When were the boys' clothes removed?

[The Wolf]

This is my first time coming across this topic, please forgive me if this has been covered allready.  Back to the first few pages reminded me of a conversation I had with John Douglas.  He posed this question to me,"Why were the boy's clothes removed and why were they tied?  These were unnecisary acts."  I know why they were put under the water, to buy time to blend back into the "concerned parent" and the search.  Some have said that tying them up made it easier to carry the bodies,,,,I disagree, a limp body is hard to carry and handle in that manner,,,,,,My first thought was to dehumanize them, however I think the reason was so that a limb could not float up from were the boy's were placed to give THe perp more time.  So that explains to me plausable reason for tying.

My opinion.  The boys were not killed at the ditch.  They were killed in the woods in a different place and temporarily hidden, probably in a manhole.  THe perp returned to this hiding spot about 3 hours after the boys were killed.  Rigor mortis was beginning to set, but there were still people out searching and THe perp did not have the opportunity then to move them to their final hiding spot.  THe perp tied the boys to package them, much as you would truss a turkey to keep its wings and legs in the preferred cooking position.  THe perp wanted the boys packaged in a particular way so they could be transported to and totally submerged in the ditch.  He did this to conceal the original crime scene, wash away trace evidence, as well as to conceal the bodies and clothes.   
     
I still can not come up with a real good reason to undress the children and or to replace clothing,,,,,,,

My opinion.  THe perp replaced Stevie's clothes with the clothes Stevie was wearing when Pam last saw him.  After Pam went to work, Stevie came home and changed from blue jeans into white/red shorts.  TH did not want anyone to know Stevie had come home after Pam went to work.  He wanted all law enforcement efforts centered away from his home.   

...

Next question...Why place the bodies so close to home????  The area is surrounded by outlets and inlets to the Mississippi River and the river itself just few miles away?  My theoretical answer is to make sure the boys were found to inflict the most pain possible because if put in or around the MS river the bodies may have never been found.

My opinion.  THe perp did not have a way to take the boys or their clothing away from the woods.  He had to leave the bodies and clothes in the woods or risk being caught with them as he went from the woods to his vehicle.  He also did not want any trace evidence in his vehicle.  He only felt safe in taking a few trophies that fit in the pockets of his pants.

...

[jackibyers]

OK, thank you Wolf.  The answers are very plausable,,,,,,I do agree with the theories you and Paid have so well explained and backed with forinsec evidence ie, holding in the manhole........then moving them, however, why would THe perp not leave them in the manhole and risk being seen moving them to the ditch, which took much effort and time to bring each boy to the ditch and then find tree roots to help hold them down, two boys found relativally close and the other further away.  Ok, if he left them in the manhole then trace evidence could have been left behind, hence the fear of that would cause THe perp to try to remove and estiguish as much as he could.  Since the theories hold that he made more than one trip why not have a plastic bag to carry the clothes and dump them in a nearby dumpster?  He was willing to take the chance of being caught moving the bodies from one place to the other?
      I don't mean to be a pain is the butt, I am trying to understand if one is willing to take one chance why not take one more further?  Even one that would ensure the bodies likelyhood to never be found.
jacki

[Paid]

why would THe perp not leave them in the manhole and risk being seen moving them to the ditch, which took much effort and time to bring each boy to the ditch and then find tree roots to help hold them down, two boys found relativally close and the other further away.

   jacki, this is a good question that only THe perp knows for sure.  But...let's put ourselves in his shoes (size 9 1/2 Franklin's) for a second.

 
 Moving the bodies:
 He's killed three boys and left them in a place they used as a hide-out (manhole). He has evidence that they were running away (finds backpacks). A crowd of people begin to search to the area close to where the bodies are hidden.  TH doesn't know how much information Pam knows about Stevie's physical and/or sexual abuse at home by TH.

   He also isn't comfortable with how much information Pam, or any of the other parents, or siblings, or the boys' friends have about the boys using a manhole as a hideout. Plus....he doesn't know if the boys told any friends that they planned to run away.

    TH's main concern is that it will be discovered that Stevie was attempting to run away and was killed. This would make TH the only suspect.  He has hours to think about this concern as the crowd of searchers gets closer and closer to discovering the bodies. He has already removed the backpacks, but that isn't enough.  He can't let anyone know that the boys were hiding. He decides to move the bodies for a variety of reasons: to get them away from the hide-out, to get them away from any trace evidence, to hide them in a location that gives him more time, to keep search dogs from picking up his scent, etc.  TH's mission then becomes to guard the area where the boys were hidden until he can safely move the bodies.  His opportunity comes at about 3 am (after convincing Jacoby to go home and go to bed).  Hicks Sr had already hurt his back and wouldn't be going back to the woods after having already searched there with Hobbs and Jacoby.  TH knew that the police weren't actively searching. He also knew that the women weren't going into the woods and that Mark had gone home. There was very little risk of being caught.

  
  Removing the clothes:
 He hears Pam tell the police that Stevie was wearing jeans.  His thought process focuses on getting those shorts and replacing them with the jeans.  He actually wants the police to find the jeans which, in his mind, proves that Stevie didn't come home and change into shorts.  Getting rid of all the clothes doesn't accomplish his goal.

    As far as why two boys were found close together and one farther away.........I think that had to do with carrying two boys (Chris and Stevie) on one trip and Michael on another.  The ditch was fairly narrow and he had to find suitable places for all three.  He needed deep enough water and enough mud to hold the bodies down. He couldn't place all three in the same spot.

[Kim]

Next question...Why place the bodies so close to home????  The area is surrounded by outlets and inlets to the Mississippi River and the river itself just few miles away?  My theoretical answer is to make sure the boys were found to inflict the most pain possible because if put in or around the MS river the bodies may have never been found.

So if THe perp got injured in some fashion why not totally dispose of the clothes?

Jacki, that was a really interesting post. It is intriguing that Douglas referred to the tying as an unnecessary act. Perhaps this tells us more about the perp than he ever wanted.

I think the perp did intend for the boys to be found. He had no compassion or consideration for anyone involved because he placed them in a dirty ditch, naked, and bound in a strange way. If he cared about anyone involved he would have taken some kind of action to make the discovery less traumatic and shocking. He wanted the boys to be found. He had an option to place them in the much deeper bayou and he didn't. That tells us a lot about him.

[Kim]

Another reason he may have moved the boys was to make sure a witness did not survive to tell what he did. I can see him feeling really paranoid about leaving trace evidence or leaving someone alive. The best solution to both of those problems is to place the boys in water.

[nightbreed]

this was a hell of a stressfull evening for the perp in one way or another.

to actually go back, take the bodies, move them... you cant do that without adrenaline or drugs, or both, in his case.

[jackibyers]

Thanks Paid and Kim,  Oh yes, he did want the bodies found,,esspecially Stevie.  He wanted to hurt Pam, that is another motive.  One time while here in our home he told us the story, the same one he told the police about Pam kissing the mexican.  What he did not follow that comment at the wmpd yet said here is,"I get even."  He told many stories about how he got even with different people always in a sneaky, passive agressive way.

When Mark and I talk about that night, he tells about hearing a splash and how now looking back TH was redirecting people away from that area.  It did not seem that way at the time, it seemed like he was a concerned parent not wanting for any one to waste time searching a place that had already been searched.

Ok, next question, THe perp had to do all of this in the dark of the night and not leave anything behind.  How does he see?  If carrying two boys or even one boy does he have a flash light?  Of course if any one at that time saw a flashlight in the small woods they would have thought it was just some one searching, I supose. 

When in conversation with John and he said that those acts were unneccesary, it was in in the context of so why did he do that? So, yes Kim, that does give more insight into THe perp.
thanks ya'll,
jacki

[Paid]

When in conversation with John and he said that those acts were unneccesary, it was in in the context of so why did he do that?

  I think tying the bodies seemed unnecessary to Douglas because he didn't have enough information to have concluded that the bodies were moved...or that the bodies were tied after death.

   I'm sure he's never seem victims tied in the same manner as Chris, Michael, and Stevie.  There are very few reasons to do so.

[jackibyers]

Paid, let me clarify,  It was more like a clue that THe perp left, every thing that THe perp did had a reason.  When we know why he did what he did we understand more.  The bodies were tied post mortem,,,,,why? I say so that limbs would not float up like a flag,  it was obviously not to keep the child controled.  Also tying in that manner dehumanizes the victem.  When John says why? It is not a why like most people think it is more of an opening to get insight to THe perp.  The way the victems are left, klilled, treated pre and post mortem tell a story.  Why tells us what the story is.  I hope that is a better explaination.
jacki

[Kim]

When a person analyzes a killer they look at two things: modus operandi and signature. These two things are often thought to be the same, but they aren't. A signature is sometimes described as a psychological marker. It is something the perp does or leaves behind that provides clues into how they think and why they behave in certain ways. Examples of signatures might include the way a victim is tied, concealed, or posed.

I think this unusual form of tying would be the perp's signature, in this case. It is unique to the perp and provides psychological insight into his history, thoughts, and motives. I can't speak for Jacki, but I believe this along the lines of what she is conveying.

[Kim]

John Douglas put together a Crime Classification Manual where he described modus operandi (MO), signature, and victimology. Profiling utilizes all of these aspects when identifying an offender. For example, you must understand the victim to pinpoint the type of person who might prey on them.

Douglas wrote, "MO and victimology are important factors in an investigation, but they are often somewhat generalized and offer less about the subtle details about personality and, ultimately, identity that are often necessary to track down an offender. However, personation, that is, the offender's signature, or his "calling card," is an individualized set of indicators that can point specifically to an offender's personality" (p. 19).

[jackibyers]

Yes, Kim you are correct, You win a chance for a big prize which door do you pick?

When trying to get in the mind of some one like this every thing they do or don't do tells a story about them.  Every detail of the victem(s) tells a story.  Now one has to interpet all this information.  It does not happen like in an one hour show.  Also, we, because of the wmpd do not have all the parts of the story...so we go on what we do know.  There is the evidence left behind like what Paid imo proved that the boys were in a manhole and all the other details. There is the history of THe perp.  For me there is personal experience with THe perp.

Paid in another post you wrote something along the lines that at one moment TH felt an emotional response for Pam's pain.  You have a concious, THe perp does not, therefore, one can not think like THe perp with a concious,,,,if he had a feeling towards Pam at any time that night or the following weeks it was the pleasure of getting even and/or a threat to his world was removed......the world revolves only around THe perp, every thing he does is for his benefit,,,,,NO ONE else matters.
jacki

[Kim]

Jacki, I'm going to pick Door Number 1.

[Paid]

The bodies were tied post mortem,,,,,why? I say so that limbs would not float up like a flag,  it was obviously not to keep the child controled.  Also tying in that manner dehumanizes the victem.  When John says why? It is not a why like most people think it is more of an opening to get insight to THe perp.  The way the victems are left, klilled, treated pre and post mortem tell a story.  Why tells us what the story is.  I hope that is a better explaination.

  jacki......I don't like to disagree with you or Mr. Douglas, but the problem I have with binding the victims to keep the limbs from floating up.....is that THe perp left 8-10 inches of slack between the knots.

    That may not seem like much, but it is totally unnecessary if THe perp wanted a "tight package" with no floating limbs.  He was dealing with shallow water, and if keeping the limbs down was his main goal...it wouldn't have taken any extra effort to tie them tight.

    I think if Douglas had more information (that the bodies were tied post-mortem and moved after death) he would come to a different conclusion.

[Kim]

I agree with Jacki that the motives are purely self-centered in this case. You are looking at the mentality of a very young child. Everything is me, me, me. He wants everything NOW. All actions are intended to benefit him. This kind of person is only afraid of getting caught because of the consequences (i.e. jail, loss of reputation, etc.). He is not concerned with Pam's feelings. We know this because of how he left the boys in the ditch. As Douglas said, there were actions that seemed "unnecessary" such as the removal of clothing and the tying. Perhaps moving the boys to the ditch was also unnecessary. However, because these things were done, it tells us something very specific about the offender: he doesn't care about the thoughts and feelings of others. He knew that leaving the three boys tied and naked would be shocking and horrifying, but he did it anyway.

That tells you a lot.

[Tags:]

WM3 Blackboard > WM3 > The West Memphis Three > Topic: When were the boys' clothes removed?