Random things about this case...

[Compassionate Reader]

DC,

I believe that most people feel that the "fourth" boy was a red herring. He was only supposedly seen by one witness. All other witnesses saw only three. IMO, the one witness either was mistaken or the extra boy seen was not with Stevie, Michael and Chris except maybe momentarily. Some people have tried to suggest that this was Aaron Hutcheson. However, since his statements were so wild as to not be useable by the prosecution, I seriously doubt that this mysterious "fourth" was AH.

 

[Cappuccino]

Wasn't there a girl who accompanied them to the edge of the woods? I forget the details but I'm sure I've read that somewhere. If this girl was wearing jeans, as many girls do, she could easily have been mistaken from a distance for a fourth boy.

 

[iluvmua]

Here is the Non Supporter site: http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax/board/index.php?PHPSESSID=edd2f0d3ee03ddf0fa31a910ca9cd8

 

[DIXIECAT]

Okay, I'm still reading trial transcripts....

On and off the fence numerous times all day yesterday I was thinking that TH was responsible, especially after I saw the rebar photos. Then, I read the "knot" evidence which added to the "DE, JB, JM did it" theory, due to the various differences between "sides" of the victims being tied differently....
Then there's the "no blood at the scene" evidence--- but, didn't luminol show that there WAS blood at the scene? Anyway, could the WM3 have committed the crimes in the manholes and then transported the bodies to the ditch??? Hmmmm-mmm???:banghead::banghead::banghead::fence:

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The "knot evidence" as presented by the prosecution is a bit misleading. All the knots were either half-hitches or a series of half-hitches. They were not special or in some way unique knots as the prosecution tried to make them out to be.

The Luminol showed reactions where LE laid the bodies after recovery and at two places along the trail to the discovery ditch (which could have happened while the bodies were being carried from the manhole to the discovery ditch. Also, Luminol is not 100% accurate for blood. There are other agents that can react with Luminol. That is why the Luminol test is supposed to be followed up by a more accurate test for blood. (I forget what it's called.) Since the WMPD did not perform the more accurate test, the Luminol evidence is really unreliable and was therefore not admitted at trial.

As to the WM3 committing the murders in a manhole and then moving the bodies, I see two major problems with that theory:

1) I doubt that the space in the manhole would be large enough for three teenagers and three little boys. However, one adult and three little boys could fit nicely.

2) The teenagers would have no way of knowing that the little boys were in the manhole. However, TH knew that the boys played in manholes pretending to be Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Obviously, also, Jessie made no mention of the manholes, and, if his statements are to be believed, then why didn't he mention the manholes? IMO, that would be a pretty glaring omission, wouldn't you think?

 

[DIXIECAT]

Okay, I need for some things to be explained for me.... These are related to factual, visible, evidence and please take into consideration that I AM STILL ON THE FENCE:


~ REBAR MARKS and concrete scrapings on at least one of the victims

~ BLOOD DROPS on Damien's "pendant" consistent with one or more of the victims

~ the CASTRATION and "DEGLOVING" of the penis of the Byers child (this appears to be "surgically" accomplished, and NOT "animal predation," especially when you consider the stab type wounds surrounding the area of the penis). In that the Byers child is the only one with these specific sexual mutiliation wounds, and they are of human origin, and JMB has been ruled out as the perp... then, why would TH (who is being blamed by some) sexually mutilate ANOTHER MAN'S CHILD? On the other hand, if WM3 are the perps, then they could have simply randomly chosen one of the boys to mutilate in this fashion... just sayin.'
JMHO

 

[Cappuccino]

I don't know about the rebar thing.

There were two blood drops on Damien's pendant, one consistent with his own blood, one consistent with Jason Baldwin, (who often wore it), and victim Stevie Branch. The blood was only ever tested for blood group, not DNA.

Whose word are you taking for the "surgical precision" nature of the wound to Christopher Byers? There are six different board certified forensic pathologists who have independently concluded that Christopher's genital wound was caused by post mortem animal predation, (seven if you count Spitz, which I don't). I'm not qualified to argue with them, and nor apparently is Dr. Perretti, seeing as the prosecution didn't even trust him to get the time of death right.

 

[DIXIECAT]

I don't know about the rebar thing.There were two blood drops on Damien's pendant, one consistent with his own blood, one consistent with Jason Baldwin, (who often wore it), and victim Stevie Branch. The blood was only ever tested for blood group, not DNA.

Whose word are you taking for the "surgical precision" nature of the wound to Christopher Byers? There are six different board certified forensic pathologists who have independently concluded that Christopher's genital wound was caused by post mortem animal predation, (seven if you count Spitz, which I don't). I'm not qualified to argue with them, and nor apparently is Dr. Perretti, seeing as the prosecution didn't even trust him to get the time of death right.

BBM
For pics of the REBAR and concrete scrapings, go to
WM3 Blackboard -- Comprehensive support the Manhole Theory

Why weren't the other boys chewed on by animals? Or, were they? Anyway, "experts" can be wrong, wrong, wrong.... :twocents:

 

[Compassionate Reader]

DC,

I realize that experts can be wrong, but we have to use expert testimony for things we don't understand, like the cause of the wounds to the boys. So, given that we have to use experts, to me what is of paramount importance is the credibility of the expert. When we have several certified forensic pathologists agreeing that the wounds to the boys were caused by animal predation, I tend to agree with the finding. The experts may have disagreed about some particulars, but they were united in their belief that the wounds were caused by animals, not knives. Peretti, the WM medical examiner, has failed to pass his certification test on several different occasions, making his testimony, IMO, less credible than the others.

The State had indicated prior to the Rule 37 hearing for Jason and Jessie that they intended to put on an expert witness to refute the animal predation findings of the defense experts. They did not. Maybe they will find such a witness for the December hearing, but without contradicting testimony, I will continue to accept the opinion of several certified forensic pathologists over the opinion of the medical examiner who is not certified.

To me, the Manhole Theory explains the rebar marks and the road rash type injuries. To my knowledge, no one has found a location other than the manholes where that type of rebar was present in '93. BTW, the most suspect manhole was recently given a facelift making it impossible to compare the scrape marks to the concrete exterior of the manhole. The other manholes in the area were untouched, and the one repaired was not totally repaired. A large chunk of missing concrete, near the rim IIRC, was not repaired, only the surface which could have caused the scrape marks had new concrete applied and the exterior surface smoothed out. It does make me wonder why.

Peretti was the one who declared that the "degloving" injury was done with surgical precision. The gouge marks around Chris' genital area have not been linked to any of the knives in the case, and the certified forensic pathologists have indicated that the "degloving" was a result of animal predation, the gouge marks being caused by the animal's teeth. Therefore, again I don't trust Peretti's opinion about the injury.

As to why animals didn't predate equally on all boys, Michael's body seemed to be the least affected by the predation, and, if you remember, his body was found a little way away from the other two. My guess, and it is just a guess, as to why Chris' body was degloved is that his genitals were floating in the water in such as way as to be enticing to the predators. Stevie's body did have scratches on the shoulder IIRC that appear to be possibly caused by the claws of some animal like a raccoon or an opossum. Also,the apparent bite mark on Stevie's forehead is most likely the result of animal predation IMO.

My theory is this: The animals (maybe just one animal) found Chris' body first. They degloved his penis and made some of the other superficial injuries with claws and teeth. They moved on to Stevie's body and began to bite on the forehead, but something happened to frighten them away. There may be another explanation, but I haven't heard one.

As you have recently watched the two documentaries, I am sure that you are aware that they both pointed the finger of suspicion at Mark Byers. His son was the most severely injured. The supposed "precision" of the injury to his penis could have been done by someone with a jeweler's background as Mark had. There was the whole issue of the Kershaw knife, too. Plus, when the injury to Stevie's forehead was suspected to be a bite mark, the fact that he had had his teeth removed was considered suspect.

However, the DNA information released in 2006 and the testimony from the Rule 37 hearing should make the thinking person discard these initial suspicions of Mark and look elsewhere. With the expert testimony that attributes the genital injuries to animal predation, we need to look at the injuries differently. One of the injuries on Stevie's penis, for instance, was consistent with something being used to bind the penis, and this injury could have occurred much earlier than the time of the attack.

In all of your reading, please be sure to read the Pasdar depositions and/or declarations from Mildred French, David Jacoby, Terry Hobbs and members of the Hicks family. Consider Terry's actions after the death (leaving Pam about two weeks later because she couldn't "just get over" Stevie's death [when many believe that the real reason he left was to avoid police interrogation], injuring his brother-in-law, Jackie Hicks, Jr. [who years later died as a result of complications from the gunshot wound], quitting his job because he couldn't stand the sympathy of his co-workers to highlight some of his more suspicious actions). Consider the DNA results revealed in 2006. I believe that, if you do all that, you will not suspect Mark Byers at all.

Most importantly, the evidentiary hearing is coming in December. There is a petition on Facebook requesting that electronic media be allowed into the courtroom. (Judge Laser has ruled that no electronic media will be allowed.) If you feel so inclined, sign the petition. (Here's a link: http://www.change.org/petitions/allow-electronic-media-into-the-courtroom-for-wm3-hearing .) If electronic media is allowed, you can follow the hearing that way. If electronic media is not allowed, the Blackboard site (and many others, I have no doubt) will provide daily updates of the proceedings. I am confident that much more information will be presented at the hearing that will identify the real killer of the three little boys, and that killer won't be the WM3.

 

[Cappuccino]

Why weren't the other boys chewed on by animals? Or, were they? Anyway, "experts" can be wrong, wrong, wrong..

I only have a few things to add to CR's response to this.

1) If the degloving of Christopher was done with surgical precision, three drunken teenagers are unlikely suspects. Unless its three drunken Doogie Howsers.

2) There were searchers all over the woods that night. The presence of people walking around, talking, making noise, carrying flashlights etc, tends to scare wildlife away. Critters predating on one body more than the other two is perfectly believable if they were scared off mid way through their predation activities.

3) If you're going to disbelieve all the forensic pathologist evidence on the grounds that experts can be wrong, why do you believe Perretti? He could be wrong too. Besides, time of death is a fairly basic thing for a medical examiner to get right, and the prosecution didn't trust him to get it right, (even though he was their witness). They called in another expert to contradict his evidence. Distinguishing between the stabbing wounds of a knife tip and the stabbing wounds of canine teeth tips is a more complex process. If the prosecutors didn't trust Perretti on the basics, why should I trust him on the difficult stuff?

 

[DIXIECAT]

I only have a few things to add to CR's response to this.

1) If the degloving of Christopher was done with surgical precision, three drunken teenagers are unlikely suspects. Unless its three drunken Doogie Howsers.

2) There were searchers all over the woods that night. The presence of people walking around, talking, making noise, carrying flashlights etc, tends to scare wildlife away. Critters predating on one body more than the other two is perfectly believable if they were scared off mid way through their predation activities.

3) If you're going to disbelieve all the forensic pathologist evidence on the grounds that experts can be wrong, why do you believe Perretti? He could be wrong too. Besides, time of death is a fairly basic thing for a medical examiner to get right, and the prosecution didn't trust him to get it right, (even though he was their witness). They called in another expert to contradict his evidence. Distinguishing between the stabbing wounds of a knife tip and the stabbing wounds of canine teeth tips is a more complex process. If the prosecutors didn't trust Perretti on the basics, why should I trust him on the difficult stuff?

I don't "disbelieve" all the experts. I'm thinking that the "animal predation" on the genitals could have been accomplished by a member of the human species.

 

[Cappuccino]

Like I said, the forensic pathologists disagree with you. Personally, I'm not qualified to argue with them, and no offense but I doubt you are either.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Like Cappuccino said, I'm sorry, but, unless you are a certified forensic pathologist, I'm afraid I'll have to take the words of the experts.

If the genital injury on Christopher was accomplished by a human, are you implying that the human bit off the genitals? If the genitals were removed by a human by using a knife or other sharp object, why was the shaft of the penis still intact? Also, if the penis was removed by a human, where is it? An animal would have eaten it, but a human would have discarded it (or kept it as a trophy). To my knowledge, the penis has not been found.

This is really gross, and I apologize in advance, but consider this: An animal (most probably an alligator snapping turtle) clamps down on the penis. The animal wouldn't really want to bite through the shaft, just suck off the meat (like how you eat a barbeque rib). The shaft (like the rib bone) remains, but the succulent tissue is removed.

 

[DIXIECAT]

Like Cappuccino said, I'm sorry, but, unless you are a certified forensic pathologist, I'm afraid I'll have to take the words of the experts.

If the genital injury on Christopher was accomplished by a human, are you implying that the human bit off the genitals? If the genitals were removed by a human by using a knife or other sharp object, why was the shaft of the penis still intact? Also, if the penis was removed by a human, where is it? An animal would have eaten it, but a human would have discarded it (or kept it as a trophy). To my knowledge, the penis has not been found.

This is really gross, and I apologize in advance, but consider this: An animal (most probably an alligator snapping turtle) clamps down on the penis. The animal wouldn't really want to bite through the shaft, just suck off the meat (like how you eat a barbeque rib). The shaft (like the rib bone) remains, but the succulent tissue is removed.

Y'all need to go back and read some of the "satanist" literature that was discovered. WSers are not an actual jury, confined to "admissable statements." We can read all info that's "out there," in order to come to a conclusion.
Frankly, TH is lookin' pretty suspicious in my mind right now (the laundry, the pocket knife, the gun, the search timeline story where he's all over the place.)

BTW, I was referring to the possibility that a human could have bitten or chewed the penis off... that's still in the realm of "animal predation," as is the idea of consuming same. Oh, and I am a retired RN who worked in SURGERY FOR OVER SEVEN YEARS, so I have some expertise in "surgical precision." However, I never said a "surgeon" or surgeon like person did the removal-- I meant surgical as in a "surgical" bombing or air strike, targeted at a specific area.
Sorry if I sound snarky, but I'm not comfortable yet with throwing out the possibility that the WM3 are the perps.
MOO
:truce:
I just now read the new DNA findings! So, now I've got most of my two feet on the "TH DID IT side of the fence...." I'm flexible like that.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

DC,

You didn't sound snarky to me. You just sounded inquisitive, and knowing that you're a retired RN helps me realize why! Please keep reading and try to follow the evidentiary hearing in December, either online (if possible) or through the boards.

BTW, in case you didn't already read it somewhere, I'm a retired teacher. Isn't retirement fun? I love that my time is actually my own!

 

[justthinkin]

Like I said, the forensic pathologists disagree with you. Personally, I'm not qualified to argue with them, and no offense but I doubt you are either.

:floorlaugh:
Anyone is qualified to argue with a forensic pathologist who would sell his soul for peanuts, and suggested a big dog bashed the kids heads against a rock or tree trunk or shook them or whatever other useless carp he used in his joke of an analysis of the crime.

 

[Cappuccino]

You should really read the thread a bit more carefully before you jump in Justthinkin, I'd already specifically excluded Werner Spitz from the pathologists I was referring to.

BTW, I was referring to the possibility that a human could have bitten or chewed the penis off... that's still in the realm of "animal predation," as is the idea of consuming same.

I suppose it is, in the sense that "anything's possible." I don't think its very probable though. I also think common sense dictates that if three bodies are left out in the open overnight, especially with no clothes on, there is a likelihood of animal marks by the time they're found. Perretti seems to try and explain every mark on them by human agency. In fairness to him though, he's far from the first ME to make that mistake.

Incidentally, a human biting off the penis would make nonsense of Jessie's confessions and Michael Carson's evidence just as surely as animal predation does. That's not what Carson and Miskelley said happened.

 

[DIXIECAT]

You should really read the thread a bit more carefully before you jump in Justthinkin, I'd already specifically excluded Werner Spitz from the pathologists I was referring to.



I suppose it is, in the sense that "anything's possible." I don't think its very probable though. I also think common sense dictates that if three bodies are left out in the open overnight, especially with no clothes on, there is a likelihood of animal marks by the time they're found. Perretti seems to try and explain every mark on them by human agency. In fairness to him though, he's far from the first ME to make that mistake.

Incidentally, a human biting off the penis would make nonsense of Jessie's confessions and Michael Carson's evidence just as surely as animal predation does. That's not what Carson and Miskelley said happened.

BBM
True, but that's what some of the folks, who practice and/or are familiar with satanic worship, describe as sometimes occurring in their rituals-- regarding the "power" of male genetalia and blood in general....

Anyway, I'm thining the WM3 are looking less and less guilty because of the recent DNA evidence that has excluded them. :twocents::twocents::twocents:

 

[Cappuccino]

I've heard a lot of Christian evangelicals describe such things occurring in Satanic rituals, and a lot of fakes and fraudsters like Ted Gunderson, Mike Warmke and Dale Griffis say the same. I've never heard an actual Satanist, nor any real expert on Occult and other minority religions, say any such thing.

There's no evidence that this crime was anything to do with a Satanic ritual anyway, nor that the wm3 were Satanists. Two of the three were Christians and one was a Wiccan.

Anyway, I'm thining the WM3 are looking less and less guilty because of the recent DNA evidence that has excluded them

I agree. DNA and other scientific evidence is the way forward here, not rumours, innaccurate confessions and Satanic Panic. Mind you, I'm sure I don't need to tell a retired surgical nurse that. You would have more experience of both science and human nature than I would.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Just a word about Dr. Spitz. He is of advancing years, and I don't particularly agree with him about the dogs. However, that is a very remote possibility. What makes me doubt it is that I would think that a dog would have grabbed the boys by the head and there would have been canine teeth marks on the temples.

But, if a dog grabbed the boys by a pants leg and slung them around, it is a possibility that the skull fractures were caused that way. Like I said, I don't believe that's how it happened. I believe that the skull fractures were caused when the boys fell (or were thrown) from the ladder inside the manhole. However, despite his recent testimony in the CA trial, I still have to respect Dr. Spitz. His textbook is still considered one of the leading authorities in forensic pathology. Like I mentioned at the first, he's just getting old.

One more thing, since this thread is called "Random things about this case," here's an idea that I had early on in my thought process (after the rebar marks were discovered) that I've been thinking about a lot again since the CA trial. This would exonerate the WM3 and TH. What if the boys fell off the ladder in the manhole with no one around? TH found them and was afraid that he would be blamed. When the bodies weren't found during the original searching, he moved them to the drainage ditch where he thought they'd be more likely to be found.

TH wasn't that fond of Stevie, and many of Pam's family members have reported that he abused and resented the boy. As a result of those accusations, he may have been reluctant to come forward about the deaths. I know this is pretty far fetched, but if CA can let her own daughter be "missing" for a month without telling the truth, isn't this at least a possibility?