Dog gone.

[Nova]

Nova: good point on the forced oral sex. I don't have one, but I was thinking the same thing..."forced" oral sex is usually by compliance through intimidation and fear, not rough physical acts.

The problem with whatever Jesse said is that since the entire interrogation was not taped, we have no idea what was said to him - things that could have given him ideas about the theorty LE were developing etc. It's all suspect and sketchy because the WMPD tainted it.

But in what we do have, Jesse has the children struggling and fighting to get away. And IIRC, he also testifies that they were orally raped. Just one more example of how the confession is a figment of Jesse's imagination (with a great deal of coaching).

(BTW, "oral rape" could theoretically also be accomplished by drugging the victim. I doubt this is common and I don't even know whether it has ever been done, but there was a Law & Order SVU rerun on last night that hinged on such a premise.)

 

[Nova]

[/B]

well, my guess is that the torture happened in the woods where the boys were found.

I'm pretty sure they would be able to keep them quite.

Really? And how would they do that? Per Jesse Misskelley, they had to scramble to keep Michael Moore from running away.

How ever did they keep three children from screaming while they tortured them?

 

[Nova]

Each perp grabs a child, pulls him in to his chest, holds him there with his left arm and hand, and punches him in the head with his right fist. It wouldn't take long to make an eight year old unconscious.

The kids don't scream because older brothers have done this to them before in jest, so they have no idea they are about to be killed. Instead they are yelling obscenities at their attackers, and kicking and fighting against being held. It is already too late for them when they realize they are going to die.

These little boys know who Damien and Jason are, if not their names, because they've seen them walking through their neighborhood when the little boys were out on their bikes, and have most likely exchanged taunting calls with the WM3 or Damien, at the very least.
The above is how I think it happened.

To claim that any lacerations occurring before death were not torture is absurd no matter how the wounds were inflicted. If instead, a child is deceased, then no, it is not torture, but if done by a human would be disfiguring the body or overkill. Any animal predation occurring on a still living person is torture no matter how deep the wounds are. If the skin is broken repeatedly in numerous places it hurts.

CR, if you are going to play out that manhole theory then you have to be able to go into it and say exactly how each boy was subdued, what the other two were doing while the killer was busy with the first boy, and beginning with an adult male standing outside the manhole cover, and the three little ones down inside the pipe. Take it from there, and let's hear it. I'm not looking for how a hair got transferred here. I want to know exactly how the crime went down or your best effort to describe how it occurred. Did the killer go down the manhole himself, did he pull the boys out? How was he able to subdue the three without them running farther back in the sewer. How much water was down below the manhole cover if there was water at all? Reenact the crime. You can stop when you get to transporting the bodies because we've heard all that before. FYI, people who carry guns to crime scenes usually use them, so leave out the gun you introduced. No wait, to be fair, I want you to come up with two scenarios, one with the killer having a gun, and one without.

If we are to believe this manhole theory, there has to be a logical progression.

BBM: I'll leave the "manhole theory" to CR since she understands it so much better than I, but it seems to me you are holding her to a higher standard in terms of detail than your own theory provides.

As for your theory, it contradicts JM's "confession" in numerous ways. Yet without the confession, there's no evidence the WM3 ever saw the children that day, not even that all three were together at any time that day. But there's considerable testimony that they were doing other things.

I don't understand your paragraph on the word "torture." It doesn't seem to deal with a legal definition of the word, but with our general usage whereby any pain is "torture." If a living victim suffers from lacerations in a fall, say, we don't normally say he was "tortured" in the legal sense of the word. We reserve that word for the deliberate infliction of significant pain over some length of time (not necessarily hours, but not a single instant or a brief struggle).

 

[gryncher]

Peanut - it's TERRY Hobbs, not MARK Hobbs. Mark is Chris' father - and a vocal supporter both of the innocence of the WM3 and the guilt of TERRY Hobbs.

I otherwise agree with your post; the few remaining "non-supporters" out there are clinging to the "hoodoo voodoo Damien was craazzzyyy" nonsense as all the proofs have come back supporting the WM3. Especially considering that Damien had shoulder-length black hair and wore Army boots - how would there be NO forensics linking him?? Not a fingerprint, bootprint, strand of DNA or a hair? I don't see it. He was a misfit, wise- kid who didn't seriously consider that people are wrongfully convicted in this country. Jessie was never able to give a single statement to anyone that aligns with the known crime scene and physical evidence.

There is no evidentiary basis to believe they're guilty, so nons go to "look how crazy and creepy Damien was" -- it's pathetic. And then DNA comes back to Hobbs, Hobbs' friend that he was with the day the boys were killed, and his alibi falls apart (including attempts to lie about when he was with other family members, his statements to his girlfriend about finding the boys "buried underwater" -- and his use of that weird phrase in a WMPD interview gives some credence that he actually said it, his massive inconsistencies between the Dimension Films interview, his WMPD interview, and his depositions) .... I truly don't understand how anyone can ignore this mountain of both physical evidence and circumstantial evidence and continue to honestly believe the WM3 are guilty. .... But then I'm not impressed by disputed stories of a dog killing; if I were, maybe I could say they're guilty.

You want to go after someone with a supporter network who is actually guilty as all hell? Go look at Mumia Abu Jamal's case - 4 eyewitnesses, powder residue on his jacket, confession at the hospital, a radical hate-filled personal agenda...

Let's punish the guilty, protect the innocent, and man up and admit it when a mistake was made.

There is plenty of evidence they're guilty. It's in the court transcripts/docs, interviews, confessions...that's why they were convicted.

Yes Damien is creepy - but that's really has nothing to do with it.


Damien is going to die in prison - and he is going to try anything and everything to save his own life.

If he didn't want to end up on death row, he shouldn't have murdered those little boys. His arrogance and sense of "invincibility" (which he admitted he felt in the "manic" state of his manic depression) led him to believe he could do this and walk away.

 

[gryncher]

^ Few remaining non-supporters? Clinging to voodoo? Jessie never able to make a single statement which didn't correspond to the crime scene? And I do not recall thinking 'Look how crazy and creepy Damien was'.

Well it's OK think what you like about us 'non-supporters' or as I prefer 'realists' who are pretty satisfied that the right people are in prison, that they will remain there and are unlikely ever to get out. Good luck with the hearings, but I don't expect it to go very far. They got 'em Perhaps you think there aren't many of us because we don't have a great need to discuss an already solved case, and are not afraid of an overturning of justice here any time soon.

Quoted for truth.

 

[gryncher]

False confessions: try poor Michael Crowe who confessed to stabbing his little sister in the home while the parents slept down the hall.

I know it's hard to believe but it DOES happen. In order to learn the actual truth you have to be open to all truths. This is one.

Another one is you absolutely cannot tell if a person is guilty by how they react. Some just compartmentalize as a coping mechanism and feel like where they are and what is happening is not real. This happens especially with kids - Did you ever see the King brothers when their verdict was read? A recent interview with them said they just felt like they were in a daze and it wasn't real. That can happend with the guilty and the innocent alike. It's a poor mechanism for detecting the truth about a person.

Teenagers have incredibly poor judgment and make stupid, off-handed and inappropriate comments all the time. When was the last time you hung around any teen age boys being themselves or looked through their texts?

yeah.

It doesn't happen time and time again - THREE times on the record - two of those post confession.
[ ] coercion can [be claimed] for the first one - but all of the subsequent confessions? COME ON!

Have you read about Trueromance - the former hardcore supporter sho had a close relationship with Misskelley? She went to visit him in prison. Asked him a pointed question - and didn't get the answer she wanted/expected. Immediately after, she became a non-supporter.

Once again, Jessie confesses.

 

[ziggy]

wow gryncher you've been busy today

I put no weight in the confessions and the fact that there were subsequent confessions, for me, gives more weight to falsity as the details changed and I still believe that Jesse was convinced he was doing the right thing by LE. There are people who are easily manipulated and we don't know that given the encouragement and opportunity that others who've made false confessions would not repeat them.

What pointed question did the TrueRomance ask? I found that part of your post interesting that you declined to say, you just allowed an inference which I probably shouldn't make.

I don't personally know TrueRomance and cannot vouch for a true story by that person, but I can say that silence is not a confession so that's a huge stretch. Maybe he's finally listening to counsel after having his locked up for so long and has been told not to say ANYTHING even if he thinks it would exonerate him. He might realize his judgment is flawed and just to do as he's told now. TrueRomance and the court of public opinion don't matter when an attorney is doing his best to keep a client in line who has not followed his advice in the past to his detriment.

All the "confession" evidence is flimsy at best. Before taking one's liberty away for life, it would be prudent to have some physical evidence of their involvement in the crime. I have reasonable doubt in Jesse's confession.

Interesting that this flimsy confession evidence, although no admitted at the trial of Damien and Jason, is what got them convicted. Travesty.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

First, let me restate that the manhole theory was developed by someone else, not me. He consulted experts and has a very thorough explanation pertaining to some of the injuries being cause by the boys being dragged across a rough surface, something similar to "road rash" on an accident victim. As I said before, the blackboard site is experiencing problems at the present time. Once it is up again, please go there and see all his pictures and explanations. However, without getting too technical, I'll tell you what I think the scenario was from the time Stevie got home from school until the boys were left in the manhole dead or dying. Stevie got home from school shortly after 3 pm. As I stated before, it is my belief that something had happened between Stevie and his step dad on May 4th that made Stevie decide to run away. He planned it with his friends the next day (May 5th) at school. When he got home, according to Pam's statements, he kept telling her that he loved her. Michael came over shortly after school and Chris followed. Stevie and Michael left first, Chris staying behind to watch a TV show with Amanda. When Chris left to join the others, Pam probably told him to remind Stevie that he needed to be home by 4:30 so he could eat before she had to go to work. Stevie and Michael both had bikes; Chris did not. So they were riding their bikes to the "secret hideout" in the Blue Beacon Woods. Because they were all into Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, they played in manholes. In the BB Woods, there was a "volcano" style manhole that was their hideout. I think the plan was for one of them to contact Stevie's maternal grandparents so they could come rescue him from the abuse, both physical and sexual, that he was suffering at the hands of his step father. They didn't really plan for Stevie to leave the manhole but had to go back to Stevie's house because Stevie had soiled himself. While Stevie was changing clothes and eating a few green beans (there was green vegetable matter found in his lumen), TH and Amanda return from taking Pam to work. Stevie, thinking quickly, asks TH if he can play just a while longer with his friends. TH grants permission but tells him to be home by dark. Then, TH and Amanda head to DJ's house for the guitar-playing session. DJ saw the boys (three boys on two bikes) when he opened his door to admit TH and Amanda. Stevie and Michael return to the manhole, but Chris goes by his house to get his skateboard. That's when he is whipped by Mark. (Chris might even have considered running away with Stevie at this time.) Chris goes back to the manhole. When the guitar-playing session is over, TH and Amanda go home. It's starting to get dark, and TH is angry that Stevie isn't home yet. He takes Amanda back by the Jacoby's and tells them that Stevie isn't home yet. He and DJ search in the car for about 15 minutes for the boys, talking to some kids that said they saw them heading for the RHH woods. Now TH is further angered because he has told Stevie not to play there. He takes DJ back home saying he's going to look in a couple of other places. In the meantime, the boys have come out of hiding in search of food. This is at about 6:30 pm. TH sees them and yells at them to come back. They run the other way. TH follows them into the BB Woods and into the manhole. He is intent on punishing Stevie. Remember, no one except TH has "searched" for the boys yet. So, no one would have been there to hear any commotion caused. He confronts Stevie, either yelling at him about disobeying or about soiling his clothes. If someone chanced to hear anything, it was just a father disciplining his son. He probably hits Stevie in the head possibly knocking him into the side of the manhole and knocking him unconscious. He is basically blocking the exit from the manhole for the other two at this point. Also, at first, the other two are probably too shocked to react. While Stevie lies there, unconscious, the other two try to scramble up the ladder rungs inside the manhole. He grabs them and violently pulls/throws them down onto the floor of the manhole, rendering them unconscious, too. He never meant to kill Stevie, but now he has three unconscious boys. He probably thinks that they're dead. He leaves them in the manhole until he can decide what to do. He may even have placed some sort of weight on top of the manhole cover (if he thought that they were still alive) to prevent their escape. The manhole would not have a lot of water in it, but it would be enough to cause the drowning of an unconscious boy. The water level in the manhole probably rose as the night wore on, too. TH claims that he searched for the boys all night long. There are several people who say that he searched mainly in the BB Woods, where the manhole is located. He seemed intent on keeping others away from that area. The gun comes into play later. I think that he took the gun with him for protection when he was "searching" for the boys or possibly had it so he could shoot in the air to scare off anyone who got too close to the bodies. It's possible that he shot Mr. Bojangles and then disposed of the gun. Personally, I don't think that Mr. Bojangles saw anything, but it's possible that TH heard him in the woods and shot at him to scare him off and accidentally hit him. I don't think that he had the gun with him when he was with the boys. If he did, he could have used it to frighten them into following his orders. I don't believe that would have been necessary. As a father figure, he would have commanded some respect. However, I don't think that he went into the manhole to kill anyone. He went there to punish Stevie and it got out of hand. That's why I don't think that he had the gun with him at that point. The rest of the story I've told. Pulling the bodies out of the manhole would have caused the "road rash" types of wounds that were evident on different parts of the bodies. Again, please see the Manhole Theory at the blackboard site for a more thorough explanation of these wounds. To me, this scenario makes much more sense than three devil-worshiping teens who left no evidence at all. I wish the WMPD had continued to search the manholes as they began to do. I think the search was suspended when they decided on the Satanic cult explanation and listened to Jessie's crazy story. By this time, a month had passed since the murders, and the pressure for an arrest was building. These three young men were handy scapegoats. That's my opinion.

 

[justthinkin]

BBM: I'll leave the "manhole theory" to CR since she understands it so much better than I, but it seems to me you are holding her to a higher standard in terms of detail than your own theory provides.

As for your theory, it contradicts JM's "confession" in numerous ways. Yet without the confession, there's no evidence the WM3 ever saw the children that day, not even that all three were together at any time that day. But there's considerable testimony that they were doing other things.

I don't understand your paragraph on the word "torture." It doesn't seem to deal with a legal definition of the word, but with our general usage whereby any pain is "torture." If a living victim suffers from lacerations in a fall, say, we don't normally say he was "tortured" in the legal sense of the word. We reserve that word for the deliberate infliction of significant pain over some length of time (not necessarily hours, but not a single instant or a brief struggle).

1. No I'm not holding CR to a higher standard. All I really want to hear is how the boys were subdued. Without some clear, plausible answer for how they were subdued, why should anyone even entertain the theory as possible?

You see, where this manhole theory fails is it requires that the killer has gone searching for the boys having taken a gun to what would for the step-parent amount to fetching a child needing a spanking.

How do we get from a parent intent upon disciplining a child to a parent toting a gun to do so? It also would change the offense to one of premeditated murder if that were the case. In addition, supporters tend to think the step-parent just went overboard, and accidentally killed his step-son, then had to kill the other 2. Thus the theory, as it stands, is unworkable, IMO. The reasoning or reasonableness of the actions has to be there in order for a theory to be plausible. If A, then B, and so on. If not, throw out the theory, find another, and develop it.

What Ziggy brought up, the boys being subdued inside the home is by far, the more plausible of the two. Again, I'd like to know how one man is able to control the other two while he's busy with the first.

2. I've given my theory before. I was simply restating how the boys may have been subdued. Did not Misskelley say, Damien grabbed one, Jason grabbed one, and he grabbed one, but his got away so he had to run him down? I guess I don't see the conflict, sticking with the act of subduing, alone.

We can address the alibis that don't hold water on another thread.

3. I'm using torture in the context of wounds inflicted by an outside, living source, human or animal. A fall wouldn't constitute torture in that sense. We are discussing repetitive shallow wounds to the bodies of 3 eight year olds, not an instance or two of a couple of stray marks, so please stick with the victims.

 

[justthinkin]

Your second paragraph shows a misunderstanding of how scientific testimony is supposed to work.

Your common sense (and mine) concludes that no one would hog-tie a body that had died from natural causes or suicide. I'm sure Spitz would agree.

But testifying as an expert, Spitz is obligated to acknowledge that the hog-tying per se didn't cause the death and therefore can't prove scientifically whether that death was homicide.

According to both the supporters who were present for the Spitz testimony, Spitz was asked if the deaths were a homicide, not if the hog-tying caused the deaths. Mr. 56 years of being an expert couldn't testify that this was a homicide.

Pathetic!

 

[justthinkin]

CR, I had not read your post before I responded to Nova. Good job. I'm glad you tossed out the gun idea as you originally presented it. It makes your theory more believable.

Interesting, lady. I'm with ya on how Bojangles got his injuries sort of. I think he was knifed. But unlike you, I think that's what TH could be hiding, not murder. I do believe someone scared Mr. Bojangles s...tless that night, and if TH came across that man in RHHW while searching, then it's possible in theory.

 

[Nova]

wow gryncher you've been busy today

I put no weight in the confessions and the fact that there were subsequent confessions, for me, gives more weight to falsity as the details changed and I still believe that Jesse was convinced he was doing the right thing by LE. There are people who are easily manipulated and we don't know that given the encouragement and opportunity that others who've made false confessions would not repeat them.

What pointed question did the TrueRomance ask? I found that part of your post interesting that you declined to say, you just allowed an inference which I probably shouldn't make.

I don't personally know TrueRomance and cannot vouch for a true story by that person, but I can say that silence is not a confession so that's a huge stretch. Maybe he's finally listening to counsel after having his locked up for so long and has been told not to say ANYTHING even if he thinks it would exonerate him. He might realize his judgment is flawed and just to do as he's told now. TrueRomance and the court of public opinion don't matter when an attorney is doing his best to keep a client in line who has not followed his advice in the past to his detriment.

All the "confession" evidence is flimsy at best. Before taking one's liberty away for life, it would be prudent to have some physical evidence of their involvement in the crime. I have reasonable doubt in Jesse's confession.

Interesting that this flimsy confession evidence, although no admitted at the trial of Damien and Jason, is what got them convicted. Travesty.

Well put, ziggy. I just want to add that assuming the "TrueRomance" story is true (I'm not calling gryncher a liar; just saying we have no way to confirm that what gryncher heard is true.), it may also be that prison has made a hard and scary person of Jessie Misskelley. We know he had anger management issues as a kid. Maybe prison hasn't helped and he wasn't the "sweet angel" that TrueRomance expected. (This is all speculation on my part. I don't know JM.)

That still wouldn't prove anything except that prison tends to harden people. It certainly wouldn't prove that JM, DE or JB murdered the children.

 

[Nova]

Confidential to CR: great summary of your version of the manhole theory above. But remember you don't have to account for every piece of info in this case; some of it may be irrelevant.

The theory works just as well if the boys simply stay out late, ignore TH's order to come in, and then get caught by TH in the manhole. (I.e., it doesn't depend on any child's prior resolution to run away from home.) For all we know, TH may have been so enraged he lost control with Stevie and then had to contend with the witnesses.

The one thing I do question is that if I understand you, you have Stevie getting hungry and going to his house to eat. And eating vegetables when his parents weren't around to make him. That's no 8-year-old boy I ever met.

 

[Nova]

1. No I'm not holding CR to a higher standard. All I really want to hear is how the boys were subdued. Without some clear, plausible answer for how they were subdued, why should anyone even entertain the theory as possible?

If it is true that the alleged torture wounds to their skins were actually animal predation, then subduing the children may have not been that difficult, not if they were confronted by a parental figure.

You see, where this manhole theory fails is it requires that the killer has gone searching for the boys having taken a gun to what would for the step-parent amount to fetching a child needing a spanking.

Sometimes a theory hurts itself by being too detailed. A gun might have been used, but I don't think the theory depends on it.

How do we get from a parent intent upon disciplining a child to a parent toting a gun to do so? It also would change the offense to one of premeditated murder if that were the case. In addition, supporters tend to think the step-parent just went overboard, and accidentally killed his step-son, then had to kill the other 2. Thus the theory, as it stands, is unworkable, IMO. The reasoning or reasonableness of the actions has to be there in order for a theory to be plausible. If A, then B, and so on. If not, throw out the theory, find another, and develop it.

I know how logic works, but here you neglect to say WHY you find the out-of-control stepparent implausible. Such crimes by parents are thousands of times more common than Satanic killings.

Since you mention it, yes, it is possible that TH got so pissed he premeditated murdering his stepchild. (He certainly thought it was something the child's mother should "just get over", so no big deal.) But I think people are reluctant to include the notion in a theory because there is no way to prove it.

What Ziggy brought up, the boys being subdued inside the home is by far, the more plausible of the two. Again, I'd like to know how one man is able to control the other two while he's busy with the first.

If the boys are stunned quickly enough (by being struck), they might be subdued before they recovered. Or maybe TH scared them enough that they cooperated until they were subdued and could no longer resist. It's certainly more likely they cooperated with an authority figure they knew than with strangers.

2. I've given my theory before. I was simply restating how the boys may have been subdued. Did not Misskelley say, Damien grabbed one, Jason grabbed one, and he grabbed one, but his got away so he had to run him down? I guess I don't see the conflict, sticking with the act of subduing, alone.

I believe you are right that JM's "confession" puts each child with one of the teens, at least at times.

We can address the alibis that don't hold water on another thread.

Fair enough. To my memory, there are slight inconsistencies, but basically they were ignored because it was assumed that relatives were biassed in favor of the defendants.

3. I'm using torture in the context of wounds inflicted by an outside, living source, human or animal. A fall wouldn't constitute torture in that sense. We are discussing repetitive shallow wounds to the bodies of 3 eight year olds, not an instance or two of a couple of stray marks, so please stick with the victims.

Actually, if you look back at your post, the way you put it was that as long as the victim was living, all wounds were "torture." (Which is why I gave the contrary example of a fall.) But perhaps I read your remarks out of context.

Some, including some experts, believe what you are calling "repetitive injuries" are in fact "road rash" and the result of being dragged, pushed or pulled over pavement.

But if indeed there was torture (i.e., injuries inflicted over time just for the purpose of causing pain), then I wonder why nobody heard the boys screaming. For screaming they would have been, unless they were unconscious. And what self-respecting sadist tortures an unconscious victim? Rather defeats the purpose, don't you think?

 

[Nova]

According to both the supporters who were present for the Spitz testimony, Spitz was asked if the deaths were a homicide, not if the hog-tying caused the deaths. Mr. 56 years of being an expert couldn't testify that this was a homicide.

Pathetic!

You are simply rewording your paraphrase of the testimony, which doesn't change the point.

Spitz couldn't testify that the deaths were homicides unless the scientifically determined cause of death is one that can only result from homicide (being shot from a distance, say). Drowning isn't such a cause.

Is it true we only know what Spitz said through secondhand reports? Because the exact wording of what he was asked is very important. If you can give me a link, I can show why.

 

[Nova]

One general note about this case: there was so much documented child abuse in the homes of two of the victims (I don't know about the Moore home), I'm not sure what those children would have considered "normal" punishment if they were caught in the woods by a parental figure.

So I'm not sure how much they might have endured (from a parent, not from a stranger) without resisting.

 

[JBean]

According to a supporter who attended the hearings and took notes, this is Spitz's testimony:

Per Spitz, all of the wounds were attributed to animal predation. He said it was the work of a large animal, most likely a dog.

When asked if injuries found on the ears could be attributed to having been forced to perform oral sex, Spitz disagreed with this as he said injuries would have had to have been found on both ears, not just one.

Please note: Dr. Peretti, who actually examined the bodies, testified - and presented photos to the jurors - that all three boys had contusions and scratches to both ears, not just one.

Burnett asked if Spitz would have considered the deaths 'homicides,' and if he would note thusly on the death certificates. To this, Spitz answered that he would have noted death was 'undetermined.'

Please note: Spitz believes the boys were not victims of a homicide. They were not murdered.

Other wounds attributed to animals were the injuries to Stevie Branch's face. Spitz determined these were caused by the rough tongue of an animal 'licking' the face.

Those wounds went all the way through the skin and muscle of the face, into the mouth cavity. I wonder how long a dog would have to "lick" to get through all that? Just a thought.

There were suggestions by the State that dogs could certainly not have tied up the victims or thrown them into the ditch.

He continued to insist that the injuries were not manmade, but caused by an animal.

please include a link for this post in this post. thanks in advance.

 

[JBean]

lots of the posts in this forum are getting personal and attacking towards other members.
Please stop.
You can argue your points easily enough without attacking other member personally, be it directly or indirectly.

Thanks in advance and where this post lands is random.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Confidential to CR: great summary of your version of the manhole theory above. But remember you don't have to account for every piece of info in this case; some of it may be irrelevant.

The theory works just as well if the boys simply stay out late, ignore TH's order to come in, and then get caught by TH in the manhole. (I.e., it doesn't depend on any child's prior resolution to run away from home.) For all we know, TH may have been so enraged he lost control with Stevie and then had to contend with the witnesses.

The one thing I do question is that if I understand you, you have Stevie getting hungry and going to his house to eat. And eating vegetables when his parents weren't around to make him. That's no 8-year-old boy I ever met.

The green vegetable matter in his lumen needs to be explained. TH claims that he never saw the boys at all on May 5th. If Stevie had decided to run away, he might have tried to grab a quick bite before sequestering himself. Pam has stated, I believe in the Pasdar deposition, that Stevie liked green beans. IIRC, none of the other boys had anything substantial in their systems. I think one (Chris?) may have had a piece of gum. A slight correction, I don't think he went back home to eat. I think he went back home because he soiled his pants (another thing that Pam's relatives testified to in their Pasdar depositions that enraged TH). He got there; his plate was waiting; he ate some green beans. As to my theory about Stevie running away, that is kinda an explanation for his repeated statements of love to his mother before he supposedly went to play with Michael and Chris. I know that some things could be irrelevant; however, if I have a possible explanation for something (like the green vegetable matter), I like to throw it out there. I know that my theory might not be perfect, but as I said, to me it makes much more sense than three teens in a devil-worshiping cult happening upon three little boys and killing them in some perverse manner. If most of the "gory" wounds on the boys were cause by animal predation, as new experts claim, then that kinda blows the whole Satanic cult thing out of the water IMO. BTW, let me take this opportunity to tell you that I enjoy your posts, too. Please join us on the blackboard (when it gets fixed:dunno for case discussions. You will find many well-informed people there who know a lot more than I do!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

One general note about this case: there was so much documented child abuse in the homes of two of the victims (I don't know about the Moore home), I'm not sure what those children would have considered "normal" punishment if they were caught in the woods by a parental figure.

So I'm not sure how much they might have endured (from a parent, not from a stranger) without resisting.

Excellent point. I had tried to say this previously, but as usual, I got a little wordy. Thanks for the succinct summary of my thoughts.