|
Post by Guest on Mar 13, 2019 15:27:48 GMT -6
I'll just repost my comment where it's easier to read.
There are isolated areas in the woods where it would take a long time for people to find a body, and if they took the time to use a shovel and bury the bodies, they would never be found. That would leave them a lot of time to clean up a crime scene instead of taking the boys to cabin 28 and dealing with whoever is in the cabin, and they wouldn't know 100% sure who all was in cabin 28. Seems to me that taking them somewhere in the woods would be a lot simpler easier than trying to stage a crime scene in an occupied cabin.
Also, if we don't have all the police reports, how would we know where the insulin kit was at?
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Mar 13, 2019 18:16:29 GMT -6
The problem with NOT taking the bodies back to Cabin 28 is, the police will know there is SOME crime scene SOMEWHERE. TWO boys will be "missing," and remember, they're not thinking too clearly--they're high, and they're panicking. And several people know where they were headed that night. So, the "smart" thing might be to create a new crime scene. Also, Dana had spent some couple of hours dead, in a sitting position. Before he ended up on the floor facedown. So, that had to happen SOMEPLACE, and Cabin 28 is just not a realistic place for two or three hours of this stuff to be going on. And again, remember, Phillip CONFESSED TO POLICE. Twice, if you count the first one to his mother at the police station. And his confession is accurate in several details, as opposed to Marty's supposed "confession," which is WRONG in EVERY detail. And the fuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnyyyy thing is, Phillip's confession gives a pretty accurate description of Tom S's cabin.
Well, we KNOW Dana's diabetic kit is NOT mentioned in the crime scene report. Sooooo, we KNOW it was not in Cabin 28. We know one found it and turned it in. We know Gamberg has admitted it was never found. Soooooooooo, it was probably left at the "original" crime scene. Where else? So, there's the evidence, and then there's, "They would have blah, blah, blah." I'll go with the evidence--including the disappearance of Dana's diabetic kit.
|
|
ck69
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by ck69 on Mar 31, 2019 12:15:13 GMT -6
I am a total noob to this case. I am so glad I found this forum. I tried the dmac site (which seems to not be working correctly at the moment) & his Facebook page a year or so ago & he is such a horrible, mean person I just quit. The case has fascinated me since I first discovered it and I apologize to all of you that have lived & breathed this case for so long because I am probably going to ask questions that you all have answered a million times. This is the first time I have heard the “Tina Theory” and I am so glad because I often wondered about her. I have also been bothered by the sexuallization of Sue’s body. The hogtieing, her underwear gag... made me think she was the original target but after reading all these posts, I’m not sure now. Remember, I’ve got most of my info from dmac & the ID show. I realize DNA in 1981 was nothing like it is today but have they went back to any of the old evidence to try & find answers? Why is it so important to know who brought J&D home? Is whoever it was a suspect? I find the theory that Dana was not killed there very likely. It made total sense when I read it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Mar 31, 2019 12:40:07 GMT -6
Hi, ck! Well, until PCSO (or Sheila Sharp) "leak" the rest of the files, it's going to be impossible to "solve" this "mystery." And don't worry about running around in circles, because we all do it all the time.
Now, first of all, I have over 30 years experience off and on as a private and insurance investigator. Big whoop, but I do have a lot of experience reviewing investigations, autopsy reports, etc. So, from the currently available PHYSICAL evidence, including autopsy reports, crime scene photos, etc, we DO know that 1. Dana was killed first, then Johnny, then Sue was beaten and tied up and then finally killed. No doubt about the sequence. And abooouuuut two hours or so from the first death to the last. 2. There is ZERO evidence, including witness statements or ANY of the physical evidence, to suggest there was ANY "intruder" in that cabin that night. None. Zero. And aaaaallllll the evidence points to Justin, Tina, and probably Sheila. (Johnny may have killed Dana, maybe even by accident.) Not enough for me to say I'd get a conviction on what's been "leaked" so far, but that's the simplest explanation that fits the physical EVIDENCE. 3. There's significant evidence that Charles "Chuck" Walke [and his lesser-known convicted pedopile brother Cary) and Henry Thompson were involved, as well. But again, not enough in hand to guarantee I could get an indictment. 4. But, on the other hand, there are PLENTY of other suspects. Just no known EVIDENCE that ANYONE was involved beyond the kids and maybe Chuck and Henry.
So, dive right in!
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Mar 31, 2019 16:55:31 GMT -6
Hey Ck we're glad your here. As Tom said there doesn't seem to be any evidence of an outside intruder, or more importantly there doesn't appear to be any evidence that Marty was there. There should be some DNA (blood on the cabinet door, bloody print on the back stairwell, fingernail scrappings, etc.) and DNA testing has come so far like DNA testing through genealogy websites.
Who gave Johnny and Dana a ride home has been important to everyone who has ever looked at or heard of this case until 2017 when 28 announced that this person had been identified and vetted, by him and Gamberg, and they had nothing to do with the murders. But the point is whoever gave them a ride 38 years ago talked to the police in 1981 (according to 28 and Gam) and told them that Marty and Sue were seeing each other but DID NOT tell what the police had begged to know, "Who gave the boys a ride". Why in the world not give that info to the police in 1981 instead of 2017 so that they could establish a timeline of exactly when the boys arrived home and to rule out the murders possibly occurring by whoever took them home? To me it doesn't matter if they are innocent - their credibility as far as what they told in 1981, without a doubt, should be questioned.
The ID Show did absolutely no research on their own and it showed. They missed several opportunities to ask questions and trip up some of these myths that have now become gospel - the same thing that happened when Josh did the documentaries - not enough knowledge or research. But Josh's documentaries are the reason my sister and I joined a forum - so it was a good start.
|
|
kay
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by kay on Apr 1, 2019 13:04:13 GMT -6
Hey guys! (I finally was able to join the forum instead of just being a guest lol). I’m new to this case as well, and honestly I have no experience reading autopsy reports so please forgive me if I ask too many questions and please correct me if I’m wrong! I have seen a couple theories suggesting that Dana went into a diabetic rage that night because he was seen taking insulin before he got to cabin 28, but correct me if I’m wrong didn’t his autopsy report say there was approximately 2 ounces of black-greenish thick liquid, would that mean he ate after he took his insulin?
Another theory that has had me scratching my head is the theory that they took Tina out of the cabin to throw off the investigation, but wouldn’t it have been more thrown off if Dana was taken from the cabin? He was (for lack of a better explanation) the outcast of the victims because he was the only one who wasn’t family, so if they were trying to throw it off why not use him? Thats one thing that I’ve always thought when people said that. Thanks for giving everyone a space to share their thoughts without being publicly degraded lol! I love this forum.
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Apr 1, 2019 16:57:52 GMT -6
Hi Kay! Don't worry about asking questions we've been asking them for years and the autopsy reports are (for the most part) Greek to me. I think Johnny and Dana both had some liquid in their stomachs (for what it's worth they were said to have drank a Tab cola at Kathy Beckley's around 6:45pm) but I can't imagine them being gone all day and into the night without food.
Yes removing Dana from 28 would have been the best choice to "throw off an investigation". Tina missing from 28 makes no sense unless she was the target or left on her own. Sue didn't weigh much more than Tina so if she was the target why not just remove her?
|
|
kay
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by kay on Apr 1, 2019 18:39:07 GMT -6
Those are my thoughts exactly! All of the family including the Wingates believe it had something to do with sue, which I could totally understand, especially if Johnny and Dana were seen by Justin fighting someone they could have been defending Sue, but it still does not explain why Tina was taken. From everything I have seen and read online, this case could probably be solved if Justin would just come forward. In the documentary he even said he was writing a book about the murders and finally “telling the truth”, well where’s the book? I could completely understand if he is afraid for his life to come forward, but couldn’t he be protected if he did?
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Apr 1, 2019 19:38:21 GMT -6
Well common sense tells me that the 3 boys did not sleep through the murders. If I woke up in my friends house and my step dad was fighting and killing people, I like to think I'd wake up the other 2 boys (whose family was being attacked) and tell them. So if Justin was awake enough to know something was going on then I'm pretty sure Ricky was too. Either they don't know who was in the house or they regret not telling what they knew 38 years ago. If it was Marty what holds them back from telling it - after all that's what most everyone is begging to hear.
Justin has kept everyone on the edge of their seats for years so I'd have a hard time believing him now. Gary Wingate did say on the documentary that he thought it had to do with the mother but what was he basing that off of? He wasn't even sure of the reason Dana was going to be moved to another receiving home (he said you'd have to ask the Dorrisses). Either he's never asked (because it's to difficult to deal with) or he's never been told much about the murders.
My opinion is Sue walked into the living room and started screaming after seeing whatever was going on (and she fought with someone because she had defensive wounds) and out of shear panic the killer(s) gagged her until they were sure she'd not make anymore noise. Regardless of how many times Justin has told that the boys were fighting, or how many times Dmac has said the boys were defending Sue - the ME said the boys had no defensive wounds. That leads me to believe they did not fight with anyone.
|
|
kay
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by kay on Apr 1, 2019 21:46:41 GMT -6
I agree. If Dana’s parents had lost custody of him and he was a ward of the state, would they be the one they give updates and information on his sons case? I don’t have kids so I’m not too familiar with custody agreements or anything along those lines. I also scratch my head at the boys not having defensive wounds. There has to be more people around Plumas County (at least in 1981) that knows something, but what is keeping them from coming forward? Hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Apr 2, 2019 9:47:31 GMT -6
Hi, Kay! Well, according the autopsy reports and crime scene photos, I believe I can state with quite a bit of certainty that:
1. Dana was tied up with white tape, either before, or after, being punched in the face a couple of times. Johnny's hands were bruised, so it may have been Johnny who did the punching. Dana may very well have slipped into insulin shock, which can make the person behave as though they are out-of-control drunk and aggressive. Johnny barely knew Dana, and he may not have known a better way of handling the situation. Or, it may have started as a legitimate fight. But Dana was punched a couple of times before he died.
2. Dana was strangled--not choked, where the breathing is cut off, but strangled, where the blood flow to the brain was cut off. There were no ligature marks or finger marks, so he was probably put in a "choke hold" from behind by someone who knew what they were doing. "Deputy" Mike Gamberg has bragged about teaching wrestling and martial arts to to both boys, so again, this could have been Johnny. It is possible that the person let Dana go, but unfortunately, it is not uncommon for the person to die anyway, because the arteries cramp up and don't allow blood flow. They may not have even noticed right away that Dana had actually died. But he did manage to break the bonds on his hands before lost consciousness (Or--and this is important, I think--his bonds may have been broken when his body was moved TO Cabin 28 afterward.)
3. AFTER that, Johnny was struck in the head above the left ear with something about the size and weight of a baseball bat, fracturing his skull. This may have been from behind, perhaps while he had Dana in a chokehold. This injury by itself probably would have been fatal, but his heart was still beating when his throat was stabbed and he bled out on the floor of Cabin 28.
4. AFTER Johnny had been bled out and moved (rolled over) Sue walked through the puddle of Johnny's blood. THEN, she was struck in the mouth (either with a fist, or with a weapon) and then struck several more times about face and head, prrroooobably with a Daisy air rifle. About this time, she was apparently shot in the chest with a pellet from the air rifle. During this time, she incurred "defensive" bruises on her hands and arms. She then fell backward, striking her head behind the ear on the white wooden table you see in the corner of the living room near the "doorway" to the kitchen and hallway. This apparently knocked her unconscious. She was then bound and gagged (suggesting her assailant did not plan to kill her) with clothing and white tape (Justin's DNA was found on the sticky side of the tape around her mouth.) After some time, she was stabbed in the chest with the wood-handled butcher knife found at the scene, piercing her aorta, and she bled to death.
5. Someone used the Sharp's wood-handled hammer to knock Johnny and Dana in the head a few times AFTER they were dead. They did NOT use the hammer on Sue, and Tina's skull showed NO blunt traumas.
So, Dana (fat lip, bloody nose,) and possibly Johnny (bruised hands) DO show possible "defensive wounds," but assuming Dana had submitted to being tied up (a rumor among their classmates held that the whole thing started as a macho teen "tie up game" that went wrong) then Johnny may have punched Dana, or punched someone else. And Sue had defensive wounds, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Apr 2, 2019 13:32:48 GMT -6
Thanks for that post Tom! The reason I believe they had no defensive wounds is:
From Johnny's Autopsy: The base of the long finger of the left hand shows dorsally a 3/4 inch zone of bruising, and the hands otherwise show no evidence of trauma. (All I see is a small bruise on the base of his middle finger?)
From Dana's Autopsy: The hands are free of injury
Evidence of Review noted on review of case file 1986(? hard to read the date) There were no defensive wounds found on Johnny Sharp or Dana Wingate but were several on Sue Sharp and she had blood on the bottoms of her feet indicating she had walked in blood.
From Sue's autopsy it doesn't appear she was beat in the face, or at least not enough to draw blood, until after she was gagged:(it appears to me that the blood on her face ran over her gag) Considerable dried and some liquid blood is present over the entire face in a sometimes smudged pattern. Blood appears to have extended downward from the right side of the mouth and nose towards the posterior head and neck. The pattern stops abruptly on the face at the level of the gag mark, and below the gag mark on the under surface of the chin is a very small amount of patchy dried and somewhat smeared blood.
Just my opinion if Sue walked in Johnny or Dana's blood then it would appear she walked into the living room after Johnny and Dana were being beat/killed. So it doesn't appear that they came to her defense because it appears they were already down when she got to them. Yes, Sue definitely fought with someone.
|
|
kay
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by kay on Apr 2, 2019 18:55:28 GMT -6
Thank you guys for answering all my questions! This is the first time I’ve ever even read an autopsy report so I feel like I am reading a different language a little bit lol. But, I don’t know if anyone has commented on this, but dmac, keddie28, whoever the hell he is, has said in the past a few times that the autopsy reports are “piss poor”. As much as he is an asshole he unfortunately doesn’t seem to be much of an idiot, so a question to everyone who is experienced in reading autopsies: do you agree they were done poorly?
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Apr 2, 2019 19:24:55 GMT -6
I know you want an answer from someone experienced in reading an autopsy report but the ME saw these bodies, along with Dennis Forcino of the PCSO, so I trust what he documented while looking at these bodies. Dmac thinks everything done was "piss poor" and anyone involved in the investigation "corrupt" but without even knowing these people I can say for sure that everyone who was involved in this case did not lie or do a less than through job at what they did just because it was never solved. Dmac's no idiot, but he's also not any smarter than any of the people involved in working this case. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback.
The first thing LE did when arriving on the scene was to secure the scene. I have never heard anyone say that the public was going in and out of the house contaminating the crime scene - and Doug Thomas had the good sense to call in others with more experience -regardless of what 28 says.
The only thing I can even think of that could have been done differently was Shelia should have had to give her statement right then, regardless of her emotional state, instead of later that afternoon after she had time to talk to uncle Don and others.
Mike G's been on this case for 6 years and hasn't solved it (as of today).
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Apr 3, 2019 10:26:34 GMT -6
People are ALWAYS disappointed by real-life police reports, autopsy reports, etc, because it's NOT like TV. The ME will NOT render an "opinion" on much UNTIL he/she testifies in court. Etc etc etc. But I don't see any problems with these autopsy reports. I would like to know the ME's opinion on time of death, but those are never as precise as on TV, and another thing people don't realize is, those are usually influenced by other evidence. I'm confident in asserting that the ME's notes on things like bruising and swelling that some wounds were older than others, etc.
On the one hand, a "modern" autopsy might have looked harder for things like "trace" evidence, but as I go around pointing out all the time, 99 times out of a hundred, all that "trace evidence" stuff is more misleading than enlightening.
Now, one way we "know" Sue was beaten up before she was tied up is simple--there is simply no way she COULD have gotten those defensive wounds on her hands and arms AFTER she was tied up. Secondly, there was no reason to beat her AFTER she was tied up and gagged (she was mostly likely unconscious from falling back and hitting her head on the table).
Now, we know Dana did not bleed from any wounds, and Sue could not have walked through a puddle of her own blood, so, we know she stepped in Johnny's blood. McNarie had a wild theory that she was picked up and "put" in the puddle, but, where are the killers bloody footprints? Not to mention that's a pretty wild theory, anyway.
And finally, if Johnny had say, tried to block a blow from a baseball bat, ALL his fingers on that hand would most likely be bruised. But since only his middle finger, near the "knuckle" at the base of the finger was bruised, that is much more consistent with punching someone in the face, either the occipital area (eyebrow, etc) or the chin area. And Dana had a black eye and fat lip. Someone else MIGHT have [also] punched Dana, but, I'll say it again, there is NO reason, NO evidence, NO witness, that REQUIRES another person to have been present. But the pattern of livor mortis, and the time elapsed between Dana's death and Johnny's, is hard to explain--unless Dana's death (and probably Johnny's skull fracture) happened somewhere else, BEFORE they arrived at Cabin 28. But the only "evidence" for such a scenario is Dana's missing diabetic kit.
See?
|
|