Merged Remember the West Memphis 3?

[Rolfe]

Well, I have some experience in forensic pathology and I do know how these things should look. I also know what a competent pathologist should be looking for in post mortems such as these. I'm quite shocked by how short the post mortem reports are, and by the things they don't say, as if it never occurred to the pathologist that it was important to observe and record such things.

I mean, why do you have to say that an eight-year-old boy has no evidence of atherosclerosis in the heart or great vessels? Nobody thinks the kid died of a sudden heart attack! I don't need to know that. I do want to know about the amount of blood-clot in the heart chambers and great vessels, so I can give an opinion on how much blood would have been lost from the body and so should appear on the ground. But not a word.

I also want to know whether the various contusions, abrasions, lacerations, cuts and so on were inflicted before or after death. This isn't hard to establish, from the amount of associated bleeding into the damaged tissues. Not a bloody word about it.

I think these kids were killed by bashing them on the head until they were unconscious, and then dumping the unconscious bodies in the stream. Two of them inhaled water before they died, although it's still possible the head trauma was fatal in itself. The third didn't inhale any water and so was either already dead when dumped in the stream, or his head wasn't submerged, or he underwent a "dry drowning".

I suspect the clothes were removed after unconsciousness but I don't know if there is any detail that would prove otherwise. I think the laces were tied on them after they were unconscious too. I wonder if this was to make the bodies easier to move into the stream, or if it was an insurance policy against a child coming round and trying to swim.

I think the other injuries were post-mortem, probably by scavenger animals like these turtles.

There's no reason to believe much blood would be lost in this process. Some from the head wounds no doubt but that wouldn't amount to a great deal and in any case once the boys were in the stream any bleeding would just be lost in the water. After death, essentially no blood would be lost.

I think it might have been believed that the genital injuries to Christopher were ante-mortem and would have resulted in a lot of bleeding. However, even a castration that goes wrong causes bleeding from the torn spermatic cord arteries into the abdomen, not externally. I've seen this, I've done post mortems on these patients. There was no blood in Christopher's abdomen.

But they were talking about the total blood volume of all three boys. How did they think this blood was going to get out of the other bodies? Or even a significant portion of it out of Christopher's, assuming the castration had been ante-mortem? There just weren't the wounds. As I read the post mortem reports, there is no reason to believe the total blood volume of these children wasn't still inside the bodies, bar a bit of bleeding from the head trauma. They died of head trauma +/- drowning, not exsanguination.

 

[John Jones]

I want to know why they believed there would have been a great deal of blood in the first place. So far I haven't seen anything to make me believe the blood wasn't still inside the bodies.

I presume because of the genital mutilation/predation of the Byers boy.

 

[Rolfe]

They'd be wrong then. I don't suppose any of them have ever seen a post mortem of a castration gone wrong. I have.

Yes, you can bleed to death from a castration wound, because there are arteries in the spermatic cord. I have seen the post mortem examinations of two Great Danes where that happened. (Just a guess, but I think there may be a problem with getting the sutures to stay in place in such big dogs.) These dogs were with their owners all the time. They weren't seen to be bleeding. They were found dead, or collapsed and died, without any pool of blood. Because all the blood was going into the abdominal cavity. The bodies positively sloshed.

This happened because the castration technique exteriorises the spermatic cord as much as possible, ligates it high up, then lets the ligated cord slide back inside the abdomen. OK, we don't know by what technique Christopher Byers lost his testicles, but there's a good chance that if the testes were pulled away from the body, the spermatic cords gave way high up and slid back through the inguinal canal into the abdomen.

There was no blood in Chris Byers' abdomen. None at all. It's extremely hard to see how all the spermatic cord bleeding could have been external, with no boood going internally. For that to happen you'd have to postulate that the spermatic cords were cut or severed just about the level of the epididymis (and even so I'm sceptical about them not sliding back inside). Does the post mortem say anything about the level at which the spermatic cords were cut/torn? Not a syllable.

The other problem is that we're still talking about less blood than the prosecutors seem to think. Even in a patient that dies by bleeding out, the entire blood volume isn't lost. But these prosecutors didn't just talk about Chris Byers's blood volumem, they talked about the blood volumes of the other two boys as well! And this happened with the body in the stream. Michael and Stevie were alive when they were put into the water, Chris could have been too. Even if he had bled copiously from the genital wound, a lot of it could have gone in the water.

But really, an unligated castration in a live subject bleeds intra-abdominally, not exteriorly. There's no sign of that in Chris's PM report. He died because he was bludgeoned to death over the head. Apart from one comment about pallor of the organs, which isn't taken any further or even qualified as severe or striking, there's nothing at all to suggest that the vast majority of his blood volume wasn't still inside him.

And the other two didn't have any injuries capable of causing copious arterial blood loss to the exterior. I think this notion that the crime scene should have been slathered in huge volumes of blood is a misconception. There's nothing in the PM report to suggest that the pathologist thought the boy had bled out, and nothing to suggest that the wounds apart from the head trauma occured ante-mortem.

 

[Vixen]

They'd be wrong then. I don't suppose any of them have ever seen a post mortem of a castration gone wrong. I have.

Yes, you can bleed to death from a castration wound, because there are arteries in the spermatic cord. I have seen the post mortem examinations of two Great Danes where that happened. (Just a guess, but I think there may be a problem with getting the sutures to stay in place in such big dogs.) These dogs were with their owners all the time. They weren't seen to be bleeding. They were found dead, or collapsed and died, without any pool of blood. Because all the blood was going into the abdominal cavity. The bodies positively sloshed.

This happened because the castration technique exteriorises the spermatic cord as much as possible, ligates it high up, then lets the ligated cord slide back inside the abdomen. OK, we don't know by what technique Christopher Byers lost his testicles, but there's a good chance that if the testes were pulled away from the body, the spermatic cords gave way high up and slid back through the inguinal canal into the abdomen.

There was no blood in Chris Byers' abdomen. None at all. It's extremely hard to see how all the spermatic cord bleeding could have been external, with no boood going internally. For that to happen you'd have to postulate that the spermatic cords were cut or severed just about the level of the epididymis (and even so I'm sceptical about them not sliding back inside). Does the post mortem say anything about the level at which the spermatic cords were cut/torn? Not a syllable.

The other problem is that we're still talking about less blood than the prosecutors seem to think. Even in a patient that dies by bleeding out, the entire blood volume isn't lost. But these prosecutors didn't just talk about Chris Byers's blood volumem, they talked about the blood volumes of the other two boys as well! And this happened with the body in the stream. Michael and Stevie were alive when they were put into the water, Chris could have been too. Even if he had bled copiously from the genital wound, a lot of it could have gone in the water.

But really, an unligated castration in a live subject bleeds intra-abdominally, not exteriorly. There's no sign of that in Chris's PM report. He died because he was bludgeoned to death over the head. Apart from one comment about pallor of the organs, which isn't taken any further or even qualified as severe or striking, there's nothing at all to suggest that the vast majority of his blood volume wasn't still inside him.

And the other two didn't have any injuries capable of causing copious arterial blood loss to the exterior. I think this notion that the crime scene should have been slathered in huge volumes of blood is a misconception. There's nothing in the PM report to suggest that the pathologist thought the boy had bled out, and nothing to suggest that the wounds apart from the head trauma occured ante-mortem.

Castration is generally understood to be the testicles, and that was my understanding re Byers. However, apparently, it was also his penis.

Misskelley claimed to have seen a blood trajectory from the cut (the length of a car) and that the organs were thrown into some weeds. Misskelley being of a low IQ would have been hard pressed to make all of this up. He was right about the boys being bashed on the head. He said Echols smashed them over the head with his fist. He also had a stick which he held across the boy's throat whilst he was in the mud. (Echols did boast of having a stout wizards wand.) Misskelley also knew about the wrists tied to the ankles by the boys' shoelaces.

Echols volunteered the information (which police had deliberately withheld from the public and the press) that Byers' genitals would have been chewed off by animals. Misskelley correctly described the castrated boy as 'the blond boy'.

For such a learning challenged individual he sure managed to guess the crime scene correctly. He threw in contradictions, which is why he was called back five times, voluntarily, but his core story remained the same.

 

[Rolfe]

Chris Byers' penis was not removed, only the penile skin. The post mortem report describes the penis as being present and 2 inches long.

And if any of that stuff had been even remotely true, the post mortem report would have read very differently to how it does. I repeat, blood from a severed spermatic cord pools in the abdominal cavity. That sounds like the imaginings of someone who thought they knew what would happen but didn't. I wonder who that could have been?

 

[John Jones]

Misskelley was coached. The situation was discussed by police on their radio, and this was reported in the Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper the next day. Despite what Det. Bryn Ridge believed, everybody knew about it.

Aside: Bryn rhymes with brine.

 

[Vixen]

Misskelley was coached. The situation was discussed by police on their radio, and this was reported in the Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper the next day. Despite what Det. Bryn Ridge believed, everybody knew about it.

Aside: Bryn rhymes with brine.

Someone claimed the police pointed to their shoes to coach Misskelley into revealing the boys were tied with their shoelaces.

Really? This guy with a supposed low IQ managed to divine the boys were 'hog tied' with their own shoelaces by a nod and a wink from the cops.

He described it because he was there.

 

[Vixen]

Chris Byers' penis was not removed, only the penile skin. The post mortem report describes the penis as being present and 2 inches long.

And if any of that stuff had been even remotely true, the post mortem report would have read very differently to how it does. I repeat, blood from a severed spermatic cord pools in the abdominal cavity. That sounds like the imaginings of someone who thought they knew what would happen but didn't. I wonder who that could have been?

OK, so the cops framed poor old Damien and Jason. It was an affront to Memphis legend Elvis Presley that the lads liked Megadeth, and Jason's mullet was criminal. It was animals who chewed one of the boys' genitals away within hours. There was no sexual motive. And it was obviously one of the stepparents.

So that's solved, then. The defence theory in a nutshell.

 

[Rolfe]

Could be.

I'm not sure if there is any hard evidence for a sexual motive. And the point about the evidence against Hobbs is that it's superficially stronger than any evidence against the three teenagers. Sadly, because of the Alford plea, neither that evidence nor any evidence that turns up against any other suspect in the future is going to be tested in court.

 

[Vixen]

Could be.

I'm not sure if there is any hard evidence for a sexual motive. And the point about the evidence against Hobbs is that it's superficially stronger than any evidence against the three teenagers. Sadly, because of the Alford plea, neither that evidence nor any evidence that turns up against any other suspect in the future is going to be tested in court.

Only if you believe the documentary you watched is telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Exactly. If the motive was sexual, as would surely be the case if it was one of the 'paedophile' stepfathers - or why else would they do it - then there would not have been all the extra frills thrown in, like the many knotted shoe-laces, face slashing and castration, blue candle wax and clear sadistic torture.


It is clear to me Misskelley was at the scene to be able to describe it so vividly and accurately (for a supposed 'moron'). In addition, the murders had a childish game-play aspect to it (cf the Mary Bell murders) and a profile of teenage killers killing for kicks fits.

It is no surprise to note that the Avery film makers have a convenient alternative theory that Theresa Halbach's 'real' killer is her ex-boyfriend.

Defence lawyers have hit on the fact that the public love the idea of an imaginary 'real killer' out there, still running loose. A bit like the 'one-armed bandit'.

 

[Rolfe]

I said "superficially". The evidence against Hobbs should be properly followed up and tested in court if it proves strong enough. That won't happen.

Evidence that the only reason stepfathers kill their stepchildren is for a sexual motive? Oh that's right, you don't have any. The antipathy towards another man's child in the family is one of the strongest non-sexual reasons for children to be killed.

The "face-slashing and castration" have all the appearance of post-mortem damage by scavenger animals. The shoelaces just look like improvisation by someone who doesn't have any rope handy. The children were bludgeoned over the head, and there's no evidence of sadistic torture. I don't know why they were killed or who killed them, but I do think a lot of people are making a lot more of this than really exists.

I note a lot of things that are "clear" to you simply ain't so.

 

[Vixen]

I said "superficially". The evidence against Hobbs should be properly followed up and tested in court if it proves strong enough. That won't happen.

Evidence that the only reason stepfathers kill their stepchildren is for a sexual motive? Oh that's right, you don't have any. The antipathy towards another man's child in the family is one of the strongest non-sexual reasons for children to be killed.

The "face-slashing and castration" have all the appearance of post-mortem damage by scavenger animals. The shoelaces just look like improvisation by someone who doesn't have any rope handy. The children were bludgeoned over the head, and there's no evidence of sadistic torture. I don't know why they were killed or who killed them, but I do think a lot of people are making a lot more of this than really exists.

I note a lot of things that are "clear" to you simply ain't so.

It's true what you say about step parent relationships. However, why would you kill your child's companions at the same time. Three murders of rumbustious eight-year old boys playing on their bikes in the woods, doesn't sound like something that happened in a moment of spontaneous rage.

Misskelley claims Moore tried to run away, and he managed to catch him. That fits in more than one man managing to overcome all three with just his bare hands.

AIUI the police did investigate both Byers and Hobbs.

 

[Rolfe]

The police investigated Byers but not Hobbs, as I understand it. Maybe if Hobbs was investigated in detail he'd be shown to be innocent too. At the moment he's the most likely-looking suspect, that's all. But he wasn't "Mr. Bojangles". Maybe "Mr. Bojangles" is the actual killer.

We don't know who killed these boys or why. Something happened that was inherently fairly unlikely. It could have been entirely unpremeditated. An attack on one boy could have led to attacks on the others to eliminate witnesses. But the way it was done left very little evidence indeed.

There is nothing to connect the three teenagers to the murders but the Misskelly confession. That is an absolute classic of the coerced confession genre. Read all about it. I did, and it's an eye-opener.

https://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520287952

 

[John Jones]

Someone claimed the police pointed to their shoes to coach Misskelley into revealing the boys were tied with their shoelaces.

Really? This guy with a supposed low IQ managed to divine the boys were 'hog tied' with their own shoelaces by a nod and a wink from the cops.

He described it because he was there.

The coaching was caught on tape.

 

[Strawberry]

It's true what you say about step parent relationships. However, why would you kill your child's companions at the same time. Three murders of rumbustious eight-year old boys playing on their bikes in the woods, doesn't sound like something that happened in a moment of spontaneous rage.

Misskelley claims Moore tried to run away, and he managed to catch him. That fits in more than one man managing to overcome all three with just his bare hands.

AIUI the police did investigate both Byers and Hobbs.

The police did not investigate Hobbs. He wasn't even interviewed until 2007 after the DNA results came out, and his main alibi witness David Jacoby wasn't interviewed till then either. The canvassing of the Hobbs neighbourhood was so scanty that they didn't even interview the people three doors away who later came forward and said they saw Hobbs with the three boys at about 6.30 on the evening of the murders.

None of that means Hobbs is guilty, but it points to a very sloppy investigation that one of the victims step father's was completely over looked.

 

[John Jones]

OK, so the cops framed poor old Damien and Jason. It was an affront to Memphis legend Elvis Presley that the lads liked Megadeth, and Jason's mullet was criminal. It was animals who chewed one of the boys' genitals away within hours. There was no sexual motive. And it was obviously one of the stepparents.

So that's solved, then. The defence theory in a nutshell.

Elvis had been dead 16 years by the time of the West Memphis murders. Don't give up your day job.

 

[John Jones]

Hobbs left West Memphis for a couple of weeks after the murders, and the cops didn't follow up for 14 years.

 

[Vixen]

The police investigated Byers but not Hobbs, as I understand it. Maybe if Hobbs was investigated in detail he'd be shown to be innocent too. At the moment he's the most likely-looking suspect, that's all. But he wasn't "Mr. Bojangles". Maybe "Mr. Bojangles" is the actual killer.

We don't know who killed these boys or why. Something happened that was inherently fairly unlikely. It could have been entirely unpremeditated. An attack on one boy could have led to attacks on the others to eliminate witnesses. But the way it was done left very little evidence indeed.

There is nothing to connect the three teenagers to the murders but the Misskelly confession. That is an absolute classic of the coerced confession genre. Read all about it. I did, and it's an eye-opener.

https://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520287952

What more do you want? Live cctv streaming of the murders?

You haven't given any valid reason for ignoring Misskelley's eye witness account and confession, other than claiming his low-normal IQ rules him out.

According to Gary Meece, who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of this crime, police did investigate Hobbs. He went searching for the boys alone during the evening - bear in mind they are now reported missing - and was gone a couple of hours. By then it was quite dark and the boys were found the next day by a police officer. However, as the stepfather, why wouldn't he go and look for his kid in the obvious places? It is hardly 'good alternative evidence'.

Mr Bojangles was definitively ruled out, as were about two dozen other suspects 'seen in the area' as of the time of the crime, including all sorts of ex-felons, drug dealers and ruffians.

The idea the police picked on Echols, Bladwin and Misskelley and completely ignored 'the real murderer' is hilarious. They investigated hundreds of people.

 

[Vixen]

Elvis had been dead 16 years by the time of the West Memphis murders. Don't give up your day job.

LOL That should have read 'Memphis legend of Elvis Presley'.

 

[Rolfe]

Elvis had been dead 16 years by the time of the West Memphis murders. Don't give up your day job.

I don't like pop music of any genre. I'm seriously into most things from about Hildegard of Bingen to Ola Gjeilo, but not pop music. Apart from Wolfstone and some similar sorts of heavy rock bagpipe music, so sue me.

I really liked the sound track to Paradise Lost. I understand that was Metallica. Does that make me a frenzied satanic killer?