Now comes the most difficult part of all, JKMs statement to the WMPD of May 19, 1993. This statement contains many graphic descriptions of child molestation as well as a great deal of obscenities. None of that will be included here, and if you choose to visit the statement at Callahans, be warned that it is a disgusting picture of a disgusting and depraved individual.
What is most of interest to me is that he chose to give this statement the way he did. Rather than merely answering the questions posed to him, he begins to volunteer information. I believe this is why the statement is so detailed. Of note is that not only Detective Ridge is present for this interview, but also Detective Sudbury. Sudbury was a member of the CC-DTF, and had been questioned regarding the disappearance of evidence and was suspected of appropriating cash for his own benefit. He was also the only member of the DTF that Gary Gitchell allowed to work on the triple homicide. Could there have been a reason behind this move? Was this a way to let both sides know that as long as there were no slips of the lips, everything would be allowed to go on the way it had been? We dont know, and probably never will, despite all the clues that are out there to be found yet.
The parts of the statement that is of most interest are the ones where JKM describes what he believes is how the crime was committed and what type of crime scene it was. Remember, much of this information had not been public knowledge. Given that BMs ex-husband was a police officer, there is a very slight possibility that information could have been gleaned through careless statements made by him, but it is highly unlikely. The more reasonable explanation for his knowledge of the crime is that he was involved in some way. So lets explore those parts which incriminate him. These can all be found at
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmartinstatement.html.
JKM obviously offered his expertise because almost the first statement from Ridge is:
we have been talking for some time and you're basically giving us your opinions on what kind of person could have done this type of crime, we have just turned the tape recorder on, so that maybe we can learn something from the conversations with your experiences with some of these sexual offenders.
One would think that police departments would have access to the kind of information that the WMPD had to resort to asking a convicted child molester about. Perhaps the famous Crime Classification Manual that John Douglas of the FBIs Behavioral Analysis Unit (now called the Behavioral Research and Instruction Unit) helped to publish through interviews with numerous offenders?
The next item of note is this response to the question from Sudbury about what he is basing his (JKM) opinions on:
I'm basing these opinions because, one, any investigators know that most people with this amount of money being offered somebody is going to talk, somebody, I mean you can look at all your, murderers and, in decades and find that people that were involved with. any a gang related, cult related, a, any form of a, multiple murder, that consisted of more than two people, somebody is going to talk, somebody is going to say something, somebody is going to say something, somebody is going to tell the police that that person is going to come in they are going to get everything screwed up and the next thing you know, that ballon, everybody is going to fall into the pattern and they are going to know who killed who and what happened.
Interesting that he repeats that someone will talk and somebody is going to say something making it known that if someone does talk, then they are going to know who killed who and what happened. This type of statement is usually given as a warning (you squeal and Ill cut a deal and tell everything); it would be interesting to know just who this warning is meant for. It also appears that he is trying to minimize the actions of those involved to one person, and maybe no more than two.
Next he goes into various scenarios where the perpetrator would have been able to gain the trust of three children in order to be able to tie them up before killing them. He makes it a point that he read they were bound. Therefore, it was imperative that the boys were somehow made to trust whoever did this enough to allow themselves to be bound. Interesting hypothesis JKM has here; but when asked did he know how someone would have tied the boys up, he begins to answer, but is cut off by Sudbury and prevented from answering that particular question. What then follows is an exchange between JKM and Sudbury concerning bringing ones own binding and control of victims. Ridge then interjects with whether the offender was organized, and whether he would always kill his victims. This is a rather strange question. Just how many times does Ridge think this has happened, and does he maybe suspect something, but not know how to broach it?
JKM states that they were not killed where they were found, and then goes on to profile what he believes the offender is like: a male between 20-30 strong enough to carry the three boys, perhaps not all at the same time, and he would not eliminate a female, but believes the offender to be male. A short discussion follows on whether or not he would confess his deed, and both JKM and Ridge state that hes not going to say anything. Compare this with what JKM said earlier about more than one person involved, and someone would say something; now he makes the comparison about the three of them (JKM, Sudbury and Ridge) having killed someone. There would be someone upset, someone nervous, and eventually the truth will come out. Very intriguing points raised in this short conversation.
Interestingly enough, JKM responds to a question of how the person might feel with the idea that he has no remorse, feels lucky, and then returns to the fact that the bodies were not found where the murders took place. He even goes so far as to speculate that the murders took place within 200 feet of the dump site. After further conversation, he says that the murders were not accidental, but intentional. Stating that child molesters want children to come back, they would not be mean or abusive, but almost like children themselves in order to assure return visits from the child being molested. But this was unlike that, it was a situation where an abuser may have caught the boys seeing something they should not have, and thats all it took. In answer to Ridges direct question of whether he had anything to do with this murder, JKM answers a curt No. He also denies having ever been in the area of the woods, but did see a scenic area of view over there.
After further discussion about himself, his molestation, medication, doctor visits, getting his photograph, and whether or not his fingerprints would be where the boys were found, the talk turns to whether or not the perpetrator would have taken a trophy, and JKM says it is almost certain, and names several items (cut off a finger, taken something that belonged to them, or something out of them, body parts, clothing). This is interesting in light of the underwear that was missing, as well as the socks that couldnt be found. They might have remained in the drainage ditch or been washed down to the bayou diversion ditch, or kept as a trophy by the murderer(s). What is especially telling is that he states, he would have to take something that was dearly beloved. SBs pocket knife was missing, and later turned up in TWHs possession.
Next in their discussion is whether this could have taken place close to the perpetrators residence, within walking distance. It might have been so that he could relive the incident, or had it in view often enough that he could gloat over having gotten away with murder times three. A few statements later, and JKM is implicating TWH because he is a step parent and not a true parent of SB who was killed, and technically its not his child, so it is possible he could be involved and feel no remorse. Then he adds, almost as an afterthought, that hes not accusing TWH, but states that the most likely suspect is someone close.
Concerning how to question such an individual, JKM brings up child molestation and child sexual assault. His assertion is that a guilty individual would take offense to such an accusation, although it would not bother him, because hes served time for such crimes. Further on JKM says:
What you've asked me, no, cause I mean, see you can't ask me any question like that, you know, because if I would hyperthetically say that I murdered these boys, I couldn't be able to come off with any correct answers, or any answers that were bearing for the question. In other words, the person that you would be asking that would be trying to form the question into a question. Say, I was denying, okay, in denial, the guy is going to try and manipulate, you know, he feels that he's in the hot seat, he's gonna try and manipulate the situation, he's being questioned about something now if he has any guilt, whatsoever, he's going to try and put it off, he's going to try and con you into thinking of something else, to inadvertedly, put it off. You know, he can't come off, he's going to try and deny it, try and deny everything, so he can't come out and tell you anything.
Overall, this whole statement is meandering, filled with what for JKM must have been fond remembrances, a few inconsistencies, several false statements, and what appears to have been almost, but not quite, a confession.
Given the problems and conflicting stories that JKM has offered over the years concerning his timeline and alibi(s), as well as what could be considered an outline of how the murder of three boys would have taken place, JKM should have been considered a most viable suspect and should have remained so until it became evident that he was not involved. Otherwise, he could have been offered a plea deal to name others involved; however, he was released rather than detained. Having done little over the years to dispel suspicion, JKL still remains for many a suspect that got away.
Oh, the creative process... 
