Unknown (3:13)

If you say I'm homely, I must be homely. I see how this only in the.

Brett (3:18)

British sense of the word, like a fine cigar and a comfortable rug and a warm fire and nice cup of tea.

Unknown (3:26)

That's not what homely means.

Brett (3:27)

Maybe some, you know, hummus, pretzel chips. Big fan. Okay, well, that's the last fun thing we're going to talk about today. So we're back for episode nine, West Memphis three. Take a little detour and into Satan last week. But now we're getting back to some of the details of the case, as we promised you. We're sort of going into more depth about various aspects. We're going to talk about where the bodies were found, how the bodies were found. We're also going to talk about some of the autopsy reports. You know, they're gruesome. We're going to read them to you pretty much just straight away. We're just going to read you what it says. And you know, it's tough reading, but a lot of it, like most autopsies, it's sort of put in a very scientific, cold way. And then we're going to sort of discuss Dr. Peretti's testimony, which I think explains a little bit in more layman's terms what you're hearing in the autopsies. Now look, I'm not a doctor. Alice is not a doctor. We famously don't know much about medicine. So I'm actually interested if you're out there and you have some expertise in this area. As I've said before, we're going to try and get an expert to come on and talk about this, but would love to hear your thoughts on it. So I hope you'll pay close attention with, with that. Alice, you ready to dive in?

Unknown (4:40)

Let's dive in. Especially because we finally got through the timeline and we wanted to go into more depth as we were going through the timeline, but we saved it for now where we can go topic by topic. And of course we have to start at Robin Hood.

Brett (4:54)

Yeah, Robin Hood woods. Basically a character in this case. You know, as much as the convicted are, as much as the witnesses are, as much as the victims are, Robin Hood woods is just, it's an entity in this story that is always there in the background. We want to talk about it a little bit more. We've talked about it at length, but honestly, I don't think you can ever talk about it too much because this is where the bodies were found. This is probably where the murder occurred. And there are lots of things that you can draw from this, as we said before. So the Robin Hood woods were divided by a diversion canal called Ten Mile Bayou. Now this is essentially a straight man made river. The neighborhood kind of runs up to it. There are some woods on the neighborhood side of the diversion ditch. Then there's a. What has been called a pipe bridge which is basically a few pipes across this that you could walk across. Now it wasn't exactly. I would not want to walk across it. I would probably fall off of it. Because I have very little balance. But I can imagine the neighborhood kids crossed it fairly easily. And in fact, there were people from the neighborhood who reported that they would walk across this to some of the businesses on the other side. The Blue Beacon Truck Wash, the Loves Truck Stop. There were people who worked at these places. And this was a path through and across the bayou up to where those locations were. So on one side of this, as I said, is the neighborhood. On the other side is the truck wash, is the truck stop, is the service road, and. And the interstate. The boys were found on this truck wash side in a small creek that branched off from Ten Mile Bayou. If you've looked at this case, if you've watched any of our videos, you've seen maps of this. So I think you probably have some familiarity with what I'm talking about. As we've said, this was a very small area. We're talking about a football field worth of space. So not a lot of room to commit a murder. Not a lot of room to do much of anything. From where the bodies were found, where the boys were probably killed, you could see various things. You could hear the interstate, you could see the apartments. And this was a place.

Unknown (7:01)

I think that's a great point here, Brett, because, you know, whenever you hear Robin Hood woods, you think, oh, this is within the woods. We have many cases that we've covered that have been, quite frankly, in the wilderness. And we've said before that when you're in the wilderness because of the wild brush and untraversed terrain, it can be very difficult to come across, say, missing bodies, for example, here, while they are woods in the sense that it's a wooded area, when you look at the aerial view of the map, you really begin to see how it's in the midst of an incredibly busy urban. Is not the right business and residential area. This is not a private woods, far from any sort of civilization. This is actually like if you plopped a little bit of greenery within developed area, which makes this a very unique situation rather than the woods.

Brett (7:51)

Yeah. And it's interesting because the people, you know, I think to. I think to Richard Allen, right, And where the girls were killed in the Delphi case. And people talk about how open that area of the forest was, how, you know, there was a road not far by and there were a couple of houses nearby. And, you know, there was a park and there had been people in the park. And you think, wow, that is pretty exposed. Nothing compared to this. I mean, this area is incredibly exposed and it's just hard. It's hard to even wrap your head around it. You know, you watch that beginning shot from Paradise Lost, and you see the helicopter flying over, and it's just. You don't even realize it unless, you know, you don't even realize it. It's that little plot of trees right on this canal and interstate. I mean, it's wild. And this was a place that kids would play. It's not surprising. I mean, this is the forest for the kids in the neighborhood. You know, when I was growing up, I lived literally in the middle of nowhere. So we had acres and acres of woods, and we would play in the woods all the time. Now, you know, I take my kids back to where I live, and I think, I don't want my kids going back there. That was why we all letting me run around back there. But we did all the time. I mean, I would just disappear into those woods for hours at a time, and no big deal. Kids would play in these places as well. Heather Clia explained that from the age of nine to around 14, that she would play in the woods on both sides of the pipe, and it served as a bridge, and the kids would cross it. And she would go into the woods two or three times a week. She would ride her bike to the pipe and then walk across, just like the boys likely did. She talked about some of the things in the forest. For instance, there were snapping turtles that lived in the creek and in sort of this bayou area. And she recalled being told by a friend not to touch one of the turtles because it would bite her. In the south, we have snapping turtles all over the place. And this is one of the things you're told as a kid at a very early age, you see a snapping turtle, do not get near it. It will bite your finger off. And so it's a very distinct memory I have in my mind that it will literally bite your finger off. I think it probably could. I mean, these are like prehistoric animals. They're hard to even describe what they look like, and they're frightening. And they apparently did live in this area. And as a matter of fact, there was a little part of this that was called Turtle Hill, probably because of the turtles that lived in the area. There was also apparently a pack of wild dogs. Pack might be a little generous, but there were some wild dogs that lived near the truck wash side of the pipe. And years after the deaths of the boys, this one actually become important. Warner Spitz, who many of you have heard of, is sort of a famous coroner he's the kind of person that tells you how people died. I don't know if he was a coroner or medical examiner. I don't know what pathologist, I don't know what his official title is. But he became intrigued by these dogs and actually suggested that the injuries to the boys, which we're going to talk about later, were actually caused by the dogs and not any activity of the murderers. Now, Ryan Clark we've talked about before. He was Christopher Byers older brother. He would say that he also played in the woods when he was 8 or 9, and he would go there every day. He also talked about these snapping turtles and said that they were in sort of the water, though he would swim in the water. So, you know, I guess they weren't too aggressive. Devil's Den was a place in the Robin Hood woods, which I'm sure that name didn't influence anybody who talked about this case. And this was an area where Heather Cleat would say that she had seen the boys riding their bikes. And it's essentially the area where they are found. Now, I know this geography can be a little confusing, but frankly, we're probably going into this in a little bit more detail than we should, because I struggle to remind you how small this area is. It's a little patch of woods with this canal on one side and this little creek that ran off the canal that flooded when it rained. And that's where the boys were found.

Unknown (11:42)

So, as Brett said, these boys regularly played in the woods, and they weren't the only ones. A lot of neighborhood kids did the same thing, even though these boys were told by their parents not to play in the woods. Kind of like what Brett said, he doesn't want his kids playing in the woods that he played in as a young kid because they're bugs, they're snakes, they're snapping turtles. They could fall in the water. You know, a number of things can happen in there. It's just not, say, someone's backyard. And so, despite these kind of exhortations not to go play there. Who can resist the woods and water? Seems like every kid's dream of adventure. Cortez Hollins, he's a friend with Michael. Sarah said that Michael had actually taken him into Robin Hood at some point. And Cortez said they'd rode their bikes in and they came upon some teenagers in the woods. And apparently these teenagers knocked the boys off their bikes and told them that they would throw them in the water and let the snakes and alligators eat them up. Now, Whether that really happened or not, you can see why this would be of interest, right? The boys did end up in water. And it kind of feeds on the fears, I would say, of the adults of, don't go in there, because you don't know who you're going to see in there. It's near a truck stop. It's near an interstate. So there could be dangers from people who are not of the most savory character. There could be different animals and predators in the water. I don't know about alligators per se here, but snapping turtles can also do a lot of damage. And just the fact that there's water, right, whenever there's water, there could be some danger. And so Cortez recounts this story, story now, but it sounds like it was kind of the one time that Michael took him in, rather than this was his regular activity of going in. Now, a few weeks before the murders, Michael Moore's mom, Dana, had found muddy clothes and shoes hidden under his bed. Remember, Michael had been told by his mom, dana, don't go in the woods. Do not play in the woods. So, of course, when Dana finds these muddy clothes and shoes hidden under his bed, what does she think? Well, she's like, michael, I told you not to go in the woods. But, of course, I'm pretty sure you've gone in the woods, You've gone to Robin Hood woods, and you're playing in there. Isn't that what happened? And I don't think Michael ever said that he did go in there, but you can imagine that that's what Dana thought she was doing. And if he had gotten muddy some other place, like he slipped in mud on the way to school, why hide it? You know, people fall. It's okay. But if you're getting caught for being muddy because you went somewhere where your mom told you not to, that makes a little bit more sense as to why you would hide your clothes. Now, Melissa Byers had also noticed that Christopher would disappear for hours at a time. And she also wondered if it was because he was going into the woods with Michael. On occasion, she would notice that Chris was also muddy when he'd come home. And when Melissa asked him if he was playing in Robin Hood, he said, nope, I wasn't. He said, instead, he was playing with George. Now, Melissa had no idea who this George was. And I don't think we know who this George is. Could have also been a childhood lie. I was not in Robin Hood Woods. Of course not. I was with George. Because if he said, michael, maybe you Know, the moms would put it two and two together and say, but both of you guys have been muddy. Both of you have been gone for hours at a time. You're probably in the woods. But if you blame it on George, some third party who's maybe not even real, it might be easier to get away with things.

Brett (15:11)

So this, of course, you know, has to. I'm sure this haunts the parents to this day. This is a place they told the kids not to go. And this is where their bodies are going to be found. Whether they were murdered, they're not. Which was always the theory. Well, it wasn't always a theory of the police, but eventually everyone settled on this is where they were murdered. And the bodies were found under the water in this creek we've talked about the so of goes off from the ten mile bayou, this diversion canal that runs along the area, the big body of water. There's this, this little creek. And that creek was filled from recent rains. And if you've seen pictures of this, there are parts of it that have very steep sides to it. But then it sort of levels out at parts as well. Their bodies are found under the water and they were clearly put there in an effort to conceal them as long as possible. Now how they were put there is a little weird and I've read a lot of different takes on this. I've read the testimony on this. I am still not crystal clear on this. It seems as though they were essentially pressed down into the mud and sort of the suction of the mud at the bottom held them there. Though it's often also said that they were put there with sticks. Now I don't understand what that means. Maybe the sticks were used to press them down into the woods. They weren't wearing any clothes, so I don't really know how the sticks would have held them there. And the finding the bodies is often described, and we talked about it as. There's a police officer who sort of falls into the creek and he realizes he's on top of something and he sort of lifts up with his leg and when he does, he breaks that suction and the body just floats to the surface. And that makes sense because at that point you would expect the bodies to float to the surface because of the natural decomposition. So they're sort of stuck down in the mud. Well enough that that doesn't happen initially. And there are people out there who know more about this case than I could know about it. If I read it for the next 10 years, I would love somebody to sort of explain that a little bit more. If you understand it, the boy's hands were tied wrist to ankle. Wrist to ankle. It's possible that the stick was somehow wrapped around that. I don't know. I can't really figure that out. But nevertheless, that's where their bodies were. They were definitely down in the water like that.

Unknown (17:24)

But a point on that, right? I also have been trying to figure out the sticks. I. I just assumed the sticks were where the bondage was because that's the only place where it could catch, since there are no clothes. But the suction part I think is really interesting because if you've ever been around these types of creeks to push something into the mud to make it suction, you can, you certainly can. Especially because there's been a lot of rainfall. You'd have to get into the mud yourself, right? Usually because you have to push it deep enough for the suction to go to suck. Essentially that you would imagine whoever did the pressing, unless they used a third object, which there's no sign that there was a third object they used to press them down. They probably used their hands and feet. You would think that there would be a lot of mud coming on the person who did that, and probably on their extremities because of the need to push with that much force to create the suction to keep the bodies down. Because I can imagine if what you're trying to accomplish is the suction, the first time you do it, it doesn't work. You have to do it a couple more times before it sucks. Because I don't know about you, but even if I regularly push things into the mud for suction, there's like a different viscosity with every type of mud that you have. And so in order to get the right. Unless for the very first time you were able to push, you were able to get that suction. More likely, I would think it probably was a little bit of a trial and error, at least with the first boy. And with that trial and error, there would at least be some sort of blowback of both water and mud. All I'm trying to say essentially is the person doing this likely has a good amount of water and mud on them from doing this to not one, but all three boys to create the amount of suction in this rain created mud pit. And that's the other thing, is it's only muddy when it rains. So it's not like it's fully saturated. It is saturated only at the time in which it rains, making it. I Think probably a more viscous and therefore more like less watery, more muddy, more creamy type of texture to get on yourself and less easy to shake off.

Brett (19:20)

And look, I think this is really important analysis, making a good point. So number one, I think you're right. This would have been trial and error because you'd have been hurrying. So I bet the first time you tried to do it, it didn't work. You would had to really work at this. The other thing, if anyone can come up with a way this was done such that the person who was doing it would not have been soaking wet and muddy, I would like them to explain that to me because I can't come up with a way that you could do this without being soaking wet and muddy. And I think that's important for a couple reasons. One of the reasons is John Mark Byers and one of the reasons is Terry Hobbs. So if they did it, they had to have done it, got them down into the mud and then left the area. Presumably the way they came, which would have been across this diversion canal, across the pipe bridge, back into the neighborhood, and then made it back to their homes with no one noticing them. Not impossible. Not saying it is, but people saw all sorts of stuff and there were a lot of people around and there were people who were even looking for the kids early on. To me that's always been a challenge with it being either one of the stepfathers or really anyone in that neighborhood. But stepfathers aside, if you just think it was someone who lived nearby, who knew the boys, who followed them into the woods that night and murdered them, to me that's really difficult. If this were a super planned crime, maybe they brought a change of clothes. But I don't feel like most people think it was a super planned crime. So it seems like there would have been some visibility. I think this leads you to think a couple things. It's probably not someone from the neighborhood, at least in your initial thoughts. Just thinking about this. A trucker becomes more attractive because they could have parked their truck at Blue Beacon, gotten back into the cab, nobody noticed them, they've got other clothes in there, they change clothes, right? So that's a little bit more attractive now that the big problem with that is why would a trucker spend so much time hiding the bodies? Usually you would think that someone who knows the boys or is familiar enough in the area that they would want to have some time to get away. The time to get away and the time it takes for the police to find the bodies is more important than the danger of spending more time with the bodies. Now, one thing I'll say about this, if it were the trucker, because this is such a small area and it is so visible, maybe even a stranger would think somebody's going to find these bodies immediately. And even though I'm a stranger, to get the 15 minutes I need to get out of here, I'm going to take the time to hide them. I mean, that's one possibility. But either way, this is a striking part of the case that I feel like people talk about because the finding the bodies is so haunting. But really getting into what it means, I feel like people don't spend as much time there as maybe they should.

Alice (22:15)

Guys, Father's Day gifting is always the same story for me.

Unknown (22:18)

Socks, grill, tools, repeat.

Alice (22:20)

This year I wanted to do better. I found Quince and they made buying a thoughtful gift easier. Easy. Quint has all the pieces dads actually want to wear, like organic cotton silk polos, European linen beach shorts and comfortable pants that work for everything from weekend hangouts to nice dinners. And the best part, everything with quince is priced 50 to 80% less than what you'd find at similar brands. And they can do this because they're working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen. Quint's gives you luxury pieces without the crazy markups.

Brett (22:54)

And I can tell you guys, as a man and a dad, the guy in your life wants something from Quince. I recently got this awesome sports coat and it makes me look good. I don't have to dress up as much, but I'm still professional. Quince has everything for the guy in your life. So for the dad who deserves better than basic, Quince has you covered. Go to quince.com prosecutors for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q U I N C E dot com prosecutors to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com prosecutors.

Alice (23:38)

Now that it's summer, we are spending all of our time as a family at the pool because it is hot and I am so excited about our sponsor, Minnow. Minnow is a family lifestyle brand that embraces clean lines, simple details and crisp seaside breezes and the cutest family matching swimsuits you will find anywhere. The Minnow customer service is one that values quality, comfort and style. And the great thing about their mission is they want to create these premium products that inspire family experiences. I got four matching swimsuits for my kids. They were tickled pink that I dressed.

Unknown (24:15)

Them all the Same.

Alice (24:16)

And they kept pointing at each other and asking me to take pictures of them. And yes, please.

Brett (24:21)

And let me tell you guys, Minow has everything you could want, whether it's the girls rash guard one piece, the boys borties, or the unisex rash guard shirts. Me and my family, we just went to the pool for the first time this weekend and we had our matching minnow outfits. I had a swimsuit, my kids had swimsuits. We just looked amazing. We were like a picture perfect family. And you should do the same thing. And it's not just that these things look good. All suits have UPF 50 protection blocking 98% of UVA and UVB rays. They are easy to put on and easy to take off, which I know is really important when you're trying to get the kids dressed. They keep the sand out of the lining and they have a buttery, smooth hand feel. You are going to love these swimsuits. If you're like me and you're going out to the pool or you're going out to the beach, you need to check out Minnow today.

Alice (25:19)

Go to shopminow.com and enter code meatminow15 at checkout to receive 15% off. Your first order. That's shopmenow.com code meetminnow15 for 15% off.

Brett (25:40)

So the boys are sort of into this mud. You know, some people, it's been described as sticks were used. I don't know how they would be used.

Unknown (25:48)

And one thing to note, because I know some people are like, okay, well, maybe the mud, you're putting so much emphasis on the suction of the mud. Maybe the mud was just after the fact. You know, the mud was deposited and it sucked them down. They just meant to put them in the water. I don't think that's the case. I think the killer put them in the water to conceal them, not just to have them in the water, because it's actually worse to be in the water because it's such a small diversion canal that there's more woods than there is water. So if they're in water because they're dead, they're going to float. If they're going to float, they're going to be found because it's a very small canal. We're not talking a huge body of water. You will be able to see a floating body in this small water that you could basically run across in a few large leaps, right? This is not feet and feet of water where they could drift into the middle of a lake. And you can't be able to see them. So number one, they weren't meant to be put into the water, just to be put in the water. Because if they were killed on the banks, cover them with leaves and sticks that would be better for purposes of concealing than putting them just in the water so they can float up. And then potentially because if it's not moving water, if it's stagnant, then they're just going to be standing there for people to see. And this is the place where everyone crosses, remember. So this is going to be the highest visibility area because there's the pipe bridge right there. It's harder to say, hey, I'll meet you by the third pine tree on the right. It's easier to say I'll meet you by the canal or I'll meet you by the water. And so that's going to be one of the main places searchers will gather a floating body immediately discovered or if there's any sort of flow among this water, it'll flow and be discovered very quickly because again we're not talking about this being flowed into a bigger body of water where the bay, you know, like in Scott Peterson, the waters are going to wash away the bodies. So I think the mud was by design, it was not deposited after the fact. I think they were in the mud by design of the killer and so therefore the mud is on the killer.

Brett (27:39)

And like I love, I love people being creative in their thoughts. This was 100% intentional, there's no question about it, no need to speculate about it. Whoever did this push the bodies into the mud, that's how this happened. And if you're still not sure, as we're talking about in a second, they did the same thing with the clothes. They wrapped the clothes around sticks, they drove the sticks down into the mud to hide the clothes.

Unknown (27:59)

And I wonder if it got mixed up in the reporting. I wonder if the sticks had to do with the clothes and sticks had nothing to do with the bodies. And one other thing I'll note, eight year old boys still substance to their bodies, right? Like they're not a tiny baby, they're still what, 50 ish pounds, maybe more. 50 to 60 pounds I think anyone, even if it were a large adult doing this, ultimately they were able to get the suction in the mud using their feet, not just their hands alone. I think there was probably feet involved. And this is important because we're going to talk about footprints but also we're going to talk about shoes. Likely the person doing it Wore shoes, because this is still the woods. You're probably not going in there barefoot. And so I think there were shoes involved, meaning shoes probably had a lot of this mud that you would want to get rid of. Because remember Chris and Michael, what were they doing? They were hiding their muddy clothes and shoes. Muddy clothes and shoes. That was just them playing in the woods. The person who was doing this intentionally likely ultimately had to use force of feet in order to gain this suction.

Brett (29:00)

So in addition to being found in the water, one other interesting fact about this is they weren't found together, at least not all of them. So Stevie Branch and Christopher Byers were essentially found next to each other. They were about five feet away from each other, which I think, given what you're doing, isn't that great a distance. But Michael Moore was found nearly 30ft away, north up the creek towards the Blue Beacon. And this is going to become important when we talk about some of the theories about what happened in this case. And I will say this, most people who look at that fact think that Michael tried to get away. And even people who think the West Memphis three are completely innocent. And there's a part of that that becomes important as well, think that's what this is, evidence of that at some point he tried to get away. You know, he ran towards the interstate and somebody stopped him, probably killed him there and then disposed of his body in the same way that the other two boys bodies were disposed of, but a little bit of a distance away from each other. So then there's the scene itself. And the police were surprised by the condition of the scene. And I think you can almost call the scene. It's almost inexplicable, though we've talked about why some of this is. But I just tell you, according to the case summary created in 1993 by the police, there was no blood quote or other evidence that would lead investigators to believe that the victims had been murdered in the area where their bodies were located. That's really interesting. So that means in one of these official reports, the police are saying there's no evidence they were killed here. This is a big deal, right? You need to identify, do we have two crime scenes or one, do we have a murder scene and a dump scene, or do we have a murder scene and a dump scene? That's a very important distinction. You have two crime scenes. That changes your calculus a lot. Now, the thing is, based on everything else we've talked about where this was, people seeing the kids in the woods, the difficulties of moving Them. I think most people, though not everyone believes they were killed there. There is sort of a theory that they were killed somewhere else and this was a dump location. The problem with that is whenever you tell me the killer got someone in one place, took them somewhere else and killed them and then brought them back to the place they got them, I just don't buy that. That doesn't make any sense. Certainly violates Occam's razor. And given how open this place is, this is not the place you take them back to.

Unknown (31:33)

This is not a good dump site.

Brett (31:35)

No, it's not. It's really.

Unknown (31:36)

It's a horrible dump site. If you're already carrying them somewhere and it's three people, you're not going to be doing it by hand. You're going to be doing it by vehicle. You're already next to the interstate. You already have three bodies in your car. Just go down the interstate a few miles, like likely what happened to Asia degree even 10 miles down the road is going to be much harder to find them. Why dump in your own backyard? Whether you're a truck driver who's passing through or someone who lives in the neighborhood, makes no sense to kill them elsewhere and come back to the place where people will look because this is the place. It's likely. If you look at this map, they're big businesses that are open, right? There's like huge, massive amounts of parking lots with no tree cover. Like, it's very open. So easy to spot any boy. Not going to be there. Not going to be all these backyards. It looks like, you know, Stepford Wife ish how plants land the communities are someone's backyard, not there. So why would you put them in the one place that anyone would look for missing boys in this area, they only had bikes, they didn't have cars, so they couldn't get very far. First place you look is going to be the woods.

Brett (32:34)

So it's strange. There's no blood found there, but there is what's described as a fingerprint found there, which may sound weird, but essentially it seems like it almost looks sounds the way it's described is if someone at some point put their hand down. Remember why is the creek full? It's been raining, it's muddy. So someone put their hand down and when they did, their hand sort of went into the mud a little bit and created this thumbprint, fingerprint, however you want to describe it, into the mud. There were also several tennis shoe prints. This was all in the mud near the site of the dumping. Now the police did what they could here. They took plaster castings of the shoe prints and the earth containing the fingerprint was actually removed from the area. They tried to compare this, but frankly, the way it seems described in the trial transcripts. They took the plaster cast, but they couldn't get enough detail to really match this to a shoe. They could do a little bit of size comparisons, though. That's always a guess, particularly in the mud like this. But they really couldn't do it. So sometimes you'll hear they were compared to all of the suspects and all the suspects were definitively excluded. That is a definite overstatement of the evidence. It was more like, yeah, none of them were ruled in, but really the details weren't that great. And it seems like that is the same with this quote unquote fingerprint. So, you know, you see that and you're like, hopeful this is going to be it. But it turned out not really to be that helpful. So the police, they find the bodies and they're like, we need to drain this creek. There may be other physical evidence in the bottom, other evidence. We haven't found, other evidence that's been pressed down into the mud. But this was basically a failed effort. And that included some of the missing clothing. Although the police would find much of the boy's clothes wrapped around sticks driven into the bottom of the creek bed also to hide the clothes. The. Which is interesting because you could have just taken the clothes with you. I mean, that's another thing to think about, right? Why conceal the clothes? You know, let's say you're soaking wet and you're covered in mud. You know, is it that much more suspicious for you to have a handful of clothes with you as you're walking out and you're taking extra time to do this? So whoever did this felt it was necessary to conceal the bodies and rather than to take the clothes to conceal the clothes as well.

Unknown (35:05)

Okay, so a thought about the clothes. I know we've been kind of using the two dichotomous and there's obviously more potential suspects, but I think they show two different sides of the type of people you have. The passing by trucker, who, you know, literally is just a passerby, not from the area, and then someone who's from the neighborhood. So the trucker, you would think just throw it in the back of your truck, dispose of it later, nobody cares, nobody knows. Very unlikely anyone's going to catch you before you're able to dump the clothes 10 miles down the road. So why stick them into the mud, taking more time versus if you're not only in the neighborhood, but you live somewhere that's not your own, or you live somewhere or you're transitory or you have nowhere to hide your things, that's something to think about. So maybe you either don't have a home you regularly go to, or you spend a lot of time with other people at other people's homes where there's not a good place for you to hide your things. You don't have a place that's really your own. So that if anyone came looking for you or wanted to search you or anything like that, they'd immediately find these clothes, and that would be very bad for you. So this particular fact seems to point towards someone who either knew the boys or is close to the area, is going to continue to be close to the area that no matter how long from now, they're going to be associated with this area.

Brett (36:20)

And that's a. That's a great theory. There's one problem with it. They didn't find all the clothes. There were two pairs of underwear and five socks that were missing and never found. And you know, my kids don't always wear socks. My kids probably don't always wear underwear. But the fact that you have two pairs of underwear and five socks missing is a little strange. And this creek, you can imagine, and we can talk about this more later, but you can imagine maybe some of this gets back into this diversion canal, I guess. But I don't know how much the clothing was really moving. I don't really know how much stuff was moving in this creek such that maybe it got sucked in to the bayou. And you would think, just based on how this whole creek exists, that it would be more like the water flows into the creek as it flows out of the creek. So I don't know about this, but they drain that whole creek and they didn't find these clothes. And that's intriguing because as we know, killers might not take all the clothes, but sometimes they take trophies. And so that might make you start thinking about serial killers. It's possible that there's some prosaic explanation for this, but it is a little unusual that these clothes are missing.

Unknown (37:38)

I'll make one, one note that cuts against the, you know, trophy or well executed, sort of. I kept the parts that I wanted. I do so much laundry. This is not an ad. So much laundry. I literally run my washing machine, I don't know, three to four times a day. That's if no child has thrown up that day.

Alice (37:58)

And what do I lose?

Unknown (37:59)

Socks. Socks left and right. I cannot keep track of socks. Right. I literally cannot do a load of laundry without losing a pair of socks because they're a smaller item of clothing. Another small item of clothing is going to be underwear. So that I do think it's worth noting that the items of clothing that are missing are the smaller items, shirt and pants, bigger, easier to see and remember. This is going to be twilight, dark at the time that this is being concealed. So they may think, think that they have all of the socks, but especially because it's a bunch of socks. Maybe some people have fantasies with like socks. I don't know. To me that's kind of stinky underwear. I could understand more, especially if we're talking about pedophilic behavior here. But there is also a possibility that these are just simply the smaller of the clothings. And this is done in a very short timeline. And they grab the things they can quickly and think they have everything. What happened to the other things, I truly don't know. So it's possible they were taken, but it's also possible it's just gotten lost.

Brett (38:57)

That's one thing that's endlessly frustrating about this case is you'll come upon things like this and you'll think, is this significant? And you can come up with the reasons it was. But it's very easy to come up with counter arguments to why it's not. And I feel like that happens again and again and again and again. In this case where you see something and you're like, that seems significant, but it's like, is it really, you know, there's all these other explanations for it. There's so little that's solid in this case. Everything is ephemeral. And you're trying to grab onto something solid to build your theory around and it's really difficult. One thing that was absolutely found were the two bicycles belonging to two of the boys. Remember, they only had two bikes. It's interesting where they were found. They were found submerged in 5ft of water, but not in the creek. They were found in this diversion canal. We've been Talking about this 10 Mile Bayou and it was about 50 yards away, right near this pipe bridge. That's where they were. Right. So that makes you think that the boys left their bikes. Now where did they leave them? Little less clear. Some people say there's no way they would have walked their bikes across the bridge. It seems like other people who played in the woods talked about doing just that. So it's Hard to say. Why is this significant. If they left their bikes on the neighborhood side of the bridge, then you would think you would only notice them. If you came from the neighborhood. You would come from the neighborhood, you would see the bikes, you would see the kids, you'd kill the kids, you'd hide the bodies, you'd hide the clothes, then you would go back over the bayou, take the bikes and throw them in the water. That's how you would do it, right? If you came from the blue beacon side and the bikes are all the way across the bridge, you might not and probably wouldn't even know they were there. So the chances that you would throw them in the water are slim. If, on the other hand, the boys walk their bikes into the forest, that is probably not that significant. I will note one thing. There's at least one person who very early on in the day the boys disappeared, so probably not related to their deaths, said they saw bikes parked near the entrance into Robin Hood Hills. Bikes that fit the description of the boys. So that might make you think they were in a habit of parking their bikes on the neighborhood side. Hard to do anything other than speculate on this. But it is one thing that I think is an interesting, a small but interesting fact about where the bikes are found that may tell you something about who did this. The absence of blood talked about this. It is something that people talk about a lot now. We're going to talk about luminal tests later. So there was blood there, but you couldn't see it. And this is a violent murder of three children. You would expect to see more. The police described the bank as looking as though it had been quote, washed. And how exactly that would have happened is hard to say. Now the other possibility is that the injuries the police believed were the results of things like stabbings were actually animal predation that happened after the boys were murdered in, in the water. And that the blood, there was no blood because the boys were dead. These are postmortem wounds, so you wouldn't even have blood anyway. But even if you did, you would be in the water. If the boys are primarily beaten to death, the absence of blood might make more sense. Though, as you're going to see when we talk about the autopsies, these are blows to the head. There's some real damage to the boys heads, you would expect, as we've talked about before, head wounds tend to bleed. So even that, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And there's another problem. Two of the boys drowned, but at least according to the autopsy, one of them did bleed to death. So you would think there would be more blood.

Unknown (42:45)

And this is really hard, right, because there is water here in order to wash away some of the blood, the ground is saturated enough, at least within the creek to have this mud that can cause this suction. And so it's just hard to know how much the bank was washed or how much. It is true that there was no blood, an absence of blood in this area, I think this is unfortunately lost to time. Like, we can't go back and collect evidence now on what it looked like at the time. But there was also almost a day in terms of when the boys likely were killed and when they were found. So if water was washing up, I don't think it rained during this time. So that would not explain the washing away. But there is enough water, at least they are found around water. If someone wanted to take the effort to wash it away, they potentially could wash a good bit away.

Brett (43:32)

So someone in the chat asked if the bikes were fingerprinted. The conditions here were terrible. It was testified to fingerprints, and who knew? This are apparently like 85% water. So the best way to destroy fingerprints is to submerge something. So if there were fingerprints on those bikes, when they submerged the bikes, there were not going to be any fingerprints. They tried. Look, they did all kinds of testing. The Alabama forensics lab got in on it, tried to do some testing to help them out. They just didn't find much. We're going to talk later on about the physical evidence in this case. Spoiler alert. There ain't much. And this is another area where they just didn't find anything. Now, police did notice that unlike other areas of the forest floor, the location next to the bodies had no leaves or other detritus there. So it was sort of cleaned off and reeds of grass were bent over and broken and with their heads actually sticking in the mud. And so it seemed like someone really did clean this entire area, maybe with their feet, maybe with water from the creek in an effort to hide evidence. Which means, once again, think about the time this murder would have taken. Yet to find the boys, you have to corral the boys, you have to murder the boys, you have to take their clothes off, you have to hide their clothes, you have to hide the bodies, you have to wash off the creek, you have to go back, get the bikes, throw them in the thing. That probably takes the least amount of time, but nevertheless, even with adrenaline pumping, even with you moving quickly, this is a crime that required an amount of time to be in there. I think this is one of the reasons that Gary Getchell from the very beginning felt like this was not one person. I think he sort of looked at the scene and thought this required so much effort. If there were more than one person, if this was some sort of group activity, that would explain how they were able to do all this and do it quickly enough that no one found them and no one saw them. Is that necessary? No, number one, not necessary. To control three eight year olds, very easy. We've talked about this before and it is hard to believe that you could do everything that was necessary to do and get away with this crime. But even if you think the West Memphis three did it, very few people saw them. Right. I mean there's. We're going to talk about one group of witnesses who claims to have seen one of them, but the rest of them got away without anybody seeing them. Right. So it happened. They managed, or he or she managed to do this in the darkening night, I guess by the light of a full moon, quickly enough, silently enough and thoroughly enough that this scene appeared as if nothing had happened. And had it not been for Ridge, I think it was Ridge falling into the water and finding this first body, they might have not found these bodies until the creek drained. I mean, it might have been a very long time, which is so hard to believe. But that is apparently how well this was covered up, which tends to at.

Unknown (46:28)

Least suggest that the person knew the area well enough that this wasn't their first time. To be able to execute all of this in moonlight or in twilight or near darkness. It's easy now to look at the area, say, oh, well, just scoop it off with your feet and then all the debris will go away. Not necessarily because debris is different in different areas. You could have creeping, what is it called, the grass creeping, you know, like you have to pull it out by the roots so you can't just swoop it away by your feet. You'd have to pull it out by your hands. There's that kind of ground cover versus trees and sticks and leaves where you can just brush aside very quickly with your feet to be able to clear the area. Or so what I've been saying. Feet, feet, feet. In addition to the feet being muddy, the fastest way I would think to be able to clear this off is not to get on your hands and knees and push it with your hands, because your hands can't, you know, that's an awkward position for a bipedal human being. To do. But your feet can sweep very quickly. You would think that means additional debris on the person's shoes or the people's shoes. And also because the reeds are bent over where their heads are in the mud. And I wonder if that also indicates some dragging of the bodies there. Right. Because there's some force in which it's pulling the reeds so that they are eventually bent horizontally over so much so, and pushed into the mud that their heads are then stuck into the mud. You can imagine that's kind of like dragging a body toward the bank, which would indicate again, that maybe the killing was done right there before. Because if you carried the bodies in, if you had killed them elsewhere, you could just carry them. Why put them on the bank? Just throw them straight into the water. Right. So I think that could indicate that the bodies were killed on that bank, dragged into the water, rather than being brought there having been killed elsewhere. So some of the witnesses said that at least a couple of the boys had backpacks. Remember all those eyewitnesses we had in that very long timeline? Some people did say that they saw at least a couple of the boys with backpacks. Now, if the boys or any of the boys had backpacks, they were never found. So we can't say necessarily that like the underwear and the five socks, those are missing, potentially missing. We don't know for a fact whether they had backpacks and if they were missing or not. Moreover, if any backpacks were missing from the boys homes, it doesn't appear that that was ever documented. And so if somebody knows this information now, I think that would be very, very helpful and important information. Because obviously if their backpacks were not home, then likely they were brought with them somewhere. Maybe they left them at school or something. But you would think after the fact they would have located the backpacks if they couldn't find them. And if they couldn't find them, that I can see as a trophy or as further concealment. Because backpacks are larger, they contain information that is very identifiable to the person who owns the backpack. So you can see that that could be something that someone would take away to try and conceal. Think again about the Asha Degree case. What did authorities find? They haven't found her body, but they found her backpack double wrapped in trash bags, buried in the ground. Because if someone found that backpack, they would know it was Asha Degrees. It's very identifiable piece of clothing, piece of material for anyone to have. But like we said, what is missing are two pairs of underwear and five socks. So where did they go. It's possible. We've already said they could have floated away, but we're not talking about a big river that goes into the ocean. This creek basically goes to like a parking lot, right. And then the diversion creek is seen across. So it's possible that it floated away, but not incredibly likely. Obviously, the sticks didn't hold all the clothes down as some of the items of clothing were found floating in the water. Makes sense. Loose clothing can be hard to keep them all together. So it's possible that these socks and underwear did float away. And. But if they did float away, they made it far enough down the bayou that police didn't find them. And once, obviously, the boys were found in the water. This was a crime scene. So they were certainly looking in the water for any type of evidence. And it wasn't found. Possible that critters got them. Maybe a snapping turtle ate an entire underwear. I don't know. I do think it's interesting that this underwear and the socks are missing, but who knows? Could be buried away somewhere right now. And someone walks by and finds a sock thinking nothing of it. And it was one of the five socks.

Brett (50:53)

Can we talk about the backpacks for a second?

Unknown (50:55)

Yeah, let's talk about the backpacks.

Brett (50:58)

So you have this one group of witnesses. I forget which family it is, but it's all a family. I think it's maybe Otto Bailey and Junior Bailey and Mama Bailey. I think it's the CB troll. I think I could be making that up. But I think they're the ones who say that they saw backpacks. Now think about this for a second. Now, they could just be wrong. All three of them could just be wrong. They could just be remembering something else. But let's give it a moment. Assume they did have backpacks. It's just going to fly to fancy. Why would they have backpacks? Now, they had already gone home after school, right? So remember Michael Moore? His house backs up to the school, he goes home. You would think he would left his backpack. Chris Byers, he shows up at his house, he's actually locked out. He, Chris Byers, great kid. I mean, crazy kid. I'm sure he drove his parents crazy. He's locked out, he can't get in. He actually breaks a window trying to get in. You know, he was always getting in trouble, but he was, you know, he was also like the kind of kid who's a problem solver. He didn't just hang out waiting for somebody to show up. Like he's trying to get into his house. But eventually, remember, his stepdad gets home, finds him like riding a skateboard on his stomach in the middle of the road, brings him back, gives him a spanking and sends him to clean up the carport. So you wouldn't think, you know, he wouldn't have his backpack. Right? So that's Christopher. So then you have Stevie. So Stevie's going home. Remember his mom actually picked him up a little bit earlier from school. Question why that happened earlier. Found out why she had his little sister with her and didn't want to wait around, so she just checked him out. That's why he went home a little earlier. But she walks him home, so he goes home too. So if they just had their bags from school that day, they would have left them. So they wouldn't have had him for that reason. One thing people have speculated about, there's at least one witness who says they spoke to the boys and the boys said something about running away. They were running away. Now, remember, Chris had just gotten into trouble. You know, he had been disciplined by his dad. And we know that Stevie's mom had said, if you're not back by 4:30, you're going to be grounded. Well, whenever the murders happened, it was well past 4:30. So maybe you imagine almost like an Asia degree situation. The boys pack their backpacks with like, you know, candy and a change of clothes or whatever and are taking with them to, quote, run away. I know this is a lot of speculation, but it could be important if you knew the motivation of the boys and what they were actually doing in those woods. Were they just playing and they lost track of time until, you know, the sun is pretty much setting? Or do they have some purpose in the woods? I don't know. Like I said, it's all speculation. But the fact of the backpacks, to me, it's one of those rabbit holes that I find myself falling down and thinking about. That has no real rational explanation. And I feel like, most likely, despite the running away comment, I think they're just wrong. I don't think they had the backpacks. I think this was an error. I think this was a witness testimony that is faulty. So that is going to be my position on this. I may be wrong. It's difficult to figure out what it means if I am wrong.

Unknown (54:17)

Yeah, I mean, like you said, this is speculation at this point, but especially with the three boys missing each other, finding each other skateboards on the side of the road. This didn't seem like some well planned out, like, like this is the day we're gonna run away because we're tired of being told that we can't play after 4:30, etc. It seemed like the fact these three particular boys were together at this particular time as opposed to a fourth boy or just two of them because one of them was missed and stayed, you know, at their house to watch a TV show. The fact that these three boys happened at this time seemed to be a terrible coincidence. Rather than the three of them all planned to meet at this exact time to even go play. They did play a lot together, but I just truly think this was also spontaneous, like many of their days were.

Brett (55:05)

I will say one other thing about the backpacks. If the boys had backpacks, I think it changes everything about the case. I think number one, it tells you they went back to their homes at some point after we know they went back because other people who were seeing the boys at earlier times do not describe them as having backpacks and not only they had backpacks. So if they eventually had them, they didn't have them in the beginning. So I think that means they went back home. Later on we're going to talk about a fact that makes you wonder if they did go back home and that could be very important. So I'll just leave that for you there, but we will return to it later.

Alice (55:52)

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible Financial Geniuses, Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds because Progressive offers discount for paying in full, owning a home and more. Plus, you can count on their great customer service to help you when you need it. So your dollar goes a long way.

Brett (56:15)

Visit progressive.com to see if you could save on car insurance, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations. Guys, we're so excited to talk about our sponsor, Delete Me. Deleteme makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online. At a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable, it's easier than ever to find personal information about people online. Having your address, phone number and family members names hanging out on the Internet can have actual consequences in the real world and makes everyone vulnerable. More and more online partisans and nefarious actors will find this data and use it to target political rivals, civil servants, and even outspoken citizens posting their opinions online.

Alice (57:03)

So you guys know that both of us are very active online because, well, we have the podcast. But privacy is also really important to us because we have kids and families that we want to protect. And certainly we have seen our share of online harassment and doxing just because we have a podcast.

Unknown (57:19)

That's why we're so excited to have.

Alice (57:21)

Delete Me to be able to take charge of our information online and you can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners today. Get 20% off your delete me plan by texting prosecutors to 64,000. The only way to get 20% off to is to text prosecutors to 64000. That's prosecutors to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply.

Brett (57:52)

Did you know that by the time summer starts, your skin's already in defense mode? Think about it. Sun exposure, chlorine, dry air from the ac, they all wear down your skin barrier, leaving your complexion dull, dehydrated and more sensitive. Today's sponsor, Oneskin has everything you need to keep your skin healthy, hydrated and strong all summer long. Their secret? A proprietary peptide called OS1. It's the first peptide scientifically proven to reduce the damaged cells that weaken your skin barrier and accelerate aging. Their moisturizers and sunscreens don't just treat dry skin and irritation on the surface, they go deeper, helping restore your skin's health at the cellular level. And honestly, this is the perfect time to reset before all of summer skin stressors really kick in. The right moisturizer and SPF can make all the difference. Try one skin with 15% off your first order. Use code prosecutors at OneSkin Co guys.

Alice (58:50)

With a new baby I'm just not sleeping as much as I'd like to and still working lots of full time jobs and my skin is really showing the effects. That's why I am so excited about One Skin's amazing new technology because it's uses anti aging peptides that truly work. I use it on my eyes and I use it on my face and after just a few times I was able to see that my face had so much more light to it, even though I still wasn't sleeping great. And Oneskin was founded in 2016 by an all woman team of scientists with PhDs in skin regeneration, stem cell biology, immunology and bioinformatics. And after testing the efficacy of more than 900 so called anti aging peptides, they developed the OS1 peptide, the first ingredient to reverse the skin's biological age by reducing the accumulation of senescent cells, a key driver of skin aging. And OS1 works at the cellular level to improve key aging Biomarkers while reducing the visible signs of aging, including lines, wrinkles, and sagging skin. Oneskin believes the purpose of skin care is not just to improve how you look, but to optimize your skin's biology at the cellular level so it's more resilient to to aging. One Skin is the world's first skin longevity company. By focusing on the cellular aspects of aging, One Skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. For a limited time, you can try one skin with 15% off using code prosecutors at OneSkin co. That's 15% off OneSkin co with Code Prosecutors. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Give your skin the scientifically proven gentle care it deserves with One Skin.

Unknown (60:45)

Okay, let's talk about luminol tests. So, of course, those of you who follow these types of cases, luminol can test for the presence of blood, even if it was cleaned up. And we've already talked about how there was no obvious blood at the scene of the crimes, though given the injuries of the boys, there had to have been a lot of it, at least for the one boy who did bleed out. The police applied luminol to the area, and it lit up in eight spots. I will say I've typically only seen luminol applied to, like, not nature, to, like, a car or to an apartment or a bathroom. I don't know that I've personally ever looked at a case where luminol was applied to the outside, like the woods, and how effective that would be versus, say, a bathroom.

Brett (61:30)

And I would just say this. I learned a lot about luminol when we did the Bone Valley case, the Scofield case. And the fact that luminol reacts to all sorts of organic compounds makes you wonder how effective it is when applied.

Unknown (61:45)

In an organic setting.

Brett (61:46)

To the organic setting. I will say this. The pattern of luminol in this case makes me believe this is probably at least somewhat accurate.

Unknown (61:55)

Yeah, but there could be certainly something mixed in, right? There could be. This is not as a sterile environment as, say, a bathroom that looks clean. And then you apply the luminol, and all of a sudden you see the blood spatter over here and then like a dragging mark on the ground. This is not that situation. We are still in the outdoors. So the police, when they apply the luminol to this whole kind of bank area, they saw it light up in three spots. Three of them were connected to the stream and where the bodies were laid after they were pulled from the water. That's the part Brett was saying that this is likely that the luminal is reacting correctly because we know for a fact where the police laid the bodies and so that it did light up where they were on the bank. Now, three others were transfers and two other spots were on the scuffed off part of the bank. Remember where the reeds were kind of bent over with their heads in the mud. It looked like someone had brushed off that whole area. Now, these were believed to be the points of attack because of the pattern of where the lumenol lit up. Whereas of course, where the boys were laid on the bank after they were pulled out of the water, those were not the points of attack. We understand why they would have lit up because we know that their bodies were ultimately placed there.

Brett (63:07)

And look, I think this helps corroborate that the crime happened there. Not necessarily conclusive. You could imagine, you know, if you're bringing the bodies back, you could have transfer in the same way that where the bodies were placed after they were pulled from the water, you have the similar thing. But I think to me, in addition to all the other factors, I do believe the murder happened there where the bodies were concealed.

Unknown (63:34)

And another point that going back to something we said, the fact that two of the boys drowned, I think also points to this being the point of the attack and ultimately where they died. Because if you are going to do the risky thing of transferring them elsewhere, you want to make sure that they're completely dead before transferring them. Because what if they wake up? What if they kick out tail lights or something like that and are able to make some noise as you're transferring them to the dump site. So the fact that two of the boys drowned, I think also to me points to the fact that not a lot of time was between the point of attack and the dumping into the water. And so likely it all happened right there. And then there's the weather that day. So the weather that day was a high of 73 and a low of 59. As we know, it had been raining the four days prior. And because of that rain for four days, it swelled that 10 Mile Bayou and the creek where the boys were found so that there was in fact water. And eventually when there was no water, that creek was going to dry out. But not on this day because of the four days of rain. Now, on the 6th, the day the boys were found, the temperature rose all the way to 82, so quite hot. A few things to note when it rains and when it's warm outside and this is relatively warm. It's dropping down to 59 at night, but not really cool. I would say it's going to be muggy and you're going to have a lot of mosquitoes, obviously with the wet moisture, heat, environment.

Brett (65:01)

And here's something that's interesting about this. So one thing, we've talked about this before. You're trying to figure out time of death. Very important. Something that is debated in this case. We're going to talk about that some in the next episode. Well, one of the things you look for are blow fly larvae. So blow flies, essentially. As soon as you die, it's like. This is like the drop of blood in the ocean and sharks thing, which I know that's a. That's a myth, but nevertheless, the fact that it works this way, as soon as you die, flies start to attack your body and they start to lay eggs and they turn into larva. Larva will be found in the boy's eyes. Now, this is sort of a mystery for a lot of people because they think, how is that possible? They would not develop underwater. And they don't. So they're right. So that means either the larva had time to develop before the bodies were put into the water, or it happened afterwards. And initially, this may seem like, wow, this is really powerful stuff. Two things about it. Number one, the larva actually develops faster in warmer weather. As we pointed out, it was pretty hot the day the bodies were found. And number two, as we know, and this is something, if you want to criticize the police for, you can, though. I understand the natural human reaction. The bodies were removed from the water when they were found. It took hours for the corner to get there. Yes, the larva was a little bit more developed than you might expect given the amount of time. But it was warm and the flies were immediately attacking the bodies, in fact, and I don't recommend you do this, but if you watch Paradise Lost the first episode, and you watch the first five minutes and you see the video of the boys, you can see the flies even in that video. So I think the weather and the way the bodies were handled explains that it's not contamination, but it's almost contamination because it means that that method of determining time of death is basically a lost cause, really. It's the time from when the bodies were removed from the water to when they were taken by the coroners. And it doesn't tell you much at all. Okay, we lied to you. I told you we'd never lie to You. We lied to you. I'm sorry. It wasn't an intentional lie. It was a mistake. But we thought we would get to the autopsies, the cause of death today. But as is our want, we ended up talking so much that we have now gotten to that point in the outline. And it deserves way more justice than we can do to it. Even if we made this a long episode, and it does deserve. This is going to be a difficult conversation. It will be a difficult episode, and there's a lot of terrible stuff we're going to talk about. But the boys deserve it. They deserve you to know exactly what happened to them, to know what they went through. That is part of them getting justice, is that we never forget that. And there are times when what they went through, I think, is minimized by people who want to shift blame from the accused and the convicted to someone else, because it is helpful for them to do that. That is not a comment on whether or not those accused are guilty or not. I just have a problem with twisting the facts in an attempt to help your case, and I feel like that happens. So we're going to go through this with all the gory details. We're going to tell you exactly what happened. If you don't want to know, skip the next episode. It won't be the end of the world. We're also, at some point, like I said, we're going to have an expert come on and talk about this, because I have questions about this that I don't understand. I've read the autopsies. There are things I don't get, and I want someone to explain them to me. So next episode, it's going to be tough, but we will treat it as respectfully as we can, and we will do this as clinically as we can. But we do think it is important to talk about what happened to these boys. We discussed a lot today. I threw out a lot of questions for you guys. I'm looking forward to your input. If you have any knowledge you want to share with us, if there's anything you want to correct, let us know. We've already corrected several things that people have pointed out to us sort of as we're going. So we're always happy to do that. You know, I'm. I want to know what happened here. I want the facts. We are not selling you a narrative. We want to know what happened. So if we're getting things wrong, let us know, even if it's small. Yes, I will call you a nitpicker, but Nevertheless, I will correct the news. So shoot us an email Prosecutors pod@gmail.com@ ProsecutorsPod for all your social media. Join the gallery where this discussion is going hot and heavy. If you want to watch us record these episodes and comment in the chat, which we always enjoy, please do join us on Patreon. For as little as $3 a month, you can do that. And if you don't want to be bothered with all that, or if you want to watch the recordings later, or if you just want to watch till the edited ad free episodes come out, you can get those early as well. Alice, do you have anything else you want to add?

Unknown (69:57)

I'm actually glad that we get to devote an entire episode to the autopsy because I thought it was a little ambitious when you said at the beginning we would cover it all. But think the discussion we've had today, as you can see, we promised, we promised anything that you thought we were not spending enough time on the timeline. We were going to dive in deep and that's what we've hoped to do here. The thing that continues to come back to me that is so frustrating, as you've seen, as we've discussed these elements of this case is that there's so much unknown and it is going to continue to be unknown at the very end of this. And I, I mean we're on this ride with you guys at the very end of this. There's not going to be one theory that ties it all together because of all these question marks and these blank in history now that no longer exist unless someone has this information that has not yet been unearthed. And that is frustrating, but we're doing the best we can in trying to connect the dots within a picture that we see. But kind of like that backpack scenario, there are missing blanks in this story where if we knew what it was, it could completely change the entire narrative. I don't know that we'll find any of them here. Maybe some of you haven't. And for some reason this is not just not out there yet. But like Brett said, we want to understand the truth. We want to know for the, for the sake of these three boys. Ultimately this is about them. Because what has happened is, is horrific and it is not a game. It is not a game to their family. It is not a game to their loved ones. It is not some sort of cause. Whether it's wrongful conviction or not, this is about them and what happened to them. And our attempt to go through the timeline and the details is to try and understand what ultimately happened here.

Brett (71:37)

And I want to say thank you to all of you who have reached out and made positive comments about this series. I'm glad you're enjoying it. It's always a little nerve wracking when we spend this much time on a case. It's funny because I hear people say things like, oh, they're barely even gotten started. And I'm like, we're only nine episodes in. And it's funny because we did nine episodes on Karen Reid and oh my Lord, that felt like a march through the desert. I mean, it was just, it was. I mean, I hate to knock on episodes because they actually, I think are pretty good, but for the doing of them, oh, it was terrible. And we're nine episodes into this and I could talk about this until the end of time.

Unknown (72:12)

So that probably shines some more about it, right?

Brett (72:16)

Yeah.

Unknown (72:16)

Like, this is truly consuming my every being.

Brett (72:19)

I'm still listening to trial stuff I've already heard. I won't listen to it again. Make sure I get the details right or whatever. So, yeah, I'm glad you guys are enjoying it. Alice, do you have time for a question?

Unknown (72:28)

Let's do it. We need a question after these heavy episodes.

Brett (72:31)

Okay. Let's see if we can find a good one. Thank you, guys. As we've said before, if you leave a five star review on either the prosecutors or the prosecutor's legal briefs, we will answer your question. One note, if you've left a question, we've never answered it. Just check to make sure you left a five star review and not a one star review because we have some glowing reviews with questions at the end that are absolutely one star reviews. So I'm going to go on a limb. And so you didn't mean to do that. So you might want to check that. And usually I had that question anyway because I know you didn't mean to. But nevertheless, it'd be nice to get the five stars. I'll also say this few of you have left four star reviews and questions. I appreciate the four stars, but it's not five stars and this is five star review question time. So I also appreciate those of you who leave negative reviews with five stars and a question to gain the system. And I promise you I've added your question to the hundreds we have and I'm sure there's episode 2000. We'll get to you. So looking forward to answering that question. Okay, let's.

Unknown (73:30)

When we're on episode 1058 of West.

Brett (73:36)

All right, let's see. Okay. Noel, Says, I don't know, we actually have a crazy case. So. Well, I want to do two questions because I think, go for it. These, these questions can be answered the same answer, at least for me. So Noel asks, what's the craziest case you have prosecuted or been involved with? And why are there any that as listeners we could look up and learn about? And then for JLaw300 says, have either of you been lead prosecutor on a case that received national attention? So I feel like those two questions go together. So I go ahead and ask those. Alice, do you want me to answer that first? Do you have one?

Unknown (74:14)

Sure, you can go first.

Brett (74:16)

So I can talk about this now because it's completely dealt with and appeal waivers and everything, but so I do a lot of counterterrorism cases. Some of you guys know that. That's one of the things I do. And we had someone who set a bomb at the Alabama AG's office. Set a bomb, bomb went off, everything. And that became like a really big deal. And we ended up having a joint terrorism task force, people from the state, local police, FBI, all those folks. And I was prosecutor on that case. And it was. That definitely made national news and fascinating case, awesome investigation. I've talked about some of the investigation before and sort of the weird things that happened in those few months where we were doing that just non stop, but eventually found the guy and were able to really just build a case that was so airtight that he pled guilty. And we were very happy with the outcome. And I think honestly it was a just outcome because we didn't. Even though he did that and it was a very serious crime, you know, we didn't try and put him away for the rest of his life because of various aspects around that case. And that was a fascinating case. It was really interesting to see how the various different law enforcement partners work together. So in the resources they had and how those different resources all came to bear to see how the FBI, there was behavioral analysis done. We had BAU stuff, We had profiles of this person because we didn't know who it was. It was complete mystery, totally disguised. Had him on video, wasn't helpful. So that was a really fascinating case and one that I was really happy with. The outcome wasn't a crazy case. I mean, I guess it was crazy crazy. It was crazy, but it was really.

Unknown (76:01)

Interesting and he's not giving himself enough credit. There was absolutely a world where this guy would not have been caught. It was like dead end. You know, there was, it was not obvious who it was going to be. And so this is where having the right prosecutor in the right seat works, because the right guy was caught and he did not need to be walking the streets setting off bombs at public buildings. So thanks for your service, Brett. Okay, I'm not going to answer the question directly because most of my craziest cases were all top secret, and I'm not allowed to talk about them. So I won't talk about them, but I will talk about an experience that Brett was in the room for, which was hilarious. So we're this like skiff room, you know, and it's a top secret briefing. And it was very serious, like, you know, briefing on international terrorism. And it had to do with three letter agencies out there who do counterterrorism. And we are like, taking notes. I'm like, holy cow. Like, I don't like it when my eyes are open to all the scary things in the world that I don't know about. Like, this is. I'm supposed to keep this professional. But this is one of those situations where it was just like, like, wow. I don't like seeing how, you know, the world is really basically held together by scotch tape, but for some brave men and women in places who just barely hold back the tide of terrorism. And then it was a long meeting and we were. It was with multi offices, we were on secured lines, you know, leave phones outside, that whole thing. And, you know, I'm thinking, like, what can we do to stop this? What is our role in it? And it was. It was me and Brett. And then we get up and like, I'm like, I'm gonna have to call D.C. i'm gonna have to call some superiors. We're gonna have to like, coordinate multiple jurisdictions. It's gonna be like kind of a headache. We get back to our office and I'm like starting to map out who all I need to call in order to, like, get the trains moving on, you know, making America safe. And I get a call from one of the agents who we were in the room with. And I was like, oh, my gosh, like something just happened. We've just been in this, like, hours long briefing. What more could he possibly have to say? Like, do we have. And he's, hey, there's something I have to tell you. And I was like, okay, like, what happened? Did the really scary thing we were afraid was going to happen just happen? Like, should we call the alarm? Like, you know, should we deploy all of the nuclear missiles? And he was like, so we had a new person in the room for the briefing today, you may have noticed this person. And I was like, yeah, yeah, they were new. It happens. I assume they had the right clearance. Are you about to tell me they're part of the, like, international terror organization? And the agent was like, wow, when you guys left, this person was like, those people sound just like Brett and Alice from the Prosecutors. This podcast I listened to, and here I am thinking like, oh, my gosh, like, the world is gonna crash down. We need to get the nuclear codes. And he's. So I was like, I'm about to blow your mind.

Brett (78:55)

Yeah, I remember that.

Unknown (78:56)

This just goes to show you that even in serious situations, all those, the one star reviews were like, they laugh too much about, you know, murder and mayhem in life. If you don't laugh, you will die. So find points in which you can laugh. It doesn't mean you're laughing at the situation, but that was a situation where a little bit of laughter was kind of nice. In that particular instance.

Brett (79:18)

I remember that. I remember that well. And, you know, it's always.

Unknown (79:23)

And we're always funny. This was years ago, so we were still kind of small.

Brett (79:27)

Yeah, I know. Well, that's always. What's amazing is it there were people.

Unknown (79:30)

And there were a random person put in a room with us, right?

Brett (79:33)

Like, yeah. And I've had that happen a couple times where I would be talking, I'm talking, and someone will hear me, and they sort of look at me like, you know, you see that sort of knowing look in their eyes, and you're like, yeah.

Unknown (79:49)

And then you just kind of nod because you're like, am I going to be that weirdo who's like, I'm the podcaster? They're like, that's not what I was thinking at all.

Brett (79:56)

So, you know, I just want to note that Alice does have a birthday coming up. So everybody in the. In the chat wants to say happy birthday to Alice.

Unknown (80:06)

Oh, it's so nice, y' all. I'm very glad to be here with you guys.

Brett (80:09)

Always glad to see Alice make it another year.

Unknown (80:12)

Another year. I don't know, this one, this might take me down.

Brett (80:15)

You know, it's funny because used to be birthdays really meant something. You know, it was like, does it not mean anything? You turn 16, you could drive. You know, you turn in Alabama, you turn 19, and you were an adult 18, you could do anything because we're us in Utah, you had to be 19, but you turn 19, you could buy cigarettes. Now you gotta be 21, you buy cigarettes and you can open a bank account and all this other stuff. And then 21, obviously the big one, you can drink. Then 25, you rent a car. But really that's it. It right until retirement. There's 25.

Unknown (80:46)

Downhill from 25.

Brett (80:47)

It really is downhill from 25.

Unknown (80:51)

That's all I got from there. You're right, it's all downhill. Except I'm very happy to be here.

Brett (80:55)

With you guys because you look younger and more beautiful every year.

Unknown (80:58)

So I'm slowly falling apart today, but thank you.

Brett (81:02)

I was looking at pictures. Well, so I sent this. I showed this to some of you guys. My wife found a video that she took of the very first time we ever recorded. And it was us recording the intro. The I'm Britain, I'm Alice. Right. I don't know how we actually got that down, but. And the thing I noticed was how dark my hair was.

Unknown (81:24)

I didn't even notice that. Oh, I honestly didn't notice that.

Brett (81:29)

So sweet. Well, I did. Anyways.

Unknown (81:33)

Okay, well, we should post that video at some point.

Brett (81:36)

I know we should. It was funny. I mean.

Unknown (81:38)

Well, and also one other thing, like. Oh, well, actually, I'll plug their new podcast, Ryan Buffet Exorcist Files. We had him on before. Great series you should listen to. It scares the bejesus out of me. He just launched a new podcast with Abigail Roberson called Earth Meets Heaven. Pretty sure that's right. Anyways, I saw a picture of it, like launched this week and it had like, they already had like special wood carved signs of their podcast and like, they had a studio. And I was like, you should post that video. Exactly. You should post that video of our. Our first recording. Because nothing has changed in terms of our surroundings, of that. We don't even have like official signs. Everything we own that says the prosecutors y' all have made for us at crime. And we appreciate it so much, but we haven't done it ourselves. And so you should check out that podcast, by the way.

Brett (82:30)

It's really a terribly amateur podcast we have. Think about it.

Unknown (82:34)

It's still horribly amateur, but horribly amateur. But you guys put up with it and keep listening. So I'd like to think the content.

Brett (82:41)

Is so great, it overcomes the amateur nature of everything else.

Unknown (82:47)

It's so true. Sorry, I'm looking up the actual name because I'm. Okay. It's called Heaven Meets Earth. There's one episode so far, and if you remember Ryan Bethea and all the Exorcist files, and those are all true stories of like, demonic possessions. This is the flip side, happy side. So if you're looking for something not scary, it's the miracles that happen here on earth. Without the demonic side, of course. Oh, the first one's true. Crime related. Anyways, I plug it because I listened to the first one and it was awesome. And we always love when our guests go on to do other things.

Brett (83:19)

Exactly. Well, Alice, hope you have a happy birthday. Hope you get feeling better. If you. You should try the healing waters of Mexico. Topo Chico.

Unknown (83:27)

Wait, real quick on sparkling water. This is after dark. Have you tried the new coconut water that sparkling.

Brett (83:34)

Wow. No, I have not.

Unknown (83:35)

It is so good. There's a couple kinds, but I don't know. The coconut water is pink. I don't know why I thought coconut juice was just white or clear or murky, but it's pink and it's amazing. Like, cold. It tastes like a fantastic, you know, coconut delight. Anyways, that's probably what I'll go get. Spicy coconut water. You get it?

Brett (83:59)

Awesome. I wondered the same thing.

Unknown (84:04)

Oh, Joe. Happy birthday.

Brett (84:07)

Well, happy birthday, Joe. Even if it's not happy birthday to everybody. Whatever your birthday is.

Unknown (84:12)

Way to go, April.

Brett (84:13)

Congratulations on living another year.

Unknown (84:16)

Way to go. Congratulations for two. Maybe having lower insurance this year.

Brett (84:21)

I'm always really careful on my birthday because I don't want.

Unknown (84:25)

You don't want to be a CNN headline.

Brett (84:27)

I just thought that'd be weird, right? I mean, yeah, I want to live past my birthday. I don't want to die on my birthday. Any other day is fine. I want to die on Halloween. Putting that in the universe. Let's not put 21:30, you know, when I'm 150 years old.

Unknown (84:45)

There you go. There you go.

Brett (84:47)

Time to go. Time to.

Unknown (84:48)

Wow. We haven't even signed off yet, have we?

Brett (84:50)

We have not. All right, guys. Well, we saved the random stuff till the end, so you can't complain. And I hope you enjoyed this because the next episode not gonna be happy. It's gonna be dark. And I totally get it. And if some of you don't wanna do it, like I said, we never do trigger warnings on this podcast because we know you're here for true crime and you get it. It's all gonna be dark and bad. This is particularly dark. So we totally get it if you don't want to join. But if you do, we're gonna dive into this and hopefully it'll get us closer to justice for these three boys. We will see you next week. But until then, I'm Brett.

Unknown (85:29)

And I'm Alice.

Brett (85:30)

And we are the prosecutors.

Unknown (85:53)

And kids are. Kids are feral. Sorry, I'm checking my volumes because kids were playing with my stuff. We had, like, 50 people here, and. Hold on. And they came into this closet.

Brett (86:06)

Ah.

Unknown (86:06)

And made it their clubhouse. It was feral, y' all. There were lollipops stuck to the ceiling. Ceiling, like. And stuck to the ceiling. And I was like, what happened in here? And they're like gummies just, like, smashed into the pillows. And I was like, guys, did you just lose your minds with all that candy?

Brett (86:27)

Wow.

Unknown (86:29)

So that's why I'm checking. I'm checking all my levels. Happy birthday to you Is that your Marilyn Monroe?

Brett (87:34)

Happy birthday to. Happy birthday, Ms. Co Host. Happy birthday to you.

Unknown (87:56)

Standing ovation.

Brett (87:57)

Man, you're still so young. Pluto TV has all the shows and movies you love streaming for free. That means laughter is free with gut busting comedies like the Neighborhood Boomerang and Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Bueller Mystery is free with countless cases to crack from Criminal Minds, Trapp Record, and Matlock. I'm a lawyer like the old TV show and thrills are free with heart pumping hits like the Walking Dead and Pulp Fiction. Correctamundo. Feel the free Pluto TV stream. Now pay Never.