My Theory

HRCODEPINK said:

I have to say that I was a little shaky on the manhole idea, until I saw the pics on the other page on the larger exits for the manhole (the square ones). I also think that they were tied either in one of those square things or after they were already out (maybe even in the tube, but I don't believe they were brought out through the circle manhole entrance/exit while tied--just seems too awkward). I still believe that there were two people, because I can't get past the two different kinds of knots.

I knew that TH had supposedly told his girlfriend that he had found the boys and just left them there. If this is true, it tells me that he did have time alone while searching, or at least time with his accomplice. Is there one of those square openings just a short distance from the discovery site? I do believe this theory is plausible, because I do believe that someone moved them from somewhere. I do not believe these boys were killed where they were found at all and the tying for transport seems about right. It was such an odd way to be tied that IMO, that wouldn't be the way you would do it to restrain someone and the last of evidence that they even tried to get out of the shoelaces really blows the theory that they were restrained that way, IMO.

ETA: Also, I think that the two different types of knots on them indicated that it was two people and one tied each and they both tied the last together to save time and if they were moving the bodies after the police had already been called, it would make sense that they would want to get in and back out as quickly as possible.

Click to expand...

Please look at some of the other information on the BB, especially about the knots. "Paid" says that the knots were simply a series of half-hitches, nothing fancy and nothing that one person couldn't do by himself. There are also maps showing the locations of the manholes in the area. IIRC, there is one of the type you reference near the discovery site. In fact, there are two IIRC near the discovery site. One is the "volcano" (which I have always suspected as the scene of the crime) and the other with the square opening.

Here's an interesting thread. It shows the development of the Manhole Theory (with input from Mark Byers, who would know) in the first few pages. Toward the end, some newer posts revive the phone call between TH and JMB (that JMB recorded). That might be of interest, also.

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=284.0

I'll continue to look for a map or picture showing the manholes. I know it's on the BB site, but my research skills are pitiful and right now I've got to prepare for guests tonight. I promise I'LL BE BACK!

I'm not trying to be snarky so I'm sorry if I come off that way. I just have some thoughts.

First, all of the evidence is very suspect to me. I think the WMPD decided early on that DE did it and went out of their way to make the evidence "fit" that conclusion. Most of them probably were thinking that the end justified the means. Unless there is a video of an interview I think the transcripts are highly suspect.

Just read about officer Meek here; http://www.jivepuppi.com/meek.html

It seems obvious that her story keeps changing to make the suspects look guiltier and guiltier.

Also, the mysterious disappearance of the blood and mud evidence is very disconcerting.

The manhole theory doesn't make sense to me and if it doesn't make sense it's probably not true (In the words of Judge Judy). I've tried to pick up a manhole cover and they are really heavy. I don't think eight year olds could pick up a manhole cover. However, I trust those who say there are wounds that look like rebar on one of the kids. Here is a picture of the manholes in the area.

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=2386.0

I can't post the picture because the picture location has a bad word that the board won't translate. Look down a little on the page and you'll see a picture of four storm drains with a manhole covers on them. In the upper left you'll see one with rebar bars. I haven't seen a picture of the actual manhole involved itself.

I think it's possible that TH threw Stevie against the manhole, if it's like the one in the upper left corner, and/or pushed him hard against it. That would account for the rebar impressions. I think he also beat him or had pushed him so hard against the rebar and cement that it killed him. The other kids may have stayed because they were frightened or TH forced them to stay through intimidation. They were only eight and fairly easy for an adult to command I'd think.

When TH possibly undressed them he may have laid them on top of the drain, and while doing this made the scrapes consistent with the body scrapes of one of the boys.

When he hogtied them and moved them I don't know.

Also, is there a particular type of knot used when hogtying at a factory? If so were those kind of knots used?

I find it hard to believe that a mother would be sleeping soundly when one of her kids is missing unless she took a sleeping pill.

Who recorded the TH and JB phone call and why? That call leads me to believe that TH is guilty and JB is not. JB coming out about the belief in their innocence leads me in this direction too. It sounds like TH is trying to make JMB sound guilty.

I also believe that the WMPD could get a confession from the real killer(s) on a nationally broadcast TV interview and would do nothing about it. If they try and convict anyone else in these murders they'll open themselves up to lawsuits by the WM3. Anything they are doing now is purely for show.

Compassionate Reader said:

There are two schools of thought on this one:

1) He wanted the bodies to be found because he couldn't "get on with life" if the boys remained missing. When the police didn't readily find the bodies in the manhole, he moved them to the discovery ditch. He told his girlfriend (Sharon Nelson) that he had discovered the bodies "buried underwater." It was one of the documents in Jason's petition for writ of habeus corpus, Exhibit 71. I can't provide a link, but here's a discussion about in on the BB:

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=3919.0

2) He moved the bodies because he was afraid there might be evidence on them that would link him to the crime so he put them in water, hoping that any evidence would wash away.

I subscribe to the second theory. I believe that he waited to move the bodies until things settled down, probably around 5 am. Pam and her parents had probably fallen into an exhausted sleep, and he sneaked out of the house and moved the bodies.

Click to expand...

I think it's possible they all drowned in the ditch when he put them there. The animal atrocities occurred then too.

h818 said:

Nevermind the fact that the certified forensic pathologist who saw the injuries in person, not just in pictures, testified that he and his colleagues did not think that they were caused by animal bites.

Click to expand...

Respectfully snipped.

I think the forensic pathologist was told they knew who did it and gave him information to lead him into his conclusion. As I stated before, I think the evidence was made to fit the suspects.

Steely Dan said:

The manhole theory doesn't make sense to me and if it doesn't make sense it's probably not true (In the words of Judge Judy). I've tried to pick up a manhole cover and they are really heavy. I don't think eight year olds could pick up a manhole cover. However, I trust those who say there are wounds that look like rebar on one of the kids. Here is a picture of the manholes in the area.

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=2386.0

I can't post the picture because the picture location has a bad word that the board won't translate. Look down a little on the page and you'll see a picture of four storm drains with a manhole covers on them. In the upper left you'll see one with rebar bars. I haven't seen a picture of the actual manhole involved itself.

I think it's possible that TH threw Stevie against the manhole, if it's like the one in the upper left corner, and/or pushed him hard against it. That would account for the rebar impressions. I think he also beat him or had pushed him so hard against the rebar and cement that it killed him. The other kids may have stayed because they were frightened or TH forced them to stay through intimidation. They were only eight and fairly easy for an adult to command I'd think.

When TH possibly undressed them he may have laid them on top of the drain, and while doing this made the scrapes consistent with the body scrapes of one of the boys.

When he hogtied them and moved them I don't know.

Also, is there a particular type of knot used when hogtying at a factory? If so were those kind of knots used?

I find it hard to believe that a mother would be sleeping soundly when one of her kids is missing unless she took a sleeping pill.

Who recorded the TH and JB phone call and why? That call leads me to believe that TH is guilty and JB is not. JB coming out about the belief in their innocence leads me in this direction too. It sounds like TH is trying to make JMB sound guilty.

I also believe that the WMPD could get a confession from the real killer(s) on a nationally broadcast TV interview and would do nothing about it. If they try and convict anyone else in these murders they'll open themselves up to lawsuits by the WM3. Anything they are doing now is purely for show.




I think it's possible they all drowned in the ditch when he put them there. The animal atrocities occurred then too.



Respectfully snipped.

I think the forensic pathologist was told they knew who did it and gave him information to lead him into his conclusion. As I stated before, I think the evidence was made to fit the suspects.

Click to expand...

This is in regards to the "rebar" pattern and more or less a question to CR... Is it true that the "rebar" patterns, if thats what they are, would have come from a piece of rebar 3/8" thick? If so I'm pretty positive they didn't come from rebar used in a manhole, that would just be much too small.

RTC said:

spent alot of time reading and have a few thoughts'
IMO Chris did not hook up with the other two boys until approx 6:30. The last sighting of the boys at RHW is inaccurate. S& M were playing near the entrance of the woods earlier in eve but left and rode back down towards Moore house. encountered Chris and rode towards mayfair apts? Stevie house Spotted by DJ and neighbor.

i dont believe the animal pred theory. I think the boyswere sexually mutilated. the key is only SB and CB. CB was castrated and skinned and SB had lacerations onhis penis. MM nothing. two pairs of udwr was missing. Someone was molesting CB, the bacteria, previous scars is too coincidental.

DJ statements are bunk. He says he seesthe boys at 5pm when TH arrived but that is impossible because CB wasnt with them at that time. after he says he saw them,he says he asked TH where SB is?WTH? he just saw him what would make anyone thing SB was missing?

DJ is key, either he is involved or he is covering. Maybe CB was mutilated the worst is because he had acrush on Amanda? or maybe it wasnt a crush as much as a protective side.

I think WMPD should immed go to the houses where TH and DJ lived at the times of the murder and look for old blood evidence. No way those kids killed in woods if you believe that turtles didnt bite of all CB genitals. if SN lived near, her house should also be looked at. as well as cars.

sorry my post is so retarded, but everytime I make a correction the keyboard eats my letters!!

Click to expand...

I totally agree with your post.IMO the murder took place at the Hobbs residence.IMO two of the boys were unconscious and Chris was already dead.I think they were kept maybe in Hobbs trunk or another location until he moved them to the Robin Hill Woods when he noticed no one was searching.He moved them in the area where they were last seen and where Pam had that horrible feeling.I do think they were tortured as part of a sadistic punishment.I do think Chris crush on Amanda could have been a motive for even more horrible things that were done to him....

I Must Break You said:

This is in regards to the "rebar" pattern and more or less a question to CR... Is it true that the "rebar" patterns, if thats what they are, would have come from a piece of rebar 3/8" thick? If so I'm pretty positive they didn't come from rebar used in a manhole, that would just be much too small.

Click to expand...

According to "Paid's" research (someone actually went to West Memphis and took pictures of manholes), it was 1/2 inch rebar. Check out the evidence:

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=2386.0

The pants! I finally found a discussion about the pants:

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=3228.0

Basically, Michael's blue scout pants were found inside out, zippered and buttoned. Chris' blue jeans were found inside out, zippered and buttoned. Both pair of pants were dirty. Stevie's blue jeans were found right side out, unzipped and unbuttoned. They were relatively clean.

Sorry it took so long, but the boards have been so active since the release that it's been hard to keep up!

Thank you so much, CR! This makes sense with your theory. Clean pants unzippered and unbuttoned would corroborate TH trying to pull the pants on a dead or dying child, then giving up and dragging the pants off the other 2. Thank you again.

May I ask another question? I was reading the luminol tests last night and the experts who applied and "read" the luminol said that spot #5 was probably where the crime was committed. Judging by the pictures, that could be possible. That leads me to believe that the crime was committed there instead of a manhole or somewhere else. Where does that fit into your theory?

Ok - 2 more questions : What you and the supporters are calling "road rash", is that what Peretti is calling possible scratches or wounds from a limb or stick? Or is there other wounds "road rash" that was just glossed over in the trial and never spoken about?

SheBoss said:

Thank you so much, CR! This makes sense with your theory. Clean pants unzippered and unbuttoned would corroborate TH trying to pull the pants on a dead or dying child, then giving up and dragging the pants off the other 2. Thank you again.

May I ask another question? I was reading the luminol tests last night and the experts who applied and "read" the luminol said that spot #5 was probably where the crime was committed. Judging by the pictures, that could be possible. That leads me to believe that the crime was committed there instead of a manhole or somewhere else. Where does that fit into your theory?

Ok - 2 more questions : What you and the supporters are calling "road rash", is that what Peretti is calling possible scratches or wounds from a limb or stick? Or is there other wounds "road rash" that was just glossed over in the trial and never spoken about?

Click to expand...

Any "evidence" found by the cops is very suspect to me. I think some of it was "created" to make them look guilty. JMO

Steely Dan said:

Any "evidence" found by the cops is very suspect to me. I think some of it was "created" to make them look guilty. JMO

Click to expand...

Considering the autopsy report stated (I think) that Byers died by bleeding out and not drowning, I would think the luminol would show a HUGE patch of blood. We carry a lot of blood in our bodies.

That's still my lynch pin for their innocence and why I'm still on the fence. I'm still trying to figure out how 3 drunk teenagers can beat, slice, carve, and kill 3 little boys (ok, they carved 1 boy, the others were just beat and drowned, I get that) and there be NO blood at the scene. 3 drunk teens can clean up the crime scene that well and in fading light? It makes no sense to me.

Steely - you are too funny!

I am glad that these men are out of prison. No true evidence they committed this crime & I believe time is coming for those/he who did! Hooray for DNA

SheBoss said:

Thank you so much, CR! This makes sense with your theory. Clean pants unzippered and unbuttoned would corroborate TH trying to pull the pants on a dead or dying child, then giving up and dragging the pants off the other 2. Thank you again.

May I ask another question? I was reading the luminol tests last night and the experts who applied and "read" the luminol said that spot #5 was probably where the crime was committed. Judging by the pictures, that could be possible. That leads me to believe that the crime was committed there instead of a manhole or somewhere else. Where does that fit into your theory?

Ok - 2 more questions : What you and the supporters are calling "road rash", is that what Peretti is calling possible scratches or wounds from a limb or stick? Or is there other wounds "road rash" that was just glossed over in the trial and never spoken about?

Click to expand...

I think Stevie was probably made to take off his own pants. I agree the crime was done nearby where the bodies were found because I just can't see someone risking going into those woods with bodies knowing people were around looking for the boys. Way to risky. The luminol patterns are also pretty convincing.

Livvy said:

I think Stevie was probably made to take off his own pants. I agree the crime was done nearby where the bodies were found because I just can't see someone risking going into those woods with bodies knowing people were around looking for the boys. Way to risky. The luminol patterns are also pretty convincing.

Click to expand...

I can only say one thing "HALLELUJUA" to the WM3 getting out and now we have to have to hold accountable the true killer of these horrifying crimes committed against Christopher, Michael & Stevie......... JH, you should be on the watch list of the WMPD, however, we all know you are not.... That should be scary enough (like any horror movie all kids watch) to make your skin crawn that a murderer lurks free in your community....... Anyhow, enough of my rambling, glad to see everyone is onboard with Damien, Jessie & Jason are completely innocent of these crimes and please sign the petition to EXONERATE them all at the BB site...... Take Care All & Keep Your Babies SAFE!! Ann :woohoo: :twocents:

The problem with the Luminol testing is that, to be certain that the Luminol was reacting to blood, an additional test should have been done. It wasn't. Luminol will react to other agents beside blood. I don't remember off the top of my head what, but there are other things that react positively with Luminol. It's just another example of the horrible investigative job the WMPD did in this case. However, if the spots are blood, it could have been from when the bodies were carried from the manhole to the ditch.

Yes, the scrapes and scratches could have been caused when the bodies were removed from the manhole.

A word about the post-conviction statements: they were made right after Jessie's trial. Any accurate statements in them could have easily been garnered from the trial, or have been fed to Jessie by LE. The statements were made because LE wanted Jessie to testify against Damien and Jason. They interrogated him frequently (although they denied it, he told Stidham that they did) and IMO fed him information or rather rehearsed the story with him repeatedly so he could get it straight. However, it must be noted that even these post-conviction statements fail to stand up to the evidence of today, and even to some extent to the evidence in 1993.

Compassionate Reader said:

The problem with the Luminol testing is that, to be certain that the Luminol was reacting to blood, an additional test should have been done. It wasn't.

Click to expand...

(Bolded and respectfully snipped by me)

This highlights one of the many reasons I don't share theories here. We are all trying to bring logic and critical thinking to a problem in which many of the components are (now) unknowable. It's interesting to read other people's theories on what might have happened, but unless we can find a way to hop in a time machine and go back and investigate the evidence as it existed in 1993, a theory will simply be that...a theory.

People can try to build a case against Terry Hobbs or Mark Byers or Bojangles (etc. etc.) until the cows come home, but in the end, it really means nothing because the evidence simply is not there. A hair consistent with Hobbs in a shoelace knot? Okay. Does that prove Hobbs killed these boys? No, it doesn't. Bojangles wanders into a fast food joint covered in blood and mud. Okay. Does that prove he murdered these boys? No, it doesn't. Had any of these incidents been investigated properly 18 years ago, we'd be standing in a very different place right now. But we aren't, so all these theories, imo, are like bodily orifices...everyone has at least one. And usually more than one.

Compassionate Reader said:

The problem with the Luminol testing is that, to be certain that the Luminol was reacting to blood, an additional test should have been done. It wasn't. Luminol will react to other agents beside blood. I don't remember off the top of my head what, but there are other things that react positively with Luminol. It's just another example of the horrible investigative job the WMPD did in this case. However, if the spots are blood, it could have been from when the bodies were carried from the manhole to the ditch.

Yes, the scrapes and scratches could have been caused when the bodies were removed from the manhole.

A word about the post-conviction statements: they were made right after Jessie's trial. Any accurate statements in them could have easily been garnered from the trial, or have been fed to Jessie by LE. The statements were made because LE wanted Jessie to testify against Damien and Jason. They interrogated him frequently (although they denied it, he told Stidham that they did) and IMO fed him information or rather rehearsed the story with him repeatedly so he could get it straight. However, it must be noted that even these post-conviction statements fail to stand up to the evidence of today, and even to some extent to the evidence in 1993.

Click to expand...

I looked this up just so we'd know:

"Although Luminol is advantageous, it also has several disadvantages. Blood is not the only substance that triggers Luminol. Copper, bleach, horseradish, urine, fecal matter, and animal blood can all distort investigations that involve Luminol because they cause the Luminol to glow everywhere that these substances are located. Also, luminol prevents other tests from being performed on the substance that has been sprayed with it, although DNA can still be safely extracted for further tests."

This comes from here:
http://www.tech-faq.com/luminol.html

Urine would be very possible in an area where transients were found on occasion. I thought I had read about another test they should have performed on the areas where blood was suspected, but what you've posted seems to indicate that other testing would have been impossible. Makes one wonder why use Luminol at all.

The fibers from the boys clothes will be tested better at some point I hope

Silkprint said:

The fibers from the boys clothes will be tested better at some point I hope

Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the additional testing of the fibers is part of the still-uncompleted (or at least unreported) testing being conducted by the defense at the present time. I simply don't know when the results will be made public, but I believe that they will be made public, probably when the defense presents their total package of additional evidence/information to Scott Ellington. Then, if he is a man of his word, he will reopen the investigation and finally true justice will be served. At least that's my hope and prayer for this case.

SheBoss said:

Considering the autopsy report stated (I think) that Byers died by bleeding out and not drowning, I would think the luminol would show a HUGE patch of blood. We carry a lot of blood in our bodies.

That's still my lynch pin for their innocence and why I'm still on the fence. I'm still trying to figure out how 3 drunk teenagers can beat, slice, carve, and kill 3 little boys (ok, they carved 1 boy, the others were just beat and drowned, I get that) and there be NO blood at the scene. 3 drunk teens can clean up the crime scene that well and in fading light? It makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

Read Blink on Crime's discussion West Memphis Part II Guilty-by-Plea:

In 1993 under Arkansas law, Luminol testing was considered new, novel, and not accepted as scientific evidence. There was actually a huge amount of blood found at the murder site.

Pensfan said:

Read Blink on Crime's discussion West Memphis Part II Guilty-by-Plea:

In 1993 under Arkansas law, Luminol testing was considered new, novel, and not accepted as scientific evidence. There was actually a huge amount of blood found at the murder site.

Click to expand...

No, that's a very misleading statement. According to Kermit Channell...

There were no visible signs or
indication of blood at any of the locations that we investigated.

Click to expand...

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_dsmith.html

There were many different sites which tested positive with luminol, but luminol tests positive for other things than blood. More sophisticated tests are needed to distinguish between blood and all the other things which show up with luminol, but those tests were never carried out. In short, the luminol tests were inconclusive.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol.html

When a luminol solution is sprayed on surfaces, it reacts with metal ions, such as iron, which are stored and transported by hemoglobin cells (red blood cells). Very discrete iron concentrations on a surface, such as 1 part per million, are enough to catalyze luminol's chemi-luminescence (react and cause a glow). However, luminol sensitivity is not blood-specific, and the compound also reacts with other substances, such as saliva, rust, potassium permanganate, animal proteins, vegetable enzymes, and other organic fluids and tissues. Therefore, luminol tests are not conclusive for blood and cannot be admitted for evidence in court.

Click to expand...

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/luminol