Defining the Crime

Now that we know all the background on what happened in this case, as laid out in the “Understanding the Crime” post, we can decide what sort of individual committed this crime.

To summarize our conclusions from that post, the facts led us to these conclusions.

We know that this was the crime scene and not a dump site.

We know that the victims were likely sexually assaulted.

We know the killer didn’t bring anything to tie the victims up with and instead improvised, by using the shoe laces.

We know that the victims were likely attacked with sticks, being beaten over the head. This would suggest that the killer also acquired a weapon at the crime scene. These injuries would also likely suggest a blitz style attack.

We know Michael Moore had likely tried to flee.

We know the victims died from multiple types of injuries.

We know that a knife was likely used to mutilate the victims.

We know the victims were also drowned.

We know a possible piece of evidence was some candle wax located on the shirt of one victim.

We know the killer both arrived at the scene, and left on foot.

We know that this was a popular area for children and teens to come hangout.

We know that the person involved in this crime has shown some traits of a disorganized offender.

And lastly, we know that there may have been more than one person involved in the commission of this crime.

Three different criminal profilers would give opinions on this case. The three profilers were Brent Turvey, Pat Brown, and John Douglas.

Turvey’s profile has more or less been discredited by Pat Brown’s analysis of the case, which heavily criticized Turvey as trying to custom fit his profile to the defense’s alternative suspect, John Mark Byers.  In his profile he suggests that Robin Hood Hills is a dump site and not where the victims were murdered, but the problem with that, is we know that’s not the case. John Douglas would even discredit Turvey by stating in his profile that it was where the murders occurred, and not a dump site.

Now since Turvey’s assessment is in question lets discuss the Douglas profile. His profile also seems to be custom fitted to a suspect. This time Terry Hobbs. In fact Douglas has gotten in trouble in the past for tailoring a profile to match a suspect. This was the Guy Paul Morin case, which occurred in Canada. At the time investigators there were working the murder of a girl named Christine Jessop, and had a few suspects, but wanted help from Douglas to possibly help them steer the investigation.

It was alleged that Douglas some how found out about one of the suspects, a man named Guy Paul Morin, who was a neighbor of the girl. With this information he tailored his profile to fit him. The investigators were so impressed that this profile just so happened to match a suspect in every way, that they pushed Morin as the top suspect.

Douglas then instructed the police that they should shake up the suspect and see what he does by releasing a profile to the media, and that this profile should match the suspect completely. So John then tailored a second profile that fit Morin even more closely than before. Then he gave this profile to the police who broadcast it on TV. When it was broadcast Morin’s father mentioned to him that it sounded just like him. This appeared to be a joke, but the police used that to suggest that Morin was guilty of the crime, and that even his family was suspecting him. Douglas also told them how to question the suspect, saying they should have a giant photo of a fingerprint in the room blown up nice and big to make it look like they had matched his prints to the crime. He also said they should put filing cabinets in the room with Morin’s name on it big enough for him to read, so as to give him the impression that they had a mountain of evidence against him, and thus he’d feel compelled to just give up and confess. The police would eventually arrest Morin, with many saying that they would never have done so had it not been for the brilliant, and spot on criminal profile which so closely matched him.

Here’s a link where you can read a little about this.

Guy Paul Morin would spend several years behind bars proclaiming his innocence until DNA finally proved that he was just as he had always maintained, innocent. Christine Jessop’s brother would later accuse Douglas of having custom fitted the profile to match Morin, which had led the investigation astray.

The Canadian courts at one point wanted Douglas to testify about his work on the case in light of the allegation that he tailored his profile.  However Douglas chose not to even reply to messages left by the courts, and since he wasn’t a Canadian citizen they couldn’t compel him to testify.

Here’s a quote from the first link about this matter.

“Commission counsel, and several parties to the Inquiry, wanted Douglas to be called as a witness. Commission counsel and staff spoke with Douglas’ representative several times. By letter dated June 18, 1997, Sandler renewed the Commission’s request that Douglas attend as a witness. As reflected in that letter, the summons issued by the Commission to Douglas could not be enforced in the United States. Though Douglas never specifically declined to testify here, there was no response to the requests for attendance made orally and in writing.”

So Mr. Douglas, just refused to answer questions about how he arrived at those opinions, and wasn’t going to admit to his unethical behavior, which had caused an innocent man to be sent to prison. He didn’t bother to go to Canada and confront these allegations that he sometimes tailors profiles to fit suspects. He just kept ducking it. John has even tried to explain away the DNA evidence insisting how closely Morin matched the profile.

One of the things he even wrote in the profile was that the perp liked music, and Jessop had just gotten a new flute. Her neighbor Guy Paul Morin was a clarinetist, and so she must have gone to show him her new flute. This was one of the things in the profile that led to the arrest.

You can read some of John’s own claims about this case here in his book Journey into Darkness, where he tip-toes around the fact that he still very much believes Morin is guilty. Even leaving things vague when he mentions if he still believes he’s guilty, by saying it’s for the courts to decide if Morin did it or not.

Here he is in the book trying to explain away the semen not matching Morin.

“I also believe that so much time has passed, custody of evidence may have been compromised over the years and the crime scene, body, and clothing were in such a poor state to begin with that I would have serious doubts at this point about the infallibility of any scientific testing.

In addition, a number of sordid and very troubling revelations have come to light since the first trial, including the fact that Christine’s brother, Kenneth, three years older than she, and several of his friends had been sexually abusing her since she was four. Appalling as it is to contemplate, I don’t think we can be certain where the semen deposits in her underwear originated. The DNA evidence might just be a large red herring in this case, as occasionally happens.”

Now Douglas’ profile seems to have been fitted to resemble Terry Hobbs, the defense team’s current alternative suspect.

John also goes into a ramble, immediately talking about Satanic crimes in his profile claiming there’s never been a murderer who claimed to have Satanic motivations. This isn’t to suggest that this was a motive, but Douglas seems to ignore the Richard Ramirez case.

Ramirez has discussed his beliefs in numerous interviews on the matter, such as this one with true crime author Philip Carlo.

CARLO: Speaking of spirituality, let’s talk about Satanism. There’s been a lot in the press, Richard, about your devotion to and your affiliation with Satan. Can you tell a bit about what Satan means to you?
RAMIREZ: What Satan means to me…Satan is a stabilizing force in my life. It gives me a reason to be; it gives me…an excuse to rationalize. There is a part of me that believes he really does exist. I have my doubts, but we all do, about many things.

CARLO: When did you first turn away from—as I know you were brought up a—and turn to Satan?

RAMIREZ: From 1970—well, throughout my childhood and up to the time I was eighteen years old, I believe in God. Seventeen, eighteen years old. Then, for two or three years, I became sort of like an—I didn’t believe in anything. When I reached the age of twenty, twenty-one thereabouts, I met a guy in jail and, uh…he told me about Satan and I picked it up from there. I rad books and I studied and I examined who I was and what my feelings were.

Also, my actions. Just like the Hezbollah and different terrorist religious organizations around the—it is a driving force that motivates them to do things and they believe in it whole-heartedly. It had the same effect on my life.

CARLO: In other words, their spirituality was what was the driving force in their life, and Satan became, in a sense, your spirituality and the driving force behind you.

CARLO: Richard, do you believe that Satan helps people to be able to do things they wouldn’t normally do? For instance, in Matamoras, Mexico, Adolfo Constanzo killed many people and he was committing human sacrifices to protect the drug cartel down there from the police, and he feverently believed that Satan would protect him and so therefore made human sacrifices. Do you feel that kind of reasoning has any place—
RAMIREZ:— place in Satanism?

CARLO: Yeah.
RAMIREZ: I don’t know the structure of Hell itself, or demons or demonology, but I do know where you tamper with witchcraft, when you tamper with Satanism, be it voodoo—

CARLO: —Santeria—
RAMIREZ: Yeah, any type of sacrifices or contacting the spirits, you’re dealing with things that are very delicate—and dangerous. I myself am no warlock, I’m not a wizard. I’m not one of these types of individuals that knows his witchcraft from A to Z. but, I have read of instances where people end up getting killed and…u…arrested for tampering with the wrong demons and not using the right types of…uh…the right process of sacrifices and the right types of rituals. You have to know what you’re doing. Everything from ropes to chalices—

CARLO: Everything has to be done right.
RAMIREZ: Exactly. From what I know, certain symbols—like Pentagrams—are supposed to protect you from the demons themselves.

CARLO: Yeah. You were seen in court once with a Pentagram inside your hand and you held it up and showed it to the press and the audience. Why did you do that? Did you feel that it would protect you, or were you just making a statement that you were in alliance with the Devil?
RAMIREZ: Yes, it was a statement that I was in alliance with…the evil that is inherent in human nature.

Here Douglas, ignores other cases, suggesting that no such crime has ever happened, simply because there isn’t many on record with multiple killers.

Douglas also states this in his profile.

“This analysis is based upon information available at the time this report was prepared and assumes that the information provided was obtained through comprehensive, thorough, and well-planned investigation. Should any additional information or case materials become available at a later date those materials would be reviewed in order to determine whether they are germane to issues discussed herein. Subsequent to such a review, certain aspects of this analysis may be subject to modification or change.”

The information this profile was based on, was the defense claims of animal predation, which has already been discredited in previous posts. This profile also skips over any and all information pertaining to the sexual assault, as the defense was trying to insist the assault never took place in order to hurt the state’s case.

Naturally, as Douglas states, the profile would need “modification or change”.

Douglas would also say this, confirming that it was based on discredited defense arguments.

“Relative to instant case, this crime was presented by police and prosecutors as “satanic” and according to the medical examiner (“ME”) one particular victim was emasculated by the killer. The ME’s conclusion had a major impact and influence when initially analyzing the case relative to determining the offender’s primary motive. However, as set forth herein, the ME’s initial findings and conclusions according to one of America’s foremost forensic pathologist, Dr. Warner Spitz., M.D., and forensic scientist, Dr. Jon Nordby, P.H.D, were inaccurate. In their professional opinion all three victims were attacked post-mortem by some predatory animal.”

Douglas also cites defense attorney Dennis Riorden as providing him everything he needed to come to his opinions, thus skewing his perspective.

Douglas also jumps to the Satanic aspect that the defense has often used to try and trivialize the prosecutions case. In reality the prosecution seemed to believe the crime was likely a “Thrill Killing”, and would even question Damien Echols in court on the subject.

Q. Now, Officer Ridge has that when you were asked these questions that you say, “It was a thrill kill.”  Is that your words?

A. He asked me what did I think could be the possible motivation.

Q. Okay. And you indicated a thrill kill, is that right?

A. Right.

Echols would also make this statement while on the stand.

22 Q. Question number 11, “How do you think the person
23 feels that did this?” The answer was, “Probably makes
24 them feel good, gives them power.” Now, I guess
25 Officer Ridge said that, too?

1 A. No, I used common sense on that. If someone was
2 doing it, then they must have wanted to. And if they
3 were doing something they wanted to, it must have made
4 them happy. I don’t think they were doing it because
5 someone forced them to or because they didn’t want to.
6 Q. So in your mind the person that killed these three
7 kids, it is common sense that killing three
8 eight-year-olds would make you feel good?
9 A. Whoever did it, it must have.
10 Q. Okay. And it gives them power. That’s also
11 another common sense perspective from you?
12 A. Pretty much.
13 Q. Now, when you say, “gives them power,” is that
14 based on what you have read in these books?
15 A. No, it had nothing to do with that, just the crime
16 itself.
17 Q. Killing three eight-year-olds gives you power. I
18 don’t understand that. Explain that to me.
19 A. They probably thought, well, that they were like
20 overcoming other humans or something.

While the prosecution wasn’t positive as to the motivation behind the crime, they offered up numerous possibilities, and Douglas chose to ignore this rational one.

“When initially reviewing the case materials my first impression was that the case was a “lust murder” with the Byers victim being the primary target.”

Douglas here had suggested that he thought originally that the crime was a possible “lust murder” prior to injecting the defense claims into his profile.

John also claims that the person responsible for this crime was an organized offender, who was criminally sophisticated, but Pat Brown disagreed with her profile. John also claims that the victims were not mutilated, and stating there was bite marks on the bodies despite any evidence. He also suggests that maybe a parent killed the boys while trying to punish them, and simply got carried away.

Pat Brown would have a completely different opinion.

In her research on the case she would say this about the crime.

“The crimes were committed by more than one person.
The offenders lived nearby the crime scene.
The boys were targeted because they were easy to access and control.
The boys were probably followed and conned or lured into the woods.
The boys were overpowered by larger assailants and the crime was committed at the scene, most likely in the water during the waning daylight hours.
The crime was planned but not in the sense that it would necessarily end with homicide. Like wilding, crimes involving groups of young teens often end extremely violently. Nothing but a knife or two was brought with the offenders nor was anything but the weapons taken away. This shows lack of maturity or criminal experience. The offenders did not attempt to get rid of the evidence. The water was a lucky break.
The crime was violent and was a show of power. Essentially, it was a thrill crime.”
In her’s she doesn’t seem to think there’s anything really sophisticated about the crime, which differs from Douglas. She also isn’t biased towards either the prosecution or defense scenarios, as her profile was done independently. And instead of a parent punishing a child, and the child’s friends, and then sort of getting carried away, which Douglas had claimed, she thought it was a thrill killing, just as the prosecution did.
For now to get a grasp on what sort of crime this is when three profilers are in disagreement, we’ll try looking into other means, by using research from profilers in general.Let’s try using a CAP Model with this crime(a tool that profilers sometimes use to help identify the type of crime). The CAP Model itself is like a diagram with certain aspects of a crime plotted in certain locations. And those locations are then separated into sections. Now here’s what a CAP Model actually looks like.
CAPIt’s arranged into 5 different types. Predator, Rape, Fury, Perversion, and Undifferentiated. Now the last one, Undifferentiated, means that items involved in a crime are too common to place them into one of the other 4 categories. So in reality, there’s more like 4 types of crimes here. You’ll also notice that certain elements of a crime are placed on the model, and those sections correspond to a number. That number helps us figure out what type of crime this is. There’s more elements to this, but this is just a very brief explanation. Additionally all the elements in each section of the Model do not have to be found in the crime. They are there simply to show the likeliness of the offender of a crime to engage in other criminal acts.Now, all the aspects of the crime that were considered of value(certain things like debates on if there was mutilation or predation turned out not to matter for this as stabbing was considered so common with the model that it doesn’t effect it in either way) were then popped into this model to arrive at the type of murder. From this, it appeared that the crime was likely a “Fury Murder” according to this type of model.

Richard N. Kocsis would espouse on this in a text book he authored on criminal profiling.

“Cluster 3 suggested a pattern of crime scene behaviors that had a very
violent nature but with much less calculation and deliberation being evident, perhaps coupled with a motive of revenge—an anger theme seemed to underscore this region. Thus, cluster 3 seemed to clearly identify a fury pattern.”

“In the previously discussed literature, the presence of souvenir or token
collection behaviors indicates an offender who exhibits the predator pattern (3–5). However, in the current model, souvenir and token collection features are exhibited in the adjacent fury pattern. Irrespective of the statistical classification of these behaviors within the fury pattern, they appear in a close bordering proximity to the predator pattern. This suggests that although these behaviors are statistically distinguished as being within the fury pattern, they can nonetheless appear to be associated with the predator pattern when adopting a broad directional interpretation of the model in contrast to the present regional clusters.”

“The fury pattern represents an explosive, unfocused obliteration of the
victim. A number of similarities exist between the fury pattern and existing
literature. The excessive uncoordinated violence and overall disorganization characteristic of this pattern demonstrates a similarity to the visionary killer espoused by Holmes and Holmes (4) or the archetypal disorganized offender category espoused by the FBI in its organized–disorganized dichotomy.”

Fury murders according to Kocsis tend to be a lot less organized, and Douglas claimed this was an Organized crime. This seems to lean more towards a Disorganized Offender.

Now Fury crimes tend to have all sorts of motives but are characterized by the anger the killer shows. Fury crimes also tend to be characterized by the victim being bludgeoned. This is also behavior which seems to suggest a Disorganized Offender.

Now lets take a look at Disorganized Offenders to see what we have here.

“The Disorganized Offender is around 16 to late 30s in age. The victims just happen to be there at the wrong time. These offenders are usually high school drop-outs and they have a below average intelligence. They may not be employed and if they are it would be out of sight from society, maybe a dishwasher or a janitor, or something along those lines. This type of offender feels that society rejects them and in return they have rejected society. These offenders don’t clean up very well, usually there is a lot of evidence left at the crime scene.”

So, so far we have an idea that whoever committed the crime was a younger criminal, possibly as young as 16, or as old as his late 30’s. We know they’re probably not that bright, and we know they could be drop-outs.

“Disorganized offenders characteristically conduct blitz attacks on their victims due to a lack of social adequacy needed to verbally subdue their victims. They tend to have poor personal hygiene and are very reclusive (O’Connor, 2005). A disorganized rapist will often blindfold his victim or batter her face in an effort to depersonalize him or her (Owen, 2004). Any sexually sadistic acts would be committed after the victim is killed and the body will be left in plain view if still at the crime scene (Owen, 2004). Some disorganized killers take trophies or souvenirs of the victims in order to re-experience the events of the rape. Finally, a ‘disorganized’ crime scene will contain a myriad of fingerprints, footprints, and/or weapons used in the assault, making it much easier for investigators to narrow down the suspect pool by way of crime scene analysis.

In contrast to the disorganized offender, the ORGANIZED OFFENDER conducts extensive planning for the crime and staging of the crime scene to avoid detection and identification. Some of this staging will include removal of evidence such as weapons and restraints used in the attack. He tends to personify victims and is fairly adept at striking up conversations in order to lure their victims into submission. He very specifically chooses his victims by age, appearance, gender, lifestyle, occupation and other details which would be trivial to anyone but him. This offender’s lifestyle can be characterized as ‘put together’. He lives with a spouse or long-term partner, has a steady skilled job, and quality personal transportation. Physically, he is generally of above average weight and height and presents himself as non-threatening. FBI Special Agent John Douglass notes that “general organized offenders are hypothesized to kill after undergoing some sort of precipitating stressful event, such as financial, relationship, or employment problems” (Canter, Alison, Alison, & Wentink, 2004, p.2). Finally, the organized offender generally ranges in age from 18 to 45 years but is usually under the age of 35.

You may notice the phrase “tend(s) to” is used often here. This is due to the fact that the aforesaid generalizations are exactly that: generalizations. Offenders can learn over time; therefore, these general descriptors do not unequivocally describe every disorganized offender. While there are definite differences between both types of offenders, there are some commonalities which should be recognized as well. While both types of offenders are loners, organized offenders are loners due to his feelings of superiority over other. Both also have fathers who were inconstant in childhood discipline; however, the organized offender’s childhood is much more stable and ‘upper class’ than that of a disorganized offender (Owen, 2004). While the disorganized offender has no interest in the media, the organized offender will keep track of the goings on in the media in an attempt to keep up with police and media coverage of the crime (Owen, 2004). They may even go to the extent of keeping directly in touch with the local newspaper. As a precaution, organized offenders may even move or switch jobs to avoid being caught.”

So according to the above we know that this type of person prefers to carry out the crime in a blitz attack, just like the head injuries the victims received in this case. It states that this is “due to a lack of social adequacy needed to verbally subdue their victims.” This type of killer may even leave evidence behind. This person is less likely to conceal or transport the bodies of the victims in a major way. The bodies were simply dumped in the near-by ditch. There was no transportation of the bodies.

Here’s from another site.

“Age: These offenders range in age from 16 to their late 30s. The selected victim is simply a victim of opportunity who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Many disorganized offenders experience their acting-out phase between the ages of 17 and 25.
Sex: Male
Race: Usually the same race as the victim, but local ethnic make-up should be considered.
Marital status: Single
Education/intelligence level: High school drop-out. Possibly community college. Below average intelligence. Considered a marginal student.
Physical characteristics: Thin, possibly with acne or some physical malady that contributes to an appearance that is different from the general population.
Employment: This type of offender may not be employed. If he is he will most likely seek out unskilled work. His job will be a simple menial one, requiring little contact with the public. Dishwasher, janitor, maintenance man etc.
Residence: Close to the area of the crime scene. Usually lives alone in a rental property or with his parents or with a significantly older female relative.
Arrest record: Arrests for voyeurism, fetish thefts, burglary, exhibitionism or other nuisance offenses.

This offender rejects society which he feels has rejected him, maybe because of some societal aversion. He is an underachiever with a poor self-image and his appearance is messy or even dirty. He is a night person and he commits his crimes in a blitz-style manner and tries to quickly silence the victim.
The crime scene will be random and sloppy and the body is often left at the place of the attack. There is no real effort to conceal the body and the murder weapon might even still be there.
There is often a lot of evidence on crime scenes left by disorganized offenders, such as smearing of blood and fingerprints. This type of offender may also take a souvenir. The souvenir can be an object or article of clothing or in some cases even a body part.”

So from that we know that the this killer probably lives near the crime scene, isn’t married, and may live with his parents or with an older, likely female relative. The relative bit seems a bit too specific, so for this reason, we should treat it as living with a relative.

This killer is likely the same race as the victims. A physical appearance that may be different from the general population. This person’s also an underachiever who feels society has rejected him.

They may also be unemployed, or work menial jobs as well.

So, so far we have an idea that whoever committed the crime was a younger criminal, possibly as young as 16. We know they’re probably not that bright. We know they could be drop-outs. They likely live with family, and they may not have a job.

“Victimology. The victim of a disorganized offender may be known to the offender since he often selects a victim of opportunity near his residence of employment. The victim is often from his own geographical area because this offender acts impulsively under stress and also because he derives confidence from familiar surroundings to bolster his feelings of social inadequacy.”“The risk factor of a disorganized sexual homicide victims is situational in the sense that by crossing the path of the offender, her risk is greatly elevated. The victim essentially becomes a casualty because he or she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

“Crime Scene Indicators Frequently Noted. The crime scene of a disorganized sexual homicide reflects the spontaneous, and in some cases symbolic, quality of the killing. It is random and sloppy with great disarray. The death scene and the crime scene are often the same.
The victim location is known since it usually is where he or she was going about usual daily activities when suddenly attacked by surprise. There is evidence of sudden violence to the victim, a blitz style of attack. Depersonalization may be present, as evidenced by the face being covered by a pillow or towels or in a more subtle way, as with the body rolled on the stomach.
There is no set plan of action deterring detection. The weapon is one of opportunity, obtained at the scene and left there. There is little or no effort to remove evidence, such as fingerprints from the scene. The body is left at the death scene, often in the position in which the victim was killed. There is no attempt or minimal attempt to conceal the body.”

So from the above we know that this type of killer is someone from the area where the murder occurred. They kill in their area because it’s more comfortable for them. This is home for them after all. Victims are usually random and may be someone they just saw in the area a lot. It also may simply be a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. We also know from this that the killer will often acquire the tools for committing the crime at the scene. In this case the victims were bound with their own show laces, and likely sticks found at the crime scene could have been used. Both the bindings and the sticks were then left at the scene. A common trait for this type of crime.

Now here’s some more from the same source as above.

“Staging. Secondary criminal activity may be present, but usually it is more indicative of less sophisticated offender (disorganized offenders are often below average intelligence) than staging to confuse law enforcement.
The body may be positioned or deposited in a way that has special significance to the offender based on his sexually violent fantasies. It may be intended to make a statement or to obscure certain facts about the crime, for example, to disguise postmortem mutilation he is uncomfortable with. This should not be confused with staging, since the offender is generating a personal expression (personation) rather than deliberating trying to confuse the police.
Another example of the disorganized offender’s personation of his ritualized sexual fantasies is the excessive mutilation of the breasts, genitals, or other areas of sexual association, such as the thighs, abdomen, buttocks, and neck. This overkill is the enactment of his fantasy.”

So this type of killer is known for sexually mutilating their victims. This seems to further suggest that Christopher Byers was indeed mutilated by his killer, though it’s more or less irrelevant to a disorganized offender profile.

“Common Forensic Findings. The disorganized offender is often socially inept and has strong feelings of inadequacy. These feelings of deficiency will compel him to assault the victim in an ambush, blitz style, that will immediately incapacitate her or him. Injury effected in a disorganized sexual homicide is usually done when the offender feels the least intimidated and the most comfortable with the victim. This will be when the victim is unconscious, dying, or postmortem. In addition, sexual assault will probably occur at this time for the same reasons.
There may be depersonalization, which entails mutilation to the face and overkill (excessive amount or severity of wounds or injury) to specific body parts. The face, genitals, and breasts are most often targeted for overkill. Body parts may be missing from the scene.
The blitz style of attack common to this homicide is often manifested by focused blunt trauma to the head and face and lack of defensive wounds. There is a prevalence of attack from behind. Since death is immediate to establish control over the victim, there is minimal use of restraints.
Sexual acts are postmortem and often involve insertion of foreign objects into body orifices (insertional necrophilia). This is often combined with acts of mutilation–for example, slashing, stabbing, and biting of the buttocks and breasts. Since these acts often do not coincide with completed acts of sexual penetration, evidence of semen may be found in the victim’s clothing or (less frequently) wounds.
Most frequently death results from asphyxia, strangulation, blunt force, or the use of a pointed, sharp instrument.”

The victim is often unconscious or dead as a result of injuries to the head due to a blitz attack when the killer mutilates them or sexually assaults them. Wounds to the face and genitals are common. The blitz attack is done for control. Semen from the assault is also often found on the victim’s clothing, and there was indeed some possible semen found on a pair of pants belonging to one of the boys.

So after all that, let’s think about who could have done this crime. They’re young, possibly as young as a teen. We know this is a place kids and teens come to hangout and play. We know this offender’s the kind of person who may be a high school drop-out. We know the killer has to be from the area, and the victims had to have been familiar with the location. This means the killer was probably familiar this particular location as well. They also likely arrived there on foot. So this is someone young, who’s probably dropped out of school and spends time in an area where teens are present. This is also someone who likely still lives with their parents and doesn’t have a car. There was also evidence of possible accomplices at the scene, with as many as 2 or 3 different styles of knots used, and three sticks possibly used by the killer(s) in the commission of the crime. There had also been the lack of mutilation to one of the victims and the fact that one victim appeared to have fled. Adding to the notion of multiple killers present.

Well, what kind of individual would fit the bill of someone young and familiar with an area where children and teens commonly hangout? What type of individual travels the neighborhood on foot, and is likely unemployed? They also likely live with their parents or some other relative. They don’t have a car, and they run around in group of people. What does that all sound like? A teen, or more correctly multiple teens. Being that this is a hangout for young people, teenagers would have been very familiar with this location. Dawn Moore had even seen some leaving the area just prior to the boys arriving. It’d be less likely that multiple adults were staking this area out and ganged up on the boys. From the lack of criminal sophistication, it would seem apparent that someone younger had been involved, and this group of teens had over powered the children.

This would all seem to jive with Pat Brown’s profile. She would also remark on her belief that the WM3 were guilty in the quote below.

“Now, who would be likely to live near the scene, not have a vehicle, have a posse big enough to handle three boys and be recognizable to the boys so they could lure them without them running away? Since the boys were dead by dusk (rigor mortis evidence and livor evidence and no evidence of the bindings being on a live body for any period of time), who was unaccounted for at that time? The crime was planned (even if just minutes before, when the boys were spotted going into the woods) but no materials were brought; a sign of a fairly inexperienced killer/killers or a sign of youth. The sexual aspects of the crime encompass power and control as do the actual murders. Who does this sound like to you? How about that cold-blooded psychopath who wanted to kill people and drink blood and be God, who knew the boys, lived near the boys and had his homeys with him?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s