What Do the Bodies Tell Us?

[Compassionate Reader]

That all hangs together for me. One additional thing, though. Submergence of the bodies could have affected the advancement of rigor. I'm not sure about livor, though. At any rate, I agree with the basic point. The boys did not die from the initial attack (occurring on the evening of May 5, 1993) but some time later. Additionally, MM most likely died some time later than the other two boys.

 

[Ausgirl]

What 'initial attack'. though? We don't actually *know* if there was an 'attack' in the woods. In fact, the lack of mozzie bites on all three bodies suggests that not a lot of time was spent in the woods, prior to their deaths.

For all we know, the boys went somewhere else, possibly quite nearby, possibly even willingly, and were near-fatally attacked at a later time. We do know there was talk from Chris Byers about running away from home. (Just a half-random thought here - he also abandoned his skateboard in the street... just in my experience, a boy and his board are not easily parted, and just leave it in the street is also strange.. was he in a panic?)

We know Chris stated to another child that he was afraid of another beating. Did they all seek out and find a good hidey spot for Chris, and run afoul of someone at that location? Were they lured by somebody to another location? Snatching and controlling three kids on two bikes is a massive and awkward undertaking, I am inclined to think that if they never actually went deep into the woods on the 5th but went or were taken elsewhere for the duration of the evening, they likely went voluntarily at first.

 

[Ausgirl]

Additionally, MM most likely died some time later than the other two boys.

Quite possibly, yep.

I was thinking that maybe also MM could have been moved onto the bank *just* prior to the last stages of rigor setting into his legs (which are the last to set, being larger muscles). And that the other boys, found an hour later, had that extra hour for their rigor to set too. BUT then I remembered MM was reported to have been *found* at 1.45 but not removed from the water until a few mins before the other bodies were discovered. So that's a big nuh-uh. The pic in the water with Mike Allen strongly suggests rigor was not fully set at that time. But all three were fully set by 4pm, according to Hale. They were still blanching, though.

So while both rigor and livor are NOT great tools for estimating TOD, I am pretty sure the above details are telling us *something* here about the ballpark region of it, as well as a possible clue to the sequence of the deaths.

Maybe.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If you subscribe to some version of The Manhole Theory (as I do), it is quite possible that the killer trapped the boys in a manhole or drainage pipe and could easily control them in that way. (The bikes were left outside by the boys and disposed of later.) If, additionally, you believe that the killer is someone who not only knew the little boys but also had some form of control over them (as I do), there would have been no "struggle" or forcing involved.

As I have stated before, I believe that the killer was searching for the boys to punish his step son. I believe that he found them in their "secret hideout" at about 7 pm to 7:15 pm on May 5, 1993. I believe that his intention was to discipline his step son. I believe that he went too far and thought he had killed his step son and then attacked (and thought he killed) the two witnesses. Later, being a part of the "search" an knowing when it was safe to do so, he came back and discovered the animal predation. His initial thought was to pass the deaths off as accidental ("They must've fallen down that manhole.") but, after seeing the animal predation, he didn't think his "story" would be believable. So, he moved the "bodies" to the discovery site sometime in the wee hours of May 6th, again knowing that the search had been suspended and that all parents were at home.

The boys (except CB, who I believe died at the initial site, aided by the animal predation, shortly before the killer returned) died in the discovery ditch at some time shortly after they were moved. The lack of mosquito bites can be explained by either being attacked shortly after they got to the woods, before the mosquitoes had come out, or possibly by the distinct possibility that the drainage system had been recently treated for mosquitoes. One wound on MM (a skull injury that could have been caused by a hammer) leads me to believe that MM was not dead when the killer returned and the killer struck a blow with a hammer, causing a fatal skull fracture.

Of course, all of the above is my opinion based on studying this case for the last 18 years (since 1996). I could be wrong. I am more than willing to consider other possibilities, if they are corroborated by the available information. IMO, any scenario involving drunk and/or Satan-worshiping teenagers isn't corroborated.

 

[Ausgirl]

CR, as you're probably aware, I remain quite dubious of the 'manhole theory' in its present incarnation - I just feel too much fact-stretching and supposition has gone into it, for it to be entirely credible to me. Though it's interesting that JKM *did* put forward a very similar theory, a short time after the murders, and there's certainly several points which indicate a secondary site is very possible. It's also interesting that JMB also put forward a theory of a secondary site.

I don't try to 'fit' the observations I make into particular theory. I think the only conclusion of which I am pretty certain is that what I am seeing debunks the notion that the children were murdered not long after they entered the woods. Which undermines the case for the WM3 attacking the kids that evening, for a start.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

So you are leaning to the murder occurring in another location at a later time? If so, where were the boys until they were murdered?

 

[Ausgirl]

CR, I really dunno how I'd know that... you know? ropeller: No clue, presently, and I can't see anything solid enough yet that makes me wanna try to shoehorn it into a theory.

I'm leaning toward the boys NOT being killed shortly after they entered the woods -- and *possibly* that they were not killed until the 4am mark or somewhere about that ballpark time. Also that they were *likely* NOT in the woods for all those hours in between.

No major revelations here, and nothing completely new. BUT I do feel more certain now that time of death was not evening of the 5th but rather early morning of the 6th. I believe that if TOD was say, 7-9PM on the 5th, the bodies would have ALL been set both in full rigor -and (particularly)- in full livor mortis by 4PM on the 6th, so there would have been NO blanching. To me, that certainty's a big deal.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Like I said before, I don't believe that they died until the wee hours of the sixth, either. However, I do believe that they were attacked and rendered unconscious (and believed to be dead by the killer) much earlier and simply succumbed to their injuries in the wee hours. I don't see anything, evidence-wise, that would discount that explanation. As to where the boys/bodies were from the time of their disappearance until the discovery of the bodies, again, I believe two locations were involved. CB died at the first location (from exsanguination caused by animal predation) while MM and SB died at the discovery site - MM probably a couple of hours after SB. I believe that CB and SB died at times very close together. Dying in the wee hours doesn't preclude the possibility of an earlier attack, IMO. Since both SB and MM drowned, and since drowning would have to occur within minutes of submergence in a body of water, my only guess is that MM wasn't submerged at the same time as SB. Maybe the killer's second trip to move the bodies was a couple of hours after the first. IMO, that's plausible. His first trip could have been as early as 3 am and the second trip as late as 5 am.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Here are the most significant observations made by coroner Kent Hart:
- All the victims had both anterior lividity (on face and chest) and posterior lividity (on buttocks and back)
- The lividity hadn’t fixed yet
- MM and CB had fly larvae in eyes and nostrils, while SB only had fly larvae in the eyes
The fly larvae were never collected and never identified. According to professor of entomology Lee Goff, Scarcophagidae (also known as flesh flies) don’t lay eggs, but deposit larvae straight away. Also, flies have a tendency to start with the head of a human cadaver, followed by other regions. And flies will prefer antemortem and perimortem wounds over postmortem wounds. Since CB had no larvae in his groin area, this might be an indication that that injury was caused postmortem. Sorry if this is graphic, but I think it’s important to take this into account. Anyways, the WMPD should NEVER have taken the bodies from the water BEFORE the coroner arrived. I have no idea what they were thinking there. IMO, the larvae were indeed flesh flies and were deposited in the time that the bodies were lying on the ditch bank (which was roughly an hour).
The lividity points to the moving of bodies. Since the lividity hadn’t become fixed by the time the coroner came (16:00 PM), I guess it’s possible (but very unlikely) that the posterior lividity was caused by the way the bodies were placed on the ditch bank by WMPD. The crime scene footage shows that the bodies were placed on the sides (MM and SB on right side, CB on left side). Does anyone know if the bodies were in that position the entire time? Or were the bodies moved multiple times? Since the bodies were found face down (according to Ridge’s court testimony. He says that MM was found lying on his left side ‘facing Memphis’, but this was after the body had become dislodged from the bottom of the ditch) the anterior lividity was caused by the way the bodies were placed in the ditch. IMO, the bodies were lying on their backs for a couple of hours, before the bodies were dumped in the ditch by the perp.
The fact that the lividity hadn’t become fixed yet doesn’t mean much. Yes, lividity often fixes after 8-12 hours, but there is a great variety in the rate of lividity from person to person, as this study shows: http://www.indmedica.com/journals.php?journalid=9&issueid=70&articleid=887&action=article
Some of the bodies had fixed lividity after a couple of hours in the cold chamber, while other weren’t fixed after almost 24 hours. IMO, the fact that the lividity hadn’t become fixed yet, doesn’t necessarily mean that TOD was after 1 AM.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Very interesting assessment. As most know, I believe that the boys were attacked in the 6:30 to 7:30 pm window at a different location than where the bodies were discovered (supported by the dual lividity). If true, it's certainly plausible that they died some time after the initial attack. As the fly larvae indicates, the injuries to CB's groin could indeed have been postmortem animal predation, which is the theory put forth by the defense at the Rule 37 hearing. Since two boys (SB and MM) died from drowning, it's entirely possible (and I believe probable) that they were actually alive when placed in the discovery ditch (which I believe occurred some time during the 3 am to 5 am window). Again, very interesting observations on lividity and rigor.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Very interesting assessment. As most know, I believe that the boys were attacked in the 6:30 to 7:30 pm window at a different location than where the bodies were discovered (supported by the dual lividity). If true, it's certainly plausible that they died some time after the initial attack. As the fly larvae indicates, the injuries to CB's groin could indeed have been postmortem animal predation, which is the theory put forth by the defense at the Rule 37 hearing. Since two boys (SB and MM) died from drowning, it's entirely possible (and I believe probable) that they were actually alive when placed in the discovery ditch (which I believe occurred some time during the 3 am to 5 am window). Again, very interesting observations on lividity and rigor.

I agree for the most part with the manhole theory. However, it's important to note that lividity can only occur after death. This means that MM and SB were already dead before they were put in the discovery ditch. That fact makes me question the diagnosis by Peretti that drowning was the cause of death for SB and MM. According to this site, it's hard to assess whether a person found in water died from drowning or from another cause: http://netk.net.au/Reports/DiagnosticsofDrowning.asp Peretti notes that fluid was found in the sphenoid sinus, but this is not endemic to drowning. In 52% of non-drowning fatalities, fluid is found in the sphenoid sinus: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12134758 And the presence of water in the lungs doesn't necessarily mean much, either. After all, the bodies were lying in the water for at least 8 hours before they were removed from the creek. I'm currently trying to find out if the skull fractures alone could have caused death.
Do you think that it was an alligator snapping turtle that caused the injuries to CB?

 

[Cappuccino]

I agree for the most part with the manhole theory. However, it's important to note that lividity can only occur after death. This means that MM and SB were already dead before they were put in the discovery ditch. That fact makes me question the diagnosis by Peretti that drowning was the cause of death for SB and MM. According to this site, it's hard to assess whether a person found in water died from drowning or from another cause: http://netk.net.au/Reports/DiagnosticsofDrowning.asp Peretti notes that fluid was found in the sphenoid sinus, but this is not endemic to drowning. In 52% of non-drowning fatalities, fluid is found in the sphenoid sinus: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12134758 And the presence of water in the lungs doesn't necessarily mean much, either. After all, the bodies were lying in the water for at least 8 hours before they were removed from the creek. I'm currently trying to find out if the skull fractures alone could have caused death.
Do you think that it was an alligator snapping turtle that caused the injuries to CB?

Skull fractures can cause dry drowning, which would also cause fluid in the lungs.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I believe that the flow of blood from the time of unconsciousness until death was so slow that lividity might have begun pre-mortem. As I'm not too keen on the abilities of Peretti and Hale, I believe that the slow death process could have caused the primary lividity and the moving of the bodies could have caused the secondary lividity. I found this interesting:

"Hypostatic congestion resembling post-mortem hypostasis may be seen a few hours before death in case of a person dying slowly with circulatory failure . . "

There's a lot more, but it wouldn't let me copy and paste!

http://www.forensicpathologyonline.com/e-book/post-mortem-changes/post-mortem-hypostasis

 

[Lethalmatthew]

In the autopsy report, Peretti notes that all three victims had basal skull fractures. Those are fractures to the base of the skull, and cause bleeding from the nose and ears and fluid accumulation in the sphenoid sinus. These fractures are lethal. What I found rather interesting, was that MM was the only victim who also had skull fractures to the upper parts of his skull (frontal bone and parietal bone). I'm not sure what that means, though.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

In the autopsy report, Peretti notes that all three victims had basal skull fractures. Those are fractures to the base of the skull, and cause bleeding from the nose and ears and fluid accumulation in the sphenoid sinus. These fractures are lethal. What I found rather interesting, was that MM was the only victim who also had skull fractures to the upper parts of his skull (frontal bone and parietal bone). I'm not sure what that means, though.

I always viewed MM as a bystander. Not the intended target, meaning I believe he was attacked only to tidy the situation up. The frontal and parietal would be to knock him out. I imagine this killer had a blunt instrument in hand and the basal skull fractures were to kill each victim if not then mortally wound. If I completely discount the wounds on CB's genital region then the attack becomes personal towards SB given extenstive the wounds to his face and bite marks and defensive wounds.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I always viewed MM as a bystander. Not the intended target, meaning I believe he was attacked only to tidy the situation up. The frontal and parietal would be to knock him out. I imagine this killer had a blunt instrument in hand and the basal skull fractures were to kill each victim if not then mortally wound. If I completely discount the wounds on CB's genital region then the attack becomes personal towards SB given extenstive the wounds to his face and bite marks and defensive wounds.

I agree with this assessment. IIRC, MM's body was described as "looking like he is sleeping" whereas the other bodies contained multiple wounds. As you pointed out, if the wounds to CB's genitals were, indeed, animal predation, then SB was the more severely wounded. If TH is the killer, then his stepson was the primary target. The only reason that I can see for CB to be targeted was the "crush" on AH. Why would a childhood "crush" enrage TH? IMO, there are two related possible explanations:

1. TH didn't want his daughter (and AH is his biological daughter) to have another "lover" - the old green eyed monster.

2. TH thought AH was too young for male attention and wanted to drive the point home.

However, it could be that TH was just eliminating witnesses and the fact that CB sustained more injuries than MM was coincidental.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I always viewed MM as a bystander. Not the intended target, meaning I believe he was attacked only to tidy the situation up. The frontal and parietal would be to knock him out. I imagine this killer had a blunt instrument in hand and the basal skull fractures were to kill each victim if not then mortally wound. If I completely discount the wounds on CB's genital region then the attack becomes personal towards SB given extenstive the wounds to his face and bite marks and defensive wounds.

I agree with this assessment. IIRC, MM's body was described as "looking like he is sleeping" whereas the other bodies contained multiple wounds. As you pointed out, if the wounds to CB's genitals were, indeed, animal predation, then SB was the more severely wounded. If TH is the killer, then his stepson was the primary target. The only reason that I can see for CB to be targeted was the "crush" on AH. Why would a childhood "crush" enrage TH? IMO, there are two related possible explanations:

1. TH didn't want his daughter (and AH is his biological daughter) to have another "lover" - the old green eyed monster.

2. TH thought AH was too young for male attention and wanted to drive the point home.

However, it could be that TH was just eliminating witnesses and the fact that CB sustained more injuries than MM was coincidental.

 

[Userid]

Eh, somewhat disagree. CB died strictly from blunt-force trauma, whereas the other 2 died by drowning. Even if you discount the genital wounds as animal predation, the fact that he is the only one that died from blunt force trauma would be enough to argue that he suffered the most severe injuries; or, as severe as SB.

Also, the other two boys showed signs of bruising around the bindings, indicating they were still alive when they were applied; CB has little to no bruising around the bindings, indicating he had passed before they were applied.

Sometimes, I lean toward CB being the first one to be attacked, by the bindings and by his CoD.

 

[Lethalmatthew]

Also, the other two boys showed signs of bruising around the bindings, indicating they were still alive when they were applied; CB has little to no bruising around the bindings, indicating he had passed before they were applied.

I'm not sure if this is the case. Turvey said in his examination that MM had no abrasions, while CB and SB had 'deep ligature furrows with ligature abrasions'. According to the autopsy report, all three victims had binding abrasions. Where did you hear that CB had little to no bruising around the bindings?

 

[Userid]

Double-post, see next page.