Where Have You Gone Mr. Bojangles? (Our Nation Turns It's Lonely Eyes To You...)

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Farm]

You didn't expect Dog to post theories where they can be challenged, did you?

[pagodajade]

So your admitting to reading peoples PMs?

[Farm]

I suppose a complete idiot could read it that way?

[pagodajade]

 

[Farm]

Chase is going to have to send out more competent folks that you or Dog to do any damage here.   ;)

[pagodajade]

I dont talk to chase or know who he is. 

Some people have minds of their own.

Im sorry that you think I am here to do "damage".

And I am sorry that you read everyones pms on here.  And I am sorry that you took all the dweebs and made it so we couldnt send pms or even look at the memberlist.  Also I cannot go into chat.

Why bother with that?  Why not just ban us and get it over with? 

[Rudder]

And I am sorry that you read everyones pms on here.  And I am sorry that you took all the dweebs and made it so we couldnt send pms

This is sort of contradictory. If anyone wanted to spy on your PMs, they surely wouldn't restrict you from sending them. It would be counterproductive.

[Farm]

Pagoda's not the brightest bulb in the box.

[offamychain]

 
 I don't care who reads PM's.....I don't use them.

 If I have something to say about the case then it goes out in the open forum. That's one thing about this place, you can post ANY side of the story. You may get ridiculed if it's something ignorant, but hey, that would be no one's fault but your own.

 On certain other WM3-related boards, they just delete anything that goes against the grain (grane??) and ban the person who posted it.

 So, what's your theories Dog?? No reason to keep them secret.

 

 P.S. A 3d theory that I tossed around for a while was also of the one that Bojangles was just a transient. But then I started putting all the coincidences together and it just seemed TOO coincidental that he would be bloody, trying to hide or do SOMETHING in a bathroom, 4,000 feet from a murder site (5,000 if you take the LONG way there), on the same night, within a few hours of the general time it could have happened.

 But sure, this could have easily had nothing at all to do with the murders. Bloody & odd acting people walk into public restrooms all the time in West Memphis. I know, I lived there.



 P.S.S. Mocha.....

[MachaSidhe]

Off,

If you find it too coincidental, what do you think this person role was? How was he not seen by anyone walking to the resturant from the woods  in such a state?  Did he have to cross neighborhoods or areas where people were there? Did he's travel cross with active searches going on at the time? Why wasn't he seen before going to that resturant and why clean the scene but leave blood somewhere else?


Macha

[dixie]

Anyone have a workable theory why Mr Bojangles would have what was said to be a gunwound to his arm and the
children were, according to the current writ, beaten to death about the base of the skull?  Actually, Baden, Spitz and
others have dismissed the idea of a knife even being used.  They claim that all three of the boys drowned, as evidenced
by the bloody froth in their lungs and air passages.  These experts say that they are sure, without a doubt, that all
of these knifelike wounds were caused by predation, with the emphasis on large land carnivores.  (I don't think that
a snapping turtle, no matter how big, is a mammal or therefore a land carnivore.  It is an amphibian with a brain stem.)

Assuming that either the original ME Perretti and those experts who actually saw the bodies post-mortem were correct,
then we have a reason that Mr Bojangles might have been stabbed.  Although it has always been said, such as on
jivepuppi, that he seemed to be holding his arm to his body because of a gunshot.  If these new experts that wrote for
the second writ are correct, then there is no knife.  No knife.  No gun.  We can all agree on the fact that there was no
evidence of any gun used in this case.  I have heard the arguement that "maybe a gun was used to keep the boys
still and quiet".  That is just speculation of the broadest kind.

So assuming that Mr Bojangles is important in this case, and assuming that no knife was used to inflict any of the
wounds on the three boys, how was he injured?  They said he used at least one entire roll of toilet paper to try to staunch
the flow of blood.  I may possibly be missing something here.  Like any new evidence that Bojangles was stabbed.
Since there was no knife used in this crime, I still can't understand how this can be connected.  Unless one wants to
think that he was a willing or accidental participant or witness to this crime.  If so, why was he knifed or shot?  And the
boys were only beaten.  Confuses the heck out of me.

Just thinking,

Dixie

[offamychain]

Off,

If you find it too coincidental, what do you think this person role was? How was he not seen by anyone walking to the resturant from the woods  in such a state?  Did he have to cross neighborhoods or areas where people were there? Did he's travel cross with active searches going on at the time? Why wasn't he seen before going to that resturant and why clean the scene but leave blood somewhere else?

 2 possible theories were listed in my above post....either a participant in the crime or an innocent person who just happened upon the scene & turned into almost a dead victim himself.

 It's ridiculously easy to get from the murder site to the restaurant without being seen. In a previous post, I detailed 2 possible routes....a "damp" one & a "wet" one. I did this because I noticed that someone had posted something to the effect that "He should have been dry after walking for a couple miles through brush & trees", and another about "He should have been soaked because there's a deep ditch right behind the restaurant."

 He was, in truth, somewhere between dry & soaked, which is exactly the state that he would have been in if he had waded through the LITTLE ditch in the field behind Bojangles, & used the often forgotten railroad trestle behind the store to cross the BIG ditch. It's also no where near the long distances that have been often portrayed & it would have been EASY walking, not "through brush & trees", as many have claimed. Staying right north of the brush parelleling the ditch would have easily kept him out of sight from the whole world. (Unless someone else decided to be out in a farm field wandering around in the middle of the night.

 It's less than 4,000 feet between the 2 locations, going straight through the field. This is not ideal however, because it also cuts through major parking lots & bypass's the trestle, forcing a swim in the bayou. Add another 1,000 feet to that & you have an easy, quick, hidden, & mostly dry route from the scene to the restaurant.

 I would honestly have to re-read the timelines to make any kind of assumption of him crossing paths with any searchers. Obviously, he wasn't really WANTING to be seen. It's not THAT hard to hide from someone at night, even if they are looking for YOU, which these searchers weren't. And then, there is those mysterious splashes in the ditch that some searchers reported....young teens I believe, but not sure. Sounds just like someone running away from the scene to me.

 "Clean the scene"....this is one of the main theories I have problems with. How many people who have claimed this have actually stood in east Arkansas Grand Prairie mud?? I've deer hunted in it, squrrel hunted, rode ATV's through it, & gotten 4X4's stuck in it. You CAN'T "clean the scene". Your cleaning efforts will be just as visible as whatever you were trying to wipe away. Just can't be done.

 The scene was't cleaned. Whatever was done to the boys was done IN the water, where many of their clothing articles were also found. The ditch had LOTS of water in it....running water. By the time that mny of the crime-scene photos & videos were taken, pumps had already been brought in, displacing much of the water. Exactly how much blood will come out of an 8 year old?? Their entire body has between 2.5 & 3 quarts in it. I believe it would be safe to assume that the body would loose at most 1/2 of that before dieing & the heart stopping.....that's about 1.5 quarts.

 Dump that much in a flowing ditch & watch how fast it disappears....without a trace. The crime was done in the water. There was nothing on the bank to clean up. As a military trained tracker, I wonder if the inept investigators involved had bothered to go 75 yards up or down the creek from the discovery location, if they would have found the ACTUAL location of entry & exit......explaining why few footprints were found at the site. The footprints were on the bottom of the slough.

 Just stuff to think about. I'm not claiming this is HOW it happened, I wasn't there, so I don't know. Just adding possibilities to think about.

[MachaSidhe]

Off,

There was testimony about an area that was found to be slicked off , with swirls and scuff marks and clear of any debris which was believed to be evidence of cleaning up on the east side of the bank. Luminol testing showed areas that could not be associated with body recovery or placement show areas of concentrated blood on the east side of the bank. I personally don't think the injuries were done in the water.

If Mr. Bojangles was bleeding as a result from an injury done at this scene , why didn't he leave a trail of blood behind? He was actively bleeding from his arm , enough to soak a whole roll of tissue and leave a trial in the resturant and be described a covered in blood. No police report on any blood trial found from the scene other then that associated with recovery.

Macha

[offamychain]

Off,

There was testimony about an area that was found to be slicked off , with swirls and scuff marks and clear of any debris which was believed to be evidence of cleaning up on the east side of the bank. Luminol testing showed areas that could not be associated with body recovery or placement show areas of concentrated blood on the east side of the bank. I personally don't think the injuries were done in the water.

If Mr. Bojangles was bleeding as a result from an injury done at this scene , why didn't he leave a trail of blood behind? He was actively bleeding from his arm , enough to soak a whole roll of tissue and leave a trial in the resturant and be described a covered in blood. No police report on any blood trial found from the scene other then that associated with recovery.

Macha

 Yeah, I know about the slicked off area. Perhaps this was an area where some minor scuffle occured....or where the kids were tied up before forcing them into the water....or where the killers slipped & slid a little bit. Many things can explain how that came to be. I'm pretty sure that the Luminol testing showed that it reacted with "something". This was most likely blood, although I believe it has been said this wasnt definite. That could still fit in easily with the "murdered in the water" theory. No matter how hard one tries, there will ALWAYS be some scattered blood ata kill-site....just can't be helped.

 Perhaps the killer had a small amount on him & touched the ground at this point. Or perhaps this is the location where the "sticks" came from. The killer left some blood on the surrounding area when reaching for these. Or perhaps one of the boys (or more) were initially assaulted at this location, before they bled ALOT, then moved into the water for the final act of death.

 So many things here.

 As far as Bojangle's blood trail....did anyone even LOOK for one?? They weren't real worried about the guy obviously, since no real investigation was done towards trying to find out who he was & why he was bloody. The search centered around the neighbourhood & the 2 patches of woods....also around the back of the truck wash. These are almost exactly opposite the path of least resistance & most available stealth to get from the scene to the restaurant.

 That would be south, down the little creek, then west alongside the north bank of the big ditch, going under 7th street bridge (some have claimed you have to CROSS 7th street, which isn't so). Continuing on this route, keeping the slough on your left, you could either walk alongside it in the brush....or take the much easier path about 10 yards away, through a nice farm field. Behind the restaurant, after turning north, you would have to cross a tiny drainage ditch, which can easily be jumped over by someone in good health, but the injured person probably just waded it.

 700 feet from this point, the slough turns west. Another 250 feet & you're standing in the middle of a railroad track. Cross the short trestle & you are in the backyard of Bojangles. The ONLY points along this route where one would be exposed are when he ducked under 7th street & when he came off the RR track behind the restaurant. And interestingly, AS FAR AS I KNOW, none of this area was searched.

 Wonder what the blood trail would have led to if the WMPD had bothered following it to it's source??

[DogIsYourName]

I don't care who reads PM's.....I don't use them.

My post wasn't directed at you.

So, what's your theories Dog?? No reason to keep them secret.

You don't know if there are reasons to keep them secret or not.  That aside, I have 2 theories.  Here is a clue for one of them:
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/gitchell_notes/gitchell_notes_jason_c_03.jpg

There is also another possible clue - something else in the case files.  It has to do with a traffic incident.

P.S. A 3d theory that I tossed around for a while was also of the one that Bojangles was just a transient. But then I started putting all the coincidences together and it just seemed TOO coincidental that he would be bloody, trying to hide or do SOMETHING in a bathroom, 4,000 feet from a murder site (5,000 if you take the LONG way there), on the same night, within a few hours of the general time it could have happened.

But sure, this could have easily had nothing at all to do with the murders. Bloody & odd acting people walk into public restrooms all the time in West Memphis. I know, I lived there.

Bojangles was a transient.  Nobody saw him drive up or drive away, because he didn't drive up or drive away.  When a person sees a transient acting incoherently, stumbling around in the night, it is not that noticeable.  In our minds, everything is in its right place.  You expect a transient to behave this way, because that is part of what makes them a transient in the first place.  You also do not have much opportunity to notice a transient when the transient comes from the woods and returns to the rail road tracks when leaving Bojangles.

Transients are easy targets.  They are targets of other transients.  I've never been homeless but I was an aquaintance of a homeless man, Walter, about 10 years ago.  It is a different world, focused solely on immediate needs.  It is interesting how they all know each other.  Walter introduced me to other homeless people.  Some of them were a little worse for wear.  Walter used to take pretty much whatever he wanted from one man in particular.  He would con people out of money or steal it, then blow his money on drugs, prostitutes, and cologne.  Sometimes Walter became violent with his "friends."  Walter had no real interest in friends, except as a source of money, drugs, or "getting his dick wet."  I knew this from the beginning but found him entertaining in a strange way at first.  We had a falling out, and Walter stopped coming around.

Transients are also targets of teenagers and adults who just feel like beating the shit out of someone.  When a transient is incoherent -- completely drunk/stoned -- they become a very easy target.  Some have been spit on for years, and do not even think to seek help when attacked.  If they are still alive after the attack, they will try to clean themselves up, but it isn't like they will go calling the police.