Purported "Bite Mark" is Consistant with the Lake Knife

[kyleb]

i am not obviously anything. discuss the case please, not me.

Accurate discussion of the case requires addressing misconceptions proffered regarding it, yours included.

further, where it is suggested that the first bottom abrasion matches the saw tooth is not even possible since to match the pattern the knife must be laid on it's side. knives don't cut laying on their sides.

If you take an something along the lines of a cucumber, lay a blade on its side against it and twist that blade towards the cucumber just a bit, you'll find it leaves a cut on the cucumber consistent with the blade of the knife. Using a serrated knife, or better yet a saw blade, will best demonstrate the relevant effect.

where the saw teeth are longer, the wounds should be deeper

There's no place where the saw teeth are longer, they are all the same length, albeit laid out on a curve. However, the area of the face around the eye socket is also curved, and both curvatures must be taken into account.

Kyleb:
As for the x shaped mark, while there's nothing to account for that on the cap as pictured, there may have been a compass on the end of the cap which could account for such a mark, similar to many of the compasses which can be seen with a Google image search for survival knife compass.

Yes, I said that, but I didn't say anything along the lines of "perhaps the center pin of the compass could have been "x" shaped". You suggested I claimed as much, but again I know better than that.

 

[EntreNous]

i'm not here for mind numbing bickering over a theory that does not work. this is the last thing i was say in regard to this subject, each individual saw tooth is longer at the back than in the front. looking at the 2-D photo you presented shows the left corner of each saw tooth is shorter than the right side. by the way, i tried your suggestion with the cucumber, only i used an apple. in order to make the vertical required far deeper embedding of the knife into the skin of the apple. this theory does not work. peace.

 

[kyleb]

each individual saw tooth is longer at the back than in the front. looking at the 2-D photo you presented shows the left corner of each saw tooth is shorter than the right side.

And again, the area of the face around the eye socket is conceived, which also has to be taken into account to comprehended the consistency of the wounds with the knife.

by the way, i tried your suggestion with the cucumber, only i used an apple. in order to make the vertical required far deeper embedding of the knife into the skin of the apple.

That's because the apple is convex surface rather than a concave one as the skin around an eye socket is. My recommendation to test on fruit was simply to dispel you of the notion that "knives don't cut laying on their sides", not to demonstrate the exact same effect as can be seen on Stevie Branch's eyesocket.

this theory does not work. peace.

One can invent excuses to claim anything doesn't work, but that's hardly a path to peace.

 

[Nova]

Was this a reply to a post which was deleted before I got a chance to see it, or are you simply contesting claims that nobody here has made?

I'm saying your entire thread is based on false premises. This was all covered long ago, but feel free to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Pensfan]

The Callahan Case Files Photos archive contains one autopsy photo of laserations around Steve Branch's brow ridge which some have claimed is a bite mark. Also in the archive are mulitple images of the knife found in the lake behind Jason Baldwin's home. When properly scaled with respect the measuring tape and rulers visible in some of the images, the portion of the wounds above the brow ridge and the portion of the wounds below the brow ridge are remarkably consistent with the hilt and blade of the lake knife. I've created the animation below to exemplify this consistency:

Also, to demonstrate that the above animation was done with proper respect for scaling, I've also gone back and created images with the tape measure and rulers visible and marked, then aligned and mated the images so they can be opened in separate browser tabs and flipped between at one's leisure:

Wound

Hilt

Blade

I believe the results speak for themselves, but I'm looking forward to seeing others opinions, and will be happy to answer any questions on the matter to the best of my abilities.

Thank you for posting that info. I've never thought that wound looked exactly like a bite mark from comparing it to bite mark photos on the internet.
http://www.voxy.co.nz/health/bite-mark-bacteria-provide-potential-forensic-clues/5/127758

 

[kyleb]

It doesn't matter whether a random knife COULD have made some of the wounds unless (a) you can connect that knife to a suspect, and (b) you can prove that knife was the ONLY weapon that could have made those marks.

a) The fact that the knife was found in close proximity to Baldwin's house connects it to him. Granted, that's not a direct connection like fingerprints or DNA would be, but I never imagined any such direct connection, which is why your argument implying I did is a strawman.

b) The fact that knife is consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch demonstrates the possibility that it could have been used in the murders. No it doesn't come anywhere close to proving that knife was used in the murders, but I never imagined any such level of proof, which is why your argument implying I did is a strawman.

I've never thought that wound looked exactly like a bite mark from comparing it to bite mark photos on the internet.

Yeah, the wounds don't look anything close the bite mark you linked, or to any bite mark I've ever seen. Best I've been able to tell, there was never a good argument to support the notion that it was bite mark, just various people claiming it was without showing any confirmed bite marks even vaguely comparable to it.

I rather doubt the markers of the Paradise Lost series ever really believed the wounds were a bit mark either, seeing as how they never bothered to show the autopsy photo. Granted, enough of John Mark Byers' teeth can be seen in the Paradise Lost series to prove the wounds are most obviously not a bite mark from him, so showing the autopsy photo would have completely undermined their whole argument.

 

[Veidt]

a) The fact that the knife was found in close proximity to Baldwin's house connects it to him. Granted, that's not a direct connection like fingerprints or DNA would be, but I never imagined any such direct connection, which is why your argument implying I did is a strawman.

b) The fact that knife is consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch demonstrates the possibility that it could have been used in the murders. No it doesn't come anywhere close to proving that knife was used in the murders, but I never imagined any such level of proof, which is why your argument implying I did is a strawman.

If anything, the similar knife that Baldwin (?) owned seems much more plausible. A knife randomly found in a lake could have been put there by anyone, either by coincidence or to incriminate the boys. I wouldn't consider it evidence unless it was proved that that knife in particular and not just a similar type one was used, and also, that it did belong to him.:twocents:

 

[kyleb]

If anything, the similar knife that Baldwin (?) owned seems much more plausible.

Please show me this knife you're alluding to here.

A knife randomly found in a lake could have been put there by anyone, either by coincidence or to incriminate the boys.

The Lake Knife being consistent with wounds on at least one of the victims, winding up in close proximity to the home of a person implicated in the murders by a variety of other evidence, but without having actually been involved in the murders, would be an incredibly remarkable coincidence.

As for the possibility that the knife was planted, one must consider the body of evidence. Notably, consider the fact that of Deanna Holcomb, Echols' ex-girlfriend, testified to him carting a comparable knife, as I noted previously. Also consider the fact that Echols admired on the stand to owning a similar knife, which I also mentioned previously. Then there's the fact Baldwin's neighbor Sam Drawer's 2006 affidavit mentioned Baldwin being in possession of such a knife, and recounted witnessing Baldwin and his mother arguing about her having just thrown a knife into the lake. Given the aforementioned facts, along with the body of evidence as a whole, or at least with the understanding that you've not bothered to familiarize yourself with the body of evidence as a whole if that is still the case: where is there any reasonable basis for suspecting the knife was planted?

I wouldn't consider it evidence unless it was proved that that knife in particular and not just a similar type one was used, and also, that it did belong to him.

Pretty much no knife could ever meet those standards, or most any weapon other than guns. Then there's shoe prints, fiber samples, hair missing follicles, and all sorts of other things commonly considered evidence which could never meet such standards. Heck, you'd even have to throw out hair with follicles and other sources of nDNA in the case of twins. Put simply, there's a lot of convinced and future criminals who would walk free if our legal system were to adopt the burden of poof you propose.

 

[Veidt]

Your tone still comes across as rude and arrogant. I was hoping that maybe you were just having a bad week the last time we talked, and I was actually interested in the discussion about the bite mark, but whatever.

 

[kyleb]

I am interested in discussing the wounds along with all facts surrounding them. I'm not interested in humoring wholly unsubstantiated notions that the wounds constitute a bite mark though, nor speculations and opinions with no demonstrated basis in fact. I don't say that to be rude or arrogant either, I simply prefer to be forthright.

If I wanted to be arrogant and rude my posts would be very different, and I can give you a personalized example of that upon request. I'd prefer not to go there though, and hope you might instead respond to the request and the question I asked in my previous post without reading things into my tone.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The knife is a red herring. What killer would scrape the skin of his victim? In the Rule 37 hearings, real, certified forensic experts have stated that none of the wounds were made by a knife but were the result of postmortem animal predation. This is really old news!

 

[kyleb]

People saying something doesn't necessarily make it true, experts or otherwise. That said, if anyone has actually published research to support the notion that "none of the wounds were made by a knife but were the result of postmortem animal predation", that could potentially prove the claim. Absent that, it seems more likely that the claims of animal predation are a read hearing here, much as the claims of human bite marks apparently were before them.

As for what killer would scrape the skin of his victim: perhaps someone who is homicidal, suffers from schizophrenia, and is sociopathic, and Echols described himself as all three when listing reasons for reasons prior hospitalization.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

People saying something doesn't necessarily make it true, experts or otherwise.

If those people are certified forensic pathologists, I tend to give their statements more weight than that of an assistant medical examiner who failed his licensing exam at least twice and decided not to take it again!

 

[kyleb]

Same here, but nobody has enough weight to make something true by simply saying it. A claim can only rightly be considered on its own merits, regardless of the person or persons making it. So again, where have these ertified forensic pathologists demonstrated the basis for their claims, or have they not?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Their years of experience with forensic pathology demonstrates their expertise. One of them even wrote the textbook still used on the subject. One of them was Peretti's teacher, whom he respected. All of them said that Peretti was wrong and that the injuries to the boys were postmortem animal predation. It's in the abstracts of the latest Rule 37 proceedings.

 

[kyleb]

Their years of experience with forensic pathology demonstrates their expertise.

Of course it does, but it doesn't do anything demonstrate a basis for their claim. Do you not comprehend that at all?

 

[Cappuccino]

Same here, but nobody has enough weight to make something true by simply saying it. A claim can only rightly be considered on its own merits, regardless of the person or persons making it. So again, where have these ertified forensic pathologists demonstrated the basis for their claims, or have they not?

Read the rule 37 hearings, that's where they testify under oath, and under cross examination.

 

[kyleb]

From what I've seen of the hearing transcripts, that's still all a matter of them stating opinions, not actually substantiating them. If you'd like to contend otherwise, please note the exact spot in the transcripts you are referring to and quote whatever portion you find most relevant.

 

[gheckso]

Something as substantial as using a random knife found in an as described "trashcan" on an orange to match serration marks perhaps?

 

[kyleb]

Well sure, if someone could get an animal to scratch an orange and leave abrasions comparable to wounds visible in the autopsy photos, that would certainly be more substantial than claims of animal predation alone.