Evidence

Don't know how the dentist would be privy to such information (that TH had missing lower teeth), since he had zero dental records/x-rays to confirm such, but even if this is somehow true, the spaces between the teeth still don't add up, as far as being a gap wide enough to accommodate a missing tooth.

Why did he take down the video? Did he realize it wasn't as foolproof as he originally thought? (honest question).
 
No, he didn't "realize it wasn't as foolproof as he originally thought." Let's just say that he took it down at the request of some experts.

As to the missing teeth, I'm not even sure that TH had any missing lower teeth (although, based on the number of teeth on the upper partial, it would be highly unlikely, IMO, that he had no missing lower teeth). That was merely one possible explanation from me for the gaps on the bottom. The original video pointed out at least one missing upper tooth (Tooth #6, IIRC) that was identified from a photo. In another video (debunking the debunker), he states that the drag marks could have been caused by one "natural" tooth - hence drag marks.

I guess it's simply a matter of the credence one puts in what expert. As I've said before, a dentist with over 25 years' experience is, IMO, more of an "expert" on bite marks than a lay person - like the person who made that "debunking" video. So, IMO, the dentist is enough of an "expert" for me to accept his meticulous work and experience over someone without any dental experience when it comes to identifying bite marks.
 
If he took it down at the request of some experts, were they the ones who suggested it wasn't as foolproof?
 
No one has "suggested it wasn't foolproof." In fact, some of the experts who had previously opined that the mark was not a bite mark have changed their opinion based on Dr. Cowart's work. That's what intelligent people do when new information (like the partials) is made available.
 
No one of any consequence has suggested it wasn't foolproof that I am aware of. Do you have it on authority that an expert has or was the above question merely a bit of writers' embellishment on your part, Userid?
 
No one of any consequence has suggested it wasn't foolproof that I am aware of. Do you have it on authority that an expert has or was the above question merely a bit of writers' embellishment on your part, Userid?

"Writer's Embellishment"????

I simply asked a question -- nothing more: a question that contained a supposition, but an honest question nonetheless. I'll ask another way:

Why did certain experts tell him to take down the video?
 
No one has "suggested it wasn't foolproof." In fact, some of the experts who had previously opined that the mark was not a bite mark have changed their opinion based on Dr. Cowart's work. That's what intelligent people do when new information (like the partials) is made available.

So you're suggesting there is new information? I've heard this from you for a while now, yet you never reveal it. I suspect it's either because it isn't very strong or that there is no new information.

It would be nice if the dental records and/or the partial were handed over to the dentist in order to strengthen his original video. Barring that, I can't see what other "new information" could bolster his original video.
 
So you're suggesting there is new information? I've heard this from you for a while now, yet you never reveal it. I suspect it's either because it isn't very strong or that there is no new information.

It would be nice if the dental records and/or the partial were handed over to the dentist in order to strengthen his original video. Barring that, I can't see what other "new information" could bolster his original video.

I'm saying that the experts who opined previously didn't know about TH's partial because it had not been found at the time they gave their opinions. Now, based on Dr. Cowart's work, their testimony would not be the same, if called to court again. They would opine that the partials could not be excluded as the cause of the mark on SB's brow. At least, that's what Dr. Cowart has said.
 
I'm saying that the experts who opined previously didn't know about TH's partial because it had not been found at the time they gave their opinions. Now, based on Dr. Cowart's work, their testimony would not be the same, if called to court again. They would opine that the partials could not be excluded as the cause of the mark on SB's brow. At least, that's what Dr. Cowart has said.

Ok --the new information would be the changed opinions of these experts (from the Pasdar time period, I'm assuming). It isn't really "new information" as much as it simply "changed opinions." I don't mean to debase it -- changed opinions are very important in this case and should be explored. When will they reveal them publicly?

Also, I'll ask again (at the risk of being accused of "writer's embellishment" again, but so be it): could you explain exactly why the dentist took the video down? I don't see the correlation (if there is one) as to why he would have to take down the video with your previous post I've quoted above.
 
Again, the experts asked him to take the video down. I don't know why, just that they asked and he complied. As to when we'll have any kind of "answer" available to the public from these experts, I have no clue! Patience!
 
Ok -- hence my supposition above (for Entrenous). I am very curious to know why they'd ask him to take that down (am I allowed to say that? :crazy:)
 
Of course, you can suppose! I don't know, but I suppose they wanted to investigate further and didn't want a bunch of amateurs posting opinions on the video. Again, that's my supposition. I do know for a fact that he was cautioned to keep it private when he first showed it to some forensic odontologists. He did - for a while. Then, he got frustrated that nothing was happening and made it public. I won't second-guess, but . . .
 
So I don't know if anyone is following the documentary about Steven Avery but it's really eye opening for me in terms of how corruption can run rampant in a small county law jurisdiction. The story very much reminds me of the WM3 in terms of how a personal vendetta can railroad a person to be convicted and sentenced for nearly 2 decades. One person with authority can start a spiral that leaves a trail of multiple convictions and multiple victims. The ones that ended up murdered or maimed don't end up with justice, real killers are walking free in communities and are able to victimize again. I believe there was and still is deep corruption that prevented this case from being fully investigated and an imperative to table this homicide indefinitely. How do you solve a crime when evidence is planted, tainted, forgotten, misplaced and destroyed?
 
So I don't know if anyone is following the documentary about Steven Avery but it's really eye opening for me in terms of how corruption can run rampant in a small county law jurisdiction. The story very much reminds me of the WM3 in terms of how a personal vendetta can railroad a person to be convicted and sentenced for nearly 2 decades. One person with authority can start a spiral that leaves a trail of multiple convictions and multiple victims. The ones that ended up murdered or maimed don't end up with justice, real killers are walking free in communities and are able to victimize again. I believe there was and still is deep corruption that prevented this case from being fully investigated and an imperative to table this homicide indefinitely. How do you solve a crime when evidence is planted, tainted, forgotten, misplaced and destroyed?

Amen to this! Thank you Justiceseeker35!
 
I came back just now to see what I've missed. Something really funny just happened.

I opened two tabs: one for here, and one for Google to type in "West Memphis Three". But instead of typing West Memphis Three, I started to type, "Cheeseburger Sammich".
 
Maybe somebody wrote about this so if that is the case then sorry for posting again. I watched the documentaries, read a lot of things about this case over the years, watched the movie, and I even looked at some crime photos (today, and it was very hard to look at that). I think like most of you that this is not the murder scene, because if it was the bodies, among other things, of SB, MM and CB would not looked like that, in my opinion. The coroner said that rigor mortis was present, and we can see that on the evidence pictures. So muscles stiffen starting between 2-6 hours following death and starts with eyelids, neck and jaw. Dead body holds its position as rigor mortis sets.The degree of rigor mortis may be used in forensic pathology to determine the approximate time of death. A dead body holds its position as rigor mortis sets in. If the body is moved after death, but before rigor mortis begins, forensic techniques such as livor mortis can be applied. If the position in which a body is found does not match the location where it is found (for example, if it is flat on its back with one arm sticking straight up), that could mean someone moved it. Several factors also affect the progression of rigor mortis, and investigators take these into account when estimating the time of death.
So, one of the boys CB was lying on his right side and his legs were close together, but the other two SB and MM were lying partially on their sides but their legs were separated. So, if they were dumped there right after they were murdered or if the murder took place there they would not be in that position (water was low and still or like in the pictures, there is no water there, if the bodies were dumped and they fell on their knees, not likely, after rigor mortis the bodies would not fell to the side in that position, to my opinion) even if something was put between their knees to hold them in that position but then there would be marks to sustain that. So, for me there is no doubt that this is not the murder scene and in my opinion I don't understand why is there speculation about it. If this is the crime scene then the murderer would have to be there for long time after the murders to wait for the rigor mortis to set (sometimes it takes only 30 min to start rigor mortis but for the whole body it takes hours) so that those two boys would maintain in that position, even if murder happened very near that place it wouldn't be possible because people were searching for them few hours later. So they were put there after few hours of their death but how and at what time is a really big mystery because of the search party. Those guys (and I think that there were more than one and very sick grownups not teens to do that) had to be very meticulous and they new what they were doing and how to tide them in that manner (i read somewhere that that was military stile, correct me if I'm wrong) or how to not leave anything behind for police to find. Teens couldn't do that no matter how clever, mad or whatever. It had to be someone they knew and were scared of and they had to know that the kids go there, i'm sure that they went there often. Well that is what I think, and yes about the hair on the knot 9(secondary transfer), why is there no hairs on the knots of DE or JB because they had long hair at that time and as they were not 'experienced' murderers I think that hair from them would be found in the knot not some secondary transfer from TH.
My grammar is not good, sorry for that (english not my mother language), but you understand what I want to say.
 
Hey Robela, don't worry about your english -- it's fine! :)

Yes, the dual lividity patterns indicate that the bodies were moved at some point. This would further support the notion that the ditch where the bodies were found was a dump site and not the actual crime scene. If you have a look around the forum you'll see several opinions that all take this in to account. It is my personal belief that whoever committed the crime had to have been in on when the woods were being searched.
 
Blood speckles on a pendant necklace that damien wore were a partial but not conclusive DNA match to one of three boys. Once they tested it, it was too late to test again. Not something you hear about in this case very often.
 
Blood speckles on a pendant necklace that damien wore were a partial but not conclusive DNA match to one of three boys. Once they tested it, it was too late to test again. Not something you hear about in this case very often.

Yes, blood specks found on the necklace -- worn by both Damien and Jason -- matched (HLA DQ alpha) Jason Baldwin as well as Steve Branch. That is, it's not conclusive at all and the prosecution didn't even bother entering it as evidence during trial.
You can read more about it here: http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_DNA_part_one.html
 
Just want to take up where Robela and Graznik left off. I definitely can't see anything pointing to the boys being slain in the discovery area. I don't even see the the area as a dump site. Dumping the bodies here would have looked a lot less methodical IMO. I think the bodies were placed here after the initial search on May the 5th, and that they were in one or two different locations before being placed in the ditch. The position of the legs of two of the victims might suggest they were pressed into a concealed room like a manhole, storm drain, the boot of a car, or what I tend to believe at the moment, they were in shallow water in a different location and were pressed down to submerge them completely. This obviously took place before Rigor Mortis set in.

If the boys were submerged in a different water location, and possibly drowned there (COD Peretti two of the boys), this opens up a few questions for me.

- Would there be traces of the water they actually drowned in, in their lungs or stomachs ?
- Would that mean that the loss off water samples from the ditch, the failure to measure water
- temp. was another convenient loss like the blood samples from "Bojangles" ?

The ditch (culvert) was fed by excess rain water from the highway area if I'm rightly informed.
I would think that the biological consistency of the water was completely different to that of the ten mile bayou, or bayou diversion channel, or a swimming pool for instance.

Whoever placed the boys in the ditch, knew that there was sufficient water in the ditch to cover them. As the water level in the ditch was dependant on rainfall, this would suggest that the perp was in the area recently.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
1,133
Total visitors
1,266

Forum statistics

Threads
589,180
Messages
17,915,189
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top