What Do the Bodies Tell Us?

[Cher Lockhomes]

Ausgirl:

The "cloth in hand" noted was described in the autopsy report as a "strand"... as you'll see, this is not just a strand. Here's the cropped pics... note that in the one with Mike Allen's arms and T-shirt showing, this was taken from 'above (presumably up on the bank) and Mike Allen is clearly standing in --- and lifting the body out from -- the muddy water.

Thank you for your effort with the photos. As Miranda! stated, this topic was discussed on another board. It seems all explanations concerning the cloth being a tripod bag, funeral blanket, strand of fibres, or even an alleged manipulation of photos by WM3 supporters, came to nothing in the end. The general rumor was that it was "misplaced" or "lost" by the crime-lab. "No Comment" on this!!!

 

[Ausgirl]

Well, yeah - that was the gist of my original comment. *grin*

And that I find it very curious that it's not just 'lost' -- it's not at all mentioned in any report. I don't believe it's the same 'strands clutched in the hand' mentioned in the autopsy. No-one with both eyes and a brain in their head could mistake that expanse of green whatever for 'strands'. Oh, and it's nowhere near his hand.

 

[Cymbaline]

okay, I read all 7 pages of this thread. I don't really know anything about this case but my guess about the wrist/ankle bindings are that 2 of the children were on their bikes when those laces were tied. Envision sitting/ridding a bike with someone pushing your torso down to restrict movement and the wrist/ankles line up.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Ausgirl:

Well, yeah - that was the gist of my original comment. *grin*
And that I find it very curious that it's not just 'lost' -- it's not at all mentioned in any report. I don't believe it's the same 'strands clutched in the hand' mentioned in the autopsy. No-one with both eyes and a brain in their head could mistake that expanse of green whatever for 'strands'. Oh, and it's nowhere near his hand.

Yes it's definitely a piece of cloth and not a strand of fibres IMO. I don't understand why the defense did not play on this, at least at the Echols/Baldwin trial it must have been known to them. There is certainly no other mention of this cloth in anything I've seen, other than the Turvey document.

Cymbaline:

okay, I read all 7 pages of this thread. I don't really know anything about this case but my guess about the wrist/ankle bindings are that 2 of the children were on their bikes when those laces were tied. Envision sitting/ridding a bike with someone pushing your torso down to restrict movement and the wrist/ankles line up.

That's an interesting theory, will have to think about that.

 

[Ausgirl]

Ausgirl:



Yes it's definitely a piece of cloth and not a strand of fibres IMO. I don't understand why the defense did not play on this, at least at the Echols/Baldwin trial it must have been known to them. There is certainly no other mention of this cloth in anything I've seen, other than the Turvey document.

I can't find anywhere else that it's described as a 'piece of cloth' - but what's curious there is, in the pic with Mike Allen lifting the body from the water, it is clearly draped across the torso as wet cloth drapes, clinging to the skin, and is *nowhere near the hands* let alone "clutched" in one, that I can see.

So how it later photographed "clutched in the hand" and not "draped over torso" . How'd the perception of it as a small piece of cloth found solely in the victim's hand come baout -- VS what we can actually see in those pictures, which is something else altogether?

 

[Cymbaline]

Cymbaline:



That's an interesting theory, will have to think about that.

My original thought was that they were tied wrist to ankle and put on the bikes as a way of transport to the dump site/sites. I was thinking... How would one man with limited time transport 3 children and 2 bikes... That's when i realized the wrist/ankle bindings would match up if the child was sitting on a bike.

The child that had the unexplained bite (?) marks on his face could possibly be from a bike pedal repeatedly hitting him while being transported on the bike to the final dump site. This is the photo/post for reference.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?219600-Terry-Hobbs-My-Story&p=9869477#post9869477


MOO, JMO

 

[Compassionate Reader]

^Thanks for the input! I, too, will ponder this possibility.

 

[Userid]

The killer would have to had made at least 2 to 3 separate trips to the dump site. There's just no other way around it.

There are many things I'm confused on with your theory. First, how would SB get cut from the bike pedal like that on his face if his body was positioned on the bicycle in a normal upright fashion (I may be missing something here)? You're supposing the bodies were tied that way after death? And you're supposing that they were transported to the creek while on these bikes, but not actually tied to the frame/handle bars of the bikes? This would be impossible if the boys were transported from the East bank, as it would have been too steep to logically perform this; yet, in my opinion, this method could have only been performed via the East bank, in that it would have provided enough tree cover.

I believe you are assuming that the bodies, the bikes, and the clothes were all transported in one trip from the murder site to the dump site; with multiple "short trips" to and fro the vehicle to the dump site. What type of vehicle could have transported all of that in one trip? A van or an RV; with a (normal sized) truck being a distant third option (the truck bed would have to have a cover). An RV would have fit right in with the other big-rig trucks at the 76 Truck Stop, which led a trail from the parking lot to the dump site, but the tree cover was sparse.

Also, the bikes were disposed of by the pipe bridge, which was some distance away from the creek bed the bodies were found. So, the killer would have had to carry the bodies from the pipe bridge to the creek bed anyway, which makes little sense to me.

In my view, the killer (if there was only one) made multiple trips from the murder site to dump site throughout the night. I believe that both the west bank and the east bank was utilized by the killer, depending on whether or not there were searchers in the area, etc. I believe the bodies were somehow bagged or wrapped, as I don't believe anybody would transport a fully nude body anywhere; even over a short distance -- if they didn't absolutely have to. There not only would have been a blood trail on the ground and on the killer, but also, if you were to be seen, you would much rather want to be seen with a bag than a naked body -- both equally suspicious carried into the woods, granted, but nonetheless. The bodies also would have to be bagged for transport as well, as to not leave any marks in the interior and in case you were pulled over.

In summation, for this theory to be true, the killer would have had to leave his vehicle for a while in the same place in the 76 truck stop while making multiple trips to and from the dump site -- this would have been risky, especially with Mayfair Apartments looming. Like I said, I do believe that some items were disposed of via the west bank/truck stop lot -- but I think it would have been done quicker. I think the bikes and SB and CB were all disposed of in one trip from the murder site to the dump site from the 76 lot; with 2 short trips to and from the vehicle to the dump site. Disposing of the bikes together from the vehicle to the pipe bridge would have taken very little time, and was done most likely after the killer disposed of SB and CB.

 

[Graznik]

Regarding the green material draped across MMs body in the pictures... From what I can tell from those pictures, it looks like foliage.
We might be dealing with the Keystone Cops here, but if that really was fabric I believe it would have been brought to the attention of someone by now. Because it's not a small piece, like what was found clutched in one of the victims hands.
However, it is sloppy that, whatever it was, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere.

 

[Ausgirl]

I don't think it's foliage as it's casting a direct shadow on the body, in the first picture I attached, and is clearly a single piece of flat green material clinging to the body in the second.

I think the peculiar way it drapes in the first pic makes it look like a bit like leaves.. but if it was leaves, how doe we explain a/ the shadow it casts, b/ the other picture. To me it looks a bit like a rubbery material, which might fold oddly like that. Not sure, though. But I am pretty sure it isn't leaves.

 

[Userid]

I don't think it's foliage as it's casting a direct shadow on the body, in the first picture I attached, and is clearly a single piece of flat green material clinging to the body in the second.

I think the peculiar way it drapes in the first pic makes it look like a bit like leaves.. but if it was leaves, how doe we explain a/ the shadow it casts, b/ the other picture. To me it looks a bit like a rubbery material, which might fold oddly like that. Not sure, though. But I am pretty sure it isn't leaves.

Hmmm...it's tough to say. In the first picture, it looks like a bunch of (3 or so) large leaves to me; but in the second, it almost appears as if it's one large piece of something.

At first, I thought (from the first picture) that they were a bunch of lilly pads. I still somewhat think it may be lilly pads, and that in the second picture, the resolution tricks the eye into thinking that it is a cloth. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Userid]

Double post -- sorry.

 

[Graznik]

Hmmm...it's tough to say. In the first picture, it looks like a bunch of (3 or so) large leaves to me; but in the second, it almost appears as if it's one large piece of something.

At first, I thought (from the first picture) that they were a bunch of lilly pads. I still somewhat think it may be lilly pads, and that in the second picture, the resolution tricks the eye into thinking that it is a cloth. Just my opinion, of course.

I'm with you on this one.
Do we know any specifics regarding the vegetation is the area? Not just WM in general, but the dump site in particular.

 

[Ausgirl]

If anyone wants to see a larger version of the Mark Allen pic, it's at the 12 min mark or so, in the last Paradise Lost film. I've seen lily pads. This ain't them. And that slightly higher res look shows that the cloth might be cut in places, so that's why it folds oddly (thus resembling large leaves) when he's put on the ground. Plus, I think it's rubber or plastic.

The fact that some of the trees around the site appear to have large, broad leaves is why I never paid much attention to this before. But after looking at the Mike Allen pic more closely, I am pretty certain it's NOT foliage of any kind.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I'm inclined to go along with Ausgirl, could be foilage although I'm missing some of the characteristics. If it was moss like, I would expect it to cling to the body somewhat. If it was a bunch of leaves I would expect it to be a bit more rounded on the edges and perhaps a bit more rigid. I think it's too large for one leaf. Rubber or plastic is quite feasible. My first impression was a jersey cotton fabric, but now my favourite is a chamois leather (wash leather). The weight, cut edges and lack of reflections would fit.

 

[Ausgirl]

I should point out that the snapshot function really degrades the quality of these images, taken from the PL3 video at 3.08 and around 12 mins.

It's quite plain to me that the green material is one large piece with a clean but partial cut through it lower section.

It's also quite plain that Michael Moore's body was not found in the same position in which we can later see him lying on the bank where LE put him, on his side and with his legs close together. In the image where he's lifted from the water, his legs are splayed apart. If he was in full rigor, surely his legs would have kept that position of being apart.

If you look at the images of Stevie's body, in contrast, it's plain that rigor is 'defying gravity' - his legs are still fairly wide apart, even though he too is lain on his side. Same applies to Chris, if he was not in full rigor his legs would not keep their splayed position when he's lain on his side -- but they do.

But not Michael? Even though he's in the exact same environmental conditions? I would love to know WHY. Does this imply he actually died quite some time - possibly hours - after the other two boys? Were his legs forced out of rigor position by LE?

The large muscles of the legs, I should add, are among the last to enter rigor, which affects the small muscles first.

MM's body was still blanching under the thumb test (lividity moving under applied pressure) as it was with the other two bodies. Lividity stops blanching at around 12 hrs after death. All bodies were blanching, but only two were in full rigor?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think MM did die hours after the other two. The rigor is one reason. IIRC, rigor relaxes after some time. This article states: "Once established, the duration of rigor ranges from 18 to 36 hours." It also mentions that temperature higher than room temperature would speed up the onset of rigor. I'm assuming that it would also speed up the relaxing of the muscles, too. So, IMO, the bodies tell us that MM had been dead a considerably shorter time than the other two. IMO, the other two had been dead long enough for rigor to have relaxed. MM had not. So, IMO, CB and SB had been dead more than twelve hours (TOD would have been prior to 1 am on May 6th) while MM was dead maybe nine or 10 hours at most (TOD 3 am or 4 am on May 6th). I don't know if that helps, but it's what I think, based on the condition of the bodies and the information I've found on rigor, etc.

 

[Ausgirl]

IMO, the other two had been dead long enough for rigor to have relaxed. MM had not.

^ But you've got it backward there -- the rigor in CB and SB was *set* fully, not 'relaxed' - their legs did not assume a different position when laid on the bank. MM's did.

From that, we can only assume that either a/ LE forced his limbs into that position (breaking rigor) b/ he had not yet entered full rigor (and thus died some time *after* the other two), c/ he was coming out of rigor. (and thus died some time *before* the other two).

Without further information (and I mean some hard evidence..) to back up any of of those scenarios. it's impossible to say which might apply. There might even be another explanation I haven't come up with..

Now, what's interesting is there is other pictures of the bodies lying on the banks which show the boys on their backs and I swear thier limbs were in a different position, more than one of them.. arms, I think - still stiff-looking, but splayed out. Kind of strange, actually.. I will try to find those again, and it may point to LE interference. Though IIRC the bank pics were taken immediately they were removed from the water, so that's a point against.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Then CB and SB had died no later than 1 am on May 6th (rigor fully set when found about 1 pm on May 6th) while MM died some time within the preceding twelve-hour period (rigor not set when found). It still works. However, it could also be as you surmised - LE interfered with the bodies. We know that MM's body was disturbed when they found it, for instance. As the article I linked earlier states, rigor and lividity are not the best determinants of TOD. If your point is that LE interfered with the bodies, IMO, that's very plausible, as I stated about MM's body. The big problem, IMO, is that TOD simply cannot be properly determined - and that's at least partially because of the ineptitude of LE on the scene, IMO.

 

[Ausgirl]

Then CB and SB had died no later than 1 am on May 6th (rigor fully set when found about 1 pm on May 6th) while MM died some time within the preceding twelve-hour period (rigor not set when found). It still works. However, it could also be as you surmised - LE interfered with the bodies. We know that MM's body was disturbed when they found it, for instance. As the article I linked earlier states, rigor and lividity are not the best determinants of TOD. If your point is that LE interfered with the bodies, IMO, that's very plausible, as I stated about MM's body. The big problem, IMO, is that TOD simply cannot be properly determined - and that's at least partially because of the ineptitude of LE on the scene, IMO.

No, that is not my point at all. My point was to point out that there's *possible* visible evidence of a fairly large discrepancy between Michael's time of death and that of the other boys (who were pulled from the creek almost an hour later, in full rigor). And that it seems probable that less than 12 hrs had passed from time of death to coroner's report.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...epage&q=at what point is lividity set&f=false

^ In the above link, you'll see it stated that at around 8-12 hours after death, lividity no longer will shift if a body is moved from its original position, nor will it blanch under pressure (of a thumb pressing into it, as opposed to the kind of blanching which occurs with the pressure of the body's weight against a solid surface).

Kent Hale's report occurred some time after the discovery of MM's body. And in that report, the ME says that the lividity in the bodies, all three of them, was STILL shifting under applied pressure.

This suggests that *less than* 12 hours had passed between time of death and the observation of the lividity still blanching (do we even have a ballpark time for that report? it's late here and I'm in brain fart country). This might mean that MM's apparent lack of full rigor might support the lividity as evidence of less than 12 hours being a ballpark region of time for the deaths (being that rigor is generally fully set after 12 hrs or so).

Looking at MM's body position on the bank (and forgive me for being a bit graphic here) - his legs appear to fold neatly one atop the other, as they would if the body was not set in rigor in an open position and then 'broken' out of rigor (by, say, police handling)... in any case, it really looks to me like MM was not in full rigor at time of discovery.

Which all *might* put up to 10 hours between last sighting and actual time of death, given that MM was discovered around 1.45 (and removed from he water an hour later..) - possibly not in full rigor yet - and Hale's report had to be somewhere around 4 pm (? ), with rigor but *not* lividity fully set in ALL bodies by then. So probably closer to 4AM for time of death, making a substantial gap between that and the last sighting.

^ was my point. Please the check the math, teach, it's deffo -not- among my superpowers.

Also, a secondary and unstated point: that documentation, from LE at the discovery site, to the coroner (and hey, quite a ways through the investigation), was pitiful. Just pitiful.

ETA: and ofc, the most obvious point being, the idea of the boys' deaths occurring early on the evening of the 5th just seems implausible.