ID ID - Lonnie Jones, 13, Orofino, September 1951

[Ausgirl]

So I'm assuming it's perfectly okay for us to continue talking about the case as we please, now you've posted those details?

 

[Peter Brendt]

So I'm assuming it's perfectly okay for us to continue talking about the case as we please, now you've posted those details?

Feel free! I haven't posted all details about the dirty laundry in Weippe connected to the case though. Some others know that part as well. When I have more time, I maybe put that part in as well.

 

[Ausgirl]

I just have to say here - I don't care how much money Orrin Wood had, he was a habitual pedophile. And that a 'young' girls parents gave him permission to molest their underage daughter doesn't alter that fact. Exactly how 'young' was this particular girl?

(Hey, read the Jimmy Savile thread - no-one in their right mind would stand up for him, and his preferred age range was the same as Orrin's... note that Savile didn't limit himself to that age range or sex, though...like many pedos, he had a range of victims..)

And this habitual pedophile had his presumably teenaged 'girlfriend' insulted by a boy who happened to end up dead by a river that same night... and whose body Wood happened to find a few days later... and for whose family Wood held a long-standing grudge...

I cannot one bit blame anybody for viewing Orrin Wood with suspicion in Lonnie's murder.

Orrin Wood also knew damned well who Lonnie was - I wonder why he'd lie about that at the inquest, then, if he had nothing to hide.

As to the former girlfriend (whom Lonnie had upset that night) swearing "he was with me" - well that's never been concocted as alibi for any criminal at any point in history, has it?

And to Lonnie's previous rape - I am looking at this now as quite possibly (at least, there being somewhat of a chance..) being unrelated to his murder. If he'd been molested badly enough to be taken to hospital for it, then another attack so soon after would likely have left clear evidence. Was there clear evidence? I don't think there was. So if he was not molested the night he was killed -- what was he killed for? Brutally, by the side of a road, by somebody clearly out to execute him quickly?

This is not to say I don't think Cunningham is a good prospect. But Orrin Wood should not be discounted as a possible perp, at all, IMO.

 

[scriptgirl]

I am extremely interested that Lonnie was sexually assaulted earlier-I wonder if he was a family friend, if Lonnie told of this, how it was found out. Not so sure Orrin killed Lonnie.

 

[Ausgirl]

I'd really like to know what the problem between Lonnie's family and Orrin Wood was, exactly...

 

[Peter Brendt]

I just have to say here - I don't care how much money Orrin Wood had, he was a habitual pedophile. And that a 'young' girls parents gave him permission to molest their underage daughter doesn't alter that fact. Exactly how 'young' was this particular girl?

(Hey, read the Jimmy Savile thread - no-one in their right mind would stand up for him, and his preferred age range was the same as Orrin's... note that Savile didn't limit himself to that age range or sex, though...like many pedos, he had a range of victims..)

And this habitual pedophile had his presumably teenaged 'girlfriend' insulted by a boy who happened to end up dead by a river that same night... and whose body Wood happened to find a few days later... and for whose family Wood held a long-standing grudge...

I cannot one bit blame anybody for viewing Orrin Wood with suspicion in Lonnie's murder.

Orrin Wood also knew damned well who Lonnie was - I wonder why he'd lie about that at the inquest, then, if he had nothing to hide.

As to the former girlfriend (whom Lonnie had upset that night) swearing "he was with me" - well that's never been concocted as alibi for any criminal at any point in history, has it?

And to Lonnie's previous rape - I am looking at this now as quite possibly (at least, there being somewhat of a chance..) being unrelated to his murder. If he'd been molested badly enough to be taken to hospital for it, then another attack so soon after would likely have left clear evidence. Was there clear evidence? I don't think there was. So if he was not molested the night he was killed -- what was he killed for? Brutally, by the side of a road, by somebody clearly out to execute him quickly?

This is not to say I don't think Cunningham is a good prospect. But Orrin Wood should not be discounted as a possible perp, at all, IMO.

Well, Orrin had children and two of his grand children are diagnosed with mild forms of autism. Police tried with lie detector tests and truth serums to get anything out of Orrin Woods, not only once, several times. Nothing. The only thing, they actually ever had against Orrin Woods seems to be that he wasn't like some other inhabitants there (means, he didn't drink his money away and didn't use drugs) and that he was especially not a friend of pot smoking after some of the brave citizens introduced his son to drugs. Which made him quite different, the odd man out and in combination with slightly autistic behavior the logical suspect. The one thing Orrin Woods actually was not was a habitual pedophile.
Cunningham on the other side was a habitual pedophile. A homosexual one, documented preferring the age group 12-15 years of age, slim boys. Opposite to Orrin Woods, who can be placed by witnesses about 20-40 miles away from where Lonnie disappeared at the time of disappearance (the difference in distance is because he actually moved away in his car), Cunningham can be placed at the time around midnight, when Lonnie met the Kamiah boys who gave him a ride, in a range of about 100 yards.
So, while it is clear, Orrin Woods hadn't even a chance to be where Lonnie was between about midnight and 2 am and therefore for reasons of laws of physics can't be the suspect, Cunningham had motive, was near and had opportunity. The little we know about the injuries is consistent with what Cunningham would have had in his car but not what a logger would have had. The MO is at least as far as it went some weeks later consistent with Cunningham. So, no way, it was Orrin Woods and I would appreciate a little less belief in the local slander and a little more in the laws of nature which make it impossible for any physical body (which includes also Orrin Woods body) to be at two places at the same time.

 

[Peter Brendt]

I'd really like to know what the problem between Lonnie's family and Orrin Wood was, exactly...

A three part problem:

1.) Orrin, as all patients with mild forms of autism, had a problem with alcohol and even more with pot. Both were, according to several witnesses, very popular in the circles of Weippe's loggers. But Orrin had a problem with it and therefore, he never drank alcohol or smoked pot. So, he was different.

2.) He was a hard worker and good with numbers. As in he knew how to handle money. He saved, he invested, he became rich. And I mean rich as in at least million heavy by hard work. While those who drank the money away, never really came to much. Which isn't entirely true because in fact, some members of Lonnie's extended clan drank also less and made some money. Which, by extension of business, led to a competition situation. Now, the old Weippe inhabitants, there since generations against the newcomer, we can imagine who was painted the bad guy.

3.) In fact, the feud start a time before Lonnie's murder already when, I think, it was Lonnie's grandfather, died. He died in what was ruled as an accident. Some say, alcohol and logging would be a bad combination, considering the gear. Some say, relax, have a beer. Somewhere in this range, the accident happened and it was ruled by the police and the coroner as accident. However, Orrin, like many others were around there that day. But all the others were old Weippe family members. Orrin wasn't. And fo course, nobody would admit that this was a stupid accident. Someone just had to be blamed.

That's basically it. Over the time, it was garnished with more stories, more accusations and so on.

 

[Peter Brendt]

I am extremely interested that Lonnie was sexually assaulted earlier-I wonder if he was a family friend, if Lonnie told of this, how it was found out. Not so sure Orrin killed Lonnie.

The family story was, Lonnie was injured and his grandma went to the hospital with him. While there seems to be no patient record for Lonnie though, there is indeed an old entry in the name of the grandmother for that time. So it was known, only not who. And the family didn't go to the police but covered it up.
Interesting side note here: Walter Cunnigham had at this time some little shady business with soft cedar wood running. He bought it from people who cut trees on other people's land and got it cut. This kind of wood was used to coat closets because it had some kind of moth-ball-like effect. No moths. So it was pretty popular and he made some money with such carpenter works. Guess, where the sawmill was, which cut that wood for him? Right over the street from Lonnie's home.

 

[Ausgirl]

Peter, I will respectfully have to disagree with you regarding:

The one thing Orrin Woods actually was not was a habitual pedophile.

I don't know your personal stance on men in their 30's dating very young teenage girls, but Orrin showed a clear preference for girls under 15, which makes him legally and morally (in my own case, anyway) a pedophile. And -- sorry, but you haven't said -- how old WAS that girl he was dating, with her father's permission?

And I apologise, also -- but how much of what was said about Orrin by his fellow locals was "slander", exactly, and how do you know it was slander? I realise and appreciate that you are clearly very, very sympathetic to this man, but IMO there's clear cause for keeping him on the possible perp radar.

As to laws of physics - we have the word of Wood himself (who I know wasn't shy about lying) that he drove the girl home straight after he left the fair at 12.45 (he says), and the word of the "young" girl he was dating at the time - whom Lonnie obviously insulted, for Orrin to have words with him in the cinema.

How do we know either is telling the truth? I am sorry to say it, but your belief does not make it so. Both would have reason to lie and to corroborate each other's lies IF they had something to hide...

And note that while it was highly probable that Orrin KNEW Lonnie, and KNEW who Lonnie was in the cinema that night, he -chose- at the inquest to leave out the detail of having seen Lonnie at the movies. And lied about not knowing him...

And we already dealt with the proven problems of "truth serum" and lie detector tests earlier in the thread. They are not 100% reliable, let alone that many criminals have admitted to "beating" them, quite easily. This is a fact.

I wonder if they asked him whether he'd seen Lonnie at the fair that night.. and what his answer was...

 

[Ausgirl]

The logging thing with Cunningham is interesting! And another great reason to keep him on the radar, too.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Peter, I will respectfully have to disagree with you regarding:

I don't know your personal stance on men in their 30's dating very young teenage girls, but Orrin showed a clear preference for girls under 15, which makes him legally and morally (in my own case, anyway) a pedophile. And -- sorry, but you haven't said -- how old WAS that girl he was dating, with her father's permission?

She was, if she remembered right, for some weeks longer 15 years old. She is, of course an old women now, and thus some details are a little blurry. But she is still alive. And she remembers why she dated Orrin and why her father gave permission. I think, I can take her word for it, especially since similar behavior from Orrin's side is also described by other witnesses who knew him. Lets just say, this "dating" was pretty harmless. However, one has also to see the motives of the father, who allowed his daughter to date one of the wealthier men around. So bottom line: What Orrin is in your book and what he still is in her book is quite different.
And by the way, the girl a complaint was filed about was the same one. The case was dismissed after the girl and her dad cleared it up. The complaint was filed by lets say "a third party".

And I apologise, also -- but how much of what was said about Orrin by his fellow locals was "slander", exactly, and how do you know it was slander? I realise and appreciate that you are clearly very, very sympathetic to this man, but IMO there's clear cause for keeping him on the possible perp radar.

I am sympathetic to nobody here. So cut out that line. Point is, I know how much is slander when i analyze the contradictions in what people tell me. I have talked to everyone I could find who was around back then on the phone and often enough not only once. I got for example the protocols of the hearing after Lonnie's murder and can see the contradictions to how the story is told today by some. I dug through old records with the help of local churches. I spoke with those accusing Orrin Woods and I spoke with those who defend him. And when you take out what is impossible, when you take out the cases where slander is obvious when the story told is compared to the evidence from that time, then there is no way, simply no way. Not on the behavioral side only, but also from the time frame. Unless you want to introduce a theory that includes mass hypnotizing and distortions of the time and space continuum, Orrin Woods had no opportunity to snatch and kill Lonnie Jones. He brought the girl home and was seen by the father. According to the girl (I will not tell names here due to the TOS), he delivered her home at 1 am and talked for a while with her father. That means, the earliest time, he could have been on the road again was 1:15. Night driving, the winding road, the distance, add it all up. He couldn't have been there when Lonnie was dropped at the bridge in Greer unless he was beamed up to a spaceship and the same minute beamed down to the bridge about 20 miles away. I think, we can exclude that possibility, right?

As to laws of physics - we have the word of Wood himself (who I know wasn't shy about lying) that he drove the girl home straight after he left the fair at 12.45 (he says), and the word of the "young" girl he was dating at the time - whom Lonnie obviously insulted, for Orrin to have words with him in the cinema.

So you know he wasn't shy of lying? You know that how? Because his behavior at the police after he found the body appeared strange to them because he neither tried to lie nor was able to tell them a coherent story. Which is usually what you get when you set autists under pressure. Only back in the fifties, nobody knew about autism.
What we have is Wood's word, the accidental telling of someone in Weippe, who also filed later that complaint about Orrin and young girl (in fact some kind of semi-stalker), we have the girl's word. The father isn't alive anymore, but was asked about Orrin's alibi back then and he confirmed the time. So did the mother.
For the incident at the cinema, there is not only Wood's word (who is dead and can't be asked therefore) but also the girl's word and after a lot of digging, another kid who was that night in that cinema and is still alive. And yes, Lonnie had some way to go into people's faces. At least three witnesses still living remember that part. And yes, Orrin was one of his preferred targets, probably right on the line of what the adults around him told him all the time.

How do we know either is telling the truth? I am sorry to say it, but your belief does not make it so. Both would have reason to lie and to corroborate each other's lies IF they had something to hide...

Well, if four people, who have nothing to win by it, corroborate the story and nobody but you says, it's a lie, it's what 4:1 with the notable side note, that all who say he was there bringing the girl home. actually were there and saw him while you are obviously too young and too far away to have been there that night. So yes, maybe all four lied, maybe the world did shrink for a moment allowing Orrin to travel backwards in time to kill Lonnie, but what are the odds? And there is one, who, in his attempt to blame Orrin, lost a little control over his story and accidentally also corroborated it.

And note that while it was highly probable that Orrin KNEW Lonnie, and KNEW who Lonnie was in the cinema that night, he -chose- at the inquest to leave out the detail of having seen Lonnie at the movies. And lied about not knowing him...

As a matter of fact, Orrin knew Lonnie only by sight, if at all. This is corroborated by the stories, Lonnie's family also tell about Orrin. So, maybe we arrest now the whole family of the victim because they all lied when they basically say the same as their favorite enemy? No, of course not.
The point is, there were some kids around, a whole bunch of them. Orrin, who normally went to work early, who had only the barest necessary social contacts to their families, was aware of their existence. And since he returned normally very late from work, he didn't see too much of them in the first place. So, probably, but not entirely certain, Orrin was aware of Lonnie's existence in that bunch of kids. That's it. And according to the girl who was with him, Lonnie went that night in the movie theater on her, not on Orrin. Lonnie backed off when Orrin came. It was the girl, not Orrin, who knew who those kids (there were more of them with Lonnie) were.

And we already dealt with the proven problems of "truth serum" and lie detector tests earlier in the thread. They are not 100% reliable, let alone that many criminals have admitted to "beating" them, quite easily. This is a fact.

And if you look it up, those criminals today can look it up in the internet how to do it. No internet in the fifties though. Lie-detectors were new back then, nobody knew how to beat them intentionally. And truth serum? Same story. And lie-detectors and truth serum together? Not only once but several times. Operated by a bunch who is determined to stick something on him? And still, even under those conditions, they got nothing? Hello!

I wonder if they asked him whether he'd seen Lonnie at the fair that night.. and what his answer was...

As a matter of fact, two witnesses, but both not there at the time, hinted, he was asked. One, who has access to the files, claims, Orrin was asked and Orrin said, yes. Which is interesting, because at the time that happened, he had been shown pictures already. The other witness heard the story from Orrin and says, he wasn't sure, but he thought, he was asked whether he met Lonnie that night. He did, but he didn't know it was Lonnie till he saw pictures days later. What went under is, that he saw Lonnie actually at the movie theater, not at the fair (or at least he wasn'T aware of it).

 

[katydid23]

When I look at Cunningham in comparison to Orrin, one main difference comes to mind. One of them liked to molest little boys, and one of them didn't. That says a lot, imo.

 

[Ausgirl]

It seems to me that a lot of spindoctoring is being done on both sides of the story. I'd really like to hear the other side according to Lonnie's family, some time.

There is absolutely nothing to say Lonnie wasn't killed in a fit of frustration and rage (all the taunting and victimising that apparently went on would be a great motive!) very shortly after 12.45 and returned to (perhaps even some hours) later for a 'clean up' of evidence. The position of his hands' rigor mortis suggests the killer -did- return after rigor had set in to remove whatever kept Lonnie's hands in place.

It's not impossible. And any way I see it, a grown man 'dating' children is not doing the right thing by the law, or the children - no matter how in love the girl thinks she is, or how eager her parents are to allow it. And since Orrin was --sentenced-- to 30 days in jail for dating that girl (I don't know that could happen, if the charges were dropped? was the sentence overturned?) clearly it was a matter of concern to LE, and rightly so. No conspiracy about it, she was a minor and he was doing the wrong thing. I wonder if the 23-years-younger wife was an adult when they started dating..

I'm not going to argue semantic more than this, as I really don't think I have all the details by which to make my own judgements beyond those I've already stated. No need to argue, anyhow, we are all entitled to think and sleuth and look where we want to, right? And I am not 100% convinced Orrin Wood was a victim, here.. let's leave it at that.

And according to the girl who was with him, Lonnie went that night in the movie theater on her, not on Orrin. Lonnie backed off when Orrin came.

^ I'm not sure what you're saying there. Was it Orrin who had words with Lonnie, or not?

 

[Ausgirl]

When I look at Cunningham in comparison to Orrin, one main difference comes to mind. One of them liked to molest little boys, and one of them didn't. That says a lot, imo.

Yes, it does, katydid. I think Cunningham is a brilliant call. Hopefully there's more info on him and his movements around the area to be found!

But there's reason to doubt Lonnie was raped before being murdered - he had serious existing trauma, which LE apparently didn't know about when examining his body. The autopsy report would be great to clear this up, as there'd likely be details that would confirm whether Lonnie was molested again or not (rectal bleeding, etc).

And if he wasn't, it does leave room for other motives.

while you are obviously too young and too far away to have been there that night.

^ And Peter, there is absolutely no need to be snarky here. None of us were there that night. None of us know 100% of the truth. I should think it doesn't need stating.

 

[Peter Brendt]

When I look at Cunningham in comparison to Orrin, one main difference comes to mind. One of them liked to molest little boys, and one of them didn't. That says a lot, imo.

sexual orientation, distance to the location of disappearance, possibility, consistency with a known MO. Well, in fact a lot speaks against Cunningham.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Yes, it does, katydid. I think Cunningham is a brilliant call. Hopefully there's more info on him and his movements around the area to be found!

But there's reason to doubt Lonnie was raped before being murdered - he had serious existing trauma, which LE apparently didn't know about when examining his body. The autopsy report would be great to clear this up, as there'd likely be details that would confirm whether Lonnie was molested again or not (rectal bleeding, etc).

And if he wasn't, it does leave room for other motives.

Witnesses placed Cunnigham at the fiar. He made a little money with breaking up the booths till about 11. He was seen last time a few minutes before midnight leaving the fair ground direction to the bridge where Lonnie met the Kamiah boys who gave him a ride. No trace anywhere later of Cunnigham.
There were two examinations of the body, one in Orofino and one later in Boise. The Orofino one concluded sexual assault, the one in Boise didn't. But then, given the time and the technical possibilities, it would have been hard to find conclusive evidence three or four days later and after the body was already five days out in the open. Well, hard in case of still healing earlier injuries, that is.
From the behavioral side, IMO, the staging indicates a rebuilding of a rape position. But I can't say whether it's reliving an earlier assault or one that happened that night. Chances are, from that night, but with LE having lost most evidence and hiding that little they have left ... no way to be sure.

 

[Robin Hood]

Peter, was the witness Mr D, friend of JW ?

 

[Peter Brendt]

Peter, was the witness Mr D, friend of JW ?

Actually Mr D saw him an hour too early as far as I understood. Mr B saw him several times, so did Mr J (several times during the afternoon), and Mr. M.. And there is also a Miss C (I think, it was C back at the time), who saw him when she went with her friends off from Orofino (they had been in the movies). So, while I can't say, Mr D is no witness (and he wasn't actually a "friend" of JW, just a witness she dug out the same way we did with all the others), Mr D. appears to be secondary at this point.

 

[Ausgirl]

Due to the additional info you sent me, Peter, I will for now remove the "habitual" from 'pedophile', there being only one under age girl we definitely know about at this point (the one Orrin took to the fair being the same one involved with his later arrest, as we now know).

There's a few things I'd really like to know regarding the family's accusation of Orrin over the grandfather's death. From what you typed above, I am led to assume that it's been said the grandfather was drink-driving? Is that right? And had an accident of some sort. But Lonnie's family pointed the finger at Orrin as being somehow responsible for that.. simply because he was there?

It doesn't make sense. Seems to me there had to be a bit more to it. And it makes me wonder (if they did immediately point a finger at him) whether bad blood might have already existed.

Were they friendly before that? Knew each other well? How well, exactly?

I'm still trying to make sense of the murder scene, to change the subject slightly - as to why the killer would give Lonnie a fatal wound ten feet from the road, then pose his body further down the incline. If he was indeed posed, and the crime scene thus staged, it says to me the killer wanted Lonnie to be found that way. Or why not simply leave him ten feet from the road, and drive away?

I'd be interested in the details of Cunningham's subsequent rape of the 15-yo, and what his behaviour was toward that boy, if there were threats/hints of deadly violence/ ritualistic behaviours, etc. I think it'd give some good insight into his MO as a pedophile. And a potential perp, for Lonnie.

I'd also think that LE would have zero'd in on Cunningham after he was charged for the rape? And if it was known Cunningham was at the fair, with so many witnesses for a positive ID... and with outside investigator, Harry Savage, working the case (who wasn't related to Lonnie, and not part of any local dramas, one would assume - so if nepotism was a problem in solving this case, as you hint to, Peter, then Savage might have had an issue with that?) -- surely there would have been a thorough investigation of Cunningham at the time?

Did the witnesses who ID'd Cunningham come forward to the cops back then? It just boggles my mind that a convicted rapist seen in the area, etc, might not have been scrutinised - or hey, arrested.

I can see how nepotism of a sort among the local cops (if you're right and it was indeed a factor) might hamper the investigation, but what about Harry? I wonder where both Orrin and Cunningham were on his radar, by November that year.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Due to the additional info you sent me, Peter, I will for now remove the "habitual" from 'pedophile', there being only one under age girl we definitely know about at this point (the one Orrin took to the fair being the same one involved with his later arrest, as we now know).

There's a few things I'd really like to know regarding the family's accusation of Orrin over the grandfather's death. From what you typed above, I am led to assume that it's been said the grandfather was drink-driving? Is that right? And had an accident of some sort. But Lonnie's family pointed the finger at Orrin as being somehow responsible for that.. simply because he was there?

It doesn't make sense. Seems to me there had to be a bit more to it. And it makes me wonder (if they did immediately point a finger at him) whether bad blood might have already existed.

Were they friendly before that? Knew each other well? How well, exactly?

I'm still trying to make sense of the murder scene, to change the subject slightly - as to why the killer would give Lonnie a fatal wound ten feet from the road, then pose his body further down the incline. If he was indeed posed, and the crime scene thus staged, it says to me the killer wanted Lonnie to be found that way. Or why not simply leave him ten feet from the road, and drive away?

I'd be interested in the details of Cunningham's subsequent rape of the 15-yo, and what his behaviour was toward that boy, if there were threats/hints of deadly violence/ ritualistic behaviours, etc. I think it'd give some good insight into his MO as a pedophile. And a potential perp, for Lonnie.

I'd also think that LE would have zero'd in on Cunningham after he was charged for the rape? And if it was known Cunningham was at the fair, with so many witnesses for a positive ID... and with outside investigator, Harry Savage, working the case (who wasn't related to Lonnie, and not part of any local dramas, one would assume - so if nepotism was a problem in solving this case, as you hint to, Peter, then Savage might have had an issue with that?) -- surely there would have been a thorough investigation of Cunningham at the time?

Did the witnesses who ID'd Cunningham come forward to the cops back then? It just boggles my mind that a convicted rapist seen in the area, etc, might not have been scrutinised - or hey, arrested.

I can see how nepotism of a sort among the local cops (if you're right and it was indeed a factor) might hamper the investigation, but what about Harry? I wonder where both Orrin and Cunningham were on his radar, by November that year.

You realize, that Orrin wasn't at the time no old man or something. I have no exact birth date at hand, but over the thumb, he was maybe around 20? So someone should thank you, in the name of every late teenager who ever dated a girl in the middle teens+, for cancelling that "habitual". You know, I remember some school mates. He was 17 when they met, she 15. Unfortunately, his 18th b-day ways a few weeks before her 16th. So, well, technically, he was what you define, in entirely wrongful re-interpretation of the term, "a pedophile". Habitual maybe, since he regularly slept with her (that school mate, not talking Orrin here). Oh well, I think, he still does, hr youngest child just graduated ...
What I try to explain is, you should try to learn about the people before judging on incomplete data. Orrin was bright when it came to numbers, he was a hard worker, he hadn't a lot of the common vices of the boys in her age and the area. Only thing is, his social communicative skills were a little behind in some aspects. So, given the "competition" and the content of Weippe's showcase, Orrin was a catch. Which is probably why he got permission from the girl's father. Not that pedophiles normally ask for that, but Orrin did.

The problem between Orrin and Lonnie's family started, as it sounds from both sides of the aisle, when Orrin came to Weippe. He was a hard worker, he avoided alcohol and therefore the regular "beer with the guys", he avoided drugs, another social glue back there and then. In fact, he avoided anything, that made the world even more confusing than it was. That's a typical behavior for patients with mild forms of autism. They struggle hard enough to hold control over everything, they don't need additional recreational drugs to complicate that even more. But it makes them socially isolated. Being socially isolated in a society like Weippe is kind of the social death penalty. The resident bullies bite out who is different, bite out, who doesn't bow to them. Problem was, they couldn't bite out Wood. He was too strong, too straight. So all they could do, was not liking him.
And just to get this clear: That accident wasn't a classical driving accident. That was driving and operating logging equipment. A little bit heavier. The victim was caught under some logs in the end, but alive. Orrin had no way to get the injured man out, so he went for help. The victim was still alive when help arrived and stated to the victim's how it happened. That is the reason, why police ruled that as accident. But the victim didn't make it and it took years and years of twisting the story to make Orrin look guilty. Why? Because basically, if snow fell, the clan said, it was Orrin's fault. If the sun was hot - it was Orrin's fault. So yes, it's a little hard to dig through that and it took me some time.

Cunningham was caught, after he raped another boy. Raped, but not killed. He tried to scare the boy in staying silent by the threat of killing him, if he wouldn't. Remember, as it appears, Lonnie was raped before the fair.
The other case was a boy the same age group. Approach was a "do I know you" situation and indeed, Cunningham knew that boy. He had done carpentry work in his neighborhood. Just like he knew Lonnie at least by sight. The lumber mill cutting the stolen wood from those guys near the creek, was just across the street (well, in fact it is still).
Cunningham was arrested and got a mandatory life sentence. Some other things came up at the same time, for example, that his brother in law was also arrested for having committed the longest and biggest series of burglaries in the county. And I think, his father in law, who was caught with a stolen RV. So, there were some cases closed, but nobody looked at the Lonnie Jones murder because police was so sure, Orrin did it. Lonnie's whole family had told them so, yeah ...
Now, Henry Savage. I have no real idea what he did (except talking to the press). He died many years ago and none of his old notes survived. So if anything survived, it has to be in the case file, to which I have no access. Now, I have this only second hand and only from one party, but it appears as if Savage was the guy getting the truth serum via his FBI contacts. It's not, that one could buy that stuff in Orofino's grocery, right. Also, Savage appears to have been present at least at the last interrogation of Orrin Wood under truth serum AND on a lie detector and that one still didn't give them anything for an arrest. Not for lack of trying, I would say.
However, it appears, that by 1952, the whole thing, including Savage, stuck. The local representative contacted a senator and, according to the press from back then, asked for an official investigation by the FBI. Hoover personally promised, still, nothing happened. The FBI gave some lab support.
In the meantime, Cunningham was in prison and already forgotten. Nobody actually thought about his presence anymore, till others here on this board, dug him out. As far as I can see, this was the first time, the connection was made.
And yes, there were, back at the time other leads. Some were investigated, some not so much. Another known sex offender was interrogated, but dismissed. He had an alibi and he was known to rape girls age 16+. There was also an incident with a bunch of allegedly alcoholized Native-Americans. Problem is, the place that allegedly would have sold them the alc wouldn't have done it in 1951 because back then there was still a prohibition law against the tribes. So, there was some investigation in those leads, but without arrest. And there were investigations in other directions, for example Sheriff Holloway's trip to Portland. But also without result. And the whole time, Cunningham was locked away and nobody thought about him for a second. And thus, nobody asked around who had seen Cunningham. My luck was only, that he helped breaking down the fair and did that every year, so some knew him and remembered, he was there.

You translated, what I hinted, in the nice clean term "nepotism". Lets give you a glimpse in this:

- the officer today in charge of the case (as any other in the area) lives three or four houses away from where Lonnie's aunt lives. His neighbors are members of the very same family.

- his boss, the Sheriff, is not only politically connected to them, he is also life-long befriended to the current generation of the family clan.

- his father was one of the kids in the very same car, driven by the very same people to the fair that night. He was one of the persons, seeing Lonnie in the afternoon there.

- since the case began, at least one family member was commissioner, two members were Sheriff. Lonnie's mother married a man, who also became later Weippe's Sheriff. They all had access to the case file and evidence and after their time, most of the evidence was gone because we know, in the seventies, the evidence box was already as empty as it is now. Which is one of the reasons, police can't release too much in the first place: They don't have much left.

and so it goes on and on. Nepotism is a very incomplete way to describe the circumstances there.

But here is the rub: Orrin Wood had no opportunity that night, to kill Lonnie Jones. Because at the time, Lonnie was fetched, he was in Weippe, bringing the girl home.

Just on a side note: I wrote earlier posts about the staging and the meaning, so you can read up there. No need to repeat it again. All you confusion about the staging and the scene per se is explained there.