What Do the Bodies Tell Us?

[Justiceseeker35]

that's still just a mystery... I thought of something its so simple. I was so focused on the murder I forgot to think like a criminal. He must have gotten the children to comply by using a gun.
TH had three guns. According to PH he changed clothes between the time he dropped her off and picked her up he could have dropped a gun off at home at that time.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Ok so thinking about the hog tying that happened here. Try it at home on yourself (with someone there to help you) in that position you can't run, you can't swim, you can't crawl, you can't kick and you can't punch. Your head is bashed up so you can't head butt. Totally helpless. so cold

 

[Graznik]

Ok so thinking about the hog tying that happened here. Try it at home on yourself (with someone there to help you) in that position you can't run, you can't swim, you can't crawl, you can't kick and you can't punch. Your head is bashed up so you can't head butt. Totally helpless. so cold

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that you tried this youself or not. If not, it has been done, and is discussed to some extent here: http://westmemphisthreediscussion.y...-boys-were-tied-tell-us-anything#.U8RDASjFlUM
There was also videos created, which can be found here: http://callahan.8k.com/bindings/

It was a while ago since I read about the above mentioned "experiment", but IIRC the hogtying did not immobilise her. Which leads us to the theory that the victims were hogtied for transportation purposes.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that you tried this youself or not. If not, it has been done, and is discussed to some extent here: http://westmemphisthreediscussion.y...-boys-were-tied-tell-us-anything#.U8RDASjFlUM
There was also videos created, which can be found here: http://callahan.8k.com/bindings/

It was a while ago since I read about the above mentioned "experiment", but IIRC the hogtying did not immobilise her. Which leads us to the theory that the victims were hogtied for transportation purposes.

oh yeah I was thinking of trying it on myself (sheepishly) but thanks I'll take a read through of those links!

 

[Graznik]

No worries, I thought you might find it interesting.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Ok so here's my latest idea on the hog tie. I have a friend whose son recently had a head trauma. All he did was get up too quickly and pass out but it resulted in a skull fracture, whip lash and hematoma. So within minutes he had passed, out vomited and starting having seizures from just that fall. He has since recovered. But so lets say you are the killer with 3 kids with massive head traumas, the kids are unpredictably in and out of consciousness and the same kind of symptoms my friends son had seizures convulsions etc. You have the dubious task of transporting them to the ditch to hide the evidence and you have to do it as quickly as possible. You have previous knowledge of what to do with animals who have suffered fatal injury, so they get tied up in such a way the limbs might be bound enough not to injure yourself should they become conscious and seize.

 

[Userid]

My opinion: the tying was done to ensure they'd drown, not for transportation. The bindings weren't strong enough to hold the weight of the boys, but would have been strong enough to prevent the boys from breaking them with their own power.

Two of the boys died by drowning; one, did not (by blunt force trauma). The one who did not was tied with 2 half-hitches on each limb, in my opinion, because it was obvious to the killer(s) before dumping him that he had already passed, but the killer(s) wanted to ensure their speculation, since it was (most likely) obvious that the other 2 were still alive. Hence, you have the other 2 tied more thoroughly.

Furthermore, the knots on the 2 boys, although more thoroughly tied, arguably wouldn't have held for transportation -- but more importantly, the 2 half-hitches on the other, most definitely would not have held for transportation purposes.

It is also my opinion that the boy who had died from blunt force trauma was most likely the first attacked, as he has no signs of defense wounds on his hands (unlike the other two).

 

[Justiceseeker35]

My opinion: the tying was done to ensure they'd drown, not for transportation. The bindings weren't strong enough to hold the weight of the boys, but would have been strong enough to prevent the boys from breaking them with their own power.

Two of the boys died by drowning; one, did not (by blunt force trauma). The one who did not was tied with 2 half-hitches on each limb, in my opinion, because it was obvious to the killer(s) before dumping him that he had already passed, but the killer(s) wanted to ensure their speculation, since it was (most likely) obvious that the other 2 were still alive. Hence, you have the other 2 tied more thoroughly.

Furthermore, the knots on the 2 boys, although more thoroughly tied, arguably wouldn't have held for transportation -- but more importantly, the 2 half-hitches on the other, most definitely would not have held for transportation purposes.

It is also my opinion that the boy who had died from blunt force trauma was most likely the first attacked, as he has no signs of defense wounds on his hands (unlike the other two).

What an awesome observation! I reread the autopsy and for sure it says CB was tied differently than the other two. The ME says that he's hog tied hands and feet behind his back and did not die from drowning. The other two who did die from drowning SB and MM wrist to ankle type ties. So it does look like the killer tied them two styles for two different purposes.

 

[Userid]

What an awesome observation! I reread the autopsy and for sure it says CB was tied differently than the other two. The ME says that he's hog tied hands and feet behind his back and did not die from drowning. The other two who did die from drowning SB and MM wrist to ankle type ties. So it does look like the killer tied them two styles for two different purposes.

Thank you -- I obtained all my information from the following site: http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_home.html

I consider this the best site for this case; just thought I'd share in case you had never heard about it.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

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.

I've seen a video of slaughtered hogs being tied in the same manner that the little boys were. I'll try to find it, but it's eerie. However, usually hog tying implies connecting all four limbs in some manner. In this case, since the tying was for transport of inert bodies, it wasn't necessary for the hog tying to totally restrict motion. Those who claim that the tying was for torture or to keep the boys from moving, IMO, simply aren't thinking through things. In fact, the manner in which the boys were tied wouldn't have restricted motion because of the slack in the ropes. IMO, that's another proof that it was for transport and not restriction of movement.

 

[Ausgirl]

I do so hope I am thinking things through here, to the satisfaction of all. If not - ah well, that's a crying shame.

I don't happen to think the bindings were to restrict *all* motion, beyond perhaps simply disabling the possibility of the victims up and running away when the killer had his back turned - a goal the bindings at hand would probably have achieved quite well, especially if the children were already injured to some extent. Which makes sense, if he had to leave them for even a moment. It might have given him a sense of 'security' that way.

Another possible reason is one I've already stated - making the bodies compact in the water so limbs did not float up.

I think it's one thing to bind a person who's alive and conscious, whose well-being you care about, and lift them off the floor. It's quite another to bind a dead weight, possibly one still struggling now and then, and lump them with *no* thought to their well being across rough and wooded country for.. what? a couple of hundred metres? The abrasions on the wrists and ankles would be notably angular in that case, as the weight of the bodies dragged down heavily on the bindings, and the abrasions likely a lot more pronounced.

Here's something I know for a fact: very thin binding materials are way more likely to 'cut in' and cause pronounced markings on a body than broad ones, where the pressure against the binding is more distributed. They are way more likely to cut off and even damage circulation if left on for even for a short time. Bindings which have weight applied downward, if they leave marks, do so in a V-shaped manner, depending on several variables. But a very thin binding material + plus 60+ pounds of weight dragging on it + motion -- imo, this likely would show up in the abrasion marks themselves. Ie, the marks would not be even but to some degree V-shaped in an upward direction (rather than indicating lateral struggle).

 

[Justiceseeker35]

So I did someone thinking.. the way I see this crime now is phase 1 the rage attack. phase 2 the clean up and cover up. Phase 1 can be done by anyone, really anyone can inflict that many head injuries and beating injuries on a person but phase 2, the hog tying with laces, the knots, the ice cold disposal of the children and their belongings and doing this all before the search parties come looking that takes someone who had been desensitized to that kind of violence and has muscle memory ( in regards to the hog tying, knots and the know how to carry 50-60 pounds of an incapacitated yet terrified if it wakes up living being) He knew exactly how to handle the situation post fatal beating. Someone who can do all this and not skip a beat in composure when joining up a crowd of worried and angry people searching for these kids. And pathologically lie about where he was and what he was doing in the hours prior.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I really don't think the boys were "beaten" per se. I think that all three were immobilized by blunt force trauma. All three had basilar skull fractures. The bleeding from those would have been internal, which explains why there was no blood on the clothing. I think that a lot of the wounds the prosecution tried to make out to be from the "beating" Jessie described was actually a combination of animal predation and injuries from the place where the body laid for several hours before being moved to the discovery ditch. Someone earlier asked why none of CB's body parts were discovered in the ditch. The animals ate them. Sorry, but that's what I think. Also, I don't believe that the attacks took place where the bodies were found. So, it's possible that the "body parts" (sorry, that sounds gruesome) might have been at the actual murder scene. As to the laces not being strong enough to support the weight for transport, I don't think the boys were transported that far - no more than 100 yards, maybe less. The video posted earlier (imout2sea) showed her (weight 108 pounds, IIRC) being carried a short distance with the shoelace bindings. As to the inside out pants, I think that, once shoes and socks were removed, you could strip off the pants fairly easily. Again, one of the sad things in this case is that the parents still haven't been asked to identify which clothing belonged to which boy. So much ineptitude in this case it's frightening.

 

[Ausgirl]

Point is, re the pants -- I have done experiments in exactly this. It *sounds* a LOT easier than it actually is, to 'strip the pants off' inside out and still buttoned. Trust me - as one who did the experiment with loose pants, tight pants, buttoned and unbuttoned -- it's almost impossible to get zipped and buttoned denim jeans off a person inside out and still buttoned zipped.

If anyone can be bothered doing a similar round of experiments, I'd be happy to compare notes! I might be wrong - but as things stand, and in my own findings - I'm not.

When I have time, I want to look at the pictures of the bindings and surrounding tissue for evidence of those V-shaped bruises or marks that might indicate the boys were lifted and carried a ways via some very thin bindings. This is another thing I have experience in, in fact caution with thin bindings was a mandate for my job, health and safety training! And beyond H&S - there was the danger of leaving *marks* on a person. So this is something I think is worth looking into.

While I am on the subject of my experience with bindings, I would also expect a few half hitches to slip badly, either causing a lot of slack (if tied incorrectly) or causing a lot of tightening (if tied correctly). Like, those laces would have *really* cut in with a lot of free weight under them. FWIW.So there should be at least a few faint 'directional' marks indicating where all the weight was at.

CR - I tend to think of 'blunt force trauma' as fairly analogous to being 'beaten'. Cause that's what BFT means - being hit with something. And several of those the wounds, as revealed by the boys' shaven heads, are well and truly open. I would expect a LOT of blood from head wounds like those. And wasn't the blood volume in at least one victim indicative of massive loss? So hard to keep all the facts in my head..

 

[Compassionate Reader]

CB died of exsanguination, listed on the autopsy report as "multiple injuries." However, I believe it was from the animal predation, not from the blunt force trauma. Only one pair of jeans was found inside out. It was the blue pants (possibly MM's Cub Scout pants) and one pair of jeans that were found inside out and buttoned while one pair of jeans was found right side out and unbuttoned. In my theory, the boys were thrown down into the manhole onto their heads. That's what caused the blunt force trauma. IMO, the bodies could be positioned in such a way that the bleeding from the head wounds would not get on the clothing. It's also possible that all of the clothing was that of the killer's step child and that all bloody clothing was removed (although that's not very likely because the pants were of different sizes). I still believe that, even though difficult, one pair of jeans could have been stripped off and left buttoned. Cub Scout pants, IIRC, have an elasticized waist. So, they wouldn't be a problem. I don't remember for sure, but I believe one pair of jeans was a "husky" size. Wouldn't those have some elastic in the waist?

 

[Ausgirl]

Well, we are all free to believe what we want. But as I said, maybe a few more people doing experiments might open up that issue of the jeans to more than one set of findings.

I truly and sincerely doubt that the head wounds were caused by the victims being dropped on their heads. The position of the wounds, including fracture points, looks very much to me like they were indeed hit with one or more blunt objects, and from more than one angle. Including the back of the head. Nuh, these kids were beaten with a blunt object or maybe several.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Oh yeah let me clarify when I say beaten I mean a combination of fists and blunt objects. CB is the anomaly in this situation by being tied different and having those additional wounds and not drowned. I have to question now the exsanguination theory. What if that part of the autopsy is done by a rookie not board certified assistant ME I mean he could have made a mistake there are other indications that the city made mistakes. They also desperately need there to be a knife involved to support the satanic ritual murder theory. It never occurred to me until a few days ago because the cut evidence was so glaringly horrible that he could have simply died from the head injuries some time before the bodies were moved to the ditch water and the knife evidence was a mistake. On the autopsy of CB the injuries to the base of the skull where the medulla and pons (aka the brainstem )are located, grievous damage to these that control autonomic function could result in death faster and more predictably than heads wounds in other areas.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Oh yeah let me clarify when I say beaten I mean a combination of fists and blunt objects. CB is the anomaly in this situation by being tied different and having those additional wounds and not drowned. I have to question now the exsanguination theory. What if that part of the autopsy is done by a rookie not board certified assistant ME I mean he could have made a mistake there are other indications that the city made mistakes. They also desperately need there to be a knife involved to support the satanic ritual murder theory. It never occurred to me until a few days ago because the cut evidence was so glaringly horrible that he could have simply died from the head injuries some time before the bodies were moved to the ditch water and the knife evidence was a mistake. On the autopsy of CB the injuries to the base of the skull where the medulla and pons (aka the brainstem )are located, grievous damage to these that control autonomic function could result in death faster and more predictably than heads wounds in other areas.

Ok so! I did a little more research. I read the part of the Misskelley trial where the ME is being questioned about the autopsy by the State and.. he did not state that CB died from exsanguination. He actually stated "multiple injuries" some of which are severe enough to cause death, just one single cause of death was not determined. The cutting and removal of the genitalia was just listed in the injuries. The states theory was that was the main cause of death because they had to have the knife in play to tie it to the teens. I honestly think the ME wasn't sure if the removal was done before or after and he didn't even list animal predation on any of the autopsies. Wouldn't one think that if CB died first and earlier that he would be more susceptible to animal predation?

 

[Userid]

I really don't think the boys were "beaten" per se. I think that all three were immobilized by blunt force trauma. All three had basilar skull fractures. The bleeding from those would have been internal, which explains why there was no blood on the clothing. I think that a lot of the wounds the prosecution tried to make out to be from the "beating" Jessie described was actually a combination of animal predation and injuries from the place where the body laid for several hours before being moved to the discovery ditch. Someone earlier asked why none of CB's body parts were discovered in the ditch. The animals ate them. Sorry, but that's what I think. Also, I don't believe that the attacks took place where the bodies were found. So, it's possible that the "body parts" (sorry, that sounds gruesome) might have been at the actual murder scene. As to the laces not being strong enough to support the weight for transport, I don't think the boys were transported that far - no more than 100 yards, maybe less. The video posted earlier (imout2sea) showed her (weight 108 pounds, IIRC) being carried a short distance with the shoelace bindings. As to the inside out pants, I think that, once shoes and socks were removed, you could strip off the pants fairly easily. Again, one of the sad things in this case is that the parents still haven't been asked to identify which clothing belonged to which boy. So much ineptitude in this case it's frightening.

If they weren't transported that far, why bother to take the time to tie each limb then?

Also, if one killer had two boys -- one in each hand, say, by the bindings -- wouldn't the bodies make contact with the ground below? You even say yourself, that the slack in the bindings is too long to have prevented them from escaping the ditch....you would in turn have to assume, then, that the slack would have been too long to prevent their bodies from making at least some contact with the woods.

These boys were barely conscious, if that -- the bindings (even with the slack) would have been sufficient to prevent them from escaping the ditch; at least, in the killer's mind.

In all honesty, it would have been both easier and faster to simply throw two boys over each shoulder and run 100 yards, than it would have been to waste time tying each limb and carrying them in each hand by the bindings. The killer would have to be just as strong/big to perform either option -- why would he chose the more difficult one? It would have been harder for him to run, in that there are two lifeless bodies most likely making contact with your legs; and the majority of the weight would fall on each the killer's arms, which would need to be at least somewhat flexed to hold the boys and keep them from touching the ground (unless the killer is eight feet tall and can simply let both arms with 2 bodies hang down, without either body touching the ground). If it's like you say, and the majority of the bleeding was internal, he wouldn't have to worry about blood on his clothes.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

If they weren't transported that far, why bother to take the time to tie each limb then?

Also, if one killer had two boys -- one in each hand, say, by the bindings -- wouldn't the bodies make contact with the ground below? You even say yourself, that the slack in the bindings is too long to have prevented them from escaping the ditch....you would in turn have to assume, then, that the slack would have been too long to prevent their bodies from making at least some contact with the woods.

These boys were barely conscious, if that -- the bindings (even with the slack) would have been sufficient to prevent them from escaping the ditch; at least, in the killer's mind.

In all honesty, it would have been both easier and faster to simply throw two boys over each shoulder and run 100 yards, than it would have been to waste time tying each limb and carrying them in each hand by the bindings. The killer would have to be just as strong/big to perform either option -- why would he chose the more difficult one? It would have been harder for him to run, in that there are two lifeless bodies most likely making contact with your legs; and the majority of the weight would fall on each the killer's arms, which would need to be at least somewhat flexed to hold the boys and keep them from touching the ground (unless the killer is eight feet tall and can simply let both arms with 2 bodies hang down, without either body touching the ground). If it's like you say, and the majority of the bleeding was internal, he wouldn't have to worry about blood on his clothes.

Again I think this all goes back to the psychology of the killer. The time of the beating is an intense time of high adrenaline whereas the after math I could see the killer entering somewhat of a calmer fugue state where he reverts back to what he knows. Let's say its Hobbs and he reverts back to the tying, handling and disposing of livestock at the slaughterhouse. He acts mainly on rote. I suppose it's hard for us to understand why he did exactly what he did unless we know slaughter and butchery techniques. There's a lot of things a person without that training might have done to make things easier. i would think that most killers wouldn't bother to tie them at all and just simply drown them.