Questions on JD and SJ

[anastacia]

Forgive me if I'm stepping out of bounds, but I had kind of derailed the TH thread so I thought it might be better to start a new one with my questions/theories on JD and SJ.

Was it in the scope of JD job to make evening patrols? I've seen references to him pulling over suspected drunk drivers, and doing evening patrol's and in my limited experience with juvenile probation officers they don't do these things, so I'm curious as to whether he was overstepping his job duties.

Also do we know of anything that might have been going on in his personal life at that time? Divorce? Financial issues? Anything that might have made him feel powerless? Was he perhaps overlooked for a promotion?

I've been digging back through the info on him most of the night but haven't found the answers to those questions.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

JD was on a crusade to "expose" the Satanists in West Memphis. IMO, that's why he conducted his evening patrols. I agree that it was certainly outside his job duties, but, sometimes, that kind of thing happens in small towns. GZ was out of bounds, IMO, in confronting TM - and we all know what happened there!

As to JD's personal life, I'm not sure if there is any information available about that. I do know that he served time in FL some years later for some sort of embezzlement or fraud crime. I can never remember the details! So, he had those proclivities. Sorry I can't be of more help.

 

[Userid]

If you take JD's word for it, he was approached by the WMPD early in their investigation; it wasn't him who sought out the WMPD. He may have been involved in the search like his assistant, SJ, but then again, everybody was pretty much involved in the search. They had come to him (after the boys were found), asking him, "If there was anyone capable of committing this crime, who would it be?" And he said DE. Whether his account is truly accurate, is anyone's guess.

As far as what his "scope" was, all I know was that he was more like a youth-probation officer. That title at face-value means little, but in a small town like West Memphis, it wouldn't surprise me if he was involved with the WMPD in sporadic/significant cases, as this one. His "evening patrols" consisted of visiting various outdoor sites that were known as teen hangout and/or satanic sites.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

According to DE, JD was almost stalking him! DE "suspects" that JD was at least partially responsible for his troubles in the Northwest. IIRC, JD was the person primarily responsible for DE's immediate troubles on his return to Arkansas. In short, JD is not totally "clean" of the heat placed on DE for these murders. Even if the police came to JD for information, why did he single out DE? IMO, it was because DE was "weird" and dressed funny. JD decided that DE was the killer and made it a point to steer the wmpd in DE's direction. Based on what? I guess that's my point. JD didn't like DE and made sure that LE focused on DE.

 

[anastacia]

And that is exactly why I so suspicious of JD as the possible perp, (don't I sound all coppish using that word?). He did already have a 'bee up his butt' about DE for sure, but he was sooo insistent right off the rip that DE was the perp in this case, desperate even. WHY? Why did he need for everyone to focus on DE for this crime? Those are questions I'd love to have answered.

It's also the reason I've asked before about any major trauma's that might have been going on in JD life at that time. For instance, had he been recently divorced? Was he passed over for any promotions? Anything that might have made him feel powerless?

 

[Userid]

Only JD could tell you why he singled out DE. Sure, it could have been because he plain and simply didn't like the kid; but what many seem to conveniently overlook is, perhaps DE was the best possible "guess" he could give to police out of all the teens he was working with at the time. That doesn't make it right; I'm not saying it does. But people are always so quick to believe that certain things in this case (if not all) were done with some sinister, master plot to cover up something -- in all honesty, I just think this train of thought is misguided. It was a stupid thing for the police to do in the first place -- no argument there -- but then again, they were desperate. They got a totally unsubstantiated lead from an unsubstantiated source -- granted -- and they ran with it, perhaps much farther than they should have. Not only was the police ill-advised to seek out this source, but the source (JD) was ill-advised to mention DE. I'll heed all of those arguments, but I won't heed that JD was somehow involved in the murders himself. There is absolutely zero evidence to conclude this.

 

[anastacia]

True enough on the lack of physical evidence. What makes me think of him is the fact that he was known to take authority he didn't really have, ie making patrols at night. I could easily see him going off on a kid that got mouthy with him, and I think CB might of had he been confronted. I've asked what else was going on his life to try and get more of an idea what his mindset might have been, but I don't think that info is available. We know he has a criminal bent because he stole money from the office, a lot of it. He had a bug up his butt about Damien from the rip so I think in his head he might think, "Well, he didn't do these murders, but it was only a matter of time until he killed somebody, so I'm really preventing a crime by accusing him, and it wasn't really my fault I killed those 3 little boys, they pushed me over the edge by not respecting my authority."

It is a bit of a stretch, I'll be the first to admit. But no more, to me anyway, than imagining a man 'lost it' and went all gonzo on 3 kids, 2 of whom weren't even his.

 

[zencompass]

Hey Anastacia,

I am very glad that you started this thread because the characters of J.D. and S.J. are puzzling to say the least. I apologize if I said it before or too many times but I cannot fathom the fact that S.J. was at the exact spot at the discovery site and ended up at Damien's trailer the next day interviewing him. I mean, what are the chances? To me, it is so obvious that at the very start of this investigation everything pointed to D.E. et al as this was a "satanic" killing. I have this stubborn feeling that there is a clue (or two) in what was actually in play during those moments/hours leading up to and after the discovery.

I have to go back and look at my old research about J.D. and S.J. I know I had a lot of questions as well.

I don't think your theory is a stretch as I don't believe some others are either compared to the unimaginable horrific murder of three little boys. Now that is unbelievable that it ever happened.

Anyone can have an opinion - doesn't mean they are right - just means they don't have a theory!

Keep turning over stones - it's the only way to discover the truth. I enjoy reading your posts - you've opened up some good respectful discussions!

 

[zencompass]

I also wanted to say that in addition to Callahan's site which is excellent, I learned the most from another poster, Compassionate Reader, who has followed this case from the start. C.R.'s knowledge of this case, train of thought, logic and deduction from seemingly minute details is absolutely outstanding and she is another poster who I enjoy reading her posts because they are so thoughtful and detailed.

 

[anastacia]

Thank you for the kind words zencompass!! And yes, I so agree about SJ being the one to 'discover' the bodies, then being on hand to go and question DE. That's why he and JD bother me so much. Like they inserted themselves into the investigation from the beginning, lead the police to their way of thinking as far as , "hmmmm...looks like a satantic killing to me....then all too easy to lay it at DE's doorstep...And SJ made his "Looks like Damien finally killed somebody" statement within seconds of finding the bodies!!

Another curious thing to me, I can't find in the court transcripts where SJ was called to testify, or where he was directly named as having found the bodies. Wouldn't it have been pretty standard to have the officer who actually discovered the bodies to testify that he'd done so? And so far it's only mentioned that 'another officer' made the actual discovery. I haven't finished reading everyone's testimony in both trials yet, but so far I haven't seen it.

 

[anastacia]

Annnnd here's more..according to Harvey Schlossberg, a retired director of psychological services for the New York City Police Department. "If the victims are found nude, or nearly so, investigators can determine the killer was a stranger. If it's someone they know, they don't want the victims exposed."

And according to Stephen A Diamond Ph.D. ..."pathological anger, rage, resentment and embitterment..." are traits that mass murderers seem to display. (Since there were 3 victims I think mass murder applies here.)

While both TH and JD display the characteristics, imo, the fact that the boys were found nude would tend to rule out TH.

 

[Graznik]

The officer who a actually found the bodies was Mike Allen. Jones found the floating tennis shoe, IIRC, and radioed the PD.

The first part of your first post is what keeps popping in to my head whenever someone claims that Damien was a good suspect. If Jones and Driver are taken out of the equation, there's pretty much no way an investigation would lead you to Damien or any of the WM3 for that matter. They inserted Damien as a suspect and the WMPD ran with it for whatever reason. The satanic angle motivated their pursuit I suppose. But again, does anyone really believe that this was a satanic ritual killing anymore?! Now take that out of the equation too, and you have less than nothing...

 

[anastacia]

Nothing in this case is easy or simple!! I've been researching whether or not it was MA or SJ who found the bodies, (I've always had it in my head that it was SJ). There's no agreement on that either! MA testified in court at JM trial that he discovered the shoe, and next the bodies. The initial police reports do as well, however later ones were amended to say that SJ found the shoe, and MA the bodies. SMH--

 

[Graznik]

Hmm... It has been a while since I read the trial transcripts. I believe, and I'm still on holiday and unable to double check this, that SJ himself stated in WoM that he saw the shoe (or was it the cap?) and alerted the police. Allen then fell in the ditch, and his foot got caught on one of the bodies.

 

[zencompass]

http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_the_discovery.html

The above website was created by Martin David Hill and is very comprehensive. He has done a remarkable job of gathering information.

I found the Discovery information very interesting, especially the part where apparently S.J. noticed the shoe and radioed it in to the police. However Gitchell does not mention him at all! Instead he tells the press that it was an officer who made the initial discovery. I find this to be very interesting as well.

 

[anastacia]

Was SJ known to make 'patrols' with JD?

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Annnnd here's more..according to Harvey Schlossberg, a retired director of psychological services for the New York City Police Department. "If the victims are found nude, or nearly so, investigators can determine the killer was a stranger. If it's someone they know, they don't want the victims exposed."

And according to Stephen A Diamond Ph.D. ..."pathological anger, rage, resentment and embitterment..." are traits that mass murderers seem to display. (Since there were 3 victims I think mass murder applies here.)

While both TH and JD display the characteristics, imo, the fact that the boys were found nude would tend to rule out TH.

anastacia, pleases forgive me for doing this, but this piece of information is very misleading.

Schlossberg was relating to the "Gainesville" murders.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...290839_1_serial-killers-killer-ted-bundy-rage

Criminal profiling is very complex nowadays, and the murder of three 8 year old children is a totally different story. There is a lot of very good, detailed literature on criminal profiling, particularly on child homicide. There is also a lot of superficial information flying about the net, much of it is torn out of any context.

Although not perfect, Brent Turvey's work on this case was quite good IMO. The main thing he pointed out again and again was this:

Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis
von Brent E. Turvey page 515

Too often, the author has observed or been asked to examine child homicides where police have focused on stranger suspects and failed to investigate suspects within the victim's home or family. The rule in all child homicides is simple; Investigate and eliminate the family and household members first, including caretakers. Then friends. Then neighbors. Essentially those with access to, and who spend time with, the child need to be eliminated first. If the resources exist, other detectives should be working a parallel investigation on the possibility of a stranger's having committed the offense (with the first attention paid to local area registered sex offenders, recently paroled child molesters, etc.). Failure to do this, for whatever reason, results in an imbalanced investigation and a lack of certainty regarding any suspect who is accused.

TH, not investigated, TM, not investigated, JMB, not thoroughly investigated, biological fathers ? Due to the type of injuries it appears to be a male homicide, but the female parents, relatives could have had an assisting role. Thus the lack of certainty regarding any suspect who is accused.

Sorry for derailing. I won't interrupt again.

 

[Userid]

True enough on the lack of physical evidence. What makes me think of him is the fact that he was known to take authority he didn't really have, ie making patrols at night. I could easily see him going off on a kid that got mouthy with him, and I think CB might of had he been confronted. I've asked what else was going on his life to try and get more of an idea what his mindset might have been, but I don't think that info is available. We know he has a criminal bent because he stole money from the office, a lot of it. He had a bug up his butt about Damien from the rip so I think in his head he might think, "Well, he didn't do these murders, but it was only a matter of time until he killed somebody, so I'm really preventing a crime by accusing him, and it wasn't really my fault I killed those 3 little boys, they pushed me over the edge by not respecting my authority."

It is a bit of a stretch, I'll be the first to admit. But no more, to me anyway, than imagining a man 'lost it' and went all gonzo on 3 kids, 2 of whom weren't even his.

Exactly (in regards to the bolded)! I don't buy that, either (in regards to TH).

 

[Userid]

Annnnd here's more..according to Harvey Schlossberg, a retired director of psychological services for the New York City Police Department. "If the victims are found nude, or nearly so, investigators can determine the killer was a stranger. If it's someone they know, they don't want the victims exposed."

And according to Stephen A Diamond Ph.D. ..."pathological anger, rage, resentment and embitterment..." are traits that mass murderers seem to display. (Since there were 3 victims I think mass murder applies here.)

While both TH and JD display the characteristics, imo, the fact that the boys were found nude would tend to rule out TH.

You are on the right path with this (bolded) thought. People will try and claim that the wound to the private area of CB was entirely made by animal predation, in an attempt to distract and lead you away from this correct path. Now, I don't recommend you go looking for the photos, but I can tell you this: I've seen some (cropped), and there is absolutely no denying that a man-made instrument was used in a stabbing motion on the upper-inner thighs of CB. I repeat, no denying it. Turvey references it in PL2, and he's exactly right (on this point). Now, couple this with the fact that absolutely zero blood was found on any of the boys' clothes -- zero -- and you have even more confirmation that this goes beyond a "staged" act; that the clothes were removed in the initial stages of the attack (not after, as they would if the crime was staged); and that there was a sexual, sadistic component to the attack. All these facets lead away from TH and/or DJ.

 

[Userid]

Also, forgot who mentioned it now, but it's true that Mike A. was the one that found the bodies; immediately after SJ found the shoe. SJ saw the shoe floating, and went to get another detective. Why he didn't just try and obtain the shoe himself is a mystery, but (if you take MA's word for it) the shoe seemed to be in a precarious position in the ditch.

It's actually photographed by another detective when MA finds the first body. He's leaning on a tree, trying to grab the shoe (supposedly), and accidentally falls in the ditch. When he fell in, he felt the first body with his feet/legs. He then pulled up MM and placed him on the east bank; and SJ immediately ran out of the woods and supposedly threw up.

One thing that always bothered me was, why not just grab a fricking stick or something and simply draw the shoe toward you, then grab it? Why lean on a tree on the opposite side of the ditch and try to cross it that way? It makes a lot more sense to perform the former, but then again, if I had a nickel for every illogical instance that occurred in this case, I'd be a millionaire.