Found Deceased OK - Mark Chastain, Billy Chastain, Mike Sparks, Alex Stevens, Okmulgee, 9 Oct 2022

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I keep wondering why he took the phone, was it on purpose or accident?

If he killed them and dismembered them in the same time period, then took them to the river, he had to have gone back to the field or his yard and picked up the victim's phone, because the phone didn't go to the river. He then went to the gas station and then home/yard on the hwy.

Option 2, killed them, left them there but took the phone to gas station and then home, turned off phone. Then went back and took them to the river.

Option 3, killed them, dismembered them, loaded, drove to the gas station, then home, realized the phone was with him and turned it off then, drove back north to get to river. This option is not that far-fetched. If he suddenly realized he had the phone, he maybe realized he had better not have the bodies on his property. Maybe he originally was going to dispose of them there but now he knew they might search it because of the phone.
Is it possible he actually took the phone with him on purpose? Hard to believe that he would not know about cell phone tracking.
What if it was in the victim's pants pocket and he missed it when doing the awful, maybe it was ringing when he got near the gas station or to his other yard.
Someday maybe we get to see what JK did at the gas station and what vehicle he had and if the victims' bodies could have been with him.

edit to add
I thought of one more, he took them directly to the river, then went back to field/yard, gathered all their clothes (it would make sense for them to be undressed) including pants with the phone hidden in a pocket, and took them to his house to burn or hide. The simplest answer...

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

added to above post

 

[Soulmagent]

Too late to edit my post,
I thought of one more, he took them directly to the river, then went back to field/yard, gathered all their clothes (it would make sense for them to be undressed) including pants with the phone hidden in a pocket, and took them to his house to burn or hide. The simplest answer...

If this is the case and he did burn them he might not have been aware he even had the phone .It does not seem out of the possible .

 

[Cryptic]

Born and raised in S. FL have never heard that term, wording or slang.

Neither did a member from south Louisiana.

It was used amongst at risk youth types when I was growing up in east Texas for shoplifting, buying marijuana, skipping school etc. The area has a strong southern influence, so I thought the term was southern.

But... another member advanced the idea that the term is not southern, but originated out west in reference to cattle salt licks and the ability to get a quick, easy reward (salt). This could coincide with its use in Oklahoma and would make sense.

 

[Howl]

Y'all when I was speculating that someone Cartel involved or trained had murdered these guys, my thinking was that the four friends inadvertently stumbled onto something way over their heads, seen something they shouldn't have seen or tried to steal something that they shouldn't have stolen, not that they were deliberately involved in dealing with Cartel folks. Someone who knew of their plans could have ratted them out. Nothing makes sense really, but then we're rational law abiding people.

Some posters have made a very good argument that the four could have been murdered by one man. But dismemberment. Sheesh. I just can't wrap my head around it.

 

[Friday Fan]

Y'all when I was speculating that someone Cartel involved or trained had murdered these guys, my thinking was that the four friends inadvertently stumbled onto something way over their heads, seen something they shouldn't have seen or tried to steal something that they shouldn't have stolen, not that they were deliberately involved in dealing with Cartel folks. Someone who knew of their plans could have ratted them out. Nothing makes sense really, but then we're rational law abiding people.

Some posters have made a very good argument that the four could have been murdered by one man. But dismemberment. Sheesh. I just can't wrap my head around it.

Even if they stumbled on something, I don't think anything would happen to them. By harming the guys, the cartels would likely draw more attention to their activity. Many illegal events happen "in plain" site and we are oblivious. Drug dealing is one of them. These guys weren't the brightest. I really can't imagine them in on a high level cartel event. Sure, many people stumble on low level stuff all the time. It's in plain site. So they may see someone dealing drugs, but it's kinda like, "So"...The cartel knows they would not squeal. They would not witness a cartel planning a hit job.

 

[HMSHood]

An all around bizarre case.

 

[Sunny Day]

I think the dismemberment was because a 67 year old guy wasn't strong enough to move even one of those bodies intact, let alone all 4. The dismemberment was for ease of transporting the bodies to the river.

 

[Allabouttrial]

I'm struggling to understand why the term 'hit a lick' is getting so scrutinized.

LE made it clear what their definition of the term meant at the press conference

"......That belief is based on information supplied by a witness who reports they were invited to go with the men to quote unquote 'hit a lick big enough for all of them'. We do not know what they planned or where they planned to do it."

 

[Mojito]

Y'all when I was speculating that someone Cartel involved or trained had murdered these guys, my thinking was that the four friends inadvertently stumbled onto something way over their heads, seen something they shouldn't have seen or tried to steal something that they shouldn't have stolen, not that they were deliberately involved in dealing with Cartel folks. Someone who knew of their plans could have ratted them out. Nothing makes sense really, but then we're rational law abiding people.

Some posters have made a very good argument that the four could have been murdered by one man. But dismemberment. Sheesh. I just can't wrap my head around it

Y'all when I was speculating that someone Cartel involved or trained had murdered these guys, my thinking was that the four friends inadvertently stumbled onto something way over their heads, seen something they shouldn't have seen or tried to steal something that they shouldn't have stolen, not that they were deliberately involved in dealing with Cartel folks. Someone who knew of their plans could have ratted them out. Nothing makes sense really, but then we're rational law abiding people.

Some posters have made a very good argument that the four could have been murdered by one man. But dismemberment. Sheesh. I just can't wrap my head around it.

Same here. I was convinced this was cartel. I mean, who singlehandedly kills four men at the same time and then dismembers them and dumps them in plain sight in a very small town? Unheard of. Can anyone remember a story similar to this (from what info we have so far)? I can't think of one. Closest I can think of is serial killers.

 

[carbuff]

Same here. I was convinced this was cartel. I mean, who singlehandedly kills four men at the same time and then dismembers them and dumps them in plain sight in a very small town? Unheard of. Can anyone remember a story similar to this (from what info we have so far)? I can't think of one. Closest I can think of is serial killers.

Well, there was the Rhoden family (spelling not guaranteed) in Ohio--eight people murdered and it turned out to be a custody dispute. Everybody was sure it was drugs.

I wouldn't say they were dumped in plain sight. I think whoever dumped them in the river didn't realize the decaying bodies would float and reveal themselves.

 

[Rocky Mountain Hi]

I think the dismemberment was because a 67 year old guy wasn't strong enough to move even one of those bodies intact, let alone all 4. The dismemberment was for ease of transporting the bodies to the river.

How would he have moved them, whether in whole or in parts? He abandoned his car after beginning to leave town. If there was blood inside, that would have been reported. Or maybe not, if LE wanted to keep mum about it, so as not to declare him a "suspect", which might have caused him to run farther. I mean...why did they say he might be suicidal, unless they had some evidence connecting him to the murders? What would lead them to speculate about his psychological state, if he were only a POI?

hmm..... Again, if he murdered them and transported their remains to the river, what did he transport all that in? If not his car?

 

[Knox]

How would he have moved them, whether in whole or in parts? He abandoned his car after beginning to leave town. If there was blood inside, that would have been reported. Or maybe not, if LE wanted to keep mum about it, so as not to declare him a "suspect", which might have caused him to run farther. I mean...why did they say he might be suicidal, unless they had some evidence connecting him to the murders? What would lead them to speculate about his psychological state, if he were only a POI?

hmm..... Again, if he murdered them and transported their remains to the river, what did he transport all that in? If not his car?

Read here ... https://dcontrol.com/profile/joe-kennedy/carriers/inspection

Commercial truck last inspected 7/16/22, so we know the information is current. He's got two trucks.

 

[Rocky Mountain Hi]

Read here ... https://dcontrol.com/profile/joe-kennedy/carriers/inspection

Commercial truck last inspected 7/16/22, so we know the information is current. He's got two trucks.

I'm not clear on how this document answers my question,"what did he move the remains in".

 

[McJenn]

Yes, the idea that the yard was booby-trapped sounds very feasible to me. Perhaps a device or 2 that could shoot several at the same time. (or maybe I've seen one too many episodes of "Monk" where the junk yard owner rigged a device to shoot anyone who tripped it).

Sounds like the last episode of Breaking Bad. Walter White cleaned house!

 

[Rocky Mountain Hi]

I keep wondering why he took the phone, was it on purpose or accident?

If he killed them and dismembered them in the same time period, then took them to the river, he had to have gone back to the field or his yard and picked up the victim's phone, because the phone didn't go to the river. He then went to the gas station and then home/yard on the hwy.

Option 2, killed them, left them there but took the phone to gas station and then home, turned off phone. Then went back and took them to the river.

Option 3, killed them, dismembered them, loaded, drove to the gas station, then home, realized the phone was with him and turned it off then, drove back north to get to river. This option is not that far-fetched. If he suddenly realized he had the phone, he maybe realized he had better not have the bodies on his property. Maybe he originally was going to dispose of them there but now he knew they might search it because of the phone.
Is it possible he actually took the phone with him on purpose? Hard to believe that he would not know about cell phone tracking.
What if it was in the victim's pants pocket and he missed it when doing the awful, maybe it was ringing when he got near the gas station or to his other yard.
Someday maybe we get to see what JK did at the gas station and what vehicle he had and if the victims' bodies could have been with him.

edit to add
I thought of one more, he took them directly to the river, then went back to field/yard, gathered all their clothes (it would make sense for them to be undressed) including pants with the phone hidden in a pocket, and took them to his house to burn or hide. The simplest answer...

Again, I must ask: he "drove"? What did he drive in? What did haul the remains in? His truck was defunkt. Or did he have more than one vehicle?

 

[RickshawFan]

Hmmm.....

Maybe the South is not the origin like I thought.

I first heard "Hit a Lick" in east Texas (lots of pinewoods, but relatively few cattle). @gnomony 's idea makes alot of sense. Maybe under the context of cattle "hitting" a salt lick for a free, quick and easy type gain?

With @Teche not having heard the term and gnomony's idea, I am thinking the term moved to east Texas wayward youths from the west (as gnomony states "cattle country"), not the south.

It seems as though "hit a lick" comes close in meaning to the slang "score", as in "I scored with a 16-year-old" or "I scored a wad of bills". "Lick" might come from prohibition. OK also had right around that time the Great Dust Bowl, which might have had some interesting slang. And then there's sex slang, which I'll leave to your imagination.
Maybe "his dad gave him a lickin'" also came from the same etymology.

I often use Urban Dictionary for my slang.

 

[charminglane]

I think it comes from the term lickity split - Speed.
Fast job, big haul.

 

[Knox]

https://okcountyrecords.com/search/okmulgee

Tax Roll Inquiry County Treasurer

oktaxrolls.com

JK owns many, many, properties in Okmulgee County and beyond. There is a very nice property listed. Earlier a poster stated he lived on the scrap yard premises, IMO I don't think that's true.

 

[Knox]

Again, I must ask: he "drove"? What did he drive in? What did haul the remains in? His truck was defunkt. Or did he have more than one vehicle?

?