"The urine mystery" is one among several compelling reasons that I have always suspected a conspiracy between Jones/Driver and Sudbury/ possibly Gitchell (who at the time were all religious fundamentalists extremely obsessed with 'satanic' activity in WM) to stitch Echolls up for these murders, from the moment the bodies were discovered .
- Jones and Driver had been conducting a very weird 'investigation' into satanic activity in WM prior to the murders, and were clearly targetting Echols as their 'suspect'.
- Jones found the shoe that led to discovery of the bodies
- Jones mentioned Echols as a suspect at time of discovery of the bodies
Sudbury:
James Sudbury Report
On May 10:
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.
On May 26, Gitchell tells Kermit Channel that there was urine in the victims' stomachs:
-"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").
--- Yet urine in the stomachs is mentioned -- NOWHERE-- in Peretti's autopsy reports. Such a bizarre and significant finding could not possibly be left out, if factual. I cannot imagine Peretti making this claim without good evidence. If Peretti even suspected, then the boys' stomach contents would have been ordered to be analysed for urine-- and they were, as far as I can recall,
not tested for urine.
Yet here's Gitchell claiming what he claims above -- which makes me wonder, did Gitchell get this urine information second-hand? And if so,
from whom?
Even if there -was- urine in the victims' stomachs (which there obviously was not
) -- how would Peretti have even known, without evidence of it in results of tests of stomach contents (which he did not have at that time)? I cannot imagine Peretti making this claim based on NO evidence, to anyone at all.
And I believe he did not.
Devilish questions
Weird, huh?
As far as I can see,
the --origin-- of the urine story appears to be Jones and possibly Sudbury, who first FED that 'information' to Echols during the interview on the 7th. And I have to wonder---
why?
(They also --fed-- him info on wounds, the knowledge of which was later, on the 9th, viewed as incriminating evidence).