What Do the Bodies Tell Us?

[Compassionate Reader]

I disagree that the three had failed alibis. Jason's was never presented in court so how can it be a "failed" alibi? His mother has discussed his whereabouts in various interviews, but his attorneys failed to present an alibi at trial. That doesn't mean he didn't have one; it's just further proof of insufficient council, IMO, not guilt.

Some claim Damien's was "failed" because he was unsure of his times and had to have his memory "refreshed" by his mother. IMO, that doesn't prove he or his mother were lying. It just proves that he had no reason to remember in precise detail his movements on that day. IMO, that makes him look innocent, not guilty!

As to Jessie, the fact that his alibi witnesses were confused on the stand during cross-examination only proves that the prosecutor's cross-examination skills were greater than the defense's redirect skills. IMO, it doesn't disprove the alibi. So, again, I believe that the three had alibis.

 

[Ausgirl]

One of the defense experts Sperry puts the TOD at 6pm to 10pm. I posted it elsewhere, but it could be used here also.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Viable suspect: Damien Echols

One person that puts himself in the area of the crime scene during that time frame is-- Terry Hobbs.

He says (on Opperman) he was in the woods, and saw Mark and Melissa Byers driving on the service road. IIRC, they state they were on that road once -- about 7pm.

So that's interesting.

 

[reedus23]

Sadly all three had failed alibis which makes Dr. Sperrys testimony important to this case because during that time IMO that's when the three murdered the 8-year-old boys.

http://wm3truth.com/failed-alibis-for-misskelley-echols-and-baldwin/

Failed in your opinion or the opinion of some does not mean fails in fact. You don't believe them and that's your right.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Failed in your opinion or the opinion of some does not mean fails in fact. You don't believe them and that's your right.

Apparently most importantly the juries didn't believe them either. Jason Baldwin's attorney wouldn't even call Baldwin's alibi because he knew it wouldn't stand.

 

[reedus23]

I disagree that the three had failed alibis. Jason's was never presented in court so how can it be a "failed" alibi? His mother has discussed his whereabouts in various interviews, but his attorneys failed to present an alibi at trial. That doesn't mean he didn't have one; it's just further proof of insufficient council, IMO, not guilt.

Some claim Damien's was "failed" because he was unsure of his times and had to have his memory "refreshed" by his mother. IMO, that doesn't prove he or his mother were lying. It just proves that he had no reason to remember in precise detail his movements on that day. IMO, that makes him look innocent, not guilty!

As to Jessie, the fact that his alibi witnesses were confused on the stand during cross-examination only proves that the prosecutor's cross-examination skills were greater than the defense's redirect skills. IMO, it doesn't disprove the alibi. So, again, I believe that the three had alibis.

As for Jason, it may very well demonstrate inefficient counsel but I also understand why they didn't. They, possibly wrongfully so, trusted the jury to apply the law to the facts and as there were next to no facts that pointed to Jason, they took a calculated risk that since the burden of proof was on the prosecution and not them, they were better served by not putting on further evidence since they didn't believe the prosecution got over that hurdle. Further, even Mother Theresa could get crossed up by an effective lawyer so no matter how sincere their witnesses, they were bound to get tripped up on cross-examination, which could have been more harmful than not putting anything on, particularly in light of the fact that they probably didn't believe the prosecution ever carried their burden.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

As for Jason, it may very well demonstrate inefficient counsel but I also understand why they didn't. They, possibly wrongfully so, trusted the jury to apply the law to the facts and as there were next to no facts that pointed to Jason, they took a calculated risk that since the burden of proof was on the prosecution and not them, they were better served by not putting on further evidence since they didn't believe the prosecution got over that hurdle. Further, even Mother Theresa could get crossed up by an effective lawyer so no matter how sincere their witnesses, they were bound to get tripped up on cross-examination, which could have been more harmful than not putting anything on, particularly in light of the fact that they probably didn't believe the prosecution ever carried their burden.

I, too, believe this to be the case. In fact, Ford said as much to Jason in the first documentary. However, as was said above, the attorney trusted the jury to asses the facts instead of being swayed by some of the prosecution's more outlandish shenanigans. Unfortunately, and I mean no disrespect when I say this, the jury pool wasn't drawn from those of high intelligence. IMO, the jury, like Jessie, was easily led by the nose by the prosecution, and that is sad, indeed.

 

[I Must Break You]

Something there makes me wonder if this is WHY military veterans were among the first people to be targeted for questioning by police. Hiding bodies is a necessity in some battle situations, both friendly and enemy bodies, so were there elements of the crime that mimicked some military protocol for that?

I'm curious about this, if you could elaborate. I'm a combat veteran and spent most of my adult life in the military, and I have never heard of hiding bodies as a necessity. I'm also pretty positive there is no military protocol for such. Maybe it happens in some stealth missions in Call of Duty video games or something, but not in real life as far as I know.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

IMO, the military were questioned early on in an effort to gain their help and opinion. I don't believe they were ever suspects. I believe that the wmpd were so totally out of their league with this case (and knew it from the beginning, IMO) that they reached out to the military to help them.

 

[Ausgirl]

I'm curious about this, if you could elaborate. I'm a combat veteran and spent most of my adult life in the military, and I have never heard of hiding bodies as a necessity. I'm also pretty positive there is no military protocol for such. Maybe it happens in some stealth missions in Call of Duty video games or something, but not in real life as far as I know.

You don't need to be patronising in order to ask a question.

I was endeavouring to figure out why the cops had, on their list of people to question, local veterans. So I had a look at what would have the cops -automatically- want to talk to them, in particular. And I found that indeed, in some combat situations (I was in particular looking at Vietnam), soldiers would hide the bodies of the fallen. Mostly, this was so the dead could be retrieved later, for burial.

So I'm not pulling this out of my backside. Or a video game. Thanks.

Is it relevant? Probably not. But I do wish to understand that angle of the investigation.

I will have to hunt for it but I am pretty sure I saw an early police note, in which veterans are mentioned as possible persons of interest (devil worshippers were on the same list, iirc) so I don't think it was just for advice.

 

[I Must Break You]

You don't need to be patronising in order to ask a question.

I was endeavouring to figure out why the cops had, on their list of people to question, local veterans. So I had a look at what would have the cops -automatically- want to talk to them, in particular. And I found that indeed, in some combat situations (I was in particular looking at Vietnam), soldiers would hide the bodies of the fallen. Mostly, this was so the dead could be retrieved later, for burial.

So I'm not pulling this out of my backside. Or a video game. Thanks.

Is it relevant? Probably not. But I do wish to understand that angle of the investigation.

I will have to hunt for it but I am pretty sure I saw an early police note, in which veterans are mentioned as possible persons of interest (devil worshippers were on the same list, iirc) so I don't think it was just for advice.

Never meant to come off patronizing at all. I just have honestly never heard of that, Vietnam era or any others, so while I may have been a bit sarcastic I was just trying to inform you that there is no protocol for this, and if it did happen in past wars, it never happened enough for it to really be of consequence.

As for why vets were likely looked into? Well I'd say there is some correlation between that and many falsehoods that people believe about soldiers from movies and video games (more movies in the early 90s I'd imagine though), that being that vets come back from the wars violent and traumatized to the point of killing indiscriminately, which is just not reality. Also I wouldn't put it past the WMPD to fully buy into stereotypes, would you?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Never meant to come off patronizing at all. I just have honestly never heard of that, Vietnam era or any others, so while I may have been a bit sarcastic I was just trying to inform you that there is no protocol for this, and if it did happen in past wars, it never happened enough for it to really be of consequence.

As for why vets were likely looked into? Well I'd say there is some correlation between that and many falsehoods that people believe about soldiers from movies and video games (more movies in the early 90s I'd imagine though), that being that vets come back from the wars violent and traumatized to the point of killing indiscriminately, which is just not reality. Also I wouldn't put it past the WMPD to fully buy into stereotypes, would you?

BBM

Not in the least! That's one of the problems in this case. The wmpd believed the crap Driver was dishing out about some of the local teens and fully bought into the stereotype! Unfortunately, that attitude was also prevalent on both juries, on the bench and is still seen today with some posters on message boards. Prejudice is an ugly monster.

 

[reedus23]

You don't need to be patronising in order to ask a question.

I was endeavouring to figure out why the cops had, on their list of people to question, local veterans. So I had a look at what would have the cops -automatically- want to talk to them, in particular. And I found that indeed, in some combat situations (I was in particular looking at Vietnam), soldiers would hide the bodies of the fallen. Mostly, this was so the dead could be retrieved later, for burial.

So I'm not pulling this out of my backside. Or a video game. Thanks.

Is it relevant? Probably not. But I do wish to understand that angle of the investigation.

I will have to hunt for it but I am pretty sure I saw an early police note, in which veterans are mentioned as possible persons of interest (devil worshippers were on the same list, iirc) so I don't think it was just for advice.

I think it was more sterotyping, just like the devil worshipping. My guess, and yes, it's a guess, is that they were sterotyping Vietnam vets with PTSD. If I remember correctly, that was a pretty big issue around that time frame, not that it's not an issue at any other time.

 

[reedus23]

Never meant to come off patronizing at all. I just have honestly never heard of that, Vietnam era or any others, so while I may have been a bit sarcastic I was just trying to inform you that there is no protocol for this, and if it did happen in past wars, it never happened enough for it to really be of consequence.

As for why vets were likely looked into? Well I'd say there is some correlation between that and many falsehoods that people believe about soldiers from movies and video games (more movies in the early 90s I'd imagine though), that being that vets come back from the wars violent and traumatized to the point of killing indiscriminately, which is just not reality. Also I wouldn't put it past the WMPD to fully buy into stereotypes, would you?

Ahhh, I should have continued reading first. I agree. More about sterotyping than something to do with any training.

 

[OEJ]

I'm thinking the boys were killed in the vicinity of where they were found. It would take time to transport three bodies and two bikes and a mode of transportation. Yet, no one has ever mentioned seeing a vehicle parked near the area.

I'm very curious how a lone individual, for example, would be able to get three boys to disrobe and allow themselves to be bound. Threatening to kill one if the other two did not cooperate? Still, you'd think one of them would do their best to get home to mom and dad. Maybe one did try to run and that is why he is at a distance from the other two.

It seems the hog-tying would have come before the bludgeoning. What would be the point of hog-tying an unconscious person unless, as suggested above, it was to keep limbs from floating up? Maybe. Certainly the person who did this went the extra mile at the scene to hide all evidence to the greatest extent possible at least long enough to try and establish an alibi.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'm thinking the boys were killed in the vicinity of where they were found. It would take time to transport three bodies and two bikes and a mode of transportation. Yet, no one has ever mentioned seeing a vehicle parked near the area.

I believe that the boys were killed in the vicinity, just not on the ditch bank. The Manhole Theory, which I endorse, supports that explanation, too.

I'm very curious how a lone individual, for example, would be able to get three boys to disrobe and allow themselves to be bound. Threatening to kill one if the other two did not cooperate? Still, you'd think one of them would do their best to get home to mom and dad. Maybe one did try to run and that is why he is at a distance from the other two.

I believe that the killer was an authority figure of some sort to the boys (like a parent or step parent). I believe that the initial attack was on Steven and that he was rendered unconscious by a vicious blow to the head. Then, possibly, the other two ran to help him. They were also struck down by a blow to their heads by a frightened killer. It merely happened too quickly for them to run.

It seems the hog-tying would have come before the bludgeoning. What would be the point of hog-tying an unconscious person unless, as suggested above, it was to keep limbs from floating up? Maybe. Certainly the person who did this went the extra mile at the scene to hide all evidence to the greatest extent possible at least long enough to try and establish an alibi.

I believe that the boys' bodies were hog-tied after they were unconscious (or near dead) for transport purposes. When the killer returned to the murder location, he observed the animal predation, feared that he could not put forth a theory of an accidental fall down into the manhole (which I believe was his original intent), and decided to move the bodies. He had to improvise. So, he used the shoestrings as the bindings.

I believe that the killer returned to the murder scene initially for the purpose of redressing his step son, after having heard his wife describe the boy's clothing to the police and realizing that it was not the same clothing as the boy had on at the time of the killing. However, he was unable to redress the dead body either because it took too long or because of the difficulty involved. So, in order that one boy didn't stand out (and that boy being his own step son), he stripped all three. That would explain why two pairs of pants were inside out and one pair was right-side out (and not as dirty as the others). He tied the bodies after he undressed them, placing the clothing in the ditch along with the bodies and pushing the clothing down with a stick. Again, missing socks and underwear is easy to understand. It could have been left at the murder scene (as suggested) or kept by the killer as a trophy.

 

[hello people]

The bodies tell us that the 3 murderers are guilty as charged. GUILTY AS SIN.

 

[Hez]

The bodies tell us that the 3 murderers are guilty as charged. GUILTY AS SIN.

In your opinion.

 

[reedus23]

The bodies tell us that the 3 murderers are guilty as charged. GUILTY AS SIN.

Why? Because you say so?

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Ok so here's what the bodies tell me- The victims knew the killer, the killer had an intimate knowledge of knots, hog tying, cleaning up a crime scene, skinning and knives. The killer was an abuser, had a history of violence and a criminal past. He was not a ritual killer (Satanist) ,serial killer or thrill killer. He possibly had a partner for the attack or the cover up. Killer had knowledge of where the children played.
I think the kids left the bikes at the pipe bridge and played at the man hole. Two boys inside and one boy outside. Killer possibly waited for this split up of the kids.
I believe MM was taken out first, a blow or two to the face to stun, victim falls over on knees to protect face. A blow to the back of the head renders unconscious. Though not immediately fatal. He was in the wrong place wrong time. This killer had no particular problem with this child but was the one most likely to run away.
I think one of the other kids was lured out next. Similar pattern of blows to the face and large blunt object to the back of the head. CB fought back and possibly was skinned for it. The skinning had to have happened before dark and I'm still perplexed by why it happened. His blood drained out so it had to have drained into water. Possibly water that had a current or flow so it would be difficult to find. SB had bites to his face, road rash to face and back and fists to his eyes and his ear was practically torn off. I think he was pulled out of the man hole by the ear and struggled with his attacker turned over and over on concrete. I think they were left face down in water with blows to the back of the heads to keep them unconscious and then drowned. I don't think the bodies were placed out in that ditch until after 1 am possibly early dawn for light? And the killer knew about the bikes and they had to be hidden. I know one type of person that pulls someone by the ear (a parent). I just can't wrap my mind around three deaths over a disobeying child.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

What if the angry parent were high on drugs (meth, specifically)? Couldn't that throw him into a violent rage? I really think that SB was attacked first and believed to be dead. Then, the other two were attacked (witnesses, you know). All three were left for dead in the manhole (or a drainage pipe) where the animal predation occurred. CB bled out as a result of the predation and was already dead when placed in the discovery ditch. SB and MM were still alive, although unconscious, and died by drowning.