Affidavit of Officer John Slater

DHT1339

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
169
Reaction score
300
Affidavit of John P. Slater

To me, this is one of the most important parts of this entire case and its not something you ever hear about at all. Slater and his supervisor, Lt. Fred Boskey entered the woods at a little past 6 AM from the dead end on McAuley and crossed the pipe bridge into the area of the ditch leading up to the bayou and searched for 30 minutes on the morning of 5/6/93, finding nothing. This, of course, is the same area the bodies were found later that day

Slater: "If the bodies had been present at the time we searched the area, I am confident that we would have located them. We were thoroughly examining every part of the area, including every part of the ditch feeding into the bayou, and were assisted by our heavy-duty flashlights and the fact that some predawn light was available. "

There's a few things to take away from Slater's affidavit. First of all, Slater's affidavit is from 2001, when the WM3 had been in prison 7 years already and at that time, I don't believe he was working for WMPD anymore. Either WMPD had not allowed him to make these statements previously for whatever reason OR, Slater/Boskey half assed their search that morning and completely missed the bodies, so this is Slater's attempt to cover that up.
If Slater/Boskey did in fact search that area thoroughly on that morning and found no bodies, then it certainly lends credence to the theory that the discovery site was not the murder site. There's also a phone conversation someone on the tapatalk forum had with Slater in which he claims the water level was low that morning (gives a lot of credibility to his statement in my opinion) He also has a lot to say about JMB and the WMPD's handling of the case in that conversation. Very, very interesting stuff. Slater and Bosley, Why search Ditch at that time of morning.
 
Affidavit of John P. Slater

To me, this is one of the most important parts of this entire case and its not something you ever hear about at all. Slater and his supervisor, Lt. Fred Boskey entered the woods at a little past 6 AM from the dead end on McAuley and crossed the pipe bridge into the area of the ditch leading up to the bayou and searched for 30 minutes on the morning of 5/6/93, finding nothing. This, of course, is the same area the bodies were found later that day

Slater: "If the bodies had been present at the time we searched the area, I am confident that we would have located them. We were thoroughly examining every part of the area, including every part of the ditch feeding into the bayou, and were assisted by our heavy-duty flashlights and the fact that some predawn light was available. "

There's a few things to take away from Slater's affidavit. First of all, Slater's affidavit is from 2001, when the WM3 had been in prison 7 years already and at that time, I don't believe he was working for WMPD anymore. Either WMPD had not allowed him to make these statements previously for whatever reason OR, Slater/Boskey half assed their search that morning and completely missed the bodies, so this is Slater's attempt to cover that up.
If Slater/Boskey did in fact search that area thoroughly on that morning and found no bodies, then it certainly lends credence to the theory that the discovery site was not the murder site. There's also a phone conversation someone on the tapatalk forum had with Slater in which he claims the water level was low that morning (gives a lot of credibility to his statement in my opinion) He also has a lot to say about JMB and the WMPD's handling of the case in that conversation. Very, very interesting stuff. Slater and Bosley, Why search Ditch at that time of morning.

Except that the way the first body was discovered was by someone in the water stumbling over it and dislodging it. He hadn't seen it and he was almost on top of it. The searcher was in the water because a floating sneaker had been spotted. That's the way it is portrayed at any rate.

Also, I think the cause of death for one or more of the boys was drowning. The murderer brought them back and drowned them, or drowned them somewhere else? The theory is needlessly elaborate.
 
Except that the way the first body was discovered was by someone in the water stumbling over it and dislodging it. He hadn't seen it and he was almost on top of it. The searcher was in the water because a floating sneaker had been spotted. That's the way it is portrayed at any rate.

Also, I think the cause of death for one or more of the boys was drowning. The murderer brought them back and drowned them, or drowned them somewhere else? The theory is needlessly elaborate.
yeah that's what i've read as well. which is why i mentioned that this affidavit could've simply been slater's way of covering his 🤬🤬🤬 because they completely missed everything during their search that morning. that would've really been his only reason to lie. if what he's saying is true then oh boy, it opens up a myriad of possibilities

SB and MM's autopsy listed multiple injuries and drowning as cause of death. CB's lists multiple injuries but no drowning
 
That water was filthy. There's no way you would see a body submerged by walking by! Even if you would suspect the boys were submerged there you would not see them ,
 
Well here is my take from watching WM111 last night on TV. They are very Pro WM111. However how could one man, one person, attack and kill three little boys? He attacks one and the others would run away. Yes the water was muddy. No way you could see a body in it.
 
Well here is my take from watching WM111 last night on TV. They are very Pro WM111. However how could one man, one person, attack and kill three little boys? He attacks one and the others would run away. Yes the water was muddy. No way you could see a body in it.
if hobbs did act alone, i don't think it would have been impossible for him to have subdued and then killed the boys

he was someone the boys knew and trusted. kids that age do not want to get in trouble for anything, so for that reason alone they would've been inclined to obey him. i feel like if the boys had encountered stranger(s) in the woods, it would've been a lot harder for them to commit the crime because they would have had to somehow get the boys to come close and what's the first thing kids are taught at that age? don't talk to strangers. they would've been inclined to run away at the first sight of a strange person in the woods. i've always felt like the killer(s) was someone the boys knew for those reasons

if hobbs didn't act alone then who else was involved? there's the puzzle theory but i'm not so sold on that one. of course there's the WM3 but as we all know, the evidence against them is very inconsistent
 
I still don't think little boys would stand by and watch anyone hurt one of their friends, no matter if they knew him or not.
 
I still don't think little boys would stand by and watch anyone hurt one of their friends, no matter if they knew him or not.
yeah i totally get that their first reaction upon seeing someone get hit would've been to run

or it would've been to just freeze out of shock at what they had just seen. if it was someone they knew and trusted, seeing that would've been shocking. maybe they thought that running away would've brought them an even worse punishment. i believe one of the boys had defensive wounds which could've indicated a struggle with the killer(s)
 
Maybe the guy had one of them tie the other two up. We know that GSK would have the woman tie the man up. The couples would comply in the hope they would both escape with their lives. Sometimes they didn't.
 
Honestly, I always thought these cops said this to cover their butts. I'm not saying they were involved, but obviously, they wouldn't want to admit that they failed to find the bodies -- so they make it out to have been impossible to spot them, when in reality, they simply failed to see them and/or really didn't look very hard in that area.

I guess my point is, their statement really proves nothing one way or the other. The bodies very well could have been there when they searched.

Two of the knots were quite sophisticated. I realize the boys were boy scouts, but nevertheless. Only the knots on CB were simple half-hitches (that really anyone could tie), but the yellowish abrasions around the bindings indicate that he was tied after he had already passed. The abrasions on the other two were more purple, indicating that blood was still flowing through the body and to the affected areas of the bindings.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
62
Guests online
5,251
Total visitors
5,313

Forum statistics

Threads
621,638
Messages
18,435,769
Members
239,715
Latest member
kegefip465
Back
Top