What Do the Bodies Tell Us?

[Ausgirl]

As I've said before, I think it's possible that the dead/unconscious boys were hogtied to prevent them floating up (the water was shallow, bodies are buoyant) simply to conceal them more effectively, just as their clothes were concealed by wrapping them around sticks and poking those down into the mud. It could have been all about getting rid of evidence - on the bodies, on the clothes - and rapid concealment.

Thinking out loud time again.. forgive me the rambling.

Fogleman: On the uh - pants, um - do you recall uh - how the pants were when they were recovered?

Ridge: To the best of my memory, two of those pair of pants were inside out, buttoned, and zipped. One pair was right side out, I believe, buttoned and zipped.

Inside out clothes suggest the clothes were roughly stripped off, though -- ever tried to do that to denim jeans while they're still buttoned? Get a skinny friend in even very loose fitting jeans (one pair of victim's jean were listed as Rustler 'slim', mind you) to lie on the floor, leaving the pants zipped and buttoned, and just TRY to strip those jeans off so they come off inside out. Even trying to get them inside out while the person is standing, by peeling them down, doesn't work without monumental effort (yes, I have done this.. hehe). It ONLY works if the pants are undone first.

So did the killer handle the clothing a good deal more than I have thought previously? Or were all the jeans loose-fitting, elastic waisted pants (which are the only kind that even came close to going inside out while still buttoned and zipped though they also just bunch down around the lower legs). The jeans just slip off the feet in that case, unless there's shoes on, or thick socks, which can also cause the jeans to turn inside out.

Tighter jeans which are buttoned and zipped do not come off inside out. They just don't. They are most easily removed by grabbing the bottoms of the legs and pulling hard.

I want to know more about state of the clothing, rips and tears, if any, evidence of blood staining, if any.... where IS all that information?? I can't find much, and it seems there's no records available regarding tests done. If the police neglected to conduct a fine-tooth forensic exam of the clothing, with extensive notes -- I hope their hair all catches fire. :\

Dr. Peretti notes a dramatic distinction. While Stevie Branch and Michael Moore show contusions around their binding abrasions on each limb, Christopher Byers has only a faint contusion on his left wrist and ankle. His right wrist "was not surrounded by contusion" and there is no mention of a contusion adjacent to his binding on his right ankle. This suggests Stevie Branch and Michael Moore were tied up with both shoelaces when alive while Chris Byers was not bound on his right side until after death or, at least, unconsciousness. He was bound on the left side with a white lace, on his right side with a black one.

Furthermore, Moore and Branch are noted as having wounds on their hands, indicative of defense. Byers did not.

from jivepuppi, just putting this here as a reminder to come back to this issue

 

[Userid]

^ I've thought about this too. The only way I can think it possible for the pants to be removed as they were (buttoned, inside out) would be if one person was holding a boy up by the arms, and the other person was stripping them off. I really can't fathom how one person would be able to remove the pants the way he did, as they most likely would be struggling, kicking, etc. I suppose they could have been removed if the boys were unconscious beforehand, but the lack of blood on any of the clothing seems to suggest that the beatings took place afterward.

That is the biggest mystery to me: how there was no blood on any of the clothing.

Another thing that interested me was that one of the shoes recovered had a sock inside it (the only sock recovered from the crime scene). If you are frantically stripping off clothes, why insert a sock inside a shoe? Granted, it's not the hardest thing to do in the world, but it does seem to indicate a laxed/careful approach in doing so. Was it inserted in the shoe after the murders, to make transportation easier? If so, why just one sock and not all of them?

 

[Justiceseeker35]

^ I've thought about this too. The only way I can think it possible for the pants to be removed as they were (buttoned, inside out) would be if one person was holding a boy up by the arms, and the other person was stripping them off. I really can't fathom how one person would be able to remove the pants the way he did, as they most likely would be struggling, kicking, etc. I suppose they could have been removed if the boys were unconscious beforehand, but the lack of blood on any of the clothing seems to suggest that the beatings took place afterward.

That is the biggest mystery to me: how there was no blood on any of the clothing.

Another thing that interested me was that one of the shoes recovered had a sock inside it (the only sock recovered from the crime scene). If you are frantically stripping off clothes, why insert a sock inside a shoe? Granted, it's not the hardest thing to do in the world, but it does seem to indicate a laxed/careful approach in doing so. Was it inserted in the shoe after the murders, to make transportation easier? If so, why just one sock and not all of them?

Ok so here's a thought. PH has stated that SB had been asking her to leave TH because I guess the home life had been so difficult. She also stated that SB kept telling her he loved her on the walk home from school. The Tension in the house high with the alleged cheating on PH part and TH insisting on driving her to and from work like a grounded teenager. PH stated that TH whipped or spanked the kids with hands over their heads so they can't protect their bums. Also it is alleged that CB and possibly SB wanted to run away that night because they were upset with their Stepfathers and situations at home. Perhaps TH caught wind of that or overheard them talking or planning it. And when he met up with the kids he told them to strip down as punishment or just stripped them down so they couldn't protect their skin and were too embarrassed to run. Perhaps drugs or alcohol played a part in things going way too far? But if he brought a knife or gun to use on the kids that's total premeditation for murder and I just don't see the motive in bringing a gun. I tend to believe a knife just happened to be already on his person. And he used fists and other things available like a branch or large stick at the scene.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

At the moment I'm trying to look at the case on a bigger scale, trying to circle in from the outside, and not get too lost in the details, because they are really mind-boggling.

The position of the bodies at the discovery site tells me there was one murderer, and that the hogties were purely for transport. Two boys were carried together, one on either side, placed in the water (five feet apart Christopher and Steven). The third was carried alone, The perpetrator did not know exactly where he had placed the first two bodies, so he decided to move a bit further away from the approximate destination (27 Feet away, Michael).

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

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Ok so here's a thought. PH has stated that SB had been asking her to leave TH because I guess the home life had been so difficult. She also stated that SB kept telling her he loved her on the walk home from school. The Tension in the house high with the alleged cheating on PH part and TH insisting on driving her to and from work like a grounded teenager. PH stated that TH whipped or spanked the kids with hands over their heads so they can't protect their bums. Also it is alleged that CB and possibly SB wanted to run away that night because they were upset with their Stepfathers and situations at home. Perhaps TH caught wind of that or overheard them talking or planning it. And when he met up with the kids he told them to strip down as punishment or just stripped them down so they couldn't protect their skin and were too embarrassed to run. Perhaps drugs or alcohol played a part in things going way too far? But if he brought a knife or gun to use on the kids that's total premeditation for murder and I just don't see the motive in bringing a gun. I tend to believe a knife just happened to be already on his person. And he used fists and other things available like a branch or large stick at the scene.

Here's my thoughts:

Something happened on May 4th at SB's house that made him decide that he'd had enough. He talked to his friends, CB and MM, at school on the 5th and they hatched a plan. SB would hide out in the "secret hideout" (a manhole?) until one of the other boys could call SB's maternal grandparents, the Hicks, to come get him. I think he may also have believed that he could get her parents to convince his mom to leave TWH. That's why all the "I love you" statements to his mom.

The plan worked. However, he forgot something important. When he (and his friends) returned to get the forgotten item (circa 6:30), TWH was back from playing guitars (or whatever). When he told SB to stay home, SB and friends ran from TWH. That angered TWH and he decided to "teach [SB] a lesson."

He follows the boys to the hangout, maybe even enters the manhole, and "punishes" SB. It goes wrong and SB is unconscious, but TWH thinks he's dead. Then, he has to silence the other witnesses, and all three are left, unconscious, in the manhole where the animal predation occurs, causing CB to die of exsanguination in the manhole.

Later (in the wee hours of the morning), TWH returns to move the "bodies" to a different location. (I have a couple of theories on why he made that move, too.) By this time, CB is dead and SB and MM are dying. (That's why the hogtie marks were more pronounced on SB and MM.)

During the searching, TWH successfully kept people away from the manhole area. He made sure of that. He returned when everyone else was asleep to move the bodies. (It is possible that, after JMB spanked CB, CB decided to join SB in running away, but that's not critical to this scenario.) I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

 

[Ausgirl]

I am in serious doubt of the whole idea of the binding being for transportation. I think it's not very feasible, both physically and logically.

Sure it *could* it have been done for that purpose, I'm aware of all the arguments for it. But in my mind, it's just incredibly over-complicated. The killer, in placing the boys in the creek, placing their clothes down in the mud, could not have avoided getting mud and very probably a deal of blood on himself anyway, so the notion he carried them like parcels to avoid getting blood on him just doesn't make much to sense to me. In all likelihood, he had a deal of blood spatter or staining on himself already, from inflicting the head wounds, handling the bodies prior to binding.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't think he used the hog-tie method to avoid blood; I think he used it because it was familiar to him from his experience in a slaughter house. I also believe that the transport of the bodies took place in the wee morning hours of May 6th and not right after the murders. So, by that time, I don't think there was a very great possibility of getting any significant amount of blood on him. I agree that it probably caused him to get wet and/or muddy, but he could explain the wet/muddy clothing by saying he had been out again looking for the boys. IMO, that's not complicated at all.

 

[AngelVsion]

Here's my thoughts:

Something happened on May 4th at SB's house that made him decide that he'd had enough. He talked to his friends, CB and MM, at school on the 5th and they hatched a plan. SB would hide out in the "secret hideout" (a manhole?) until one of the other boys could call SB's maternal grandparents, the Hicks, to come get him. I think he may also have believed that he could get her parents to convince his mom to leave TWH. That's why all the "I love you" statements to his mom.

The plan worked. However, he forgot something important. When he (and his friends) returned to get the forgotten item (circa 6:30), TWH was back from playing guitars (or whatever). When he told SB to stay home, SB and friends ran from TWH. That angered TWH and he decided to "teach [SB] a lesson."

He follows the boys to the hangout, maybe even enters the manhole, and "punishes" SB. It goes wrong and SB is unconscious, but TWH thinks he's dead. Then, he has to silence the other witnesses, and all three are left, unconscious, in the manhole where the animal predation occurs, causing CB to die of exsanguination in the manhole.

Later (in the wee hours of the morning), TWH returns to move the "bodies" to a different location. (I have a couple of theories on why he made that move, too.) By this time, CB is dead and SB and MM are dying. (That's why the hogtie marks were more pronounced on SB and MM.)

During the searching, TWH successfully kept people away from the manhole area. He made sure of that. He returned when everyone else was asleep to move the bodies. (It is possible that, after JMB spanked CB, CB decided to join SB in running away, but that's not critical to this scenario.) I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

I would love to agree with this theory.
Except why would CB stay in the house of P&TH and watch "Muppets" if he had been planing to run away??
I feel the boys also left the bikes at the pipe and those bikes, the newer being SB were dumped in the water before the boys were found by the killer(s). Drowning makes since because it was record flooding and at one point or another the families expressed if they drowned??

There is this testimony from PH that sticks out, she prepared dinner, MM came over, SB went out to ride bikes with MM, CB came over, he didn't see MM and SB and stayed behind to watch a tv show with the little girl AH.
All three boys came to the Hobbs residence.. PH states I made dinner for my family. It is not certain what she prepared, and in TH's testimony about the routine of that day, there was nothing that said that they ate dinner that PH made.
I don't want to side track here.. so lets talk about what we know about the medical science found:

This was from the Medical Examiner Division preformed by F. P. Assoc. Medical Examiner, and Wiliam Q. Sturner. M.D. Page 5 of 8, http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/west%20memphis%20three/branch,%20steve.pdf
ALIMENTARY TRACT: The tongue was without evident recent injury, the esophagus was lined by gray-white. Smooth mucosa. The gastric mucosa was arranged in the usual rugal folds and the limen contained 2 ounces of partially digested fluid and remnants of green vegetable – like material.

I was researching how long food could stay in the stomach to determine a time of death, because its very important in autopsies. But not this one.. So.. I am really confused about what time the little ones died?

The FBI Profile stated, and other professionals as well, that this was the dumping site. Now again, all the boys were at the P&TH home, before going off to play and find the others. Did SB have dinner? why did he have the contents in his stomach? Why was the stomach not weighed or examined more thoroughly? It is a known fact that the stomach evidence alone can narrow down the time of death. This was not the school lunch, and PH said SB did not have a snack that day.
Could some of the wounds that were seen as animal scratches be scratches from dragging the boys? Still so many questions left unanswered.:tantrum:

 

[AngelVsion]

A quick reply about the Emasculation of CB, and the Animal bite theory.. I too have a theory, but I do believe that WMPD drained the channel that the little boy's bodies were found in. I also believe that at least parts of CB would have been found in the general area if it that part of his body was removed from animals bites as suggested . I don't have experience in turtles, but would they have been able to eat such a portion of that size without leaving the flesh at least on the bottom floor of the creek?

 

[Justiceseeker35]

I don't think he used the hog-tie method to avoid blood; I think he used it because it was familiar to him from his experience in a slaughter house. I also believe that the transport of the bodies took place in the wee morning hours of May 6th and not right after the murders. So, by that time, I don't think there was a very great possibility of getting any significant amount of blood on him. I agree that it probably caused him to get wet and/or muddy, but he could explain the wet/muddy clothing by saying he had been out again looking for the boys. IMO, that's not complicated at all.

Ok I'm not sure but I think animal hog tying is when you tie all 4 limbs together. Hog tying a person I typically think of tying hands behind the back and legs together behind the back. I've never seen nor heard of one wrist to one ankle and the other wrist to the other ankle? Is that common? Or is it significant like a signature? One theory was they were tied that way so they couldn't swim away in the water. Movement restriction? Oh I found this interesting about hog tying and fatalities http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_5271235 also maybe the hog tying was the reason they looked for a veteran but I'm thinking possibly the person who did the hog tying was once hog tied himself.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

My minds been churning on this all night. If the theory is the kids were beaten unconscious then stripped down and tied up then the tying up would be done in such a way to keep them immobile and hide them away. If they were stored inside something, a man hole, pipe, culvert or barrel, they would need to be more compact. If you mimic the fashion they were tied up you would be sitting down with a wrist bound to ankle and another wrist bound to ankle. (not typical, but immobile for sure) This was hard to understand before because the crime scene photos show rigor and not how a person would look with full muscle control.

 

[robela]

The WM3 are innocent.
Ok, after watching all documentaries, reading files on the net, there are so many details that were not investigated good, if investigated at all. In my opinion, I really don't think that this was premeditated, but like some say I really think that this was a quarrel or something like that that went horribly wrong. If somebody planned this horrible thing they would surely brought some kind of rope and not try to tie those boys with their shoe laces. So they needed to act fast with what they had. Laces are not long so they would have only two ways to tie them up. That is my opinion, no rope just laces. So 2 laces per boy. If they tied just their hands, and legs (separately) their movements would not be so limited, but if they tied one leg with one arm like they did (again short laces), their movements would be limited.
Hogtying - I think they they would need a long rope, or three laces per boy, because then first they would need to tie their hands with one shoelace, legs with second shoelace, and then with third shoe lace they would need to tie those two knots together. (as seen on the picture from the article that justiceseeker35 posted), ok again maybe they wanted to do that but they didn't have enough laces???
Secondly, the way that they were tied looks more like they were punished for something (saw something, or they did something wrong) and humiliated afterwards (they were naked), then some ritualistic sacrifice (again my opinion). The stepfather was violent, we know that he beat his wife, spanked the boy, so maybe he wanted to teach him and other boys a lesson and then something went wrong (his stepson didn't liked him, mother supposedly had another man in her life, drugs, alcohol; all together - not good at all). Maybe he hit one of them too hard so he needed to cover everything up? And what about that bleeding disorientated guy? Ok maybe he was hit by a car or something, that could explain the bleeding and disorientation. But maybe he was an accomplice? In my opinion the killers were adults. Those three teens were just different from the rest of WM folks. Not violent - just different.

 

[carillion]

Ok, I am pretty new to the forums, but have followed the case off and on for years. Bear with me while I try to put my thoughts into words! Here is what the bodies tell me... All three boys were in the 50-60 pound range. This seems light but carrying 55 pounds of weight suspended from shoe laces would cause some significant bruising and abrasions on the wrists and ankles. At least 2 of the boys were still alive when they went into the water according to the finding of the frothy pink liquid present in the lungs. There were signs of some bruising and abrasions, but not to the extent you would expect to see if the full weight of these boys were suspended from these laces. I also don't think these were used to subdue the boys. I would imagine that if the boys were conscious and fighting back, there would be arms and legs going every which way, and so to tie one arm to one leg, leaves the other arm and leg free to hit, claw, and kick the snot out of you. So I think they boys were already unconscious when they were tied. As for the bodies floating to the surface, initially drowning victims will sink, and then float up as decomposition gasses accumulate in the body. One body was found on its side, supported by the position of the body when rigor set in. I am sorry to be graphic, but his is the only body recovered with his legs closed together. The other 2 were recovered with their legs apart at the knees in rigor. I am not sure if the boys were tied in an effort to keep them underwater, or as a form of humiliation. Tied the way they were, the killer(s) would still be able to manipulate the bodies, whereas true hog tying would greatly limit and/or remove any range of motion for the arms and legs. Two of the bodies were found close together, with the third body 27 feet away. That is the one found on its side. So now I wonder if it was a single killer, which I doubt, that carried and staged the first 2 bodies, and by the time he got to the third, he was tired and just left the body as it fell in the water. Or more than one killer, one of which was either much weaker, and had run out of energy by the time he got the body to the ditch, or he had no desire to stage the bodies in any way. Either he viewed the disposal of the bodies in the ditch as a means to an end, or he was doing no more than he had to or was directed to do. I also wonder if jamming the clothing into the mud with sticks was not to hide evidence, but to mark which body lay in which location for the killer(s). The shoes were left floating, so I don't think hiding the clothes was the actual objective. Just my very humble opinion, and in no way fact.

 

[Ausgirl]

Regarding the shoe with a sock in it -- and possibly the laces as well -- (yes this applies to the thread topic, hold on I am getting there, lol..) -- I have thought it very odd that only one shoe had a lace left in it, and also that one shoe had a sock in it, and all other socks are missing.

So can someone help me out there, as I am having one of those days and can't go trawling through a square ton of info... was this the *same* shoe that had the lace/sock in it? If not, whose shoes were those?

I'm thinking that if it's the same shoe, it could actually be an important bit of something toward the notion of a secondary site. Ie, the lace from that shoe could not be removed/used for binding (like all the others), or its sock removed and (whatever happened to all the other socks) because it was left behind somewhere, perhaps on accident.. maybe in another location, maybe just off in the woods a ways.

 

[Ausgirl]

Ok, I am pretty new to the forums, but have followed the case off and on for years. Bear with me while I try to put my thoughts into words! Here is what the bodies tell me... All three boys were in the 50-60 pound range. This seems light but carrying 55 pounds of weight suspended from shoe laces would cause some significant bruising and abrasions on the wrists and ankles. At least 2 of the boys were still alive when they went into the water according to the finding of the frothy pink liquid present in the lungs. There were signs of some bruising and abrasions, but not to the extent you would expect to see if the full weight of these boys were suspended from these laces. I also don't think these were used to subdue the boys. I would imagine that if the boys were conscious and fighting back, there would be arms and legs going every which way, and so to tie one arm to one leg, leaves the other arm and leg free to hit, claw, and kick the snot out of you. So I think they boys were already unconscious when they were tied. As for the bodies floating to the surface, initially drowning victims will sink, and then float up as decomposition gasses accumulate in the body. One body was found on its side, supported by the position of the body when rigor set in. I am sorry to be graphic, but his is the only body recovered with his legs closed together. The other 2 were recovered with their legs apart at the knees in rigor. I am not sure if the boys were tied in an effort to keep them underwater, or as a form of humiliation. Tied the way they were, the killer(s) would still be able to manipulate the bodies, whereas true hog tying would greatly limit and/or remove any range of motion for the arms and legs. Two of the bodies were found close together, with the third body 27 feet away. That is the one found on its side. So now I wonder if it was a single killer, which I doubt, that carried and staged the first 2 bodies, and by the time he got to the third, he was tired and just left the body as it fell in the water. Or more than one killer, one of which was either much weaker, and had run out of energy by the time he got the body to the ditch, or he had no desire to stage the bodies in any way. Either he viewed the disposal of the bodies in the ditch as a means to an end, or he was doing no more than he had to or was directed to do. I also wonder if jamming the clothing into the mud with sticks was not to hide evidence, but to mark which body lay in which location for the killer(s). The shoes were left floating, so I don't think hiding the clothes was the actual objective. Just my very humble opinion, and in no way fact.

Hey there carillion and a hearty welcome to WS!! ^^ That last point I bolded up there? That is some good thinkin' right there, and a completely different (and interestingly feasible) take on that aspect of the crime scene. Well done. Looking forward to more posts from you.

And the idea of him being tired by the time he got to the 3rd victim is really worth looking at.

 

[Userid]

Ok so here's a thought. PH has stated that SB had been asking her to leave TH because I guess the home life had been so difficult. She also stated that SB kept telling her he loved her on the walk home from school. The Tension in the house high with the alleged cheating on PH part and TH insisting on driving her to and from work like a grounded teenager. PH stated that TH whipped or spanked the kids with hands over their heads so they can't protect their bums. Also it is alleged that CB and possibly SB wanted to run away that night because they were upset with their Stepfathers and situations at home. Perhaps TH caught wind of that or overheard them talking or planning it. And when he met up with the kids he told them to strip down as punishment or just stripped them down so they couldn't protect their skin and were too embarrassed to run. Perhaps drugs or alcohol played a part in things going way too far? But if he brought a knife or gun to use on the kids that's total premeditation for murder and I just don't see the motive in bringing a gun. I tend to believe a knife just happened to be already on his person. And he used fists and other things available like a branch or large stick at the scene.

Why would the boys not un-button their pants if they were ordered to strip down themselves? I can't really but that, respectfully.

 

[Userid]

I am in serious doubt of the whole idea of the binding being for transportation. I think it's not very feasible, both physically and logically.

Sure it *could* it have been done for that purpose, I'm aware of all the arguments for it. But in my mind, it's just incredibly over-complicated. The killer, in placing the boys in the creek, placing their clothes down in the mud, could not have avoided getting mud and very probably a deal of blood on himself anyway, so the notion he carried them like parcels to avoid getting blood on him just doesn't make much to sense to me. In all likelihood, he had a deal of blood spatter or staining on himself already, from inflicting the head wounds, handling the bodies prior to binding.

Could not agree more, Ausgirl. Anyone could correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I've read, at least some of the laces weren't adequately (tightly) tied enough to support the transportation theory, in that they would have become undone if used in such a fashion.

Also, at least some of the laces contained blood on them, which would indicate the victims being tied before being beaten and/or transported.

 

[Userid]

Ok I'm not sure but I think animal hog tying is when you tie all 4 limbs together. Hog tying a person I typically think of tying hands behind the back and legs together behind the back. I've never seen nor heard of one wrist to one ankle and the other wrist to the other ankle? Is that common? Or is it significant like a signature? One theory was they were tied that way so they couldn't swim away in the water. Movement restriction? Oh I found this interesting about hog tying and fatalities http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_5271235 also maybe the hog tying was the reason they looked for a veteran but I'm thinking possibly the person who did the hog tying was once hog tied himself.

In my opinion, there was no other way to logically tie the boys with what the killer(s) had at their disposal, i.e. the shoelaces. They were tied hand to ankle to ensure they wouldn't be able to stand in the shallow water. The killer(s) couldn't hog-tie them in the sense you mean because shoe laces are too thin to do so.

What people fail to notice is that this method of tying would be even more tedious than to actually "hog-tie" them in the more popular sense. This method of tying wasn't a preference.....it was a necessity; and it was a necessity because it was a spur of the moment crime.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

In my opinion, there was no other way to logically tie the boys with what the killer(s) had at their disposal, i.e. the shoelaces. They were tied hand to ankle to ensure they wouldn't be able to stand in the shallow water. The killer(s) couldn't hog-tie them in the sense you mean because shoe laces are too thin to do so.

What people fail to notice is that this method of tying would be even more tedious than to actually "hog-tie" them in the more popular sense. This method of tying wasn't a preference.....it was a necessity; and it was a necessity because it was a spur of the moment crime.

good points. I think for sure now they were beaten first then stripped and tied up. The pants were re buttoned to keep the sticks inside them to weigh them down. If you tie someone that way especially a small child they are compact enough to hold them like a baby when you carry them down to the ditch water.

But the real question is, is the killer cruel enough to tie up children and then beat them as opposed to a spur of the moment melee?? I would think one struggling child watching another struggling child being beaten would be able to break the shoe lace bonds and run away naked or not.

 

[Userid]

^ How would re-buttoning the pants help the sticks keep them down in the mud? It would have made no difference, in my opinion.