Christopher Byers as primary victim...

[Ausgirl]

^ I'm thinking aloud here, so forgive me rambling on a bit. :heart:

Most of Chris' head injuries were to the back of his head - execution style? Michael's were bad, but not concentrated on his face (and thus possibly less personal). So of all the attacks, it's Stevie's which are the -most- likely to be personal, seeing as facial attacks are very common in crimes of personal rage against a victim. That not ALL victims were facially beaten suggests again that Stevie was singled out that way..

But if Stevie was the main target - why is it only Chris who is not thrown in the water to drown? And in light of the animals thing, how'd he die if the groin trauma was postmortem and caused by scavenging animals? or have I got that wrong?

COD was bleeding out, yes? From where, if not the genital injury? Or is it proposed that the animals bit into him while he was still alive?

Stuff that goes round and round in my head...

 

[Compassionate Reader]

This is my theory, piggybacking on the Manhole Theory.

When the boys were attacked, the original attack was on Steven. It was discipline gone awry. The other two were eliminated as witnesses. However, the boys were only unconscious, not dead, when left in the manhole. Marauding animals got to the boys while the search was going on but were scared away before much damage was done, the only damage being the degloving of Christopher. So, he bled out in the manhole (hence, no blood at the scene - which is a discovery site and not the real scene of the crime). During the night, the water level in the manhole rose and the other two boys drowned. Additionally, I believe that the two who drowned would have died from the blunt force trauma (as would Christopher) had the rising water not sped up the process.

Again, this is my theory based, in part, on the Manhole Theory and on my studies of this case for the last 15+ years. The truth will only be made plain if Arkansas reopens the case and conducts a proper investigation.

 

[Ausgirl]

CR, I was just curious.. having read your theory as written here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7060629&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - My Theory[/ame]

Has this changed in any detail, since you wrote it? If so, why?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

CR, I was just curious.. having read your theory as written here: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - My Theory

Has this changed in any detail, since you wrote it? If so, why?

Nothing substantial has really changed, except I no longer think TH acted alone. Any minor details that might have changed did so due to new information in the case. I'm always open to investigating new information. For instance, when I first started investigating this case, I thought that JMB was a much more likely candidate than the three falsely-convicted men. Part of the reason I suspected JMB was that it appeared that Christopher was the most brutalized. However, I no longer feel that Christopher's most egregious injuries were caused by the perpetrator but by animal predation, much of which was postmortem.

However, the total lack of any physical evidence at the discovery ditch in this case has always bothered me. I don't see how anyone could leave a murder scene that clean! That's why I guess I was predisposed to something like the MHT. So, when I saw it properly presented, I could easily see its logic and IMO truthfulness.

Later, when the big revelations of 2007 were made, I realized that I had suspected the wrong father figure! So, I began to consider TH as a suspect. Now I'm convinced that TH is the major perpetrator. I don't understand why so many people are so averse to further investigation of TH (including TH). If he is innocent, further investigation could clear him. If he is guilty, IMO it's high time justice was done!

 

[Ina Cognito]

No, I made the video, and I only removed marks throughout the demonstrate how the marks were made in two separate strokes, but the autopsy photo is untouched at both the beginning and end of the video.

Could have just been me, but that knife in your video does not appear to be in scale to the body. Scale would of course be pretty important in such a demonstration. I do not see how, by any means, you would be able to provide proper scale from a photo of a body and a photo of a knife. Sorry...

 

[Ina Cognito]

Do all you make these arguments for all convicted murderers, or why do you defend these three with such nonsense?

I cannot speak for anyone else posting on the threads here but I personally look for justice. I don't look to defend "murderers" I look for justice. This case had everything but justice contained within it. I cannot help you if you cannot take a step back and see what many of us do indeed see and that is injustice. I am educated in forensics, police procedures and courtroom procedures... none of this prosecution passes the sniff test buddy. If you are blind to that I really do not know what to tell you. The one thing I DO know is that pointing out the problems with the prosecution of these three young men does NOT mean I support murderers...

 

[kyleb]

I do not see how, by any means, you would be able to provide proper scale from a photo of a body and a photo of a knife.

That's what the measuring devices in the photos are for, and that's what I demonstrated with the blue circle I drew over them, as exemplified there:

The blue circle spans one inch on both images, demonstrating proper respect for scale. Again, here's the video where that respect for scale can be seen along with the consistency between the knife and the wounds:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnLXRJnVA9c"]Scrape Marks and the Survival Knife - YouTube[/ame]

I don't look to defend "murderers" I look for justice.

I'm not suggesting it's anyone's intent to defend murderers here, but that does nothing to change the fact that Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley were each convicted for multiple murders, and if the specious arguments made in their defense were applied universally then all but the dumbest of murderers would walk free.

 

[Ausgirl]

What about the ones that are NOT specious?

Do they exist?

 

[kyleb]

I came to this forum specifically looking for as much after coming up short elsewhere, but I've yet to find anything of the sort. And on a side note, a Special Forces Survival II with the compass still recently appeared on eBay. I didn't win the bidding, but I did manage to get a picture showing the shape of the compass and how it sits and the hilt, confirming [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9999232&postcount=49"]what I previously deduced[/ame] based on the nature of the wounds:

 

[Ausgirl]

Nice find, Kyle!

From what I can see there the compass does stick out a bit, so how'd it simultaneously cause the 'x' AND the ring surrounding it, taking into consideration that there's a thin layer of skin over bone at point of impact, so follow-through depression of tissue can't be a factor? If was two separate events, why is the fact the 'x' is dead center to the ring even being raised at all? These things bother me. Obviously.

Pity you didn't win it, it would have been awesome to have super precise measurements. I would find it significant if ALL of those ring-marks AND the knife hilt sans compass matched to the millimeter.

 

[Ausgirl]

Note to self: research whether skin stretching in the process of impact with end of tubular object might cause such lacerations in the middle of the area concerned.

 

[Ausgirl]

Note to kyle: those scrape marks don't all match up. Maybe 2 out of eight? How does the absence of metal cause a deep scrape? Look, there's a big black scrape where the metal ISN'T.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

What did it go for on Ebay?