Theories

[SheBoss]

Let me throw out a theory here, please. You all seem to be nice folks that can discuss rationally, so tell me if I'm crazy or not.

Due to the post-conviction confession, I have no choice but to believe that Jessie was there at the crime. HOWEVER, I see nothing at all (except Damien shooting off his mouth which could or could not be the truth) that points to Jason and Damien being there. No forensics, no evidence, no nothing. AND I can't really find anyone that says the 3 ran around together. They knew each other, I know. But as far as D and J hanging out and being friends with Jessie, I'm not finding much. It seems that he traveled in different circles from D and Jason.

What if - Jessie was there, he did it, he helped, just like his confession states, but it was with 1 or 2 other guys and not D and Jason? Maybe someone like LD Hollingsworth? Maybe Jessie was scared of his accomplices so he didn't want to pin it on them. He then picked out 2 loser type kids that he thought he could beat up if it came down to it to blame it on. I'm just not convinced Jessie understood that he wasn't going to tell truth and then go home.

So - am I crazy?

 

[tezi]

Let me throw out a theory here, please. You all seem to be nice folks that can discuss rationally, so tell me if I'm crazy or not.

Due to the post-conviction confession, I have no choice but to believe that Jessie was there at the crime. HOWEVER, I see nothing at all (except Damien shooting off his mouth which could or could not be the truth) that points to Jason and Damien being there. No forensics, no evidence, no nothing. AND I can't really find anyone that says the 3 ran around together. They knew each other, I know. But as far as D and J hanging out and being friends with Jessie, I'm not finding much. It seems that he traveled in different circles from D and Jason.

What if - Jessie was there, he did it, he helped, just like his confession states, but it was with 1 or 2 other guys and not D and Jason? Maybe someone like LD Hollingsworth? Maybe Jessie was scared of his accomplices so he didn't want to pin it on them. He then picked out 2 loser type kids that he thought he could beat up if it came down to it to blame it on. I'm just not convinced Jessie understood that he wasn't going to tell truth and then go home.

So - am I crazy?

No, SheBoss, I don't think you are crazy! Personally, I have thought that this might be the case myself. I don't think in my heart of hearts that Jason Baldwin had anything to do with this at all!

LD Hollingsworth, I could believe that in a New York second.

Nice work on the timeline, BTW!!!

 

[Dirty larry]

I don't think in my heart of hearts that Jason Baldwin had anything to do with this at all!

His grandparents did,... and they actually knew him.

http://westmemphisthreediscussion.y...p-Artistic-But-Into-That-Devil-Stuff-Jas.html

 

[~Lisa~]

His grandparents did,... and they actually knew him.

http://westmemphisthreediscussion.y...p-Artistic-But-Into-That-Devil-Stuff-Jas.html

But in Sheridan, Ark., south of Little Rock, Baldwin's grandmother wasn't so sure of Jason Baldwin's innocence.

"I thought in my own mind when those boys were killed that my grandson is sorta superstitious about that devil stuff," said Jessie Mae Baldwin. "He was always catching lizards and snakes, I thought something was going on in that child's mind."

http://westmemphisthreediscussion.y...p-Artistic-But-Into-That-Devil-Stuff-Jas.html


What? Why? Bcuz he liked catching lizards and snakes?
Alot of kids do imo I used to catch frogs and salamanders
Idk I'm still on the fence someone pleaseeeee push me off one way or another!!
This case drives me nuts!

 

[Sunnyone]

But in Sheridan, Ark., south of Little Rock, Baldwin's grandmother wasn't so sure of Jason Baldwin's innocence.

"I thought in my own mind when those boys were killed that my grandson is sorta superstitious about that devil stuff," said Jessie Mae Baldwin. "He was always catching lizards and snakes, I thought something was going on in that child's mind."

http://westmemphisthreediscussion.y...p-Artistic-But-Into-That-Devil-Stuff-Jas.html


What? Why? Bcuz he liked catching lizards and snakes?
Alot of kids do imo I used to catch frogs and salamanders
Idk I'm still on the fence someone pleaseeeee push me off one way or another!!
This case drives me nuts!

I think it was more this statement:

Baldwin, 76, said she and her husband, Purd Baldwin, 82, learned of their grandson's arrest from a television report Friday morning.

"We just looked at each other and I said, 'I don't know what that boy has on his mind, killing people like that,' " Mrs. Baldwin said. Jason Baldwin's father, Larry Baldwin, lives with his parents but was unavailable Friday.

"He's just heartbroke," said Mrs. Baldwin. "He's a mess."

Mrs. Baldwin said that, when she learned of the boys' deaths, she told people that whoever killed the children should be executed. Now that she knows her grandson could be convicted, she said her feelings haven't changed.

 

[~Lisa~]

Btw...they will be talking about the case on LKL tonight. 9/1/10

TONIGHT: CASE OF THE "WEST MEMPHIS THREE"
Three young men accused and convicted of murdering three little boys in 1993. Find out why Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder and The Dixie Chicks’ Natalie Maines think they deserve a new trial.

http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/

 

[~Lisa~]

I think it was more this statement:

Baldwin, 76, said she and her husband, Purd Baldwin, 82, learned of their grandson's arrest from a television report Friday morning.

"We just looked at each other and I said, 'I don't know what that boy has on his mind, killing people like that,' " Mrs. Baldwin said. Jason Baldwin's father, Larry Baldwin, lives with his parents but was unavailable Friday.

"He's just heartbroke," said Mrs. Baldwin. "He's a mess."

Mrs. Baldwin said that, when she learned of the boys' deaths, she told people that whoever killed the children should be executed. Now that she knows her grandson could be convicted, she said her feelings haven't changed.

Ok so, just bcuz they arrested him he's guilty?? I'm not trying to argue just trying to make sense of it all. :banghead:


jmo

 

[Dirty larry]

Ok so, just bcuz they arrested him he's guilty??

Nope.

But the fact that his own grandparents believed he was capable of this crime tends to outweigh any opinions to the contrary from those who have never even met him.

 

[Sunnyone]

Ok so, just bcuz they arrested him he's guilty?? I'm not trying to argue just trying to make sense of it all. :banghead:


jmo

From his grandmother's statement I would say she believed him guilty. I believe the original point was just that, that his grandparents who knew him better than any of us believed he was capable of this crime and believed him guilty.


Now my opinion is that he is guilty, that he was capable of this crime,(based on the research I've done over the years) and since it was the jury's opinion as well, I would say I'm in good company. Then the added bonus of the ASSC upholding the convictions, and not a single appeal in 17 years has found merit in the courts, I would say I'm in excellent company. But that's my opinion.

 

[SubtleGrace]

It is hard to make judgments on young teen boys, because their personalities are not completely formed. We do, however, have extensive information on Damien's mental state around the time of the killings. Combined with Jesse's low iq, and a few troubling incidents in Jason's background (IIRC vandalism?), could make a recipe for trouble for three younger kids easy to attack.

But then again...

We have testimony that Christopher Byers step-father JB was abusive, and iirc he has been convicted of violent crimes. Likewise little Stevie Branch's step-father TH had a violent past before the crimes, including sexual assualt.

And even more...

The area where the children were found was easily accessible from a major interstate and there were verified reports of a bloody stranger and gun shots that evening.

So who can really say what happened to these poor little fellows? I hope they are having a blast in the Boy Scouts of Heaven.

IMO

 

[Dirty larry]

So who can really say what happened to these poor little fellows?

Jessie Misskelley can.

And he has.

On tape - three times.

To the police.

To the Prosecution.

And to his own attorneys in private.

If you still don't believe him - then it's only because you don't want to.

 

[SubtleGrace]

Jessie Misskelley can.

And he has.

On tape - three times.

To the police.

To the Prosecution.

And to his own attorneys in private.

If you still don't believe him - then it's only because you don't want to.

I never said I didn't believe him. I do have serious issues with his iq and the circumstances surrounding his confessions. I do not know what happened to those boys, but I will say that the WM3 did not get a fair trial. I would like to see that happen so we can finally find out what did occur. Those boys deserve that.

 

[Dirty larry]

I never said I didn't believe him. I do have serious issues with his iq and the circumstances surrounding his confessions.

OK, Let's talk about his IQ.

In fact, Let's look at the testimony of his own witness, Dr. William Wilkins:

http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html

DAVIS: Ok. And the WAIS-R is the test that you use to determine the defendant’s IQ?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And in that particular test, what was the performance IQ?
WILKINS: 75? Let me—yes.

His Performance IQ was 75 in the test he took for the trial.

DAVIS: Ok, and in 1992 there was also—prior to the time you did your examination there was another IQ test, correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: What was his performance IQ at that time?
WILKINS: 88.

So his performance IQ plunged 13 points from the previous year.

In fact, prior to the test given to him for his trial it was consistently average...

DAVIS: Ok, so the two past IQ examinations that had been performed on him immediately prior to the one that you did indicated that his performance level was in the average range, is that correct?
WILKINS: Uh, low average, yes. The first placed low average, the second one average, yes.
DAVIS: Ok, well am I correct in understanding that anything above 80 is in the average?
WILKINS: That depends on the criteria you want to go by. Typically it’s—Social Security uses 80 above, other places use 84, so yea.
DAVIS: So, by most criteria 84 and 88 would be in the average range?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And when we talk about performance IQ, describe what that is, what that involves.
WILKINS: Those entail, problem solving, conceptualization tasks, thinking tasks, they’re non-verbal. Example is putting together puzzles. Being able to—I show you a pattern of blocks and you have to build designs that match the pattern of blocks. It’s conceptualization in a non-verbal form, problem solving in a non-verbal form.
DAVIS: And in regard to that he rates about average, right?
WILKINS: On those two testings, yes.

So his previous performance scores were average - he's charged with murder, and in a test given by his witness, his score suddenly drops 13 points.

You suppose maybe he was faking?

Let's see what his witness had to say about that...

DAVIS: Now the MMPI-2, that was another test that you conducted on him, is that correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Now I don’t want to get too complicated ‘cause I don’t understand all this stuff, but I notice down here you said, let’s see, you said he had a high—or you said a mild elevation in the F scale.
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Ok. Now Doctor it’s true that what you actually found was a T value in that F scale of 83.
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Now are you telling me that that’s a mild elevation?
WILKINS: It’s an elevation above normal levels.
DAVIS: Well don’t they rank the elevations—as far as the T scale is concerned isn’t that something that’s actually ranked in terms of low range, middle range, moderately high range and very high range?
WILKINS: Yes. That may have been a mistake then. I may well have mispronounced what it was supposed to be.
DAVIS: This is a text regarding—MMPI Handbook. Show me here what an 82 to 88 T score on the F scale indicates to you in that book.
WILKINS: Uh, very high.
DAVIS: Very high?
WILKINS: Yes. This would not be quite the same because this is for the MMPI rather than the MMPI-2, which changed critera, but it would still be in the high range.
DAVIS: So when you put in here that that was a mild elevation, that would not be accurate would it?
WILKINS: No. It would not be. No.
DAVIS: And then from that statement that it was a mild elevation you interpreted that that could show malingering, right?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And malingering means what, Doctor?
WILKINS: It means, uh, making up stuff. Trying to present yourself as being ill when you’re not for some particular gain.
DAVIS: Did you explain to Jessie what these tests were being performed for?
WILKINS: We talked some about them in general, yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And he knew that you were coming to court to testify about the results of these tests?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And you talked with his lawyers before you took the test or gave him the test?
WILKINS: Yes.

So his own witness got caught on the stand "mispronouncing" Misskelley's malingering index - when the actual score strongly indicated he was faking to aid in his defense.

These aren't opinions, they are the documented results of his testing.

Of course this wasn't the first time Wilkins got caught "mispronouncing" MMPI results...

A psychologist who evaluated Jessie Misskelley Jr. as borderline mentally retarded and very suggestible went before the state Board of Psychological Examiners last month and had his practice limited.
Dr. William Wilkins of Jonesboro must practice under the direction of a supervisor and cannot handle sexual abuse or neuro-psychology cases, he said under rigorous questioning from prosecutors this morning in the capital murder trial of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr.

Why was his licenses restricted?

An evaluation of Wilkins done by another psychologist reported concerns about Wilkins' lack of knowledge of fundamental psychological defects and the scales used in scoring the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality test (MMPI) and Wexler tests, common psychological and intelligence evaluation tools. Wilkins used both those tests, along with the Rorshchach test, in evaluating Misskelley.

http://callahan.8k.com/cg...ingtimes/ET020294_01.jpg

Now, you say you also have issues with the circumstances surrounding his confessions.

Tell me, what issues do you have with the private taped confession he gave his own attorneys on 2/8/94

JONESBORO — In a private audiotaped conversation with his attorney on Feb. 8, 1994, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley described in graphic detail how he and two cohorts tortured and killed three 8-year-old boys — one of whom may have still been alive when they were dumped into a West Memphis ditch.

The tape was played Thursday during a Rule 37 hearing in Jonesboro. Misskelley, Damien Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin, commonly referred to as the West Memphis Three, were convicted in the May 5, 1993, slayings of Michael Moore, Steven Branch and Christopher Byers.

The conversation on the tape took place four days after Baldwin and Echols’ trial began.

On the tape, Misskelley said he, Echols and Baldwin were drinking alcohol next to a ditch when the boys approached.

“Damien grabbed one of them and started hitting him,” Misskelley told Stidham.

Within moments Miss-kelley and Baldwin attacked the other boys, he said. Misskelley said he let his boy go, and then Damien yelled “get him.”

At one point Baldwin pulled out a knife and started cutting one of the victims, and Misskelley told his attorney, “That’s when I realized they’re going to kill these boys.”

What possible reason would an innocent Misskelley have for confessing in private to his own attorneys?

I do not know what happened to those boys

Misskelley does.

but I will say that the WM3 did not get a fair trial.

But you can't really say that unless you know what went on in the trial, and it appears that you don't.

 

[SubtleGrace]

This is what happens when you forget to put IMHO on your posts. My apologies. I know about as much as any average citizen I guess. I followed the media during the trial, saw the documentary (only the first), read transcripts and forums, stuff like that. It is all my own opinion. Even if Jessie did it, he (and the victims) deserve a fair trial so the truth can come out. In my opinion only.

 

[SubtleGrace]

Let me throw out a theory here, please. You all seem to be nice folks that can discuss rationally, so tell me if I'm crazy or not.

Due to the post-conviction confession, I have no choice but to believe that Jessie was there at the crime. HOWEVER, I see nothing at all (except Damien shooting off his mouth which could or could not be the truth) that points to Jason and Damien being there. No forensics, no evidence, no nothing. AND I can't really find anyone that says the 3 ran around together. They knew each other, I know. But as far as D and J hanging out and being friends with Jessie, I'm not finding much. It seems that he traveled in different circles from D and Jason.

What if - Jessie was there, he did it, he helped, just like his confession states, but it was with 1 or 2 other guys and not D and Jason? Maybe someone like LD Hollingsworth? Maybe Jessie was scared of his accomplices so he didn't want to pin it on them. He then picked out 2 loser type kids that he thought he could beat up if it came down to it to blame it on. I'm just not convinced Jessie understood that he wasn't going to tell truth and then go home.

So - am I crazy?

The lack of dna at the scene bothers me too. Until I start to combine it with the newer testimony that some of the "abuse" suffered by the boys may actually be animal predation post-mortem. This now starts to make sense. Submerged in water, with small aquatic and perhaps some not so small, licking, biting and tugging on what they can find. Sorry to be graphic folks, but there is no way you could:

Have 3 teens kill 3 boys in a relatively small area, at dusk or close to it, in a heavily wooded area, in a ravine with water at least 4-5 ft deep, and in there frenzied state be able to completely wash the area down before leaving. But many, many small critters, attracted to the scent, sliding down the muddy banks...yep, that would do it.

Again, all my own opinion. And again, I am not saying they didn't do it. I think it makes more sense than one crazed lone killer type (like Tommy Sells) did it. Why hide the bodies? And these bodies were well hid. Someone wanted them to stay hid, at least for a while. If you were planning to hop back onto the highway and you knew you had left little forensic evidence, you wouldn't go to the trouble. Like I said, jmho.

 

[I Din Doot]

OK, Let's talk about his IQ.

In fact, Let's look at the testimony of his own witness, Dr. William Wilkins:

http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html

DAVIS: Ok. And the WAIS-R is the test that you use to determine the defendant’s IQ?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And in that particular test, what was the performance IQ?
WILKINS: 75? Let me—yes.

His Performance IQ was 75 in the test he took for the trial.

DAVIS: Ok, and in 1992 there was also—prior to the time you did your examination there was another IQ test, correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: What was his performance IQ at that time?
WILKINS: 88.

So his performance IQ plunged 13 points from the previous year.

In fact, prior to the test given to him for his trial it was consistently average...

DAVIS: Ok, so the two past IQ examinations that had been performed on him immediately prior to the one that you did indicated that his performance level was in the average range, is that correct?
WILKINS: Uh, low average, yes. The first placed low average, the second one average, yes.
DAVIS: Ok, well am I correct in understanding that anything above 80 is in the average?
WILKINS: That depends on the criteria you want to go by. Typically it’s—Social Security uses 80 above, other places use 84, so yea.
DAVIS: So, by most criteria 84 and 88 would be in the average range?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And when we talk about performance IQ, describe what that is, what that involves.
WILKINS: Those entail, problem solving, conceptualization tasks, thinking tasks, they’re non-verbal. Example is putting together puzzles. Being able to—I show you a pattern of blocks and you have to build designs that match the pattern of blocks. It’s conceptualization in a non-verbal form, problem solving in a non-verbal form.
DAVIS: And in regard to that he rates about average, right?
WILKINS: On those two testings, yes.

So his previous performance scores were average - he's charged with murder, and in a test given by his witness, his score suddenly drops 13 points.

You suppose maybe he was faking?

Let's see what his witness had to say about that...

DAVIS: Now the MMPI-2, that was another test that you conducted on him, is that correct?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Now I don’t want to get too complicated ‘cause I don’t understand all this stuff, but I notice down here you said, let’s see, you said he had a high—or you said a mild elevation in the F scale.
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Ok. Now Doctor it’s true that what you actually found was a T value in that F scale of 83.
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: Now are you telling me that that’s a mild elevation?
WILKINS: It’s an elevation above normal levels.
DAVIS: Well don’t they rank the elevations—as far as the T scale is concerned isn’t that something that’s actually ranked in terms of low range, middle range, moderately high range and very high range?
WILKINS: Yes. That may have been a mistake then. I may well have mispronounced what it was supposed to be.
DAVIS: This is a text regarding—MMPI Handbook. Show me here what an 82 to 88 T score on the F scale indicates to you in that book.
WILKINS: Uh, very high.
DAVIS: Very high?
WILKINS: Yes. This would not be quite the same because this is for the MMPI rather than the MMPI-2, which changed critera, but it would still be in the high range.
DAVIS: So when you put in here that that was a mild elevation, that would not be accurate would it?
WILKINS: No. It would not be. No.
DAVIS: And then from that statement that it was a mild elevation you interpreted that that could show malingering, right?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And malingering means what, Doctor?
WILKINS: It means, uh, making up stuff. Trying to present yourself as being ill when you’re not for some particular gain.
DAVIS: Did you explain to Jessie what these tests were being performed for?
WILKINS: We talked some about them in general, yes.
DAVIS: Ok. And he knew that you were coming to court to testify about the results of these tests?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And you talked with his lawyers before you took the test or gave him the test?
WILKINS: Yes.

So his own witness got caught on the stand "mispronouncing" Misskelley's malingering index - when the actual score strongly indicated he was faking to aid in his defense.

These aren't opinions, they are the documented results of his testing.

Of course this wasn't the first time Wilkins got caught "mispronouncing" MMPI results...

A psychologist who evaluated Jessie Misskelley Jr. as borderline mentally retarded and very suggestible went before the state Board of Psychological Examiners last month and had his practice limited.
Dr. William Wilkins of Jonesboro must practice under the direction of a supervisor and cannot handle sexual abuse or neuro-psychology cases, he said under rigorous questioning from prosecutors this morning in the capital murder trial of Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr.

Why was his licenses restricted?

An evaluation of Wilkins done by another psychologist reported concerns about Wilkins' lack of knowledge of fundamental psychological defects and the scales used in scoring the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality test (MMPI) and Wexler tests, common psychological and intelligence evaluation tools. Wilkins used both those tests, along with the Rorshchach test, in evaluating Misskelley.

http://callahan.8k.com/cg...ingtimes/ET020294_01.jpg

Now, you say you also have issues with the circumstances surrounding his confessions.

Tell me, what issues do you have with the private taped confession he gave his own attorneys on 2/8/94

JONESBORO — In a private audiotaped conversation with his attorney on Feb. 8, 1994, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley described in graphic detail how he and two cohorts tortured and killed three 8-year-old boys — one of whom may have still been alive when they were dumped into a West Memphis ditch.

The tape was played Thursday during a Rule 37 hearing in Jonesboro. Misskelley, Damien Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin, commonly referred to as the West Memphis Three, were convicted in the May 5, 1993, slayings of Michael Moore, Steven Branch and Christopher Byers.

The conversation on the tape took place four days after Baldwin and Echols’ trial began.

On the tape, Misskelley said he, Echols and Baldwin were drinking alcohol next to a ditch when the boys approached.

“Damien grabbed one of them and started hitting him,” Misskelley told Stidham.

Within moments Miss-kelley and Baldwin attacked the other boys, he said. Misskelley said he let his boy go, and then Damien yelled “get him.”

At one point Baldwin pulled out a knife and started cutting one of the victims, and Misskelley told his attorney, “That’s when I realized they’re going to kill these boys.”

What possible reason would an innocent Misskelley have for confessing in private to his own attorneys?


Misskelley does.


But you can't really say that unless you know what went on in the trial, and it appears that you don't.

Great post.

It bothers me that:

1. Whiskey bottle retrieved (later) where he said it would be found.
2. Sticks retrieved days later for evidence.
3. Why look for a knife (inthat specific location)?? Was there a tip?(Unreleased?)
4. Bojangles blood samples lost.

This case is a forensics nightmare. I can't say these boys are innocent of anything but, in all fairness they deserve a relook at the evidence , and the mishandling of such.

I'm still reading and learning from my GREAT fellow posters and appreciate those who read BEFORE they post.

 

[Dirty larry]

The lack of dna at the scene bothers me too.

It shouldn't?

Due to the submersion, very little biological evidence was collected.

Of the small amount collected, very little was even tested.

Of the small amount tested, very little yielded usable results.

The DNA doesn't exclude the convicts - but then the Defense acknowledged that it never could have before the testing was ever done.

Until I start to combine it with the newer testimony that some of the "abuse" suffered by the boys may actually be animal predation post-mortem.

"Testimony" from people who never even examined the bodies.

Spitz based his "predation" theory on the fact that the wounds in the photograph were bloodless and therefore post mortem.

Of course they were bloodless - they had been submerged for 18 hours, that doesn't indicate the wounds were post mortem at all.

Spitz went on to say that the skull fractures were the result of dogs picking up these 50-60 pound bodies and striking their heads against rocks and trees.

You suppose the dogs then pressed these bodies back into the muddy creek bottom where they were discovered the following day?

Spitz theory is absolutely ridiculous.

This now starts to make sense. Submerged in water, with small aquatic and perhaps some not so small, licking, biting and tugging on what they can find.

Branch's face was pressed into the mud.

What aquatic creatures created the injuries to his face?

There is no way that you could:

Have 3 teens kill 3 boys in a relatively small area, at dusk or close to it, in a heavily wooded area, in a ravine with water at least 4-5 ft deep, and in there frenzied state be able to completely wash the area down before leaving.

They didn't wash the area down clean - luminol reacted all over the scene, even days after it had rained.

Some of the reactions could have been attributed to recovery, some not.

But many, many small critters, attracted to the scent, sliding down the muddy banks...yep, that would do it.

With little tiny scuba gear?

I think it makes more sense than one crazed lone killer type (like Tommy Sells) did it.

The differing knots in the ligatures pretty much rules out a single perp theory.

Not to mention the difficulty a single perp would have had catching these victims.

Why hide the bodies?

Because the murderers knew that people frequently passed through this area - as they themselves did.

And these bodies were well hid. Someone wanted them to stay hid, at least for a while. If you were planning to hop back onto the highway and you knew you had left little forensic evidence, you wouldn't go to the trouble.

Exactly.

That's why it was more than likely people who knew the area.

Like the convicts.

 

[texaslb218]

Hi DL,
Thanks for your informative and reasonable posts. I hated to try to read this forum some months ago because it had sunk to name-calling. It has be a great read since you started posting and others started responding. I like discussion, but I hate dissension. Thanks for the facts.
and thanks to those of you who disagree, but keep it reasonable.

 

[Dirty larry]

Thanks for the kind words, Texas.

I agree that civil discussion is not only more comfortable, but more productive as well.

The problem I run into most often in my 12 years of discussing this case is a dynamic you've probably seen just a couple days ago on this very board.

The Victims: Michael Moore, 8; Christopher Byers 8; Steven Branch, 8 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


A "non" supporter posts facts, and a supporter who's not familiar with those facts insists they are fabricated - demanding a source.

Then we have to go searching for a link - one most of us have presented a hundred times before.

It gets tiring, and sometimes patience wears thin - primarily because when it comes to providing sources, very few supporters hold themselves to the same standards.

 

[SheBoss]

"Testimony" from people who never even examined the bodies.

Spitz based his "predation" theory on the fact that the wounds in the photograph were bloodless and therefore post mortem.

Of course they were bloodless - they had been submerged for 18 hours, that doesn't indicate the wounds were post mortem at all.

Spitz went on to say that the skull fractures were the result of dogs picking up these 50-60 pound bodies and striking their heads against rocks and trees.

You suppose the dogs then pressed these bodies back into the muddy creek bottom where they were discovered the following day?

Spitz theory is absolutely ridiculous.

Branch's face was pressed into the mud.

What aquatic creatures created the injuries to his face?

Unfortunately, when the defense got Spitz involved, I knew they had very little. Check his background (specifically the Phil Spector 1st trial). He's a paid witness for hire. He who has the most money, gets the benefit of his "expertise". And in this case, the WM3 and all their donations peaked Spitz's pocketbook.

And please don't get me started on Michael Baden and Henry Lee.