the bottom of the manhole, the killer might not have believed it to be enough the wash away evidence as he believed that the water in the ditch might have done.

When were the bodies moved? IMO, in all probability, the bodies were moved between 3 am and 5 am on the 6th of May. Most of the searching had stopped by around 3 am, and, as soon as he was sure that everyone was at home in bed and in an exhausted sleep, he returned to the manhole, pulled the bodies out, hogtied them and transported them the short distance to the ditch.

thanks for answering. The second one is silly - that in one night he was already fretting his wife didn't get over it. Nah. The former isn't as bad, but I do have difficulty with it, that he would take that big of risk to move them.

If you want to say TH killed them, why couldn't he have just as well done it in the woods where they were found?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I'll put this here, but I said much the same thing in another thread.

First, Deanna Holcomb is a former girlfriend of Damien's. She could be lying. And just because Damien liked to "hang out" in manholes (if this is true) doesn't prove that he committed the murders. As Cappuccin

Why would she lie about hiding in a manhole? It's not like she would know anybody thought they were killed in one.

 

[Pensfan]

Shortened for brevity-

I'll put this here, but I said much the same thing in another thread.
First, Deanna Holcomb is a former girlfriend of Damien's. She could be lying. And just because Damien liked to "hang out" in manholes (if this is true) doesn't prove that he committed the murders. As Cappuccino said, where is this tidbit of information in Jessie's stories?

As you stated earlier, Jessie wasn't one of Damien Echol's best friends. Therefore, Jessie didn't know that Damien Echols favorite hiding spot was the sewer just like a filthy poop-eating rat. Deanna, his old girlfriend knew this disgusting info. because Damien tried to get her to go down into the sewer with him.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I'm still waiting for the 'new evidence' that will exonerate the three convicted child murderers. What could that be? Why won't they say what that evidence is or have the Defense announce it? That's the part where I am confused. What could they be waiting for?

 

[justthinkin]

I'm still waiting for the 'new evidence' that will exonerate the three convicted child murderers. What could that be? Why won't they say what that evidence is or have the Defense announce it? That's the part where I am confused. What could they be waiting for?

Golly gee, UdbCrzy, they have to find it first, don't cha know.