The Shoe Lace Bindings

[LordYAM]

I thought that echols Baldwin and miskelley were conclusively proven not have been the source of any hairs. I've seen people who thoroughly believe they are guilty admit that; they just contend that it doesn't matter

 

[kyleb]

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_channell1.html

That only suggests one of the three hairs recovered from FP6 is a facial hair, and makes no mention of which one.

I thought that echols Baldwin and miskelley were conclusively proven not have been the source of any hairs.

No, sticking just to the hairs recovered from the shoelaces for the moment, there's no results for 2S04-114-03Ab, -09. or -16 in any of the Bode reports, and hence nobody has rightly been excluded as the source of those hairs.

 

[Userid]

I have always held the contention that I am neither a WM3 supporter nor detractor. At best, I lean toward the notion that they did not commit these murders; and I considered it a travesty of justice when they were convicted based on the miniscule amount of evidence and the conduct of both the law enforcement and the court/jury. In turn, I was pleased to see their release, even if the pleas themselves will always be marred in controversy.

That said, although I strongly feel these 3 should have never been convicted of these crimes, based on the evidence at hand -- I still can't vehemently, unequivocally state that any or all of these 3 are innocent; in much the same way I can't prove God's existence. I don't think anyone can. I lean toward none of them having zero part, but if there's one piece of evidence against that has always made me wonder, it's the brand new shoelaces replaced in Jason Baldwin's muddy combat boots and the fact that there was one "phantom lace" (Moore's) used. That certainly isn't a slam dunk to argue guilt, but speaking personally, that has always weighed on me.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The "phantom lace" as you call it that was cut into two pieces and used to bind MM was not a boot lace but a regular shoe lace.

 

[Userid]

The "phantom lace" as you call it that was cut into two pieces and used to bind MM was not a boot lace but a regular shoe lace.

What's the difference exactly? Length? Because as far as I know, even regular shoe laces come in a variety of materials and a variety of lengths -- leather, cotton, etc; 30 inches, 36 inches.

Do we know the size of the phantom lace and/or the material? Was it a regular, cotton lace? Because if so, and you're supposing it's unlikely that Baldwin simply didn't have regular, cotton, run-of-the-mill laces originally, wouldn't it still be an above-average coincidence (when he replaced his laces in relation to the murders) nonetheless?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The laces used to bind MM were the common variety, just like the laces used to bind the other boys. A boot lace is usually made of leather or of a thicker material than the "normal" cotton lace. We know that MM was bound with one 60" (approx.) lace cut into two pieces because each piece only had one aiglet (the plastic thing on each end of a lace) per piece instead of the normal two. As to using regular laces for boots, although possible, it's not very probable because the lace holes in boots are slightly bigger than on tennis (or "dress") shoes. That would create extra strain on the laces and make them break fairly quickly. Is it possible that Jason used regular laces in his boots? Yes. Is it probable? No.

 

[SweetT]

I would think the wm3 probably wore adult size shoes also.. We're their shoes and laces ever checked? I know my son's laces become worn out and brittle over time and can also break easily about the time to get new shoes.. Did the young victims have matching shoe strings in each shoe? Sometimes you just use what is available when one breaks and maybe not the exact size of the one in the other shoe.. Just saying

 

[Userid]

The laces used to bind MM were the common variety, just like the laces used to bind the other boys. A boot lace is usually made of leather or of a thicker material than the "normal" cotton lace. We know that MM was bound with one 60" (approx.) lace cut into two pieces because each piece only had one aiglet (the plastic thing on each end of a lace) per piece instead of the normal two. As to using regular laces for boots, although possible, it's not very probable because the lace holes in boots are slightly bigger than on tennis (or "dress") shoes. That would create extra strain on the laces and make them break fairly quickly. Is it possible that Jason used regular laces in his boots? Yes. Is it probable? No.

It would also be possible that this wasn't the first time the laces were switched out.

In this video (if these are indeed the boots in question) around the 6 minute mark, Baldwin replaced his old laces with cotton laces. You can tell from the aiglet from the lace that is going underneath the standing left boot. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V20WV2UnTZI"]WM3 - What Paradise Lost left out - YouTube[/ame]

He obviously was comfortable enough to replace the original laces with these cotton ones in the video; which is to say, he very well could've had cotton ones before. And judging by the looks of those boots, he may have switched out the laces on more than one occasion; be it for fashion's sake (red laces, white laces, etc) or wear-and-tear of the original laces.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I still don't see his changing of the laces as any great proof of his involvement in these murders. As was stated, people change laces all the time. As to the boys' laces, one child (Steven, I think) had new shoes. The bindings were all shoelaces, and none of the laces used as bindings were worn excessively. One of the shoes (Christopher's, I believe) still had a lace in it, and it was not broken or excessively worn.

 

[Cappuccino]

It was Christopher who had new shoes, bought two days before the murder.

And I'd just like to ask how a hair consistent with Terry Hobbs DNA was found in the knot of a shoe lace binding Michael Moore if it wasn't secondary transfer or evidence of guilt. I can see how secondary transfer works if the lace came off Steven Branch's shoe, or Christopher Byers's shoe, but not if it came from Jason Baldwin's shoe.

 

[Userid]

I still don't see his changing of the laces as any great proof of his involvement in these murders. As was stated, people change laces all the time. As to the boys' laces, one child (Steven, I think) had new shoes. The bindings were all shoelaces, and none of the laces used as bindings were worn excessively. One of the shoes (Christopher's, I believe) still had a lace in it, and it was not broken or excessively worn.

Like I said before, I don't think it to be "great proof" of guilt either, nor should it be, but an outstanding coincidence -- yes. He certainly should not have been convicted because of changed shoelaces, but it's one of the few things I could never completely disregard, personally, as a questioner of this case.

It was Christopher who had new shoes, bought two days before the murder.

And I'd just like to ask how a hair consistent with Terry Hobbs DNA was found in the knot of a shoe lace binding Michael Moore if it wasn't secondary transfer or evidence of guilt. I can see how secondary transfer works if the lace came off Steven Branch's shoe, or Christopher Byers's shoe, but not if it came from Jason Baldwin's shoe.

Just to play devil's advocate here: according the JivePuppi, it could've been one black lace cut in two pieces or two (different) laces. 5 laces out of 6 were missing. One side could've been one half of the phantom lace and the other side could've been one of the boys' laces. My point is that, if Moore was tied with one lace, then yes, it would be close to impossible for Baldwin's lace to contain Hobbs' hair; but if only one side was used with the phantom lace (and the other side was used with the 5th lace from one of the boys' shoes), then that would answer your previous question.

This would lead to the question as to why the killer(s) wouldn't just use the other half of the phantom lace for the other side -- which would then beg the question as to why he would need to use a phantom lace at all in the first place. As was mentioned, the lace left inside the other shoe was brand new and just as easily could have been removed and used.

 

[Cappuccino]

Like I said before, I don't think it to be "great proof" of guilt either, nor should it be, but an outstanding coincidence -- yes. He certainly should not have been convicted because of changed shoelaces, but it's one of the few things I could never completely disregard, personally, as a questioner of this case.



Just to play devil's advocate here: according the JivePuppi, it could've been one black lace cut in two pieces or two (different) laces. 5 laces out of 6 were missing. One side could've been one half of the phantom lace and the other side could've been one of the boys' laces. My point is that, if Moore was tied with one lace, then yes, it would be close to impossible for Baldwin's lace to contain Hobbs' hair; but if only one side was used with the phantom lace (and the other side was used with the 5th lace from one of the boys' shoes), then that would answer your previous question.

This would lead to the question as to why the killer(s) wouldn't just use the other half of the phantom lace for the other side -- which would then beg the question as to why he would need to use a phantom lace at all in the first place. As was mentioned, the lace left inside the other shoe was brand new and just as easily could have been removed and used.

Neither of the ligatures binding Michael Moore was a complete lace - we know that because there was only one aiglet on each ligature. It seems the most logical explanation is that Michael was bound with one long lace cut in half, which explains the aiglets and also explains why one of Christopher's laces wasn't needed.

So anyone who is spinning the theory that the long lace cut in half came from the shoe of one of the wm3 needs to explain how a hair consistent with Hobbs' mtDNA was in a shoe lace belonging to D, J or J.

 

[Userid]

Neither of the ligatures binding Michael Moore was a complete lace - we know that because there was only one aiglet on each ligature. It seems the most logical explanation is that Michael was bound with one long lace cut in half, which explains the aiglets and also explains why one of Christopher's laces wasn't needed.

So anyone who is spinning the theory that the long lace cut in half came from the shoe of one of the wm3 needs to explain how a hair consistent with Hobbs' mtDNA was in a shoe lace belonging to D, J or J.

Fair enough -- I didn't see anything on JivePuppi stating that each ligature only had one aiglet (that site is so big, I probably just missed it). I guess a further question I'd have then is, what happened to the 5th lace and why would it have even been removed?

If either one of the boys' shoe laces were removed before the phantom lace, (hypothetically speaking) couldn't Hobbs' hair have been transferred that way (the hair stuck to the sweaty fingertips when a lace was removed, became embedded in a knot in the phantom lace when the same set of hands tied said knot of Moore's ligature)?

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

It was Christopher who had new shoes, bought two days before the murder.

And I'd just like to ask how a hair consistent with Terry Hobbs DNA was found in the knot of a shoe lace binding Michael Moore if it wasn't secondary transfer or evidence of guilt. I can see how secondary transfer works if the lace came off Steven Branch's shoe, or Christopher Byers's shoe, but not if it came from Jason Baldwin's shoe.

I don't believe you can take a shoelace out of a shoe, without any hairs that were sat on the lace, not falling off due to the friction caused by the lace going through a number of eyelets. Hence, I can't see any secondary transfer.

 

[Userid]

I don't believe you can take a shoelace out of a shoe, without any hairs that were sat on the lace, not falling off due to the friction caused by the lace going through a number of eyelets. Hence, I can't see any secondary transfer.

I'd counter that with this question: how does a hair get interwoven in the knot of one of laces (without falling off due to friction/gravity/movement) in general? It obviously happened, some way. Did it fall directly from Hobbs' head onto the exact piece of lace where he was tying the knot?

The fact that it was interwoven within a knot makes me have little to no doubt that it was stuck on the fingertips of whoever was tying that knot (it would have to be) -- and that set of hands could've been different than Hobbs', in that you have multiple sources (the shoes) that could've provided any number of Hobbs' strands. Shoes, in general, pick up a great deal of hairs in that, when you walk around in socks, your socks will pick up the hairs; you insert your socked feet into the shoes, and the strands will paste themselves on the insides of the shoes, particularly, the soles.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'd counter that with this question: how does a hair get interwoven in the knot of one of laces (without falling off due to friction/gravity/movement) in general? It obviously happened, some way. Did it fall directly from Hobbs' head onto the exact piece of lace where he was tying the knot?

The fact that it was interwoven within a knot makes me have little to no doubt that it was stuck on the fingertips of whoever was tying that knot (it would have to be) -- and that set of hands could've been different than Hobbs', in that you have multiple sources (the shoes) that could've provided any number of Hobbs' strands. Shoes, in general, pick up a great deal of hairs in that, when you walk around in socks, your socks will pick up the hairs; you insert your socked feet into the shoes, and the strands will paste themselves on the insides of the shoes, particularly, the soles.

Or one of the boys could have fought back and pulled his hair, And then when tying the knot the hair became entangled as it was already on the boy.

 

[Userid]

Or one of the boys could have fought back and pulled his hair, And then when tying the knot the hair became entangled as it was already on the boy.

Anything is possible I suppose, but I have a hard time understanding how the hair would transfer from the boy to be interwoven in the knot. It would have to make contact with the perpetrator's fingertips before to get interwoven in the knot; or somehow have the ability to stay affixed on the lace while it was removed through the shoelace holes and tied.

In other words, I'd have an easier time accepting your above scenario if the hair wasn't interwoven -- that's the key, for me. If it was just found at the scene, atop anything -- okay -- but it was interwoven in that knot.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Anything is possible I suppose, but I have a hard time understanding how the hair would transfer from the boy to be interwoven in the knot. It would have to make contact with the perpetrator's fingertips before to get interwoven in the knot; or somehow have the ability to stay affixed on the lace while it was removed through the shoelace holes and tied.

In other words, I'd have an easier time accepting your above scenario if the hair wasn't interwoven -- that's the key, for me. If it was just found at the scene, atop anything -- okay -- but it was interwoven in that knot.

I can not go further. I see it that way but I just get too upset thinking about how the boys died.. I have to move on ..sorry.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'd counter that with this question: how does a hair get interwoven in the knot of one of laces (without falling off due to friction/gravity/movement) in general? It obviously happened, some way. Did it fall directly from Hobbs' head onto the exact piece of lace where he was tying the knot?

The fact that it was interwoven within a knot makes me have little to no doubt that it was stuck on the fingertips of whoever was tying that knot (it would have to be) -- and that set of hands could've been different than Hobbs', in that you have multiple sources (the shoes) that could've provided any number of Hobbs' strands. Shoes, in general, pick up a great deal of hairs in that, when you walk around in socks, your socks will pick up the hairs; you insert your socked feet into the shoes, and the strands will paste themselves on the insides of the shoes, particularly, the soles.

I think the hair fell off (it was a facial hair, IIRC) while he was tying the knot or maybe while he was trying to bite the lace into two pieces (before he discovered Steven's knife). It was not really interwoven in the lace but rather in the knot.

 

[Userid]

That's interesting if it is a facial hair. I've tried to find that cited on the web, but I can't; if you (or anyone) can find it, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Even if it was a facial hair, I still can't see how it would perfectly fall at the exact time the perp was tying the knot, in the exact place as the knot was being tied, in order to be interwoven in the knot that was being tied, all in real time.

I'm not saying your scenario is wholly impossible, but for me, the hair being transferred from the fingertips to the knot makes the most sense because, when you're tying a knot, you're using nothing but your fingertips; you're wrapping the string around itself; and if the hair is attached to the fingertips, of course it's more than likely to become interwoven as you are tying the knot.