Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

facts surrounding the Keddie Murders, for beginners and up

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby William Lee » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:33 pm

Marilyn claimed Sheriff Thomas got Justin's shoes on the morning after the bodies were discovered.

If true, I'm not surprised they "disappeared". If not true, I'm not surprised Marilyn lied... Still it isn't like I trust Marilyn, but I suspect it WAS true. I suspect the evidence disappeared or was returned with the claim there was no blood on them. Either way, I suspect Justin probably DID have blood on his shoes. And either way, it wouldn't help determine much more than how close Justin was to the killers and to the crime scene itself, implication being more so evidence that it was M & B.

Anyone know if it was ever confirmed whether Justin's shoes were taken as evidence, aside Marilyn's claims that they were?
William Lee
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:10 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby not sure » Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:32 pm

I was listening to a forensic program where they talked about how common it was for a victim who's bitten their attacker to have broken teeth. It got me to thinking about Sue's teeth. In the autopsy report it says her teeth were broken indicating blunt force trauma. I assume there's a way to tell the difference between broken teeth from biting down with all your might and being smashed in the teeth but it made me wonder...?
User avatar
not sure
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:52 pm
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Has thanked: 351 times
Been thanked: 270 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dmac » Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:38 pm

The autopsy, indeed, says her teeth were broken.

In the summation, "Focal fractures of anterior upper teeth. with loosening of teeth" means the teeth were chipped/broken, the roots loosened. the use of the word 'focal' means it was limited to the area of the upper (maxilla) front teeth. It's verified, and with greater detail, in the first paragraph of the report:

Sue's Autopsy Report wrote:Defects involve the upper teeth near their bases. These show roughened edges and are up to l/4 inch in greatest dimension. All of the front upper teeth are loosened. This includes the central and lateral incisors and the right cuspid.


Image

Rough translation: the teeth were broken very close to the base, near the gumline. The author is unclear, but the sentence about "1/4 inch in greatest dimension" likely indicates the amount of tooth visible above the gumline.

Other abrasions / cuts / bruising indicate the cause was blunt force trauma.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dcheryl83 » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:51 am

To me the word 'broken' means they were 'no longer attatched to the remainder of the tooth'. Focal fractures do not always mean 'broken' they can mean broken or they can mean cracked or split. The 'loosening' is a no brainer, but I think the 'focal fracture' is open to interpretation.

Just went back and looked at the first paragraph and I don't see where it was "verified" that they were "broken." All I see is the "focal fracture" and "loosening." I will re-read the whole thing more thouroughly before the days end. I tend to speed read thru things sometimes.
dcheryl83
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:38 pm
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dmac » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:16 pm

Unfortunately, handwriting by supposed medical professionals is not the only thing incomprehensible to most mere mortals. Their lingo is also greek to us (well, let's play nice and say Latin). As shown in these autopsy reports, writing explicit, detailed, logical thoughts- much less sentences and paragraphs- is also a foreign concept to many of them. Much of these autopsy reports beg clarification due to both terminology and, quite simply, piss-poor diction. For instance, he uses 'focal' in the wrong portion of the sentence, because 'focal' only indicates (in this instance) that the teeth directly involved were limited to the anterior maxilla. 'Focal' is only (mis)used in Sue's report to indicate which teeth were damaged.

To simplify things, dental fractures are not hairline fractures. Most every time you see the term 'dental fracture', it means a broken tooth, or chipped tooth. Cracked teeth (which are almost always vertical, running from the tip of the tooth to the root) are usually called 'incomplete dental fractures', but account for the remainder of times the term 'dental fracture' is used. Even medical professionals don't like the current terminology and are trying to revise things.

Not only does the autopsy report say the teeth are broken, Josh has verified in chat (when I was discussing the gags) that photos show the gags were tied tight in her mouth, forcing her jaw open and exposing broken teeth. Unfortunately, the report is unclear on which teeth are broken- the report mentions five teeth are loose, but his diction muddles whether all five are broken. Breaking the cuspid is more difficult than the other four (front insicors which, by sheer volume, account for about 80% of broken teeth). The fact he fails to mention whether or not he located any broken fragments in the gags, mouth, or throat also all but destroys our ability to determine if the teeth were broken BEFORE or AFTER the gags were applied. Trust me, I'm frustrated by many aspects of these reports.

Hope that helps clarify that Sue's teeth were, in fact, broken.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dcheryl83 » Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:11 am

Thank you dmac. I notice that the autopsy details aren't all that 'detailed' in some instances. Tends to make things even more confusing when trying to interpret it.
dcheryl83
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:38 pm
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Ausgirl » Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:41 pm

You ask some REALLY good questions, Stayzee.

I've thought a lot about this myself. And wondered if that was why there were chunks of carpet removed from the crime scene in places.

And maybe somebody did some cleaning up; it's a fact that a couple somebodies moved the victims around, etc. I can see them wiping bootprints off a floor. But maybe they couldn't, on the carpet...
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:35 pm
Has thanked: 249 times
Been thanked: 391 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby quincygirl » Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:07 am

Hey DMAC with all your mad computer skills, is there a way to figure out the size shoe that footprint might be? If anyone could do it, I imagine it would be you. Just one more little fact to add to the puzzle. Just wondering.
User avatar
quincygirl
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:17 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Chichibcc » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:06 pm

quincygirl wrote:is there a way to figure out the size shoe that footprint might be?


I don't see how...judging from the photogrpah, it doesn't look like it's a full footprint at all.

Image

Even if a shoe size could be determined, we don't have the shoe sizes of any of the possible suspects/accomplices to compare with, which would be really helpful.
User avatar
Chichibcc
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:08 am
Has thanked: 667 times
Been thanked: 254 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dmac » Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:16 pm

Wrong, Chi- it's a fantastic print. The heel is at the top, and the toe is at the bottom. The photo shows push-off at the toe, which is why you see the indentation of the outer sole and no pattern from the sole (the foot twists when pushing off, destroying the pattern) To complicate things, it looks like the arch of the foot- and the resulting print- is atop a pine root (left to right, note the shadow in the ground) hidden below recently-rained-upon earth. The heel has a very strong imprint as a result, and the toe shows both the sole and outer edge (the rim of sole running up the face of the shoe)

It is a fantastic shot of the shoeprint, and it is that of a child. And it is clearly taken DAYS AFTER THE MURDERS. A great piece of evidence, proving it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MURDERS. Fail.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Chichibcc » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:48 pm

Thank you...I think I had either missed reading the thread you linked to, or had forgotten it.

Looking at the photograph again, from your perspective, I see what you're saying. I'd always thought that the shoeprint might have been left by one of the killers, with the toe area being the heel-I guess I had it reversed wrong.
User avatar
Chichibcc
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:08 am
Has thanked: 667 times
Been thanked: 254 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dmac » Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:39 am

gotbier wrote:What good are pictures taken of footprints outside days later?

They are absolutely worthless. Given that it was taken days later, and was the footprint of a 5-yr old, my guess is the photo was part of the airtight case DT was building against Tina, his favorite suspect of all time.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dmac » Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:27 pm

The aerial photos were taken the final day of the negligent search for Tina, Wednesday the 15th.

The shoeprint photo was taken after a recent rain . Given the amount of pines in the area, and the previously noted tree root under the print, it's hard to say how much protection from weather was offered by trees close to where the print was taken (meaning that it may have been a heavier rain elsewhere than where this footprint was made- AFTER the storm. This footprint is pristine, undisturbed by rain or other elements), but the exterior crime scene photos show it hadn't recently rained sufficiently to allow conditions required for this print to be made.

I'd be really interested in knowing when the exterior CS shots were taken, exactly. Remember all the stories of it being a rainy day, with Justin and DT (an Loon?) sheltered from the rain inside the squad car? These photos show the area dry and very well trafficked, as you would expect a yard to look where five kids lived. Looking at them side-by-side, some have clear shadows while others have none, indicating a change in time and weather. Not a single photo of the back of the cabin shows the doorknob in place. In all photos, where the rear door is clearly scene, the doorknob has already been taken into evidence, and a yellow tape tag "seals" the rear door. There is no visible seals on any other door or window, including the access to Johnny's room or the front door. However, the main photo of the front of the house shows the front door halfway open.

The doorknob from the rear cabin (kitchen) door is on the same field report with the chunks of wall, detailed here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=636&p=9485&hilit=field+report#p9485 That report is dated 4/17/81, yet it's clear that dates and details about the evidence on the field report are unimportant to PCSO: I have a photo of the chunk of the wall taken from the front door area- the one four times larger than they indicated on the same report- and it has an evidence tag from April 13 on it.

Other reports detail when they supposedly locked the doors, removed locks and nailed them shut, and left the dogcatcher in charge of the scene. It was VERY secure, given Metcalfe's flour treatment of the scene. We need to add all these thing to a real timeline to determine many things, including what parts of which reports are false or misleading.

Due to the mishmash of incorrect info on forms and other mistakes by PCSO, it's hard to say if the exterior CS shots were taken April 12, 13, etc. It could have been the 12th, weather depending and only if they indeed sealed up the cabin, removing the rear doorknob, on April 12. It's all down to which report you trust less than the others, I suppose.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Magesta » Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:57 am

Why was blood found on Justin's shoes if he was supposed to be in bed sleeping?
Magesta
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:44 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Magesta » Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:58 pm

Just to clarify my previous post, the evidence listed indicates Justin's shoes had blood on them, I know he was not asleep according to reports. However, he would have gone in to bed earlier and taken his sneakers off. If the police found blood on them, he would have had to have them on sometime after he went in to go to bed if he walked through the crime scene. I was under the impression that his sneakers were not one of the pair that were found thrown around the living room. I'm assuming he did not return home barefoot the next morning after being taken out of the window or did he?. Marilyn stated that they took Justin's shoes. If they were one of the pair of sneakers found in the living room that would make sense, how the blood got on them. If not, he would have had to put them on before checking Sue, unless they had blood dripped on them while on the floor in the boys room, which I just don't think is the case, since there was just a smear of blood on the door and I believe I read a slight amount on the wall, but it is possible I guess.
Magesta
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:44 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dmac » Sat Jan 03, 2015 4:12 pm

The list by Aus in this thread's OP is years old, outdated, and includes items from reports and from hearsay. There's a lot up in the air about Justin's shoes, because I don't recall a source of origin on that tidbit other than Marilyn. There has been verbal confirmation from josh's 'team' that LE said J's shoes were taken into evidence, but so much of Josh's anti-research has been discredited.

Even in the vid (or outtakes, I can't recall which), Justin admits Marilyn TOLD him his shoes were bloody, but we know Loon's proclivity for using her LoonLoom® to spin straw into golden horseshit. Word is Doug Thomas is one to have said he remembers his shoes in evidence, but doesn't recall blood on them... Why would Loon make this up? Sooo many reasons. It appears to me she's got long claws out for LE, particularly Thomas, which is remarkable in that LE evidently protected her from prosecution. I find it very highly possible she's also subconsciously (and right on camera) reminding Justin to "dummy up" about what he knows. It ties back into the strong likelihood the killers threatened him about the impact of talking about what he saw. Here's the clincher, for me:

I've seen relatively good shots of all the blood in the front room of 28. There's no indication there was blood found anywhere, other than smears and drops in the girls' room: no substantial blood anywhere but the living room. We've seen blood on Sue's feet and what appear to be bloody footprints from (presumably) her feet. We see ZERO bloody shoeprints anywhere, from Justin or the killers.

More directly to your post, if Justin's shoes were collected in the living room (maybe he kicked them off while watching TV- I was always doing that, and still do), they may have blood on them, but you can't get blood on the soles as described (by Loon) without walking in them.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Magesta » Sat Jan 03, 2015 5:37 pm

I agree the shoes could have been kicked off while watching TV, in which case they would be one of the sets of sneakers found in the living room, unless Justin grabbed them when he put the rag on Sues chest, which would explain blood on them. Otherwise I would assume they would be in the boys bedroom. If they were on the back porch [if he took them off before entering the house] or the kitchen, he would have to go get them before leaving the house. I'm still wondering if he had sneakers on when he was removed from the house. I'm trying to disregard what Loon & Justin have said, since he was spoon fed by Loon, I didn't realize the crime evidence list stating there was blood on Justin's shoes was solely from Loon.
Magesta
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:44 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dmac » Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:13 pm

Here's what we know about the story: it is TRUE that Sheila and Jamie Seabolt (James Jr) woke the kids up and assisted them out of the window. It is TRUE Jamie went up the back stairs, went through the cabin looking for survivors. He initially told that to Shaver, the first responder who was taking statements (the best report and witness statements by far, overall, in the entire case).

    810412-0800z (approx) Sheila goes home from staying the night at 27 but “came running back that someone in there is dead”. She described the blood and knife. He and his mom and Sheila went back to 28, saw the boys through the window, but nobody through the girls' window. After helping remove the boys through the window, he entered the cabin through the rear porch door, which was ajar. After checking the whole cabin for others, all he saw were the bodies, so he left through the back door, closing it behind him. (1db) <J Seabolt Jr to Shaver>

Seabolt later stated he never entered the cabin, which he seems to have stuck by ever since. A lot of people who did and saw things just don't trust PCSO enough to tell them the truth, do they? Back to the point: For Loon's shoe story to be true, Justin must have awakened by Sheila and Jamie, and pulled from the window, while still wearing the shoes. Otherwise Loon's story collapses: how else could Justin be in possession of those shoes? Did he ask to go back in and get them? Did Jamie grab them for him? Did a cop retrieve them for him? Nope, for Loon to insist PSCO asked for them and never gave them back, he had to leave 28 with them that morning.

I'm not going to entertain the shoe angle much more, because it's void of answers and leads really nowhere. If he was in them, and stepped in blood, where is the bloody shoeprint near the bloody carpet he had to have stepped in? How did the killers spill so much blood, yet leave no bloody shoeprints?

BTW, for now, the best source for collected evidence is the Stoy Photographic and Evidence Report, and addenda. I believe Aus' list was a very good stopgap for its time, but it's outdated and not wholly valid.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Magesta » Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:56 pm

Thank You for that dmac, I will check it out. You have done so much work on this case and there is tons of interesting information. However, is this at a stand still until someone gets results from the DNA? It just seems like a circle jerk. It has to be very frustrating for you and others that have put in so much time and effort on every detail only to come up against a wall. I know you have probably posted your theory of what happened endless times but I would be interested in hearing how you are thinking this went down.
Magesta
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:44 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dmac » Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:27 am

Many aspects of the case are at a standstill, and always will be. Many more are actively being worked. There is so much weird shit going on behind the scenes a few of us cannot post about, but it would blow minds if we did. We have dozens of solid contacts, and more are coming forward. New info to digest, clarify, and vet.

As I've said before, most murderers are the only ones who know exactly what went down. Convicted or not, they're too busy ranting about their innocence for the whys and hows of who they murdered to ever be told. As for Keddie, for 3-odd years the evidence and info at hand has, for me, time and again laid out the same concept of what went down, when and how:

Marilyn, Marty and Bo (MMB) went to the bar on April 11, a date Marty often used as a false birthday (real DOB May 11). They already had something nefarious in mind for Cabin 28 when they went to the Back Door. It got dark around 630, and they arrived much later than that- around 11-1130 (where the hell were they prior?!). Despite LE having Marty and Bo as suspects when they interviewed dozens of people at the bar and restaurant that night, only a few were apparently asked if they saw MMB. Marty left Marilyn and Bo for 30-45 minutes, time unaccounted for other than Marty was also reportedly seen outside the Back Door Bar with a skinny, long-haired hippie wearing army-type clothes. (If true (big if), this is likely Dee Lake. Marty reappeared in the bar, and there is a long-winded story by MMB about Marty and/or Bo flying off the handle when the dj playing records supposedly switched from country to rock music. In all the interviews we've seen, nobody at the bar appears to have been asked about this vital element of the MMB Alibi (known as the Loonibi). There is absolutely nothing to indicate this portion of their alibi is true.

When MMB left the bar the first time, they went to 28 and began the crime- unless others were already present. Others, like LiC (Longhair in Camo, aka Dee Lake) and Tony the Greek, may also have been with them. Perhaps murder was intended (hence the kill kit); Or they were there to threaten and abuse, but things spiraled out of control. No matter their intent, it was already a home invasion, a felony. Going towards home the normal way, they entered 28 through the unlocked front door and went directly to the rear bedroom, attacking Sue and Tina, who were both asleep. Sue's eyeglasses were found on her nightstand (she was severely myopic), her robe hanging from the closet door. Blood was found on both beds, on clothing, walls, the door, carpet, etc. This room had the most blood in it, other than the front room where the killings occurred.

The victims were restrained, and because screams were heard, Marty and Bo left Loon (and others) in control at 28 for a brief time. They went to 26, changed out of their bloody 3-piece polyesters into clean "work clothes" and went back to the bar to establish another part of the Loonibi

After leaving the bar the final time, they returned to 28 to pick up where they left off.

OR

They left the bar the first time, knowing they were going to do a number at 28. They went home, changed, and left Loon to case the scene around 28 while they further established their bar alibi. Then they went into 28. The screams heard at 1:15 am make this scenario far less likely.

===

Tina and Sue were the first awakened and attacked, then the young boys. If Johnny and Dana were already home, they were hanging out in the basement bedroom. They heard something upstairs and ran up to see what was going on. The boys got beaten up and the hammer wounds to the head; the petechiae on Dana's brain stem pons may be a result of the hammer wounds, which would account for Justin's claim Dana was stumbling around as if drunk. I also believe Dana, as an unintended vic the killers didn't expect to be there, was intentionally killed first to show Sue they were all going to die. Then the others were killed in front of her. Sue was the only one with defensive wounds. It appears Dana or Johnny may have bloodied the nose of one of the killers, based on evidence (twisted, bloody tissue) found in the General Store trash. It also appears one of the killers sliced his hand open while stabbing the victims.

The layering of bloodstains on the carpet indicate the victims were moved around many times, left to bleed out in various places of the room while work on another victim was being staged at what I call 'Ground Zero': the location of the couch cushion on the floor. Dana died first and, at that point, had the least amount of blood-flow because he had no major bleeding wounds (his head had not yet been crushed). He would have been put in a corner, against a wall, or against the couch to make room for the other victims. Johnny and Tina would have died next, probably Johnny first as he was more of a threat, then finally Sue. It's interesting that Marty only confessed to killing the 'girls', because that's exactly what most killers would deny, claiming to only have killed the males who could put up more of a defense.

With all the victims dead or dying, the killers took a break. Tina was then taken from the cabin and either removed from Keddie straight away in a vehicle, or hidden. There was blood on the back stairwell, and reports of blood on Sue's car. No mention of Sue's car exists other than the keys were found in 28; it was impounded that Sunday. Was there blood inside? In the trunk? I've long believed that Tina was taken out the back way, down to Keddie Flats and over the swinging bridge, then up to the highway and hidden there. When the Crimley fake interview was published on the forum, wherein Marty said that's how HE'D get rid of her- then he lied by claiming the bridge was locked- it clinched it for me that they took Tina over that bridge.

TinaPath.jpg


It's 365 yards on foot to the bridge, if you take the long way to avoid cabins. That's .2 miles. When you follow the road on the other side of the river (which is raging and very loud in April), there are no cabins to avoid. When you get to Hwy 70/89, there's a deep gully just across the pavement and a few yards towards the wye. Adjacent is a tiny, tree-obscured, dirt road up the hillside. Hiding her in the gully by that dirt road would make it easy to drive right out of Keddie later that day, disappear onto the dirt road, grab the body, and go off to Camp Eighteen. This is the best way I can think of to get past whatever police presence they may have expected in order to dump Tina's body elsewhere.

It's under half a mile by foot from 28 to that gully, very easy for two men to carry a child's body. Loon was left behind to watch over the boys, so she hung out, chain-smoking. Those should be some of her ciggy butts in the ashtray found on the kitchen floor, and you can test saliva and skin cells left behind for DNA. When the guys got back, they did some cleanup and eventually decided to do the staging. Dana was clearly first, due to the lack of blood spatter from his postmortem head wounds found on Sue or John, and due to the trajectory of the head wounds, which places the killer right on the spot John was later put. Dana had been dead on his back for some time- long enough for livor mortis to set on his posterior. They inverted him, placed his head on the cushion, then used a leg torn from the folding card table to crush his head. The table was stored between the wall and the TV stand. They tore the leg off DURING the staging, long after the victims were dead. This disrupted the TV stand, rolling it outward to the right, facing the wrong wall, and also strained the power cord between the tv and wall outlet.

Johnny was then picked off the ground and lowered to the floor, parallel to Dana. The flimsy steak knife was then used to stab his corpse in the chest. The blade bent roughly 35°on the third stab, and was tossed aside to be found abandoned next to Johnny later that morning. The chest wounds were shallow, stopped by the rib cage, and did not bleed out- because he was already dead.

Dana's and Johnny's feet were eventually tied together loosely with the white extension cord. The ends of the knots on both boys faced upwards when they were found, confirming again that it was staged. The cord was thoughtlessly placed on the floor, curving at 90 degrees around the TV stand, proving all the staging came long enough after death. It also proves they were tied together AFTER the leg had been ripped from the table to use as a tool in the staging.

<deleted>

Last to be staged (not counting Tina, whose final 'staging at Camp Eighteen came hours later) was Sue. She was placed on her back, her terrycloth nightgown hiked up to leave her exposed, sexually humiliated in death with her legs spread open. Her hands were tied between her legs to her ankles. Only some time later, after rigor mortis had set in, did someone roll her onto her side and cover her with the sheet and blanket. The rigor did set in while the legs were spread, which is why her left leg is still rigid in midair when she was later rolled on her side. The person who moved and covered her (presumably the same person) is likely not a killer, as I believe none of the killers felt the shame associated with covering the victim of a personal/sex/rage murder of this nature. I feel it was done by a survivor, out of respect or empathy. I also believe the killers thought the positioning of Sue was also the coup de grace of all their staging within 28, and there's no way they would destroy the work the did by later moving Sue, much less covering her.

Loon was never home watching nonexistent TV shows or sleeping, both of which she's claimed. She was fully involved from when they began planning their joint Loonibi, through the murders and into the days thereafter, and only began throwing Marty and Bo under the bus when she felt it safe to do so, further shifting the focus away from herself as one of the perps. She tried to build sympathy, as if she were the helpless victim instead of participant. In recent years, when she recanted her years-long statements that Bo and Marty did it, I believe she also did that because the case was getting too much attention, and a few people were getting too close to the truth for her liking, so she decided it was time to shift focus away from Bo and Marty, as well as herself.

A big part of the Loonibi is where the killers were in the hours after they left 28. Loon did not wake up to see any polyester burning in the stove at 2am, as she claimed, because none of them got home from 28 until much later. The murders were in full swing around 2am, long before Marty could be burning clothes. My guess is they bailed sometime between 430 and 530 am, probably closer to 5 (sunrise was around 530 am that morning). Almost everything they've said about that night and morning is a lie, including Justin and Casey running in to "wake them up". Justin would have come in, presumably past innocent ol' Bo asleep on the couch (still knocked out on meds). Marty said Casey came into his bedroom with Justin, which means Casey was awakened a three full rooms away? Yada yada yada, the Loonibi rages on. What we do know is the murders were pretty planned, but very stupidly or on a last-minute-whim, because Marty missed his early Sunday morning appointment (530am?) to meet Mr Meeks in EQ for a firewood trip.

Read what you can into the various statements by those involved, but Marty and Bo took off in Dee's car, picked up Tina's body, and dumped it at Camp 18. Before Tina was put there, Marty supposedly showed up at the Meeks house, with two others in Dee's car (Bo, and logically Dee would be the second and third men Momma Meeks saw). He wasn't there to chop wood, but told one story of going to Reno for car parts, and another of going to Reno to get meds for Bo at the VA, which was closed to outpatients on Sundays (and the Reno VA says Bo was NEVER there). This also means Momma Meeks had already gone out to Keddie, picked up Loon and the boys, and returned home to EQ, which helps put the timeline together.

As for LE, they were on-scene shortly after the call came in (The call came from the Albins' cabin 26 at about 7:45). Thomas didn't arrive for a couple hours, and before you could shout "COVERUP!", Crim and Bradley were on scene. What happened once LE got involved is sadly apparent.

That's my theory on the rough timeline, without going into too much detail.
You must be a member of the Keddie Forum with 15 approved posts to view the files attached to this post.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Next

Return to keddie facts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest