The Manhole Theory

New Posts

U

Userid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
2,193
Reaction score
1,312
I'm not sure if this has already been discussed, and if so I apologize, but I came across this today, and found it extremely interesting. I feel it is important to note that this is in no way my own investigating. Also, I'm still new here, so if posting this link in any way breaches Websleuth's code of conduct in any way, please feel free to delete; it is from a different forum, but I'm assuming that's okay.

To summarize, there were 3 or 4 manholes in the Robin Hood Woods. Police interviewees, including Terry Hobbs, alluded to the boys playing in manholes. It was even stated (according to the link below) that one of the boys said he was going to go to "his secret hiding place" on May 5th.

This is interesting to me because it provides a logical kill site for where the murders could've taken place, especially in relation to the dump site, in that it would provide perfect cover and easy access. Being underground would all but mute any noise or screaming; the never-discovered socks and underwear could've easily been swept in the sewers out to the bayou. The drowning could've even occurred in the sewer, then transferred to the dump site.

Scroll down just a tad: http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=2386.0
 
Userid said:
I'm not sure if this has already been discussed, and if so I apologize, but I came across this today, and found it extremely interesting. I feel it is important to note that this is in no way my own investigating. Also, I'm still new here, so if posting this link in any way breaches Websleuth's code of conduct in any way, please feel free to delete; it is from a different forum, but I'm assuming that's okay.

To summarize, there were 3 or 4 manholes in the Robin Hood Woods. Police interviewees, including Terry Hobbs, alluded to the boys playing in manholes. It was even stated (according to the link below) that one of the boys said he was going to go to "his secret hiding place" on May 5th.

This is interesting to me because it provides a logical kill site for where the murders could've taken place, especially in relation to the dump site, in that it would provide perfect cover and easy access. Being underground would all but mute any noise or screaming; the never-discovered socks and underwear could've easily been swept in the sewers out to the bayou. The drowning could've even occurred in the sewer, then transferred to the dump site.

Scroll down just a tad: http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=2386.0
Click to expand...

Is this a post to another message board?

I know that many supporters on this board are dragging posts from Blackboard and Brownboard, but I'm pretty sure that it's not allowed here.

Just saying...
 
Snagging and dragging posts is not allowed, but linking to another forum - as the OP has done - is allowed. If any link is not allowed here it doesn't show anyway, it just shows up as a load of asterixes.
 
I thought CR made a thread about the Manhole theory, but I don't know what it's listed under. It seems that some threads are named differently and such.

Carry on.
 
My problem with this theory has always been:

Why, then, did the killer not just leave the bodies down the sewer?

Seems illogical to me that anyone'd move the boys down a drain and then up again.

I can see the ditch as a second crime scene, for sure, but I'm thinking if there was a different primary scene, it was somewhere else, maybe a vehicle - because yeah, why attack kids in one good hiding place and then move them to a less effective one.

eta: Userid, :welcome: to WS. :)
 
WAS on why:

The killer wanted them to be found.
The killer thought that there may be evidence on the bodies so had to move them. Water being a good remover.
I remember reading that Steve was seen wearing shorts but was found wearing jeans (and the right side out), perhaps the killer had to return to replace the shorts with jeans to stick to the story that Steve never came home. Utilizing this time to move the bodies to the ditch.
There were also horizontal manholes in the area, so he may not have had to move them down and up. (These manhole also had re-bar climbing rungs on them)
I'm sure I've missed some thoughts. Don't have that much time on my hands atm, work and all.
 
gheckso said:
WAS on why:

The killer wanted them to be found.
The killer thought that there may be evidence on the bodies so had to move them. Water being a good remover.
I remember reading that Steve was seen wearing shorts but was found wearing jeans (and the right side out), perhaps the killer had to return to replace the shorts with jeans to stick to the story that Steve never came home. Utilizing this time to move the bodies to the ditch.
There were also horizontal manholes in the area, so he may not have had to move them down and up. (These manhole also had re-bar climbing rungs on them)
I'm sure I've missed some thoughts. Don't have that much time on my hands atm, work and all.
Click to expand...


You mentioned the rebar rungs because of the bruises that looked to be caused by rebar, right? Those comparisons looked pretty convincing to me. I've read a lot about the manhole theory and still don't know what to think of it. I have too many questions to be able to fully subscribe to it at the moment, but there are elements of it that made sense to me. I also remember seeing some comparisons between some of the scratch wounds to troweled concrete that looked to be a good possible match. I haven't read much about it lately, so I don't have much of value to contribute right this minute, but i think I'll revisit it later this evening.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Userid said:
It was even stated (according to the link below) that one of the boys said he was going to go to "his secret hiding place" on May 5th.
Click to expand...

Speaking of secret hiding places, has there been a thread about the "club house"/tree house in the woods where the children were killed? I find the whole thing very mysterious. I remember reading several mentions of it by different people and reading that there was speculation that it could have even been dismantled on the day of the murders. Did anybody ever get to the bottom of that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just a point of interest.. JKM quite emphatically suggested to police that the boys were killed "200 feet" from the discovery site and were moved into the water later.

He also suggested Terry Hobbs as prime suspect, in that interview just two weeks after the murders.

He also said the ligatures were found at the scene, not brought there (ie, shoelaces).

Lots of interesting stuff... but the "200 feet" thing really caught my eye as a possible link to the manhole theory.
 
Ausgirl said:
Wasn't that all from Aaron Hutcheson's statement?
Click to expand...

Upon researching again, the answer seems to be yes. I didn't realize before. JMB had mentioned it, but it looks like he was saying that Aaron had mentioned it. Ridge and Griffis discussed it, but I'm assuming that was also because of Aaron. Vicki said she had seen the treehouse several times, but it's not like she is at all credible. Oh well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ausgirl said:
Just a point of interest.. JKM quite emphatically suggested to police that the boys were killed "200 feet" from the discovery site and were moved into the water later.

He also suggested Terry Hobbs as prime suspect, in that interview just two weeks after the murders.

He also said the ligatures were found at the scene, not brought there (ie, shoelaces).

Lots of interesting stuff... but the "200 feet" thing really caught my eye as a possible link to the manhole theory.
Click to expand...

He also failed two polygraph questions: 1.Do you know what was used to tie up those three boys? 2. Do you know who killed those three boys?
He actually mentions shoe laces in the post test interview because he thinks logically that's what the killer would have used. I find that so strange. Shoelaces are far from the first thing that would come to my mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Userid said:
Scroll down just a tad: http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=2386.0
Click to expand...
Right off the bat Paid starts with a false premise by citing this document to suggest the notion that the boys weren't murdered where they were found "was the police conclusion before the Misskelley statement". That claim is belied the fact that testing was done on the creek bank on May 12, weeks before Misskelley's initial confession, as documented by Bryn Ridge, Tony Anderson and Donald Smith, the photos for which can be found here. The misconceptions in the manhole nonsense only multiply from there, can anyone else spot any?
 
Oh please. The tests were done a week later. If you really think that wouldn't have effected the results than I've got swampland in florida to sell you
 
In all honesty, Jesse Miskelley's confession was so full of holes I am amazed people like WM3truth and trenchreynolds still blindly heed it ignoring the blatant absurdities (Compassionate reader pointed out many in the Jesse Miskelley's second confession) the fact that he was in custody for a long enough that if they roughly interrogated him he probably would have believed it (again it's been proven that if someone is young and not very bright, they can be tricked into thinking that the version of events the police gave are true and Jesse was in the bottom 96th percentile, leaving him more than malleable enough).

The manhole cover theory is far more plausible, not least because motive (the guilty party lost his temper and beat one of them to death and than killed the other two to silence them) is more plausible than that satan worship horseshit. A stepparent killing their children in rage is far more likely, and hobbs own friend david jacoby has retracted his statement and even stated hobbs was with the boys.

In all honesty it was probably simply domestic abuse that spiraled out of control and dragged two bystanders with it. If it's true, it's pretty horrifying. Six lives destroyed because of one man's violence and anger.
 
LordYAM said:
Oh please. The tests were done a week later. If you really think that wouldn't have effected the results than I've got swampland in florida to sell you
Click to expand...
You're trying to brand me as gullible for something I never suggested, and utterly failing to acknowledge what I actually did say.
 
and you missed the point i was saying. The blood wasn't necessarily left by the boys. I'm calling you gullible for many reasons; this latest display is one of them. The rest is that you actually believe WM3truth is remotely credible despite the fact that it is so blatantly dishonest and biased it's not even funny. They'll ignore whatever contradicts their narrative.
 
Whether the luminol reactions were the result of blood from the boys or otherwise is irrelevant to the fact that Paid's claim that "the police conclusion before the Misskelley statement" was that the boys were murdered elsewhere is blatantly false, and avoiding acknowledging as much by attacking me is so blatantly dishonest and biased it's utterly revolting.
 
kyleb said:
Right off the bat Paid starts with a false premise by citing this document to suggest the notion that the boys weren't murdered where they were found "was the police conclusion before the Misskelley statement". That claim is belied the fact that testing was done on the creek bank on May 12, weeks before Misskelley's initial confession, as documented by Bryn Ridge, Tony Anderson and Donald Smith, the photos for which can be found here. The misconceptions in the manhole nonsense only multiply from there, can anyone else spot any?
Click to expand...


If the boys were killed at the manhole then why not just leave them there instead of transporting them to the ditch.

The luminol did show that there was blood at the ditch.

The manhole theory makes no sense to me. How could one transport 3 boys without anyone seeing them? Remember a search was going on too.
 
UdbCrzy2 said:
If the boys were killed at the manhole then why not just leave them there instead of transporting them to the ditch.

The luminol did show that there was blood at the ditch.
Click to expand...

I believe I gave some speculation as to why.

The luminol revealed positive reactions for 2 possible areas (I believe the others can be ruled out)
D.Smith BBM
The areas (5) and (7) indicate activity prior to recovery of the victims and relate to
activity to the victims when perhaps they were being attacked.

It should be noted that the luminol testing was performed some days after the discovery
of the victims and at least one rainfall had occurred. There were no visible signs or indication of blood at any of the locations that we investigated.
Click to expand...

The manhole theory makes no sense to me. How could one transport 3 boys without anyone seeing them? Remember a search was going on too.
Click to expand...

So the transporting of the children is a no-go because of the searching? But the crime taking place as Jessie suggested is not impacted by the searching? gotchya
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 174 more.
Total: 4,110 (members: 175, guests: 3,935)

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
3,935
Total visitors
4,110
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,535
Messages
17,954,173
Members
228,525
Latest member
Lefer
Back
Top