The Manhole Theory

[Ausgirl]

Just a general question for the moment.. would a person working in construction and the like tend to have bits of rebar or patterned steel in their trucks/vehicles? I am wholly ignorant of the trade, I'm afraid.

 

[I Must Break You]

Just a general question for the moment.. would a person working in construction and the like tend to have bits of rebar or patterned steel in their trucks/vehicles? I am wholly ignorant of the trade, I'm afraid.

I don't think someone would have to be in construction. For instance I know my dad had some rebar in the bed of his truck for awhile. Why he had it and where he got it I don't know, I just know I borrowed his truck and took the rebar out cause it was sliding and banging around in the bed.
But having many friends in manual labor type jobs, I know many have all kinds of metal and wire and tools and just tons of knick knacks in their trucks.

 

[missy_g]

You can buy rebar at home depot. My landlord has it laying around the property. I know this because the dog next door was getting into our yard and he put rebar up against the fence to keep the dog out.

I'm sure it gets dumped a lot too because it seems to show up in random places.

 

[kyleb]

Just last night I stumbled across some good discussion of the rebar argument which includes some far less compressed images of the wound than I'd ever seen from Paid, starting at this post in a thread on some old forum I'd never even seen before.

 

[missy_g]

I know I've seen that before but I thought it was on the blackboard...I think that was the original blackboard forum.

 

[kyleb]

But did you see how the wounds are far more narrow than any of the rebar found among the manholes in the area, and how the less compressed images show they don't share the pattern of an actual impression of rebar?

 

[I Must Break You]

I know I've seen that before but I thought it was on the blackboard...I think that was the original blackboard forum.

No it's not the original blackboard. It's the blue beacon board, it's just another of the many many forums that were around discussing the wm3. It's not really active anymore, but there were some decent discussions there.

 

[I Must Break You]

But did you see how the wounds are far more narrow than any of the rebar found among the manholes in the area, and how the less compressed images show they don't share the pattern of an actual impression of rebar?

I always thought rebar was a red herring anyways. Those impressions could really be from anything, rebar being just one of many possibilities. But as stated earlier I never put much stock in the manhole theory anyways.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think part of the confusion here is that many people believe that the "volcano" manhole was the manhole in question. That is not the current belief of many who believe in the MHT. There are other manholes in the area that are not as deep as the volcano manhole (which is, IIRC, about 10 to 12 feet deep). IMO, the manhole used was the one about 100 feet from the discovery ditch. I believe it's referred to as the "thicket" manhole. Please, some one correct me if I'm wrong. It's not that deep, and removing the bodies from it could easily be accomplished by one man.

IMO, the killer removed the bodies one at a time and at a time when he was sure that the woods were deserted (as he had been a participant in the search). After the first two bodies were removed, they were transported to the discovery ditch. Then, the third body and the clothes were transported. This scenario also explains why two of the bodies were found removed from the third body.

As to the swimming pool theory advanced by another poster, I'll admit that it seems to be a possibility. However, I'd think that a pool would be one of the first places searched by the police, especially an unused pool on the property of one of the missing boys. I'd think that the killer would fear that possibility, too. Again, since the water in the lungs was never tested (and is now lost), once more the Keystone Kops thwart justice!

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Let's entertain this scenario. The name man hole is a misnomer. What they mean is a storm drain. When I was a kid the boys played in storm drains because they were big enough to walk into or at least crawl on all 4s. I could see the boys playing around 1 of those. There's a picture of the crime area that shows a storm drain a number of feet from the pipe bridge. TH could have come upon the kids there and began the violent altercation. There's usually enough water in those to drown an unconscious person in it. The bodies could be drug inside and hidden along with murder weapons and bloody clothes. The missing items could have been used as gags and left behind in muddy water. The reason for hiding and moving later is.. TH could be in on the search and led the party away from the drain. All the while scouting a new dump site. And purposefully chose one that has already been cleared by the authorities. Not really thinking it would be searched again. Or he could have separated the crime scene and dump site to make things more confusing. And I believe a fully grown man can move 50 pounds if he's full of adrenaline.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

http://www.lindenhurstlakes.com/Images/NPDES/wDrain.JPG

here's like I was thinking of. A person could hide bodies in one of these for a few hours (and let the water and mud wash away evidence )while neighbors and police did a cursory search of the area. And then come back later to move them. TH whereabouts were not known from 6:30 to about 9pm and then later after the searches were called off PH said she could not account for his whereabouts around 1 -1:30 am. He could have left the house any time in the middle of the night citing he was searching for the kids.

 

[reedus23]

Here's the one thing that sticks in my crawl with variations of this theory. Why move the kids?

That's an awfully risky act to take. You're taking them from what is conceivably a more concealed location and placing them in an area where they may be more easily discovered. It seems like a high risk act with little to gain from doing it. Why not just leave them where they are?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Here's the one thing that sticks in my crawl with variations of this theory. Why move the kids?

That's an awfully risky act to take. You're taking them from what is conceivably a more concealed location and placing them in an area where they may be more easily discovered. It seems like a high risk act with little to gain from doing it. Why not just leave them where they are?

I have two "theories" on why the killer moved the victims:

1. The killer might be afraid that he had left evidence at the actual scene of the crime and that moving the bodies to a place with more water might wash away anything incriminating on the bodies and would remove them from the evidence actually left at the scene of the crime, like blood.

2. The killer might have been afraid that the bodies wouldn't be found at the original crime scene. After all, the area had been searched for quite some time (and it's not that big an area) without discovery.

As to why the killer might want the bodies discovered, suppose that the killer was actually a little jealous of his wife's child from a previous marriage and wanted to get rid of him. Suppose the bodies are not found quickly. How could the killer's wife possibly get on with her (and his) life if the bodies hadn't been found? She would still hold out hope that her son was alive!

As to the risk, if the killer were also "searching" for the boys, he would know when and where the searchers were. Also, don't forget, due the the ineptness of the Keystone Kops, when the 11 pm shift came on, the search wasn't resumed - until the 7 am shift came on the next morning! Ample time for the killer to move the bodies.

JMO

 

[Userid]

Here's the one thing that sticks in my crawl with variations of this theory. Why move the kids?

That's an awfully risky act to take. You're taking them from what is conceivably a more concealed location and placing them in an area where they may be more easily discovered. It seems like a high risk act with little to gain from doing it. Why not just leave them where they are?

Good point. One theory I always had was that the killer(s) (mistakenly so or not) may have considered the creek a better spot as opposed to the manhole. City workers eventually tending to the pipes may have been a concern.

That, and panic makes you do unexplainable things.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Right I think the man hole might be a good theory because I could see someone surprising kids already playing in one. You know two kids in and one kid outside. The outside kid is taken out first and the other two are coaxed out. Someone woken up from a red rage of violence might look at three victims and immediately think they need to cover up the crime by placing them down in there probably irrationally thinking. Hours later after the bustle of searching for kids died down realized that city workers would find the crime scene at some point. Then hatch the plan of placing them in the creek with clothes weighted down. Creek water to wash a lot away. Bikes placed there too. Also I found it highly interesting that TH brings up the holes a possible place to search for the kids in a police interview in 07. He obviously knew they played there. (I mean did one single other person involved bring up these man holes?) I don't know much about those holes if there's water in them or how deep they are also if some of the clothing like socks and underwear could have been washed into the sewer especially if they were used as gags or binding?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Since we are talking about a drainage system, IMO it is highly likely that there was at least some water in these manholes or pipes. I've often heard it said that one can drown in a few tablespoons of water - especially if they're unconscious! If we're talking a drainage pipe as opposed to an actual manhole (as some have postulated), that makes the animal predation much more possible, too. And, yes, a drainage system is usually checked from time to time by maintenance. Good point!