What Do the Bodies Tell Us?

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?

Injuries of Right Arm:
Scattered abrasions were present over the right arm and forearm. A yellow binding abrasion which was not surrounded by contusion was present on the right wrist.

Injuries of Left Arm:
Multiple scattered abrasions are present on the anteroposterior surfaces of the left arm. A binding abrasion was present on the left wrist and at the superior margin of this abrasion was a faint red-purple contusion.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autsb.html

Compare it to the other autopsy reports on Callahans (snippets below), and you'll see that the abrasions surrounding the bindings are much more defined and darker than CB's (yellow, faint red), which would indicate his heart all but stopped pumping blood before he was tied.

No offense, but I don't really know where you are getting your information, when you say that Turvey said MM had no abrasions, when it clearly states otherwise here:

MM:
Upper Extremity Injuries:
The wrists showed binding abrasions. Situated around these abrasions were contusions.
Situated on the left antecubital fossa was 1/8 inch abrasion. Below this were linear abrasions measuring from 1/16 inch to 1/2 inch.

SB:
Upper Extremity Injuries:
On the back of the hands were multiple scattered contusions. Scattered contusions were also present on the thenar eminence bilaterally.
Binding abrasions with surrounding red contusion were present on the wrists.

Can you link me to where you're getting your info?
 
Sure: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/b_turvey_profile.html
'The shoelace ligatures used to restrain this victim (Turvey is talking about MM here) did not leave deep furrows, and also did not leave abrasions. This indicates that the victim was not struggling while the ligatures were in place. This indicates further that the victim was very much unconscious when the ligatures were affixed to his wrists and ankles. '

Later in his report, Turvey states: 'Steve Branch and Chris Byers both show deep ligature furrows with ligature abrasions, indicating that they were alive and conscious while the bindings were in place. James Moore had no ligature abrasions, indicating he was unconscious while his bindings were in place.'
 
Thank you. It looks like this fellow was hired by JMK's defense lawyer, and it looks like his "report" was done in 1998. It seems like he is working strictly from reports and/or photos. Guess I'm just confused because he's saying that the information came directly from the autopsy reports, but he's reporting contradictory information, obviously. Would you not agree? I mean, Peretti (the original autopsy doctor, who viewed the bodies) clearly states the contrary http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autmm.html; so I don't know if Turvey simply got confused and/or mixed up MM with CB, but Perreti clearly states that MM's wrists showed binding abrasions and contusions.

Pertaining to this particular subject, I take Peretti's word for it more so than Turvey's.
 
Thank you. It looks like this fellow was hired by JMK's defense lawyer, and it looks like his "report" was done in 1998. It seems like he is working strictly from reports and/or photos. Guess I'm just confused because he's saying that the information came directly from the autopsy reports, but he's reporting contradictory information, obviously. Would you not agree? I mean, Peretti (the original autopsy doctor, who viewed the bodies) clearly states the contrary http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autmm.html; so I don't know if Turvey simply got confused and/or mixed up MM with CB, but Perreti clearly states that MM's wrists showed binding abrasions and contusions.

Pertaining to this particular subject, I take Peretti's word for it more so than Turvey's.

So I take the bindings were done as punishment and then the beating/struggling began? It's possible that SB was the main target and the other two were killed in same manner (back of head wounds) as to eliminate the witnesses. According to interviews CB was a bit more spirited than MM it's possible he said something or struggled more and got the killer more riled up than MM did.
 
Yeah I agree, Userid. It just really frustrates me that there are so many differing opinions from the experts. It makes this already confusing and muddled case all the more difficult to solve :banghead:

Justiceseeker35, I'm not sure if the knots in the binding were strong enough to hold a fully concious and struggling 8-year old. I think it's more likely that the victims were knocked out, tied up really tight, and were just regaining conciousness when they were dealt a mortal blow by the perp. IMO, the victims were already dead before they were put in the ditch.
 
Yeah I agree, Userid. It just really frustrates me that there are so many differing opinions from the experts. It makes this already confusing and muddled case all the more difficult to solve :banghead:

Justiceseeker35, I'm not sure if the knots in the binding were strong enough to hold a fully concious and struggling 8-year old. I think it's more likely that the victims were knocked out, tied up really tight, and were just regaining conciousness when they were dealt a mortal blow by the perp. IMO, the victims were already dead before they were put in the ditch.

Preaching to the choir, LM -- that is the most frustrating thing about this case. It's not only pertaining to complex issues, but even simple items that should be relatively easy to agree upon/determine. I mean, I really don't get it sometimes: either this killer was the luckiest guy on the face of the earth to confuse all these experts/detectives (on ever the simplest of things) or he was one of the most methodical killers to have ever existed.

And I agree, the bindings came later, after the assault or perhaps during (i.e. after blows were already delivered). It's possible either CB or SB was the main target; which one, is still up in the air.
 
Preaching to the choir, LM -- that is the most frustrating thing about this case. It's not only pertaining to complex issues, but even simple items that should be relatively easy to agree upon/determine. I mean, I really don't get it sometimes: either this killer was the luckiest guy on the face of the earth to confuse all these experts/detectives (on ever the simplest of things) or he was one of the most methodical killers to have ever existed.

And I agree, the bindings came later, after the assault or perhaps during (i.e. after blows were already delivered). It's possible either CB or SB was the main target; which one, is still up in the air.

If it was the step father than I believe SB was the focus because of the bite mark and facial lacs. CB was probably an irritation only. And poor MM was a witness. It's crazy how this person got away with it. I think it boils down to a perfect storm of events having to do with time, place, economics, pop culture (satanic panic) and who was investigating and the luck and cunning of the killer.
 
OK. I'll weigh in here. Turvey's report was done before the mtDNA evidence was revealed which, IMO, compromises his conclusions. However, as has been discussed before, don't be misguided by the "drowning" COD for SB and MM. The basilar skull fractures could have caused internal bleeding which would induce a so-called "dry" drowning. We all know that Peretti's skills are less than stellar. So, IMO, it would be easy for him to mistakenly report the CODs as drowning because the victims were found in water. There is much in Turvey's report that still is spot on, IMO. There was an abduction site, but I believe it was also the site of the initial attack. Then, as Turvey suggests, IMO, the bodies were moved to the drainage ditch where they were found.

As was stated above, one problem we face is conflicting experts. However, I'm more inclined to believe those who have all the facts. John Douglas was asked by defense counsel to review this case after the mtDNA revelations. Therefore, IMO, his report ( http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jb_habeas_rule37/exh61_douglas_report.pdf ) is more reliable. It's long, and a lot of it is theory, but it's worth the read if you haven't yet.
 
I've been wondering about why the victims were disrobed. Since there is no blood on the clothing (and I don't think the perpetrator would have taken the clothes to a laundromat just to clean the victims' blood of the clothes) I think it's safe to assume that the boys were nude when the basilar skull fractures were made. But why? Was it to humiliate and degrade the victims? While that may very well have been the case, I think the victims were already disrobed (perhaps not entirely) before the perpetrator encountered them. My theory is that they were swimming, either in a ditch or in the bayou. Here are some things that point to such a scenario:
- CB's medical bracelet has never been found. From this website, I learned that it's recommended that medical bracelets be removed before entering the water: http://www.laurenshope.com/faqs#shower. This due to the fact that these bracelets are strung on jewelry wire (JMB was a jeweler and made this bracelet for his stepson). So, CB would have taken his bracelet off before he went swimming, and the bracelet was possibly discarded by the perp. It makes no sense why the perp would have taken the bracelet off of CB's body.
- One sock was found still in a shoe. I believe this shoe belonged to SB? I think MM and CB did not wear socks in their shoes that day and SB did. When they undressed to go swimming, SB put one sock deep in his shoe and he left the other sock hanging out of his other shoe. When the perp franticly got all the clothing together, that sock fell out of the shoe, while the other sock remained in the shoe.
- It was a hot and humid day. Temperatures were in the mid to high 80's °F, and even after 6 PM it would have been refreshing to take a cool dive.
- CB and SB were described as avid swimmers.

However, there are at least two problems with this theory:
- SB's and CB's clothes were found inside out. It's hard to imagine that they themselves would pull off their clothes in that way.
- It doesn't quite make sense for the three boys to go for a swim at that time. CB had just been punished by his stepfather, so why would he risk his wrath by going with SB and MM for a swim? And MM was supposed to be home for dinner at about 6 PM, so why would he go swimming after that time? Obviously, we're talking about 8-year old boys here, who tend to live more 'in the moment', so I suppose that could explain it.
What do you all think?
 
I think that's possible, LM. I don't agree with the problems you've raised though....

1) When children pull their clothes off they usually would end up inside out. At least mine did when I was a child.

2) CB, according to one witness, was "running away." That was probably eight year old running away rather than seriously heading for the hills, but even eight year old version of running away would involve trying to stay out long enough to get them worried.

3) MM was seen by his sister around the time he was supposed to come home, she called him back but he ignored her and cycled away with his friends. So, for whatever reason, we already know that these boys weren't planning to go home in time for tea that night. Swimming could be as good a reason as any.

However, would anyone want to swim in that ditch or bayou? It looked kinda dirty to me.
 
Yes, LM, very plausible. I also agree with Cappuccino about the inside out clothes and about the unpredictability of eight-year-old boys. The only thing I question is SB. His mother has always said that he was very obedient and came home when he was supposed to come home, for instance. However, IMO, that problem could be solved if, when TH was out in the driveway about 4:30 pm (when SB was supposed to come home), he actually saw SB and gave him permission to stay out a little longer, telling SB something like, "I'll tell your mom. Don't worry. Have fun. Just be home by dark."
 
Yes, LM, very plausible. I also agree with Cappuccino about the inside out clothes and about the unpredictability of eight-year-old boys. The only thing I question is SB. His mother has always said that he was very obedient and came home when he was supposed to come home, for instance. However, IMO, that problem could be solved if, when TH was out in the driveway about 4:30 pm (when SB was supposed to come home), he actually saw SB and gave him permission to stay out a little longer, telling SB something like, "I'll tell your mom. Don't worry. Have fun. Just be home by dark."

It could also be explained by the fact that Stevie had only just started hanging out with Christopher and Michael, both of whom were more mischievous than him. Even obedient 8 year olds are susceptible to peer pressure from their friends.
 
Yes, CB had just joined the twosome of SB and MM so the added mischief-maker just might have been enough to tip the scales.
 
I think that's possible, LM. I don't agree with the problems you've raised though....

1) When children pull their clothes off they usually would end up inside out. At least mine did when I was a child.

2) CB, according to one witness, was "running away." That was probably eight year old running away rather than seriously heading for the hills, but even eight year old version of running away would involve trying to stay out long enough to get them worried.

3) MM was seen by his sister around the time he was supposed to come home, she called him back but he ignored her and cycled away with his friends. So, for whatever reason, we already know that these boys weren't planning to go home in time for tea that night. Swimming could be as good a reason as any.

However, would anyone want to swim in that ditch or bayou? It looked kinda dirty to me.

I've considered it really possible that CB (who'd been hit by his dad and was probably mad/afraid over it, seeing as he was running away and all..and JMB was pretty well known for his temper fits..) asked his friends to stick around and help him hide out. I've known usually obedient kids to miss a deadline because of some kiddly drama or other (like one kid finding a snake in the playground.. and enlisting all his mates to go looking for it after it slithered away -- did any of em call a parent? Nuh! They just hung around making a big deal out of it to each other, til all the parents went out looking for them! Little boogers.).

I could totally see a kid who's usually punctual disobeying, if his little friend was angry, hurt and sad and wanted to hide out somewhere. It's drama, kids can be all over that and lose serious track of time/choose not to worry about it.
 
Yes, CB had just joined the twosome of SB and MM so the added mischief-maker just might have been enough to tip the scales.

I thought it was the other way round - that CB and MM were already friends and that SB had newly joined them?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
67
Guests online
2,373
Total visitors
2,440

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,949
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top