West of Memphis

[reedus23]

I'm always happy to adopt the conclusions of those who substantiate them. I'm just not one espouse opinions on faith, regardless of the standing of those pronouncing them. Besides, there's plenty of others here who selectively disregard the expert proclamations of animal predation being responsible for all the wounds, those who embrace claims of Hobbs beating the boys to death and his dentures being consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead for example.


Gheckso claimed the issue I demonstrated regarding the notion that the wounds are constant with a human bite mark has already been demonstrated incorrect, so what are you suggesting should "play itself out" other than such a demonstration being presented here to prove as much?

Personally, I weigh all of the experts' opinions. When I first read Peretti, I thought of a weasel. I can't remember his name, but the expert early on for the defendants that claimed to be some sort of profiler, I though was a wannabe or a clown. The occult expert for the prosecution...enough said.

 

[kyleb]

You're not really weighing anyone's opinions there, just expressing your impressions of indivduals. Besides, I agree with your characterizations of Peretti and Griffis, and might do the same regarding the other person as well if I knew who you were alluding to. But again, I don't rightly care about whose opinions are whose, regardless of credentials or character. My interest is in what is evidenced, and that is where the claims of animal predation fall short, as do those of human bite marks among many other examples in this case.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Around and around we go, and where it stops, nobody knows!

The purpose of the "experts" is to help the lay people of the jury interpret the evidence. That's why the credentials of the experts are important.

 

[kyleb]

The purpose of the "experts" is to help the lay people of the jury interpret the evidence.

BBM

And again, that's where the experts claiming animal predation fall short, they've not offered the evidence along with assistance interpreting it to substantiate their conclusions, but rather vague assertions regarding what little of the wounds they have shown and the many they haven't. Besides, you reject their opinions to a large extent yourself with your notions of Hobbs beating the boys to death and his dentures having produced a bite mark, while the experts you defend proclaimed all three boys had simply been drowned to death and all the wounds are the result of postmortem animal predation.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The experts have, IMO, offered sufficient information to establish the animal predation. These experts have stated their opinions based on years of experience with cases where animal predation is involved. As I have plainly stated, all the experts don't agree on every aspect, but they all agree that postmortem animal predation was involved to some extent. That opinion does not, in any way, interfere with my theory on the crime. Neither I nor the experts claim that the animal predation was the COD as it was postmortem. I don't think that the experts believe the boys "simply drowned to death" but that the boys were placed in water while unconscious and inhaled sufficient water to drown. Then, animals predated upon them after they had died. IMO, that's not a simple drowning death at all, and I don't believe I've ever said that it was.

 

[kyleb]

It was Spitz at Echols' 2007 press conference who explicitly stated "None of the injuries were caused during life" before going on to make vague claims of animal predation, and Souviron followed suggesting only animal predation as well. Then later in the Q&A section Spitz clarified "I think they all drowned." So yeah, while you've suggested the boys were beaten and bitten before death, the experts you defend have contended otherwise. As for your claim of "sufficient information to establish the animal predation", what information are you alluding to regarding which wounds specifically?

 

[missy_g]

Do you mean bitten as on bitten by a human or animals?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The experts have, IMO, offered sufficient information to establish the animal predation. These experts have stated their opinions based on years of experience with cases where animal predation is involved. As I have plainly stated, all the experts don't agree on every aspect, but they all agree that postmortem animal predation was involved to some extent. That opinion does not, in any way, interfere with my theory on the crime. Neither I nor the experts claim that the animal predation was the COD as it was postmortem. I don't think that the experts believe the boys "simply drowned to death" but that the boys were placed in water while unconscious and inhaled sufficient water to drown. Then, animals predated upon them after they had died. IMO, that's not a simple drowning death at all, and I don't believe I've ever said that it was.

They were out there over night. Under the water where it would be normal to expect Animals and such to feed.

They were not left out there long and were quickly.

I think there is plenty that supports the animal bites.

I think it is the most likely scenario.

Anything else has to be imagined.

 

[reedus23]

You're not really weighing anyone's opinions there, just expressing your impressions of indivduals. Besides, I agree with your characterizations of Peretti and Griffis, and might do the same regarding the other person as well if I knew who you were alluding to. But again, I don't rightly care about whose opinions are whose, regardless of credentials or character. My interest is in what is evidenced, and that is where the claims of animal predation fall short, as do those of human bite marks among many other examples in this case.

Brent Turvey was the other one. Color me not impressed. And I did weigh their opinions and the impressions I gave of each should give some indication of how much weight I gave each. And that is based off of the facts, their credentials and their character among other things.

 

[reedus23]

They were out there over night. Under the water where it would be normal to expect Animals and such to feed.

They were not left out there long and were quickly.

I think there is plenty that supports the animal bites.

I think it is the most likely scenario.

Anything else has to be imagined.

One of the main things I take from both Spitz and Souviron is that they don't believe the injuries were caused by a knife, such as the DA suggested with his grapefruit.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

One of the main things I take from both Spitz and Souviron is that they don't believe the injuries were caused by a knife, such as the DA suggested with his grapefruit.

Exactly.

 

[kyleb]

Do you mean bitten as on bitten by a human or animals?

Human, specifically the notion that these wounds Stevie Branch's forehead are a bite mark from Terry Hobbs.

I think there is plenty that supports the animal bites.

Where exactly can one find this "plenty" which you allude to?

One of the main things I take from both Spitz and Souviron is that they don't believe the injuries were caused by a knife, such as the DA suggested with his grapefruit.

Yet to rightly determine whose conclusions are correct in that matter one would first have to actually examine the specific wounds which the jurors were asked to compare with the marks inflicted on the grapefruit. Besides, when it comes to the scrape marks which the experts claiming animal predation actually have shown autopsy photos of, many reject those conclusions to espouse notions of road rash from a manhole entrance instead. So it's not like I'm the only one rejecting the much touted expert opinions here by any stretch, just the only one presenting the evidence on which my conclusions are based.

 

[Miranda!]

One of the main things I take from both Spitz and Souviron is that they don't believe the injuries were caused by a knife, such as the DA suggested with his grapefruit.

Well said.

What irritates the hell out of me is that so many people who debate this case to and fro ad infinitum seem unable to grasp the simple fact that various explanations for various wounds are not all mutually exclusive! Animal predation can easily occur in a region that has already been 'damaged' in some other way.

Both drag mark scratches and scrapes could easily also have animal predation wounds in the same area. One set of wounds, attributed to either 'knife' scrape marks; claw marks; or road rash type marks,have all been debated over the years. I was one of the lucky ones able to see the computer enhanced images of these alleged wounds along side, similarly enhanced, close ups of uneven concrete. NO claims were made that the concrete was THE source, merely that concrete was a very possible source. Even a very probable source. I know of no animal that has digits or claws of all the same length. I am more than willing to learn that such an animal exists, but would like to see photo of said breed of animal along with verifiable foot / paw prints. I am not sure of the correct terminology for the (presumably) 'webbed feet' of snapping turtles, of which ever size.

Another point. There was only one part of 'partials', the upper jaw. I somehow think that no dislocation of jaw would occur were a grown adult, or even a teen, bite an 8 year old's eyebrow!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It was Spitz at Echols' 2007 press conference who explicitly stated "None of the injuries were caused during life" before going on to make vague claims of animal predation, and Souviron followed suggesting only animal predation as well. Then later in the Q&A section Spitz clarified "I think they all drowned." So yeah, while you've suggested the boys were beaten and bitten before death, the experts you defend have contended otherwise. As for your claim of "sufficient information to establish the animal predation", what information are you alluding to regarding which wounds specifically?

First, I didn't say the animal predation occurred before death, as was stated above. (see BBM portion). Second, if one reads Spitz's sworn testimony in the Rule 37 hearing instead of taking one phrase out of context from a press conference, one finds the following information:

Looking at the area in the back of Mr. Branch’s head near the spinal column, I do see evidence of some degree of force, some kind of solid object that caused a bruise. The abrasion that covers the area is irregular, and it is rough. It is not entirely consistent with a tree branch, particularly because right next to this area is where some kind of animal both bit and licked the tissues.

So, Spitz does not contend that all of the injuries to the boys were due to postmortem animal predation as was suggested. I will admit that Spitz tends to attribute many more of the injuries to animal predation than the other experts. As I have stated before, all of the experts don't agree 100% about everything. They all do agree, however, that there was postmortem animal predation on all three boys, and that none of the injuries were caused by a serrated knife, or any knife, or "big ol' sticks" as suggested by Jessie.

As to Souviron "follow[ing] the suggestion of animal predation," we have the following information from his Rule 37 testimony:

Looking again at photos of Mr. Moore, autopsy number 329, I am of the opinion that those are animals. I see some blunt force trauma, but other areas of animal activity

So, he is distinguishing certain injuries as animal predation and other injuries as blunt force trauma. He does not state anywhere that all of the injuries are from animal predation. In fact, as the above quote illustrates, he states the opposite.

As to "information . . . regarding [specific] wounds," again I refer to the Rule 37 testimony of the experts.

Spitz:

There are nibbles on both eyelids and what I take to be biting on the left cheek. There is a rough area on the left cheek which is from an animal biting that area and licking it with a rough tongue. Dogs and cats have those kinds of tongues, perhaps other animals as well. These injuries to the eyelid of Autopsy 330, which is Mr. Branch’s number, are similar to those of Mr. Moore. Looking at the injuries, which in my opinion you need to look at as a group, I view the injuries to the lips as consistent with those that would have been caused by an animal.

Souviron:

Looking at the injury to the right shoulder of this young man, in autopsy 329, you see parallel lines consistent with claw marks. There was a question about whether this was done by the Rambo knife. I prepared an acetate tracing of the knife using a one to one measurement, and did the same with respect to the injury. When you place the acetate of the knife over the injury, you can see that it doesn’t fit. This is a common technique that we use in odontology to compare a known to an unknown. This is Exhibit 62.

Baden:

I am of the view that all of the wounds to the boys’ heads had been caused by “blunt force trauma.” There were tears in the skin and not sharp cuts. In some of the photographs, you can see areas where the skin has been rubbed away from the left side, plus penetrating wounds that are very shallow that are consistent with animal activity, not wounds caused by a knife. Steve Branch had wounds to his face that showed small punctures and abrasions. A number of the wounds show no bleeding into the tissues which would be post-mortem predation or necrophagia. I have seen injuries like this in my own practice.

More from Baden:

Reviewing the injuries to Michael Moore, it appears to me that the injuries to the area around the ear, and elsewhere that did not hemorrhage or bleed were post mortem. In reviewing the actual photographs used at trial, I can see certain punctate or puncture wounds. These wounds were not the subject of microscopic slides. The trial photos show punctate wounds around the lips and nose. There is no bleeding from them. They are postmortem.

The photographs of Steve Branch shown to Dr. Peretti at trial do not indicate to me any cutting wounds made with a knife. My opinion is that these are injuries inflicted by postmortem animal activity. In considering the testimony from the Misskelley trial at RT 841, I agree that there are gouging wounds here with the skin pulled away together with some irregular puncturewounds, but these are not bleeding injuries, and unless they were caused by someone sitting there with a weapon and 'constantly puncturing’, these irregular wounds are some kind of animal activity. The same observation can be made about the scrape wounds on his ear, and in that area of the body. The redness on Mr. Branch’s cheek as seen on the photos is not caused by hemorrhage or bleeding. Something has rubbed off the skin, and it has dried and turned brownish.

I assume that postmortem wounds were not made by the killer, but are, in fact, postmortem animal predation. Dr. Baden's testimony (linked above) provides a very detailed explanation of how these experts came together regarding this case. I recommend it to anyone who hasn't yet read this testimony.

Although other experts testified at the Rule 37 hearing, IMO, what I have quoted above is sufficient to establish the existence of postmortem animal predation in the opinion of the experts cited, all of whom are certified in their respective forensic fields.

 

[kyleb]

I know of no animal that has digits or claws of all the same length. I am more than willing to learn that such an animal exists, but would like to see photo of said breed of animal along with verifiable foot / paw prints.

And that's exactly my point about lack of evidence regarding the claims of animal predation. Spitz puts those scrape marks on the screen and asserted:

When a dog or other carniverous animal attacks a body after death, or before death sometimes, they scrape the body. They move their claws on the body and try to bring the body closer to them and they do this several times.

But Spitz provided no examples of claws which are consistent with those wounds, and I've yet to find any elsewhere either. I'm willing to learn such an animal exist too, but I'm not going to take the claims of animal predation of faith regarding those wounds on faith, let alone such claims wounds I've only seen in very low resolution images and the many I haven't seen at all. As for biting an eyebrow with one's jaw in place, of course it can be done, just not at anywhere near the angle of incident at which the partials line up with the semicircle on Stevie branch's forehead.

First, I didn't say the animal predation occurred before death, as was stated above.

I was referring to your talk about wounds inflicted by Hobbs, not animals. As for Spitz's testimony, quoting from the actual transcript rather than the paraphrased abstract, and his response being directly to the question of blunt force wounds, starting on BMHR 1838, pg 124 of the PDF:

they were handled by, uh, large animals, shaken around, as these animals do, and maybe banged up against - - and there is plenty of opportunity in this picture, if you see the picture of the scene, with lots of trees and the shallow water, even if the animal bangs the body in the water, it will hit the ground. And that would be a total explanation for those type of injuries, including the fractures.

And two pages later when asked if a human could've inflicted those blunt force wounds, Spitz asserted:

No, those are not human. I said to you, and if you'll remember, I said earlier, not to you but here in court, that these are not man made injuries. None of them, including the injuries to the face, the injuries to the head, the injuries which, uh, uh, tore, uh, the scrotum, degloved the penis, those injuries.

But again, one can't rightly determine whose conclusions are correct on such matters without actually examining the photos of wounds themselves along with whatever they are being argued as consistent with first. People stating their opinions doesn't rightly prove anything in itself, regardless of what credentials they have.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

But Spitz provided no examples of claws which are consistent with those wounds, and I've yet to find any elsewhere either. I'm willing to learn such an animal exist too, but I'm not going to take the claims of animal predation of faith regarding those wounds on faith, let alone such claims wounds I've only seen in very low resolution images and the many I haven't seen at all.

The mere fact that he was mentioning animal predation as a cause is evidence that he believe it to be possible. What "examples" were provided to "prove" that the Lake knife was the murder weapon? (And, the grapefruit is not and "example" but the overlays of one of the experts more or less proves that the Lake knife was not the murder weapon, IMO.) If someone else thinks otherwise, that is their right and privilege. However, nothing I've seen in the actual evidence presented at the trials or post-trial proceedings convinces me.

As for biting an eyebrow with one's jaw in place, of course it can be done, just not at anywhere near the angle of incident at which the partials line up with the semicircle on Stevie branch's forehead.

I respectfully disagree. I base my opinion on the exhaustive word of a dentist who, IMO, knows more than I about bite marks and how they are formed. Again, credibility is important.

I was referring to your talk about wounds inflicted by Hobbs, not animals.

It was a bit unclear to me. However, I fail to see the significance of wounds inflicted by the killer when the discussion is about postmortem animal predation.

But again, one can't rightly determine whose conclusions are correct on such matters without actually examining the photos of wounds themselves along with whatever they are being argued as consistent with first.

Whenever a forensic pathologist seeks a confirmation opinion, the "second opinion" pathologist is usually sent photos of the bodies, not what is believed to have caused the wounds. They state their expert opinion about what caused wounds. That's the purpose of getting a second opinion. Peretti also formed an opinion (albeit I believe he was in error)as to what he believed to be the COD. In fact, as he was not present at the time of death and cannot "rightly determine" the actual cause of the wounds, either, that's all he can do. That's all anyone can do.

People stating their opinions doesn't rightly prove anything in itself, regardless of what credentials they have.

True. That is also true for people (including yours, truly) who post on message boards. That's why I've always said that only the killer and the victims know what happened on May 5, 1993, no matter what elaborate methods one uses to support his/her theory, it's only a theory. That's why, IMO, credibility and experience are so important when trying to determine if a theory is valid and (possibly) the truth. IMO, the theory of the State of Arkansas is not supported by the evidence presented. IMO, the information obtained since the original trials points to a much more feasible theory for the commission of this crime.

As to the recitation of Spitz's testimony, I don't believe that any of the experts are wholly correct. I believe that there is some truth in all of their testimonies, but that the whole truth lies "between the lines" so to speak. As was stated above, they are, after all merely expressing their opinions. However, as I have repeatedly stated, IMO, their opinions are more logical than the theory of the State, supported by their employee, Peretti. The fact that Spitz didn't provide an example of the precise animal that caused the injury in question is not a deal-breaker for me. The fact that Spitz and several other certified forensic pathologists and odontologists all agree that some amount of postmortem animal predation is involved is, IMO, the pertinent point of the testimony.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I just watched this again last night when I could not sleep.

And once I again I am amazed at the science and Evidence in this case and that NONE of it points to The WM3.

I don't care about the politics or the celebrities. I am talking about the evidence of the 6 pathologists that all agree there was not a knife used to make the wounds. The Turtles did the damage to those boys.

This case should be studied in every college on how a case is railroaded by bad prosecutors, LE and Lying witnesses.

It is shameful that this happened in the US.

 

[LordYAM]

Even WM3 truth acknowledges that the lake knife most likely wasn't the weapon.

People say that it was just spaghetti throwing at walls and hoping it stuck by bringing up Hobb's dna. However it was found in the laces of michael moore, not stevie branch, and the circumstances (8 year old boys playing) makes it implausible. Also, how do they explain david Jacoby's hair (hobbs said that he left his hair at the site when he and david went. Hobbs himself claimed he never visited, and Jacoby flat out stated that they just drove around.)

I said it before, but I think Jacoby knows more about what happened that night than he's letting on, even if he didn't take direct part in the killings. Maybe he helped Terry move the bodies, maybe he witnessed what happened.

Even if Damien had issues, the police still made a poor job. Hobbs and Byers should have been investigated more thoroughly. You don't just investigate the creepy teenager first;

Again, I can see why Todd Moore wasn't investigated (he had a rock solid alibi) but Hobbs should have been questioned from day 1. Even if it turns out he's innocent the police did a crappy job and should have investigated him.

 

[LordYAM]

The problem is that kyleb and various people who think they're guilty also take the police on faith, as well as the prosecutor. even people like the guys who run wm3 truth acknowledge that the lake knife was not the murder weapon, and during the trial the only who asserted as much was the prosecutor. when people raise other evidence such as dna, background, or faulty testimony (or evidence that the police may well have edited tapes) they simply take the word of the prosecutors and dismiss those who bring it up.

Also credibility DOES in fact matter. Peretti was not board certified and failed many times. That means that he may have done an improper job analyzing the wounds. The defense experts might be guessing, but because they are far more skilled, trained and experienced then Peretti and have more experience with the types of injuries (animal bites vs knife wounds) it is an educated guess no matter how hard people try to deny it. They are not speaking from nothing. They have spoken

Take Cameron Willingham. 9 independent experts analyzed the photos of the fire and other evidence and didn't visit the scene; all 9 concluded that it was an accident. The fire marshall was at the scene and concluded that it was arson. The general consensus nowadays is that the fire marshall was an incompetent idiot who relied on old wives tales and outdated information. In that situation, I'd go with the 9 experts because they have more knowledge and experience rather than the incompetent fool. They saw the evidence, examined it and formed their opinion. Most of the other experts in thewm3 did the same thing; thoroughly analyzing the wounds and drawing opinion based on experiences, established info and facts.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The problem the only evidence that points to someone bring there, points at TH. It makes the crime personal. And I believe it was.
I think it is time someone was elected into that town that takes this case apart and finds a way to exonerate these guys and put the real killer in jail before it's too late.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.