MovieChat Forums > West of Memphis (2012) Discussion > We know four of the men who really did t...

We know four of the men who really did this, and here is how.

posted 10 years ago by halcyonsummer
34 replies | jump to latest

I will explain what I think actually happened on May 5, 1993 and in the process explain how we know at least four of the men who committed this crime, so bear with me. I want to point out that, although summarized and re-worded for better understanding (and condensed), these views are taken from different sources and I owe the work to other people and not myself. I simply re-worded and condensed it.

The three victims were met that afternoon on their bicycles by an individual they knew and trusted. This person convinced them to accompany him to an abandoned shed around the corner and three houses down from the Byers' residence under pretenses unknown. Once they arrived, they were quickly subdued by several accomplices and held by someone who remained behind to supervise them while the other killers left to go establish alibis. As we will shortly establish, we know who at least four of these men were: John Mark Byers, Terry Hobbs, David Jacoby, and none other than Mr. Bojangles. This all took place sometime between 5pm and 6:30.

John Mark Byers filed the missing persons report for his son shortly thereafter all while knowing Chris and his two friends were still alive and being held at the shed location. He then changed into boots and coveralls and returned to the shed with the other killers sometime between 8:15 and 8:45 to commit the actual murders. Sometime during their arriving at the scene, one of Terry Hobbs' hairs ended up getting caught in a knot on one of the shoelaces used to tie the boys up. During Chris's murder, a lot of blood was spilled and he actually died in the shed from blood loss, which is confirmed by the autopsy report stating he died from blood loss. Michael and Stevie were severely beaten but not quite dead at this point. They were unconscious. It was confirmed in the autopsy that the victims did not have mosquito bites on their bodies, which they would have if they'd been in Robin Hood Hills during their murders because multiple people testified that the mosquitoes that night were so thick that they were "breathing them in." Chris being killed in the shed also explains the complete lack of visible blood at the actual crime scene other than what was discovered with the Luminol test later on which showed an amount of blood insufficient with the amount Chris's injury would have caused. This blood ended up at the crime scene during the dump and was not a result of the murder taking place there only to have been cleaned up with water in the way Jessie Misskelley claimed later on.

After the murder of Chris and the violent assault on Michael and Stevie, the boys and their bicycles were tossed into John Mark Byers's truck and driven to the parking lot behind the Blue Beacon Truck Wash to be dumped. The back end of the Blue Beacon was chosen because it was a non-residential area and was the closest place a vehicle could park to carry something into the woods where the bodies were found. This was shortly before 9pm.

John Mark Byers claimed he was searching Robin Hood Hills at this time with his son Ryan Clark and several of his friends, however Ryan Clark and his friends directly contradicted this when they said John was never present with them during their search. In fact, neither Ryan nor any of his friends saw John any time during their search between 8:20 and 9:15. John and his accomplices dumped the boys' bikes into Ten Mile Bayou and began to dispose of the bodies in the diversion ditch. At about 9:10, one of the boys' bodies was dumped into the water, causing a loud splash that caught the attention of Ryan and his friend Brit, who were searching the area nearby. Ryan called out for Chris, startling them, and the killers threw stones into the water several times to scare the boys away. This explains why five loud splashes were heard instead of just the three that would be needed to dump the bodies. One was an actual body and the other splashes were made by the killers in an attempt to scare the boys off. During this ordeal, Mr. Bojangles freaked out at the thought of being discovered and made a run for it. We know he was there from the fact that a negroid hair was found at the scene, but the most damning evidence was to come soon after. During all of this, a hair belonging to David Jacoby was also left at the dump site. Seeing Mr. Bojangles make a run for it, John shot at him. Both Ryan and Brit recall hearing gunshots in the woods soon after the splashes and a resident in the nearby Mayfair Apartments also testified to hearing them. John would later provide contradicting statements about the noise, stating it was just a car backfiring on the highway (how would he know this?) and that it was just rocks hitting one another (why would rocks be hitting one another?). He also made the statement that he never heard a gunshot when "we were in the woods", again implying the false idea that he was accompanied by Ryan when we know from Ryan himself that the only time he was in the woods that night was with his friends and John Mark Byers was not with them.

Wounded, Mr. Bojangles managed to escape with his life and made a direct route along the Ten Mile Bayou diversion ditch to the Bojangles restaurant, which was 3500 feet from the dump site. Marty King, the manager of the restaurant, recalls seeing Mr. Bojangles around 9:30 with blood and mud all over him, which is 20 minutes after the splashes and the gunshots heard by Ryan and Brit at 9:10. The police, who were involved in a cover-up, later tried to move the event to before 9pm in an attempt to muddle the timeline, but this is directly contradicted by the fact Marty King stated in two trials that it was around 9:30 because he remembers taking an order from customers that came in 30 minutes before closing, which was at 10. They asked to use the restroom and came back to report seeing Mr. Bojangles bloody in the restroom. Later on, blood scrapings were taken but conveniently "lost." Officer Regina Meek, who was called to the restaurant by Marty King on account of the bloody, muddy man in the restroom, gives an impossible timeline of events that proceeded after the call, and the police log actually directly contradicts her statements as, at the time she was supposedly on her way to the restaurant, she was actually logged in as calling in a license plate number at another location. She would later admit she was confused as to the exact timeline of everything that night.

The boys were dumped in the water, resulting in the deaths of Michael and Stevie, whose autopsies revealed they had drowned while Chris did not drown because he was already dead. Officer John Moore spotted John Mark Byers's truck parked in the lot behind the Blue Beacon Truck Wash. This was the first time anyone had seen John since 8:20, although he had claimed he was searching Robin Hood Hills with Ryan and his friends. I have just explained what he was really doing and why he was not with them. We also know why his truck was parked there. Officer Moore said John emerged from the woods wearing coveralls and boots, which is the first instance of anyone seeing him in this outfit which he would wear over the next three days. John was alone and had no flashlight with him despite it being well past sundown at the time. The fact he was alone is particularly interesting considering he later told police that he and RYAN went to search for the boys at the back end of the Blue Beacon. On May 19, 1993, he said “My son, Ryan and I got in the car and we drove around there to Blue Beacon, and went into Blue Beacon Truck Wash, and I said, look, we got 3 boys missing. I didn’t want ya’ll, you know, I want to go back here behind ya’ll’s property and holler and yell in these woods. But I wanted you to know why my car’s back there." So why did officer Moore find him ALONE? Where was Ryan? Did he mean he went to the back end of the Blue Beacon twice--once with Ryan and once without? If so, it's odd, considering he never said this anywhere.

Meanwhile, the other killers returned to the shed crime scene to clean up the evidence. John Mark Byers would have had ample opportunity to slip away at some point during his nighttime searches to assist in this. He attempted to make an alibi for himself by claiming that he and Ryan were out searching together until the early hours of the morning, but this is in contradiction to Ryan saying that he came home and went to bed around midnight. Byers claimed he and Ryan actually went BACK to the woods for further searching after the time Ryan says he was asleep in bed. So, was Ryan at home sleeping, or was he out until the early morning with John? Is John simply trying to place himself with someone by lying, as we have already seen he did when he said we went with Ryan and his friends to search the woods?

Later on, John would make a curious slip during an interview. He claimed to have investigated the shed during his search for Chris and noted that the inside was "all cleaned out" and "there wasn't no paper." This is an interesting and confusing remark to make that was totally out of context with anything. The detectives also never questioned him when he said this. Why would a shed be used to store paper? What was he talking about? But what can paper be used for? Cleaning up a crime scene. John actually made a slip here and basically admitted he was looking for evidence of a crime (by noticing there was no evidence of a cleanup involving paper) long before he supposedly knew one had even been committed.

John was also obsessed with the idea that the boys had drowned despite having no evidence that this had occurred. He had been quoted as asking the police why they hadn't put a boat in the bayou in case the boys had drowned and also commenting on the fact that the only way Chris would have drowned would have been trying to save one of the other boys since he was a strong swimmer. What was this obsession with them drowning before the bodies were discovered and why did he think this had happened despite a million other possible scenarios of where the boys could have been? If your child disappeared, would you automatically assume they had drowned?

John Mark Byers also did something interesting: he wore the clothes he committed the murders in for the next three days. This was actually quite genius on his part because, by wearing the clothes in plain sight, he bypassed having to dispose of them in some manner which could potentially lead to their discovery and them being tested for evidence. The evidence was in plain sight. It also would give John an excuse for later on permanently disposing of them because he could claim they were filthy.

At some point during the filming of the first Paradise Lost film, John brags about a gun he owns that can't be used to trace ballistics because it leaves a different mark on each bullet. He is shown loading the gun and shooting it during the film, which shows us a) he owned a firearm at the time and b) the firearm could not be conclusively traced to any particular crime through ballistics. Pair this information with what I said happened to Mr. Bojangles and you get the picture.

Mark also gave a knife he owned to a crew member of the first Paradise Lost film. The crew member recalls the situation of the knife-giving being quite odd and it tellingly contradicts the version John gave to detectives after the knife was discovered with what appeared to be blood on it. They sent the knife to the West Memphis Police Department to be analyzed by the crime lab. The blood came back as matching that of Christoper Byers. The crew member claimed he was sleep in the Byers home when John woke him up and strangely insisted they had formed a bond and he should take the knife. The crew member did not want the knife but accepted it at Byers' insistence. Byers, however, claimed the two were talking and the man expressed an interest in knives, and John went and got the knife and gave it to him as a gift. Why are the stories so different? John also claimed in an interview that it was never used and that he might have used it to go deer hunting but he never had the opportunity. When he is told they found blood on the knife, his story suddenly changed and he said he might have used it to cut up a deer. When he was told it was human blood and that it matched Chris's, he simply had no further explanation for how it could have gotten there. His story went from saying the knife was stored and never used for anything to saying he may have used it to cut up a deer. A medical examiner at the trial testified on the stand that the knife was consistent with the type of wounds Chris Byers suffered from.

Pam Hobbs would also come across evidence in a drawer of her home years later when she discovered Stevie's knife among several other knives that belonged to Terry Hobbs while packing items after her divorce. She said Stevie always had the knife on him, and it was odd how it ended up in Terry Hobbs' possession when he most likely had it on the day of the murders.

Melissa Byers would also die from unusual circumstances years later, as we know. Couple this with the fact John had his teeth removed at some point when the defense discovered that some of the wounds on a victim looked like bite marks and the fact he gave a false explanation for the reason (the medication he claimed caused the gum problems that led to their removal is not known to cause this side effect) and it is all very telling.

A report by the FBI provided to the West Memphis Police Department also said that the victims would have known their killers and they would have been able to gain their trust.

All of this fits the actual evidence and makes more sense than anything Jessie ever came up with during his multiple confessions.

It explains the complete lack of DNA from the three accused boys at the crime scene. It explains why the amount of blood found at the scene with the Luminol test was insufficient with the amount that would have been there if the murders had taken place there. It explains why the boys had no mosquito bites on their bodies. It explains the splashes Ryan and Brit heard that night. It explains the gunshots that Ryan, Brit, the Mayfair resident, and later John Mark Byers himself heard (though his explanations for it changed). It explains the Mr. Bojangles incident and why the official report contradicts Marty King's statement and the police log showing where officer Regina Meeks actually was at the time. It explains why John Mark Byers lied about being with Ryan and his friends during their search. It explains why he disappeared for over an hour only to later be seen stupidly exiting the woods in a different outfit, alone, and without a flashlight after dark and also why his truck was there. It explains Terry Hobbs' confusing whereabouts that night. It explains why a hair from Hobbs ended up in a knot used to tie the boys. It explains why a negroid hair was found at the dump site along with a hair from David Jacoby. It explains the blood on Byers's knife that matched Chris's DNA and his confusing explanation for it. It explains why he had his teeth removed and lied about the cause. It potentially explains why Melissa died. And it explains why Terry Hobbs had in his possession a knife that Stevie always had on him.

All of this makes more sense than anything the prosecution came up with, fits the evidence, and explains the incidents and behavior that occurred after the murders.

The only thing we can speculate on is WHY. Melissa suspected Chris was being abused weeks before the murder. The autopsy showed he had FIVE old, healed scars from previous injuries. Social workers are trained to suspect child abuse after only seeing two healed scars. We know Chris was caught throwing feces with Michael Moore, an act a social worker later said was deeply disturbing behavior and not normal for children of that age. We know his doctor was mystified as to why his ADHD wasn't improving despite his dosage of Ritalin. We know Terry Hobbs had a history of abuse and we know John Mark Byers had committed several crimes before and after the murders, including the terrorizing of his ex-wife which led to the cops being called. We know his ex-wife also called the West Memphis Police Department to say she thought he had a hand in the murders but the detective told her to get over her personal issues and hung up. We know Mark was close friends with many men on the police force and had them over for barbecues. We know he had some inside help to get him out of sticky situations because he repeatedly had charges dropped. We know an undercover officer was killed months before the murders from poisoning without signs of a struggle in a manner eerily similar to the death of Melissa Byers--a man who was working to expose crime in the police department. We know the department was under investigation at the time of the murders and many of the officers have since been fired for improper conduct like taking drugs and guns from evidence lockers. We know the principal of Chris's school spoke with Mark and Melissa about Chris's behavior one afternoon and a witness recalls they mentioned "getting rid of him." We know that there were hard feelings between John Mark Byers and the father of Michael Moore. So, what does it all mean? How did this come about to the murders of the three boys in the manner I described (which is what I believe happened?)?

EDIT: This shouldn't need saying, but I've read a few other posts on here since submitting this and I just want to assure everyone that, although my account is new, I am not someone named Putter, and I am not a "hit and run poster." I fully plan to engage and respond with anyone who wishes to discuss this. My account is new, but everyone is new here at some point. This case is important to me for personal reasons I'm not getting into, so although I may be new here, I am not new to it. What I wrote reflects my personal belief of what happened based on the work of others who have put a lot of time into coming up with this theory, and I signed up for an account here specifically to discuss it. I feel like stating this before I get called out as being someone I'm not or being accused of being a hit and run poster. I don't like having to justify myself, but I knew someone would check my account creation date and bring this up, hence this edit to clarify things. Thank you.

[–] BareMinimum 10 years ago

Interesting theory. Some of that stuff I did not know, so I learned a bit reading it too. Also interesting is that folks are now preemptively defending themselves against accusations of being Putter.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] halcyonsummer 10 years ago

I'm not Putter. If you want to talk about the case, let's talk about it. I'm not going to repeat myself regarding this accusation for another 15 posts. The edit was sufficient. If you want to discuss the actual case, I am all ears. I addressed your accusation preemptively in my edit because I saw it coming, so your post doesn't address my theory and is pointless.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ultravio13 10 years ago

Very interesting theory, I don't think it was the 4 you mentioned. Mainly bc when Hobbs was being accused of being the killer, Byers made a big show of how Hobbs should be arrested, and how he now supports the WM3 etc, etc. I think that would be incredibly dangerous to turn on Hobbs, if he himself was also involved. I would think Byers would instead claim that Hobbs was being railroaded, and that the WM3 were the culprits. The same goes for Jacoby, who also seemed to turn on Hobbs. What is your opinion on the luminol tests they conducted? It did find a lot of blood at two specific locations , that could've been were the murders took place. On the other hand, I assume the Blood should have been visible to the naked eye, since that kid bled to death. I do agree that so called mr bojangles has to be involved, I think maybe as a witness rather than a killer, but who knows.

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

I guess one of my biggest questions about your post is, what is the motive?

We know there are allegations against Terry for sexually assaulting Stevie and Amanda. We know that Byers often whipped Christopher as well.

Why would Mr. Bojangles help them? Why would the 4 men do it in the first place? Why would they also target Michael? And why would the 3 (since we don't know Mr. Bojangles) of them all turn on one another and point the finger at each other when they all had a hand in it? Wouldn't it make more sense to stick together? Wouldn't it be better of Byers, Hobbs and Jacoby all said "I know for a fact, that (insert name here) did NOT do the crime", instead of incriminating one another?

[–] halcyonsummer 10 years ago

There is a motive that has been expressed by the people who came up with the main timeline in that theory, but I didn't list it because I don't personally agree with all of it, though I do agree with some.

The motive I've seen given is that the murders were committed for several reasons, one being to silence the boys permanently since their abusers were afraid their acting out would lead to them being caught. The theory is that the incidents such as the feces fight, Chris's recurrent problems in school and other behavioral problems that he was seeing a psychiatrist for, as well as his fascination with fire that was documented months before the murders, were all signs of his acting out due to abuse. This is somewhat believable as his autopsy did show he had five old, healed scars on his body when social workers are trained to ignore only two. Melissa herself also became suspicious that her son was being abused, and John Mark Byers's ex-wife later said that he would abuse them in places that would be covered up when they wore clothes.

Another motive is revenge against Pamela Hobbs, whom Terry said he caught in the arms of a "Mexican" weeks before the murder.

Another motive was to punish Todd Moore, who may have been trying to do something about the suspicious close relationship he saw between John Mark Byers and the local police force.

Some people believe all of these motives played a part in the premeditated murders of these boys.

It has also been suggested that the killers had been attempting to carry their plan out for weeks before they were finally successful in luring the boys to the shed behind the abandoned home which formerly belonged to the Hutchinsons.

Both Ryan AND Chris had encounters in the weeks before with what they assumed were dead bodies. Ryan and his friend stumbled upon a man they thought to be dead lying near the drainage ditch in Robin Hood Hills, but upon throwing rocks at him, he moved and they assumed he was a bum. Christopher also thought he saw a dead man in a driveway but upon returning to the scene later, this was not the case. The theory is that one of the accomplices was trying to lure the boys closer by pretending to be a dead body, but the attempts failed until they thought of another tactic on May 5, 1993.

Both John Mark Byers and Terry Hobbs were the stepparents of Chris and Stevie. Now here is an interesting fact about stepparents. This addition to the theory is actually my own, and I will be quoting from a book I own titled The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime by the author Adrian Raine. The quote is on page 24: "Did you grow up as a child with a stepparent? If you did and you survived unscathed, you've done pretty well. In England, only 1 percent of babies live with a stepparent, and yet 53 percent of all baby killings are perpetrated by a stepparent. Data from the United States show a similar pattern--a child is a hundred times more likely to be killed as a result of abuse by a stepparent than a genetically related parent. If we look at child abuse, we see the same thing. Stepparents are six times more likely to abuse their genetically unrelated child than genetic parents."

Quite sobering facts.

The men were allowed to get away with the crime because John Mark Byers was assisting certain members of the police force with the sale of drugs. There is ample evidence that John had connections in law enforcement that could pull strings as he repeatedly walked away from offenses over and over or got lessened sentences for crimes. His chumminess with the local police force was also suspicious to many people, including the Moores, who were curious why John was always having them over for barbecues. People in the town also wondered how John could afford the home he was in despite recently declaring bankruptcy and having his business fail months before the murders.

We know there were allegations of drug trafficking within the police department and widespread corruption going on at the time the murders were committed, as there was an investigation into this and an officer named Clark White, who was involved in the investigation, was found poisoned in his home without signs of a struggle months before the murders. We know the department was under pressure from this investigation and that many of the officers lost their jobs over it over the next few years. The theory is that the detectives willfully bungled the investigation to keep John out of jail so their illegal drug sales, which were being carried out with the assistance of certain officers, could continue. This explains why officer Regina Meek later claimed she received the call about Mr. Bojangles at 8:40 and "arrived within five minutes" despite the police log itself stating she was four miles away from the restaurant calling in a license plate at 8:44, one minute before she supposedly pulled up at the Bojangles restaurant and why the manager, Marty King, testified in two trials that the incident occurred at 9:30 and he called the cops at 9:40. The detectives were purposefully muddling the record of events, and the handwriting on the call log that places the Mr. Bojangles call at 8:40 is similar to that of Gary Gitchell's and not the two officers who were actually logging the calls that evening, which is evidence the logs were doctored at a later date by Gitchell himself.

In the end, John Mark Byers and Terry Hobbs were involved in abuse and the father of one of the boys was a thorn in John's side. The boys were beginning to show signs of abuse by acting out, and Terry was angry with his wife after catching her with another man. Mr. Bojangles and David Jacoby may have been hooked on the drugs John Mark Byers was selling and were persuaded to help out in some form through bribes or threats.

As for why they turned on one another, this could have been to confuse matters and scatter opinions in all directions. It looks less likely that the men worked together if they accuse one another. John has a history of telling tall tales, and all of this could have been a ruse to confuse things even further in this case.

As for it being proven John Mark Byers could not have committed the crimes as Jenkins says, I say this is hogwash. His whereabouts were unaccounted for for over an hour that night when he supposedly accompanied Ryan and his friends to the woods to search, which we know from Ryan and his friends' statements never happened. He was later seen after 9:30 parked behind the Blue Beacon, exiting the woods alone and without a flashlight despite later claiming he went there with Ryan and even told the owners he and his son would be back there. Ryan was never there. He was also unaccounted for for hours after midnight when he claimed he returned to the woods with Ryan, who said he was actually at home asleep. He later said he was out searching until 6:30am and we know he was not constantly accompanied during all this time. I find it interesting why people ignore his contradictions about the events of that night and why they can't explain where he was for over an hour, which was also the span of time that Ryan and his friends heard splashes and gunshots in the woods. It is all very telling and is hardly an "airtight alibi" by any means as he was left unaccompanied for long periods of time and later tried to always place himself with someone (his son Ryan) despite Ryan's own statements contradicting this.

[–] halcyonsummer 10 years ago

I also feel like reinforcing a few important points:

1. The theory that the WM3 actually committed the crime does not explain the splashes heard that night by Ryan and Brit. Damien, Jessie, and Jason would have been far from the crime scene and not just dumping the bodies at 9:10pm. No theory I've seen other than the one I mentioned explains these splashes in an area where three boys' bodies were discovered. To think the splashes are not connected with the murders is absurd.

2. There were three bodies and five splashes, which logically makes no sense and would only be explained if not all of the splashes were the bodies hitting the water, but the sound of a body or bodies mixed with intentional splashes to scare off Ryan and Brit.

3. The gunshots are simply too much to ignore, and we know neither of WM3 owned a gun nor used one that night. The gunshots occurring in such close time to the splashes is very worrying and it's amazing the police bought John's explanation of the backfiring car and the rocks hitting one another. Why did a resident in the Mayfair Apartments also claim to hear them? Three people mistook a backfiring car or rocks as gunshots but John Mark Byers is the only person who knows what the sounds actually were? That's convenient. Again, to think the gunshots were unconnected to the murders is absurd.

4. Mr. Bojangles is another completely ridiculous and absurd occurrence that night if the WM3 did it. So we are honestly expected to believe that three things happened the same night the boys were killed: splashes were heard in an area the boys were later found, gunshots were heard soon after, and a mysterious man with blood and mud on him appeared at the Bojangles restaurant 20 MINUTES LATER never to be seen or heard from again. How STUPID would you have to be to think none of these things were related to one another? If the WM3 did it, that IS what people are saying. The local detectives were also seemingly unconcerned with this VERY suspicious and important event on the night of the murders and no one has explained why. You have three boys murdered and you're going to tell me that detectives are going to be casual and unconcerned about a man showing up that very night 3500 feet away with blood and mud on him when the boys were discovered in water? COME ON. The restaurant also had to call the police and tell them about the leftover blood from the restroom cleanup and they casually took blood scrapings that were so damn important to them that they lost them...while investigating three homicides. Even if they didn't pursue the Mr. Bojangles lead intentionally because they knew he was connected to the murders and they couldn't bring him down without bringing down the others (as I believe was the case), their handling and lack of concern over this event would make them them biggest jokes in the law enforcement agency ever. A child would have drawn the connection between the events and considered them important in relation to one another and yet these seasoned detectives didn't think it was important. I am sorry but what a total crock of $#it. Also, it's another absurd coincidence that...

5. ...the Bojangles restaurant was a STRAIGHT SHOT from Ten Mile Bayou and 3500 feet from the location the bodies were found. You can trace the path of the diversion ditch on a map directly to the Bojangles restaurant, yet we are also expected to believe this was a coincidence. The amount of "coincidences" one would have to buy about this night is just ridiculous and insulting to anyone's intelligence.

6. It also doesn't take a genius to figure out that the boys WERE NOT murdered in the woods. How in the hell could they have had no mosquito bites on their bodies if they had been in there on an evening when they were so thick that it drove multiple people out of the woods seeking refuge from them? I live in the south and have experienced mosquito problems--they do not stay calm during the evening around 5-6:30pm and suddenly start biting like crazy after 9pm. I've sat outside on my patio enough evenings during the summer to know that it doesn't matter if the sun isn't completely down, if you're out there at 6pm during mosquito season you're going to get bit, much less away from a residential area in the damn woods.

7. Since we know they could not have been murdered in the woods due to the lack of mosquito bites, it explains why there was not one visible drop of blood at the dump site if it was, in fact, the murder site. This makes way more sense than the idea that three local teenagers committed three brutal murders at the site and not only left no DNA of their own there, but cleaned it up by splashing water from the ditch. Ridiculous. The Luminol test at the site also showed an amount of blood not consistent with the wounds the boys experienced, which, if you didn't already buy the lack of mosquito bites, is more evidence that it's ridiculous to assume they were murdered there.

[–] Maverick410 10 years ago

Props for a solid effort, but lol. Just lol.

[–] Zagorin 10 years ago

Interesting analysis, I must say. But I find it hard to believe this was planned beforehand and 4 people were involved and know what happened. Wouldnt you want to keep this as quiet as possible when you plan the killing of 3 young kids, let alone your own stepkids? I mean, you cannot run away after the crime when you are the parent, you will be questioned.

It seems this was a crime done in extreme anger or paranoia where drugs might be involved.

Also I think the killer must have been someone one kid or all three of them knew. As they were not killed in the woods, at least there is no evidence for it, they must have trusted someone in town and lured into a place where they could not escape from.

[–] halcyonsummer 10 years ago

I just believe it had to be more than one person. I don't see a single individual being able to tie up the kids without the other two running away, trusted acquaintance or not. I don't care if he threatened them, I don't see two kids standing by while their killer used both hands to tie one up. They'd have tried to escape. I think it's also been mentioned that they were tied with different types of knots, which goes more towards the "multiple persons" angle.

Now if multiple persons killed these boys, did they all participate in the abduction or did one of them lure the boys to another location where more people were waiting? I think a single person luring them somewhere would be less suspicious.

The kill site would have to be an area hidden from view, obviously, and since the boys were riding their bikes in a residential area the last time they were seen, the only logical kill sites would be houses, garages, basements, sheds, etc. or basically any place indoors and not part of a business obviously. A residential setting is the only place it could have been done. Now we know they weren't killed in the Byers home and the only abandoned house I've heard of in that area was the one the Hutchinsons used to live in, with the abandoned shed out back. Barring that the killers killed them in a house that was currently being resided in by someone, the only other option is the Hutchinson's old house or their shed. The shed seems like the most probably kill site because John Mark Byers curiously mentioned checking it out himself. This could have been done to deflect attention away from the shed.

Given that a large amount of blood would have been spilled during Chris's mutilation, the killers would need privacy and unrestricted access to the kill site to clean this up. The shed therefore makes sense, unless the killers were able to prepare for the crime in a "Dexter-like" fashion by spreading plastic out in a room to catch any blood. This is why I doubt they were killed in a home--the killers would not risk that much evidence getting all over things. It'd be too risky.

And unless the Hutchinson's old home was broken into, which no one mentioned any evidence of, there's debate about how they would have gotten inside anyway.

In the end, we can deduce they were murdered in a residential area and indoors. The evidence points to this. They were not killed in the woods due to the lack of mosquito bites and it had to be indoors or someone would see them and/or hear something. Plus the only other option once you eliminate the woods and take into account where they were at the time they disappeared IS a home or shed. You can't kill three kids in a neighborhood setting outdoors and have no one see.

[–] halcyonsummer 10 years ago

Also, we know the boys were not raped, which excludes a sexual connotation to the crime. If the crime were committed by an individual for non-sexual, non-personal reasons, why would he/she take the risk of killing three kids instead of one? Imagine you're just a psycho looking for a kid to off that day. Would you go for one boy, or be ambitious and go for three? I think most would think three is too much to take on and back off until they can find one single child or person. Unless we consider that the motive was not random murder for kicks...then it makes sense that it was premeditated.

[–] Zagorin 10 years ago

What is strange is that the bodies were only found the next day even though there were search parties the evening the boys disappeared. The wooded area behind the houses does not seem that large a terrain to cover. Also they found the bicycles in a different place than the bodies and close to the residential area. It would seem that both the boys and/or the bicycles were placed during the night when there were not a lot of people around.

[–] blazinglolita 9 years ago

Is it likely that one of the kids felt comfortable with the WM3 enough to go with one of them?

This HAS to be answered somewhere...did they all even know each other?

I still can't decide on guilt or innocence.

[–] hayley-james1 10 years ago

"The blood came back as matching that of Christoper Byers"

The blood couldn't be narrowed down to one particular person and had markers in common with both John and Chris.

[–] wayne-robb 10 years ago

well your theory sounds true! its just so bloody odd that the police didnt pick up on anything,infact its unbelievable that the police who investigated this case were so dumb! A TOTAL POLICE FAILURE ON THE THREE DEAD CHILDREN!

[–] sonofspam1972 10 years ago

Four people would make sense because that would almost guarantee noone of the kids getting away scot free.

[–] blubird-1 10 years ago

Do you honestly believe Byers is that savvy and smart? That's not only very pre-planned but a pretty clever way to cover up murder. He doesn't seem to be the most methodical & focused man. Plus, he's turned on Hobbs and is now saying he's guilty. Byers wouldn't rat out Hobbs if they did committ it togehter, because if Hobbs was brought in,confessed, he would give up Byers.

[–] blazinglolita 9 years ago

I still haven't decided on guilt or innocence, but I was thinking the same thing...let's be honest...are JMB and Hobbs smart enough to plan a murder this precisely? Although stuff doesn't have to go to plan for it to...work.

[–] Chopperbubba 8 years ago

These men certainly did not have the intelligence or the fortitude to coordinate such an elaborate conspiracy. Plus, the head witch hunter(Byers) was screaming "child murderer" at Hobbs during the final hearing. Why would he out his own accomplice? I'm going with Hobbs losing his sh*t over something the boys did, and beat them into unconsciousness, hog tied them and tossed them in the creek. He allegedly confessed this dark secret to his brother and father, according to the nephew who called it the "big Hobbs family secret". The mother of the boy, revealed that Hobbs was dousing the boys room with bleach and washed his own clothes(which he never did apparently). Combine this with the fact that he abused Stevie in the past, makes him suspect #1. Just a giant sh*t show of a case, if I've ever seen one!

[–] gatophobia 10 years ago

So you think they would create more splashes to scare off Ryan and co.? Wouldn't that attract their attention? I don't get that part

[–] gioreeko 10 years ago

Wow, you spent a lot of time on that, unfortunately, they caught the real killers. The fact that Jesse knew exactly where the broken Evan Williams whiskey bottle was, as well as knowing where the bikes were, and what color they were. There was a family (the Hollingsheads?) saw Damien and Jason leaving the woods in muddy clothes. Damien was wearing his signature black trench coat, which btw, has never been found.
Case closed.

[–] Compassionate_Reader 10 years ago

Saying a whiskey bottle, especially a popular brand like Evan Williams, is under an overpass that is frequented by drinkers is not really damning evidence IMO. The fact that Jessie knew where the bikes were and what color they were could be a result of seeing the recovery on TV (or maybe in person as he could have been watching the process from that overpass and could have seen a broken Evan Williams bottle then, too). The Hollingsworth family is not the most credible of witnesses. They said that they saw Damien and Domini (their niece) on that service road. The police implied that they didn't see Domini but Jason (in flowered pants, no less - LMFAO). As one of the clan (LG) was a suspect early on, it's entirely possible that they were trying to protect him by casting blame elsewhere. As to the black trench coat, it was in Damien's room when the wmpd went there to collect evidence. They apparently overlooked it. Even it they had found it, what makes you think it would have contained evidence? Since the discovery ditch was so meticulously cleaned, I would guess that the trench coat (had it been at the scene - which it wasn't) would have been removed before the melee began and taken away afterwards.

As to the theory that started this thread, JMB has been cleared. Hobbs and Jacoby have not. One other thing - JMB was not Chris' stepfather. JMB adopted Chris, which is why Chris bore his name. JMB did not adopt Ryan, however, and Hobbs did not adopt Steven. Just some clarification.

As to the theory itself, I am sure that much work went into it, but it is fundamentally flawed. As I said, JMB was eventually cleared. If "Mr. Bojangles" had been involved (other than an unknown witness - unknown except to the killer, that is), being black, he would have been given up by the three other supposed killers in your scenario, and it would not have been questioned. Unfortunately, that's the way things were at the time. Finally, as others have said, JMB would not support Hobbs and Jacoby as the killers over Damien, Jason and Jessie as Hobbs and Jacoby would have named him as a co-conspirator, if they were ever questioned.

This case needs to be investigated by a force that is not steeped in corruption as the wmpd seems to be. All of the parents/step parents need to be thoroughly investigated. Re-investigate Damien, Jason and Jessie, too, if that is necessary. For my money, Damien, Jason and Jessie are innocent (and I think that double jeopardy would keep them from further investigation). I don't base my opinion on any movie but on investigating the FACTS in this case, primarily from the Callahan's site. If anyone doesn't know that site, check it out. It contains all of the court documentation (trial transcripts and a lot more) on this case. Then, form your opinion based on FACTS and not someone's interpretation of them. Here's a link http://www.callahan.8k.com/for the site.

[–] ultravio13 10 years ago

Byers claims that he adopted him, but in fact he never actually did. That's another tall tale told by a guy who lies all the time. When Ryan and his friends were interviewed about their search of the woods that night, none of them mentioned JMB being there. Bojangles may have been a witness, or involved himself with others unknown.

[–] Compassionate_Reader 10 years ago

Yes, JMB adopted Christopher. Copies of the papers are presented in the book, "Untying the Knot" by Greg Day. Also, the name on the tombstone is Christopher Mark Byers. Steven's tombstone has his last name as Branch because Hobbs never adopted Steven.

[–] ultravio13 10 years ago

I'll have to check out that book. In the Devils Knot, His real Father, Rick Murray, disputes that, and says he would never have given him up. Considering the criminal history of JMB, I wouldn't trust anything he says.

[–] Compassionate_Reader 10 years ago

Rick Murray has his own criminal history. The documentation is reproduced in "Untying the Knot" as I said. I'm not just trusting JMB (although he is more trustworthy than many connected to this case). It's in the public record. The story is that Murray didn't respond in the requisite time. The adoption was completed. Murray can dispute it all he wants, but, when Christopher died, he was the legally adopted son of John Mark Byers. Christopher bore JMB's name and the name on his tombstone is Christopher Mark Byers.

[–] gatburgteddy 9 years ago

You have smoked your dumbass RETARDED! You must be as retarded as Jesse Miskelley claims he is..... ONLY THREE MEN KILLED CHRIS, MICHEAL, AND STEVIE! There names are DAMIEN ECHOLS (MASTERMIND) JESSE MISKELLEY (CONFESSED KILLER) and JASON BALDWIN (A YOUNG PUNK) So, please keep the *beep* alive cause NO ONE else is gonna be brought to court for these killings....