I've scoured the Web, but haven't been able to find out any information about the two boys who died in a fire in a shack. The episode aired on May 20, 1992, and I believe that UM's speculation was that the boys may have been murdered because they stumbled onto a drug ring or something?

Does anyone have any information about that story?

Thank you!

The Rail road murder? Hwere a mysterious man was seen afterward and the 1st speculation was a suicide for the boys?

Well I have it on tape (it was on volume 5 I believe) but I don't know of any new information. One of the boys name was Scott Johnson and UM never mentioned the other boys name. A few people came forward and claimed to have seen a few men near the area and smoke coming from the shack. Scott's mother said the boys had found a $100 bill near there days or weeks earlier and there was some speculation as to whether they may have witnessed a drug deal or something of that nature. I believe it happened in Bullhead City, Arizona

This was the powder magazine murder that took place in Arizona in the mid 70s involving a young boy named Scott Johnson and an unidentified friend. The two boys apparently had been using an old abandoned powder magazine shed as a fort for sometime and one day the shed caught on fire killing the two boys.

There is strong evidence that the boys may have been murdered due to the fact that they might have witnessed a drug drop or some type of illegal activity somewhat bolstered by the fact that a few weeks earlier, Johnson had found money scattered among this remote location in the desert. Two witnesses came forward saying that they saw three men push the boys into the shed, start the fire and then kept the door to the shed shut by holding a 2x4 against the door.

Indeed, the 2x4 that was found at the scene did have some odd burn patterns like it was held against the door at the time the shred was set on fire. I believe several years later, a convict in a local prison also told authorities that the boys were murdered by someone who was also in the prison system at the time.

There is a frustrating lack of evidence in this case as Robert Stack noted a great deal of the original police work on this case has been destroyed and the police have always assumed that the boys' death was an accident perhaps due to Johnson or his friend playing with matches or a lighter while in the shed. However this doesn't seem to hold up because even if the boys did start the fire, the door to the shed did not have a lock on it and the boys could have easily pushed their way out of the shed.

EDIT: Crystaldawn - I too found it very odd that the other boys' parents were not interviewed and even his name was not mentioned. I guess either they believe that their son's death was in fact an accident OR they just want to put the past behind them.

EDIT: Crystaldawn - I too found it very odd that the other boys' parents were not interviewed and even his name was not mentioned. I guess either they believe that their son's death was in fact an accident OR they just want to put the past behind them.

We must have been posting at the same time DD...:lol: I can understand why the unidentified boys parents may have not wanted to be interviewed for the segment but I don't understand why they wouldn't want his name mentioned. After all I'm sure the other boys name and death was common knowledge in the area with the tv and newspaper accounts.

Does anyone know if the shack still exists? Curious, because I am in AZ this summer.

Does anyone know if the shack still exists? Curious, because I am in AZ this summer.

I'm new here but I'm a big UM fan. I've watched all the cases.

I've always wondered if the parents of the other child was to scared to come forward since they may have know of/or were in the drug scene themselves. But it's just a theory. Thank you for this site!

I'm new here but I'm a big UM fan. I've watched all the cases.

I've always wondered if the parents of the other child was to scared to come forward since they may have know of/or were in the drug scene themselves. But it's just a theory. Thank you for this site!

I remember reading somewhere not long ago that a new sherrif had come in and was re opening the case and could be new leeds. But Ive heard nothing else. Will have to see if I can find that story

I really don't buy the whole notion of them seeing a drug deal or walking up on someone smoking pot who decided to kill them. First off people who smoke pot are very mellow, why would someone who was stoned burn two kids alive? Because the kids might tell on them for smoking weed???? Really?? I doubt it. As if criminal charges are brought against pot smokers based on children telling on them.

The drug dealer angle,

I don't buy this either, according to the story this was a fairly upscale neighborhood that had children playing around all the time. Why would someone go out there to exchange drugs for money? Why not do that in the privacy of your home? Even if the kids had seen a drug for money exchange what real danger would the people involved be in? Would the kids even know what was happening? Ofcourse not. Leave the kids be and go on your way. Also if you where making a drug deal in this area why would you bring gasoline and a lighter with you? Is that something that potheads or drug dealers just carry around with them in case they have to burn witnesses? Ofcourse not, these are items someone would have in their garage though and if they lived close by would have easy access to.

Most people ( even drug dealers) do not have it in them to kill a child especially in this manner. This was a child abductor/killer if indeed it was a murder. Probably someone living in the area that no one suspected. This does happen where someone just snaps and decides to abuse and murder children. Look at the crime the west memphis three where accused of or what just happned with Breann Rodgriguez. I think it was same type of situation. Someone who knew the boys and knew they'd be in that area grabbed them, abused them in god knows what manner and murdered them. This is not the act of a pot smoker or small time drug dealer it is however the act of a sick child killer.

I really wonder why the other boys parents do not seem to be pursuing this the way Scotts mother was. They didnt even say the other boys name on the episode. That seems really odd to me.

I really don't buy the whole notion of them seeing a drug deal or walking up on someone smoking pot who decided to kill them. First off people who smoke pot are very mellow, why would someone who was stoned burn two kids alive? Because the kids might tell on them for smoking weed???? Really?? I doubt it. As if criminal charges are brought against pot smokers based on children telling on them.

The drug dealer angle,

I don't buy this either, according to the story this was a fairly upscale neighborhood that had children playing around all the time. Why would someone go out there to exchange drugs for money? Why not do that in the privacy of your home? Even if the kids had seen a drug for money exchange what real danger would the people involved be in? Would the kids even know what was happening? Ofcourse not. Leave the kids be and go on your way. Also if you where making a drug deal in this area why would you bring gasoline and a lighter with you? Is that something that potheads or drug dealers just carry around with them in case they have to burn witnesses? Ofcourse not, these are items someone would have in their garage though and if they lived close by would have easy access to.

Most people ( even drug dealers) do not have it in them to kill a child especially in this manner. This was a child abductor/killer if indeed it was a murder. Probably someone living in the area that no one suspected. This does happen where someone just snaps and decides to abuse and murder children. Look at the crime the west memphis three where accused of or what just happned with Breann Rodgriguez. I think it was same type of situation. Someone who knew the boys and knew they'd be in that area grabbed them, abused them in god knows what manner and murdered them. This is not the act of a pot smoker or small time drug dealer it is however the act of a sick child killer.

I really wonder why the other boys parents do not seem to be pursuing this the way Scotts mother was. They didnt even say the other boys name on the episode. That seems really odd to me.

I've always been skeptical of the drug angle myself. For some reason, the "wrong person walks in on a drug deal/drop" theory is very popular on UM. I have to wonder how common such occurrences really are in day to day life. Even if the wrong person does walk in on a deal/drop, is the perp's response going to be to murder that witness and then perfectly stage said murder to resemble a suicide or accident? It seems far fetched, to say the least.

Also, in this specific case, the drug angle seems even more far fetched when the age of the victims is considered. They were two kids. Do they even know what burning marijuana smells like to be able to detect someone smoking it? Even if the kids did somehow witness a deal or drug use, it would be easy enough for the perp to concoct some sort of bogus cover story that the kids would most likely believe, so murder is unnecessary.

On the other hand, I think it's important to remember that the source of this information is pretty dubious - a convict who claimed he witnessed the murder and spoke to the killer who presumably told them the kids were being killed because they witnessed him and his buddy smoking pot. Assuming this exchange actually did take place at all - whose to say the killer didn't lie about the motive for killing the boys in the shack?

No, this all doesn't make sense at all. I have often wondered if perhaps the boys were molested, and THAT is why they were murdered. It's possible that the perp or perps were people who lived in or around the neighborhood or could be recognized by the kids. The fact that the boys were murdered in such a manner would also likely eliminate any trace evidence of sexual assault.

I really don't buy the whole notion of them seeing a drug deal or walking up on someone smoking pot who decided to kill them. First off people who smoke pot are very mellow, why would someone who was stoned burn two kids alive? Because the kids might tell on them for smoking weed???? Really?? I doubt it. As if criminal charges are brought against pot smokers based on children telling on them.

The drug dealer angle,

I don't buy this either, according to the story this was a fairly upscale neighborhood that had children playing around all the time. Why would someone go out there to exchange drugs for money? Why not do that in the privacy of your home? Even if the kids had seen a drug for money exchange what real danger would the people involved be in? Would the kids even know what was happening? Ofcourse not. Leave the kids be and go on your way. Also if you where making a drug deal in this area why would you bring gasoline and a lighter with you? Is that something that potheads or drug dealers just carry around with them in case they have to burn witnesses? Ofcourse not, these are items someone would have in their garage though and if they lived close by would have easy access to.

Most people ( even drug dealers) do not have it in them to kill a child especially in this manner. This was a child abductor/killer if indeed it was a murder. Probably someone living in the area that no one suspected. This does happen where someone just snaps and decides to abuse and murder children. Look at the crime the west memphis three where accused of or what just happned with Breann Rodgriguez. I think it was same type of situation. Someone who knew the boys and knew they'd be in that area grabbed them, abused them in god knows what manner and murdered them. This is not the act of a pot smoker or small time drug dealer it is however the act of a sick child killer.

I really wonder why the other boys parents do not seem to be pursuing this the way Scotts mother was. They didnt even say the other boys name on the episode. That seems really odd to me.

Do you all remember the case of the Jordan children in Dallas? They were penned in burned up by drug dealers. And the sickos even bragged about it from what I understand. Of course to be fair no convictions were ever obtained but this is largely because the guy thought to be most responsible was killed himself not long after it happened.

My point being its not at all out of the realm of possibility, we have no idea how much money may have been involved it was going on. And people have been known to be consumed with greed and do terrible things to eachother over relatively small amounts of money, especially when it involves covering their own butt to keep them out of prison.

That being said, I don't entirely disagree with your points. Two boys that age may not have been able to deduce what was going on, but you can't always give people credit for brains to figure this stuff out, or credit for enough moral fiber to risk their own *** to do the right thing and let witnesses go. They see witnesses around and they panic and do stupid things, and in this case stupid and evil things. I don't really put much credence into the upscale neighborhood point though, bad things happen just about everywhere nowadays. Of course this was quite a few years ago to.

Still, you could be right. The sexually motivated crime is not out of the realm of possibility either. It seems a little out of style for pedophiles to do something like this in plain sight though, they typically tend to abduct children and take them somewhere out of the way to do their sick deeds. To me it sounds more like the work of some scumbags who worried about witnesses to their BS and panicked. But I could be wrong. Just saying I don't believe the drug theory was impossible.

I would be interested to know though if there were other cases of abduction or violence against children in the area though.

I've always been skeptical of the drug angle myself. For some reason, the "wrong person walks in on a drug deal/drop" theory is very popular on UM. I have to wonder how common such occurrences really are in day to day life. Even if the wrong person does walk in on a deal/drop, is the perp's response going to be to murder that witness and then perfectly stage said murder to resemble a suicide or accident? It seems far fetched, to say the least.

Also, in this specific case, the drug angle seems even more far fetched when the age of the victims is considered. They were two kids. Do they even know what burning marijuana smells like to be able to detect someone smoking it? Even if the kids did somehow witness a deal or drug use, it would be easy enough for the perp to concoct some sort of bogus cover story that the kids would most likely believe, so murder is unnecessary.

On the other hand, I think it's important to remember that the source of this information is pretty dubious - a convict who claimed he witnessed the murder and spoke to the killer who presumably told them the kids were being killed because they witnessed him and his buddy smoking pot. Assuming this exchange actually did take place at all - whose to say the killer didn't lie about the motive for killing the boys in the shack?

No, this all doesn't make sense at all. I have often wondered if perhaps the boys were molested, and THAT is why they were murdered. It's possible that the perp or perps were people who lived in or around the neighborhood or could be recognized by the kids. The fact that the boys were murdered in such a manner would also likely eliminate any trace evidence of sexual assault.
I couldn't agree more about this case as the police saw it making no sense.
The convict's story seems like total bs to me. According to him two guys are killing two young children because they are afraid the kids are gonna tell on them for smoking pot. Now consider that these two potheads just told a complete stranger that they are murdering two kids and let him go free. Make any sense? Cover up pot smoking but freely admit to murder??? And let a witness to the murder go free??

However the story of the couple that also made a witness statement is alot more compeling to me. We know these two where there because they actually called in the report of the fire. So the people that make the initial report claim to see someone holding the door shut while the shack burned and the police rule this an accident? They ignore the evidence that the fire cheif brought forth? What the hell is going on here? This is beyond bad police work.

Id also like to know just where Scott's mother was while this was happening?? Why would you let a 7 year old just run loose like this? I would never dream of letting my kids just go off and play with no supervision. Take into account that the shack was within eyesight of Scott's house and I ask again where was his parents?? Why was it a bystander that reported the fire and not the parents??

Something else I wonder if they ever determined is just where did the gas come from? If the police think that Scott and his friend were playing with matches and gas then which family was missing a gas can?? Can you imagine letting your 7 year old take off for the day with a gas can and matches or a lighter??

To me this case is alot like the west memphis three case. Someone sees kids in a somewhat secluded area and murders them in very little time with no known motive.

Do you all remember the case of the Jordan children in Dallas? They were penned in burned up by drug dealers. And the sickos even bragged about it from what I understand. Of course to be fair no convictions were ever obtained but this is largely because the guy thought to be most responsible was killed himself not long after it happened.

My point being its not at all out of the realm of possibility, we have no idea how much money may have been involved it was going on. And people have been known to be consumed with greed and do terrible things to eachother over relatively small amounts of money, especially when it involves covering their own butt to keep them out of prison.

That being said, I don't entirely disagree with your points. Two boys that age may not have been able to deduce what was going on, but you can't always give people credit for brains to figure this stuff out, or credit for enough moral fiber to risk their own *** to do the right thing and let witnesses go. They see witnesses around and they panic and do stupid things, and in this case stupid and evil things. I don't really put much credence into the upscale neighborhood point though, bad things happen just about everywhere nowadays. Of course this was quite a few years ago to.

Still, you could be right. The sexually motivated crime is not out of the realm of possibility either. It seems a little out of style for pedophiles to do something like this in plain sight though, they typically tend to abduct children and take them somewhere out of the way to do their sick deeds. To me it sounds more like the work of some scumbags who worried about witnesses to their BS and panicked. But I could be wrong. Just saying I don't believe the drug theory was impossible.

I would be interested to know though if there were other cases of abduction or violence against children in the area though.

The jordan kids sound familar, was that on UM? I might be wrong but wasn't that a case where someone was actually going to testify against a drug dealer??

The jordan kids sound familar, was that on UM? I might be wrong but wasn't that a case where someone was actually going to testify against a drug dealer??

Yes it was. Supposedly the oldest child who was a teenager was doing drugs and the guys who sold it to them came to get their money. The theory was he couldn't pay them and they set the place on fire to scare him into it, and the five children in the house ended up trapped inside, only one survived and he was badly maimed and burned and wound up with prosthetic legs. Terrible story all in all.

Granted, it was a somewhat different situation, as obviously these young boys were not doing drugs and someone to get money, but my point was drug dealings can most certainly lead to murder if someone suspects they might be compromised. Some people are scum and will sometimes kill for even trivial reasons.

Just some abstract thoughts. Gasoline was used, so I would guess that the murders were somewhat premeditated.

Does anyone think the one hundred dollar bill that Scott and his friend found by the shack in the prior weeks had anything to do with this case?

This is a horrible thought, but maybe the one hundred dollars was left behind as payment for something (drugs) and someone accused the kids of stealing the one hundred dollars?

One hundred dollars may not seem that impressive, but it was the early seventies, and it's kind of hard to imagine someone would misplace/lose a bill like that near the shack.

Just some abstract thoughts. Gasoline was used, so I would guess that the murders were somewhat premeditated.

Does anyone think the one hundred dollar bill that Scott and his friend found by the shack in the prior weeks had anything to do with this case?

This is a horrible thought, but maybe the one hundred dollars was left behind as payment for something (drugs) and someone accused the kids of stealing the one hundred dollars?

One hundred dollars may not seem that impressive, but it was the early seventies, and it's kind of hard to imagine someone would misplace/lose a bill like that near the shack.

Was the gas can ever recovered? If so finger prints could have been lifted and tested. But keep in mind this was almost 40 years ago. Technology was no where near advanced as in today. And was the piece of wood checked? I doubt any thing was checked to be honest just because it was originally ruled an accident. This just may go unsolved forever

Was the gas can ever recovered? If so finger prints could have been lifted and tested. But keep in mind this was almost 40 years ago. Technology was no where near advanced as in today. And was the piece of wood checked? I doubt any thing was checked to be honest just because it was originally ruled an accident. This just may go unsolved forever

I can't recall if a gas can was recovered. Regardless, it seems like this whole incident was grossly mishandled from the start. Even the first fire fighter who arrived on the scene suspected arson. I never understood why the evidence and discrepancies he noted on the day of the fire weren't taken more seriously. There were enough red flags to suggest this was a homicide.

I also remember Stack mentioning at the end of the segment that most of the evidence and perhaps even some files pertaining to the case had been destroyed over the years, likely because the deaths were ruled accidental. Unfortunately, I doubt anything remains today that could be tested or that hasn't been contaminated.

Just some abstract thoughts. Gasoline was used, so I would guess that the murders were somewhat premeditated.

Does anyone think the one hundred dollar bill that Scott and his friend found by the shack in the prior weeks had anything to do with this case?

This is a horrible thought, but maybe the one hundred dollars was left behind as payment for something (drugs) and someone accused the kids of stealing the one hundred dollars?

One hundred dollars may not seem that impressive, but it was the early seventies, and it's kind of hard to imagine someone would misplace/lose a bill like that near the shack.

I honestly dont think the hundred dollar bill had anything to do with it. UM shows Scott just finding the bill laying loose in the grass. Is that how you would leave money for someone? Ofcourse not it would obviously blow away. Also it was three weeks prior so it seems it would have taken the person an awfully long time to find out who took their money. Now if scott had found a briefcase with money or a hidden envelope or somehting of that nature I could see how that might make the money look like a factor in his death.

I can't recall if a gas can was recovered. Regardless, it seems like this whole incident was grossly mishandled from the start. Even the first fire fighter who arrived on the scene suspected arson. I never understood why the evidence and discrepancies he noted on the day of the fire weren't taken more seriously. There were enough red flags to suggest this was a homicide.

I also remember Stack mentioning at the end of the segment that most of the evidence and perhaps even some files pertaining to the case had been destroyed over the years, likely because the deaths were ruled accidental. Unfortunately, I doubt anything remains today that could be tested or that hasn't been contaminated.

There actually is something they should have done then and could still do now. Remember the convict gave them a name of a guy he said was involved? Investigators questioned this man but no charges where brought. Here's my question, was this man's picture shown to the eye witnesses that also saw two men at the shack???? Was he put in front of a lineup for the couple to identify???? How hard would it have been for a detective to take a picture of the man in question to the couple and say " is this the man you saw at the shack the day you reported the fire"?

Apparantly this was never done as the couple claimed that police never spoke to them again and had no interest in their eye witness accont. This is insane. We know they where there because they reported the fire, why would they lie about seeing men hold the door shut? Their story is backed up by the evidence the fire chief turned up and still they are never asked for descriptions of the men they saw.

I understand that most of the time investigators like to rule deaths either suicides or accidents because then they can close the case and not have to fool with it anymore but this case wreaks of some kind of police corruption. For some reason they did not want the facts coming out.

nobody is killing kids over POT lmao

nobody is killing kids over POT lmao

Exactly! Although it cannot be 100% ruled out the likelihood that this murder was over a drug drop in my opinion is unlikely. The money the boys found was interesting though. It could lead someone to believe that money found in a rather remote area like that something illegal could be involved but what.

In a lot of ways it's almost like the Ladner case where the father found that alleged signaling device in the woods. We just don't know what these clues add up to.

The eyewitness accounts are interesting and could give credence to the possibility that this was a homicide although accidental death certainly cannot be ruled out given the boys' ages which raises the likelihood of a tragic accident due to negligence on their part.

I just don't know but it's one that has bothered me for awhile.

The eyewitness accounts are interesting and could give credence to the possibility that this was a homicide although accidental death certainly cannot be ruled out given the boys' ages which raises the likelihood of a tragic accident due to negligence on their part.

that's a tough pill to swallow.

The investigators said that the boys under normal circumstances could have easily escaped and the only reason they didn't was because of the board that was keeping the door shut, which was found at the scene with a burn hole in it. Even if one boy didn't know what to do, which is pretty unlikely, what are the odds that both boys would be clueless as to how to escape?

A lot of eyewitness acounts tend to be pretty suspect, but the fact that 3 people came forward all saying the same thing (foul play) definitely puts it on another level for me.

I think what you have to ask yourself is, how else but arson could it have caught fire? it was a very small, vacant shack. Nothing in there that could have ignited itself.

that's a tough pill to swallow.

The investigators said that the boys under normal circumstances could have easily escaped and the only reason they didn't was because of the board that was keeping the door shut, which was found at the scene with a burn hole in it. Even if one boy didn't know what to do, which is pretty unlikely, what are the odds that both boys would be clueless as to how to escape?

A lot of eyewitness acounts tend to be pretty suspect, but the fact that 3 people came forward all saying the same thing (foul play) definitely puts it on another level for me.

I think what you have to ask yourself is, how else but arson could it have caught fire? it was a very small, vacant shack. Nothing in there that could have ignited itself.

One thing I've always wondered if there was evidence of some kind of incapacitation in this case. Either by the boys themselves or a third party which then lit the shack on fire. Again I wish we had more information on this case.

One article I did find which gave the name of Scott's friend mentioned that in the area at the time police were trying hard to solve a string of murders. Now all these murders weren't connected but the article detailed how what was only a few years earlier a relative crime free neighborhood or area had suddenly become besieged by a string of unsolved murders.

I don't know if that has anything to do with what happened to the boys but it is something that stuck out to me.

As disturbing as it sounds what if it was a pair of spree killers? just killing random people for kicks. maybe that's why the killings happened so out of the blue. they saw the kids go into the shack and lit it on fire. a case of wrong place wrong time. crazy maybe. but it could be like that "Texas most wanted" case. I dunno what to make of the $ found though.

As disturbing as it sounds what if it was a pair of spree killers? just killing random people for kicks. maybe that's why the killings happened so out of the blue. they saw the kids go into the shack and lit it on fire. a case of wrong place wrong time. crazy maybe. but it could be like that "Texas most wanted" case. I dunno what to make of the $ found though.


I think this is much more likely than any drug scenario. I find it hard to believe that drug dealers would feel threatened by a couple of little kids witnessing their actions. Even if the kids stumbled upon them right in the middle of the deal, it would be much easier to just split. The kids probably wouldn't even give it a second thought. Why risk calling way more attention to yourself by committing murder? Especially murder by arson. Smoke attracts attention, people come running to check out the source when they see it. Seems like something that paranoid criminals would want to avoid.


Of course, just about any scenario is possible. But this kind of crime screams of a sadistic thrill killer(s) to me.

Does anyone know if the shack still exists? Curious, because I am in AZ this summer.

Given UM's usual tradition of filming their reenactments at the exact locations of where the crimes took place, I have to think the shack used for filming was the same shack Scott and his friend died in. It looked exactly like the shack featured in the police photos and the article titled, "Two boys die here." That would mean the shack was still around as recently as 1992. But I have no idea if it's still around today.

In regards to the drug theory, it all stems from Scott finding that $100.00 bill a couple weeks before his death. It was purely a theory by Scott's mother given the timing and location of where it was found. It's hard to imagine another reason as to why a $100.00 bill would be in an open field like that.

This is one of those cases that just seems to scream shabby police work. They came to the conclusion that the boys must have been playing with matches and burned to death because of that despite the fact that the shack had no lock and the only way the boys wouldn't have been able to escape the shack, even in a panic, would be if someone was holding the door shut.

The witness sightings of Tina Rhee Moe and John Kalols are interesting, not just because they were the ones who reported the fire but because one of the two men they saw ran away when they saw they were being watched. They told police about the two men they had seen at the shack but they knew the police didn't care about what they had to say. At the time, they were teenagers and John apparently had a bad reputation with a few minor scraps with the law. It should be noted that was just a guess on John and Tina's part because they couldn't figure any other reason as to why the police wouldn't care about what they had to say. But according to both of them, the police never made any attempt to contact them again.

I wish there was more information, ANY information about this case online but there's really nothing out there to go with. The boys were definitely murdered, no doubt about that. Why, I don't know. But I think the molestation theory sounds more likely than a drug dealer theory.

I always got the impression that the fireman did a better investigation than the police.

Is it possible that the inmate who witnessed the event was responsible in any way? I would have the same question for the two people who reported the fire [Tena Rhee Moe and John J. Kalous] only because they had previous altercations with the law.

I also feel that if there was a gas can present that this was a premeditated murder. If the boys were playing with matches, were any matches found? This case reeks of lazier police work than even the Kurt Sova case and that says a lot!

Three more threads on this segment:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=25893
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=115121
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=160993

Looks like Tena Rhee Moe has had some run-ins with the law:

http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Arizona/Maricopa-County-AZ/Tena-R-Moe.5776354/details

Although the above link was not loading on my computer so here is a link to the Google cache:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mugshots.com/US-Counties/Arizona/Maricopa-County-AZ/Tena-R-Moe.5776354/details/+tena+rhee+moe

Tena R Moe
Birth date: 3/02/1958
Gender: FEMALE
Height: 5′ 2″ (1.57 m)
Weight: 100 lb (45 kg)
Hair Color: BROWN
Eye Color: HAZEL
Ethnic Origin: CAUCASIAN
Inmate Number: 064622
Custody Class: 2/1
Inmate / Detainee: INMATE
Sentences: 6 months
Admission Date: 12/14/2005
Release Date: 6/14/2006
Max End Date: 5/28/2006
Cur. Absconded: N
Hist. Absconded: N/A
Release Type: COMM SUP END DT[info]
Most Recent Loc.: ASPC - PERRYVILLE
Unit: N/A
Community Supervision / Parole: N
Last Movement: 20060614
Commitment Status: COMPLETE AND VERIFIED
Current Status: INACTIVE

[QUOTE=Matt C]Is it possible that the inmate who witnessed the event was responsible in any way? I would have the same question for the two people who reported the fire [Tena Rhee Moe and John J. Kalous] only because they had previous altercations with the law.

unlikely. I can't imagine they'd draw attention to themselves like that. Plus, if one is lying, then the others would be since they told the exact same story. There would have to be collusion on their part, which doesn't seem terribly likely.

unlikely. I can't imagine they'd draw attention to themselves like that. Plus, if one is lying, then the others would be since they told the exact same story. There would have to be collusion on their part, which doesn't seem terribly likely.

I agree, it would seem like an odd thing to do. I suppose I only wondered because you never know what is going through the mind of a guilty party at that particular moment and perhaps they did not realize that reporting the fire would immediately make them persons of interest. Another thing is that their story was pretty specific and the outlined version of events is pretty consistent with how such a fire could have transpired. It did not scream of being an obvious lie or Hollywood story like the tragic death of Charles Holden's mother which actually turned out to be the truth.

I do wonder about the inmate as well though. Perhaps he was involved in some way but he did pass on the name of another inmate to the police and if he was associated, presumably that connection could have been easily made. At the same time, it seems like nothing about this case was ever investigated very seriously.

I just found the following item online about Gordon Dale Meador [the inmate]. Apparently Meador was beaten in prison after it was published in the New Times Newspaper of Phoenix that he was considered a suspect:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/36/1103/563772

I suspected that Meador was one of the men responsible when he was only able to identify one of the two men who he alleged committed the crime. I thought it was possible that he was the man seen running away by Rhee Moe and John Kalous and had a lesser involvement in the crime and confessed because he had a guilty conscious possibly coupled by the fact that he felt he had nothing to lose since he was already in prison, today serving a life sentence [although I am unsure if he was serving that sentence in 1978 when he gave the information to authorities]. The fact that Meador is serving a life sentence calls into question his character and makes me wonder if he could have committed such a heinous crime.

The article quotes one of Meador's letters as stating, "My God. I was a kid back then. Just barely 17, and as I recall it, a local politician's son was involved and I was told to keep my mouth shut and pending criminal charges would be dismissed. I did, and they were. End of story."

Why would the men confess to Gordon that they had just burned two young boys alive in addition to the fact that they were smoking marijuana, which they were allegedly trying to hide? Surely if hiding drug use from children was a concern to these men, hiding murder from an adult would be a greater concern - in addition to hiding the simple drug use which was originally intended.

The quoted letter from the FOOTNOTES section of the linked article continues:

"Both kids were locked inside and caught on fire, but both were unconscious prior to."

This seems like quite specific information that Meador had and he identified one of the perpetrators - Mark Stubblefield - as a friend, leading me to believe that Meador may have been the other man responsible. However, he also identified a second man - Mark Waldy.

In any case, Gordon Dale Meador's account is consistent with the account shared by Rhee Moe and John Kalous and as far as I know, both accounts were reported independently. Therefore, I would conclude that there is strong evidence that the general series of events outlined is accurate and the boys were indeed murdered.

If there were drugs involved somehow I wonder if the kids were actually involved somehow. Low level selling/dealing and maybe they were (or felt like the kids were) keeping money from them? People who have their brains fried (I am referring to perhaps the men were using other drugs, harder drugs) can get mean, paranoid, angry, and maybe this is what happened. They perceived something and their whacked out brain circuits shorted and they lost what little was left of their reasoning. It's just a thought. Matt C's most recent post seems to be possibly a good account of what happened...just not why.

If there were drugs involved somehow I wonder if the kids were actually involved somehow. Low level selling/dealing and maybe they were (or felt like the kids were) keeping money from them? People who have their brains fried (I am referring to perhaps the men were using other drugs, harder drugs) can get mean, paranoid, angry, and maybe this is what happened. They perceived something and their whacked out brain circuits shorted and they lost what little was left of their reasoning. It's just a thought. Matt C's most recent post seems to be possibly a good account of what happened...just not why.

I agree that the "why" is missing. Meador had so much specific information that I am compelled to believe that he was telling at least a partial truth [perhaps he left out his own involvement for example].

As to the boys being responsible in any possible drug transactions, I think their ages [7, 6] would have excluded them from such activity, at least knowingly. They could have been unknowing participants though but I think it is more likely that the boys were killed out of fear of exposing something by two adults who were frankly just too dumb to realize how unlikely such a thing would be.

How was it concluded that the boys may have been playing with gasoline and matches unless evidence of such was found at the scene? If a gas can was used, it indicates premeditation. I wonder how the 2X12" board got there. Did it just happen to be in the area? Because I don't think the murderers would have been smart enough to realize the door was metal and bring the board to safeguard them from the heat.

The Rail road murder? Hwere a mysterious man was seen afterward and the 1st speculation was a suicide for the boys?
no you bonehead, they said the shack murder

Wow! still know resolution to this one. What a lack of caring for human life. For someone to do this to two little boys. Perhaps the kids found a gangs hang out ot bike gang or something?

Was it ever known what "questionable" history the witnesses had? Drugs? Its a mystery in of itself as to why the second boy wasn't named

Was it ever known what "questionable" history the witnesses had? Drugs? Its a mystery in of itself as to why the second boy wasn't named

The other boy was 6 year old Peter Hill. It was stated in the Arizona news.

We must have been posting at the same time DD...:lol: I can understand why the unidentified boys parents may have not wanted to be interviewed for the segment but I don't understand why they wouldn't want his name mentioned. After all I'm sure the other boys name and death was common knowledge in the area with the tv and newspaper accounts.

Maybe if it was regarding drugs they were worried that the killers would come and threaten them and perhaps there would be repacusions.

Although if that was the case Scott's parents may have reported something suspicious.

It just might of scared perhaps a single mother who lived on her own.

Maybe if it was regarding drugs they were worried that the killers would come and threaten them and perhaps there would be repacusions.

Although if that was the case Scott's parents may have reported something suspicious.

It just might of scared perhaps a single mother who lived on her own.


Then Peter Hill's name would not be known in the paper to began with. They probably are just not intrested in being on tv and want their privacy.

Then Peter Hill's name would not be known in the paper to began with. They probably are just not intrested in being on tv and want their privacy.

I find it hard to believe that if your child was murdered that you would want to remain low key unless you were scared.

Do you think rape or abuse victims don't report it because they are not interested in publicity or that they are scared?

I strongly believe that it was regarding drugs. As people have noted drug dealers often kill children. They even force kids to deal for them so they are capable of this act IMO.

If it was me I would go to the end of the earth to get justice for my child, shout from the rooftops to get the word out that there was a killer in the area. Maybe the other boys parents were involved in drugs and it was revenge? That's why they won't go public incase more digging around them is done

I find it hard to believe that if your child was murdered that you would want to remain low key unless you were scared.

Do you think rape or abuse victims don't report it because they are not interested in publicity or that they are scared?

I strongly believe that it was regarding drugs. As people have noted drug dealers often kill children. They even force kids to deal for them so they are capable of this act IMO.

If it was me I would go to the end of the earth to get justice for my child, shout from the rooftops to get the word out that there was a killer in the area. Maybe the other boys parents were involved in drugs and it was revenge? That's why they won't go public incase more digging around them is done


Peter's family and me are two diffrent things. And all humans think diffrently. This is like George Gumlbys family in Clifford Sherwood case. They had it in there minds all these years the boys died fishing. And did not make and issue oif being in the press about it. But they oviously cared what happened to them. Perhaps Peter Hill's family is similar. they know he was killed in the fire and do not care to press it because it is to painfull for them. Maybe repeatdly bringing it up is very painfull for them and any siblings he had. . But still care that they find who did it and it is easier for them to let Scott's mother continue the search for answers. It is not fair to judge these parents we are not them. I'm sure they are dealing with it the best they can. And are trying to conitue on in as normal life as possible while still realing from this.

I find it hard to believe that if your child was murdered that you would want to remain low key unless you were scared.

Do you think rape or abuse victims don't report it because they are not interested in publicity or that they are scared?

Rape victims ESPECIALLY often do not report because they don't want publicity--especially in a setting like a college campus or the military--not because they're frightened.

Like Jennifer said, everyone's different, and everyone handles traumatic events differently. It's none of anyone's business why they haven't "gone public." And to assert that the boys' parents were involved in drugs and that that's the reason they've been silent is frankly a wild jump to conclusion, IMO.

I tend to think the witness, Dale Meador, was telling the truth when he says he encountered the two men pushing the boys into the shack. He even had 2 independent witnesses corroborate his story. I also think it's fairly likely that the man who Meador id'ed as the killer is more than likely one of the guy's who's repsonsible. I think it's one of those cases where the police are fairly certain of who did it but can't make a case against them.

I tend to think the witness, Dale Meador, was telling the truth when he says he encountered the two men pushing the boys into the shack. He even had 2 independent witnesses corroborate his story. I also think it's fairly likely that the man who Meador id'ed as the killer is more than likely one of the guy's who's repsonsible. I think it's one of those cases where the police are fairly certain of who did it but can't make a case against them.

I wonder if they did witness drawing of the suspects Dale Meador saw?

I wonder if they did witness drawing of the suspects Dale Meador saw?

Meador actually knew one of the guys and ID'ed him as a fellow prisoner. Police interviewed the guy but could not come up with enough evidence to charge him.

maybe they were heroin dealers

maybe they were heroin dealers

I believe Scott found a 100 dollar bill or some amount of money in the lot by the shack at one point. It was assumed it may have been a drug purchasing sight because of this.

I'm now convinced that Dale Meador murdered Scott Johnson and his friend. The detective who interviewed Meador in jail had said that Meador knew specific things that fit the crime scene, but also that he wasn't telling them everything he knew. In his mind, Meador was withholding information in an attempt to cut some sort of a deal. Thanks to UM, the segment does not specify why Meador was in prison, or what his felony charge was. I don't for a second think a drug drop, or two guys smoking pot who were "discovered" by the boys, had anything to do with this. The drug angle has always been laughable, IMO, considering the boys were aged 8 and 6 at the time. Why would two drug dealers bring a full gas can to a drug deal or drug drop? Same for two guys who just are in the area smoking pot? Doesn't make any sense. I believe it was sexual in nature, and that whoever murdered them lived nearby.

It would help to know why Meador was in prison, and the same for the man Meador identified as being the one standing at the shack that day. I don't believe Meador's story, for several reasons. He claims to have seen the two boys being put into the shack, and does nothing. He sees them light it on fire, and does nothing. After "10-15 minutes" later, he finally approached the shack, and heard the boys whimpering, and did nothing. He didn't report this to the authorities until 4 years later, after he was convicted and serving time. I don't care what Meador's criminal past was, if he just saw two young boys being murdered, ANYONE in their right mind would have called the authorities immediately. But he did none of this.

I think Meador killed, or thought he had killed both boys, and stuffed their bodies in the shack. He then went to retrieve a gas can before returning to set the shack on fire. It's possible that one of the boys was still alive when he set the fire, which is why he used the 2x4 to hold the door shut. Or he could have simply used it as a way to keep the door shut (the segment makes it seem like the door would freely swing open because there was no latch). I think that's when the unidentified man appeared, and Meador panicked and took off running. This was the same time that John Kalous and Tina Rhee arrived and saw one man standing at the shack, and another one running up a hill. The man running, IMO, was Meador.

I agree, Meador's story always made NO sense to me whatsoever. One of the theories pushed around in this segment is that Scott and his friend accidentally stumbled upon two guys conducting a drug deal, so the kids were murdered to prevent them from going to the police. So let me get this straight... these drug dealers are so paranoid that they're willing to murder two children, even though they're probably too young to even understand the concept of drug dealing. Yet when a grown adult stumbles upon these dealers committing the far worse crime of BURNING TWO KIDS ALIVE, they simply tell this potential murder witness to "get lost" and let him go. Gimme a break!

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Meador did have an accomplice when he committed the crime and was trying to give him up to cut a deal.

I wonder if the guy seen standing in front of the building was simply just a passerby who scared Meador into fleeing? Why would this guy stick around (after just murdering two boys and setting them on fire) after he saw the other two teenagers arrive and witness him standing there? I think Meador simply swapped himself for the guy seen standing at the shack and filled in some details here and there.

boy, I don't know. Scott found a $100 bill a few weeks before he was murdered. Perhaps it wasn't so much that they feared they would be exposed for smoking pot, but rather they were afraid of being exposed for drug dealing, which would have been a harsher sentence. And somebody mentioned in the segment, I think it was Sue Johnson, that the sheriff's sub-station was only a block away.

And considering Meador was apparently a career criminal, it's possible he didn't care about the boys.

I'll have to watch this one again.

My gut feelings were always that the boys were murdered.

The why and by whom are the big questions.

I have difficulty buying Meador's story as he told it. It doesn't make sense to me to think that these guys would murder two kids just because the kids happened to catch them smoking pot and that they would then (presumably) let Meador go after he witnessed them doing something ten times worse.

Here is the difficult thing though - assuming that the Meador narrative was somewhat true, who was lying here - Meador, or the presumed killer?

If Meador was telling the truth, perhaps the killer told Meador the pot story to hide the real reason the kids were killed. I mean, assuming there was another reason (he molested the kids, for example) he probably wouldn't disclose that. So, it could be that Meador was telling the truth, but was fed a line himself.

On the other hand, it is equally possible that Meador invented the story as leverage for something he wanted in prison. I think this is pretty likely. That being said, it is a bizarre story to tell, and there may be some truth to it. Parts of it may be true. Perhaps Meador knew the killers, or was told the story, and put himself on the scene to give it more credibility.

I don't know that I believe Meador was the killer though. Primarily because implicating himself would be dangerous. Suppose the police started investigating this more seriously, figured that Meador was their guy and charged him with the crimes. Also, why would Meador point the finger his alleged accomplice when he had no way of knowing if the police would then question this guy, get him to crack, and get the full story with Meador as the guilty party? It all seems too risky, IMO.

Another interesting point that may be worth considering...the other witnesses didn't report seeing Meador on the scene. If Meador's narrative is true, it's likely he would have been seen by those two. Unless he was one of the perps...

I wonder if the guy seen standing in front of the building was simply just a passerby who scared Meador into fleeing? Why would this guy stick around (after just murdering two boys and setting them on fire) after he saw the other two teenagers arrive and witness him standing there? I think Meador simply swapped himself for the guy seen standing at the shack and filled in some details here and there.

It could be. But then why would this man (assuming he was a passerby) not investigate the fire, report it himself, or come forward over the years?

Here is the difficult thing though - assuming that the Meador narrative was somewhat true, who was lying here - Meador, or the presumed killer?

Has to be Meador. He did nothing to report the murders for years, and if his story was true, he witnessed virtually everything. Plus, I find it hard to believe that two guys who just set two kids on fire are going to let a guy who walks up to "get lost".

On the other hand, it is equally possible that Meador invented the story as leverage for something he wanted in prison. I think this is pretty likely. That being said, it is a bizarre story to tell, and there may be some truth to it. Parts of it may be true. Perhaps Meador knew the killers, or was told the story, and put himself on the scene to give it more credibility.

This is a good point, and one I didn't consider before. The detective interviewed seemed skeptical and actually thought Meador was padding the story to try and cut some sort of deal.

I don't know that I believe Meador was the killer though. Primarily because implicating himself would be dangerous. Suppose the police started investigating this more seriously, figured that Meador was their guy and charged him with the crimes. Also, why would Meador point the finger his alleged accomplice when he had no way of knowing if the police would then question this guy, get him to crack, and get the full story with Meador as the guilty party? It all seems too risky, IMO.

But he didn't implicate himself, he just said he was a "witness" to the crime. And for all we know, could have acted alone, and simply made up this "accomplice" as a means to try and strike some sort of deal. I wonder how seriously the police took Meador at the time, considering the deaths were still ruled as accidental. I don't think they looked at the case more seriously until a few years prior to the UM filming of the segment.

Another interesting point that may be worth considering...the other witnesses didn't report seeing Meador on the scene. If Meador's narrative is true, it's likely he would have been seen by those two. Unless he was one of the perps...

That's why I think Meador was the man seen running away. If the UM segment is accurate, Meador was alleged to have been parked and sitting in a car before approaching the burning shack. The two witnesses arrived shortly after, and would have had to have seen Meador walking back towards his car, sitting in it, or driving off.

It could be. But then why would this man (assuming he was a passerby) not investigate the fire, report it himself, or come forward over the years?

I think it's possible that he was simply walking along, saw the shack on fire, and thought it was odd to see it on fire, but didn't think it was too big of a deal. Or for all we know, he could have been the one to report it. UM was too vague on who actually called it in, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was multiple people who called in about it.

Has to be Meador. He did nothing to report the murders for years, and if his story was true, he witnessed virtually everything. Plus, I find it hard to believe that two guys who just set two kids on fire are going to let a guy who walks up to "get lost".

Not necessarily. Scott and Peter being little boys wouldn't have put up too much defense, but they probably recognized Meador as a bad guy who could defend himself.

But he didn't implicate himself, he just said he was a "witness" to the crime. And for all we know, could have acted alone, and simply made up this "accomplice" as a means to try and strike some sort of deal. I wonder how seriously the police took Meador at the time, considering the deaths were still ruled as accidental. I don't think they looked at the case more seriously until a few years prior to the UM filming of the segment.

That's just it though. Why would Meador risk life imprisonment dredging up a mostly forgotten incident the police didn't even consider murder?

A few thoughts:

* Tomorrow will mark the 41st anniversary of Scott and Peter being killed in the fire. April 3, 1974.

* The police and investigators seemed pretty pathetic from the beginning. Barely seven weeks had passed and the coroner concluded that the boys were most likely playing with matches and gasoline, accidentally killing themselves. Then they closed the case. It amazes me how they could come to that conclusion when there was no lock on the door. In that panic situation, they could easily escape simply by pushing the door. Did the police simply not care enough to get involved? The only other person who was suspicious was the chief of the fire department who found the wooden plank with the hole burned into it, left just a few feet from the shack. Not even his concerns was enough to get an investigation started. That blows my mind.

* I looked it up. April 3, 1974 was a Wednesday. Easter wasn't until two weeks later. The fire was reported at 3:45 p.m. That would mean Scott and Peter had to have just recently arrived from school before they were killed. Probably no more than 45 minutes or so. We don't know how long the fire was going on before it was reported so this all could have happened in an extremely short period of time.

* I posted this is the picture thread but I located the Johnson home on Google maps. If you want to get an idea of the area, the house is located at 2495 Rio Drive in Bullhead City, AZ.

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Scott5_zps5ddc1711.png

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Scott1_zpsa20c6b2f.png

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Scott2_zpsc7241733.png

You'll notice that the Johnson home dead ends into that part of the desert where Scott and his friends always played. As far as I know, the shack is still there but it's not viewable from the house now because homes were built across the street. The silo at the top of the hill lets you know that the shack is under it...

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Scott3_zpsbcb1b5a7.png

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Scott4_zps4fd3c1ac.png

The shack was no more than 50 yards from Sue Johnson's house. It kind of amazes me these men, whoever they were, were able to murder two boys like this so close to his own house in the middle of the afternoon, have multiple eye witnesses see them at the shack while it was burning and still get away so easily.

^Interesting you brought that up dynoguy as I was just wondering about that. The segment sort of depicts the shack being out in the middle of nowhere (although somewhat close to the Johnson household), but numerous people knowing about it and coming up to in the middle of the afternoon. I think there probably was drug dealing going on there, and think it's likely Meador was going there for drugs. Heck, I think it's likely John Kalous and Tina Rhee were going there for drugs, but none of the 3 of them planned on stumbling upon 2 child murders.

Has to be Meador. He did nothing to report the murders for years, and if his story was true, he witnessed virtually everything. Plus, I find it hard to believe that two guys who just set two kids on fire are going to let a guy who walks up to "get lost".

Do we know for sure why Meador told the story in the first place? Was he trying to secure a transfer or better privileges in prison? Honestly, I haven't seen the segment in years so I don't remember the specifics.

I guess what I'm getting at though is Meador must have had some motivation to tell this tale, especially since so many years had elapsed between the incident and his re-telling of it. Knowing his motivation would be good and possibly telling in itself. Was his conscience getting to him, for example? Was he trying to cut some kind of deal? Was he involved in any legal proceedings at the time and such a story could be used as leverage?

Granted, I know nothing of Meador aside from the fact that he was portrayed (IIRC) on UM as a jailhouse informant type. That makes me take anything he might say with a huge grain of salt. I mean, it could be a legitimate recollection of an actual event, but without knowing Meador's motivations (likely selfish ones given his position) it's hard to say how much of it to accept as truth. Additionally, there are several problems with believing the narrative as told, as you and others have pointed out, and the cops seemed to grapple with this as well.

But he didn't implicate himself, he just said he was a "witness" to the crime. And for all we know, could have acted alone, and simply made up this "accomplice" as a means to try and strike some sort of deal. I wonder how seriously the police took Meador at the time, considering the deaths were still ruled as accidental. I don't think they looked at the case more seriously until a few years prior to the UM filming of the segment.

My point was though that Meador brought it up all.

If Meador was the killer, I think bringing it up (even in a veiled way as witness role) is incredibly risky. Suppose the cops started investigating and realized that Meador was the killer. He could be charged himself.

Also, he did, to my knowledge, implicate someone - there was an actual person that Meador pointed the finger at. The cops went and talked to this guy. Meador would have known that the cops would talk to this guy. If Meador just fingered some random convict or someone he didn't like he had to see the danger in doing so, if Meador himself was the killer all along. The guy would legitimately have no clue what the cops (and by extension Meador) were talking about, and this would have shifted the focus back on Meador.

That's why I think Meador was the man seen running away. If the UM segment is accurate, Meador was alleged to have been parked and sitting in a car before approaching the burning shack. The two witnesses arrived shortly after, and would have had to have seen Meador walking back towards his car, sitting in it, or driving off.

The more I think about this, the more I don't know. This is based on re-enactments. If Meador was there, it is remotely possible he did have these interactions and could have left the scene before the other witnesses came around.

Overall, I think it's unlikely though. On that note, how well traversed was this area that this many people (all of whom shady reputations) could have been there and seen all of this go down?

Do we know for sure why Meador told the story in the first place? Was he trying to secure a transfer or better privileges in prison? Honestly, I haven't seen the segment in years so I don't remember the specifics.

The detective who interviewed Meador had said,

"Anytime you talk to a prisoner that wants to give you information, you know he's trying to cut himself a deal. The man did not seem like he was really telling us all the truth. There was, you know, there was knowledge there. Meador advised us that he saw two men holding these two kids and pushing them in the powder magazine. One of the kids looked like he was heavily drugged, and the other was just fighting. Then he saw one of the men with a gas can. One of them told him in street terms to get lost, and we just burned up two kids."

That's where I get the vibe from the detective that he felt that Meador knew more than he was telling.

If Meador was the killer, I think bringing it up (even in a veiled way as witness role) is incredibly risky. Suppose the cops started investigating and realized that Meador was the killer. He could be charged himself.

Just watched the segment again. The two teenagers who saw the man standing at the shack and another man fleeing were the ones who reported the fire. This would also mean that, according to their interviews on UM, they would have told the authorities about what they saw that day. Meador may have seen the two from the powder magazine pull up and walk out and then took off running. I suppose it's possible that he would then concoct a story of two men (even if he was really the guy seen running up the hill) forcing the kids into the shack and burning it, etc. to try to gain some sort of leverage or deal within the prison system. Meador would know that he had two potential witnesses who could back up his claim of the "two men" seen near the shack.

Also, he did, to my knowledge, implicate someone - there was an actual person that Meador pointed the finger at. The cops went and talked to this guy. Meador would have known that the cops would talk to this guy. If Meador just fingered some random convict or someone he didn't like he had to see the danger in doing so, if Meador himself was the killer all along. The guy would legitimately have no clue what the cops (and by extension Meador) were talking about, and this would have shifted the focus back on Meador.

I think there are 3 possibilities:

-Meador is full of it and was making everything up.
-Meador is telling the truth 100%.
-Meador was involved, and was padding the story to make himself a witness.

Making it up seems unlikely, since he was partly backed up by two witnesses. But the detective who interviewed him seemed to think he wasn't telling them everything he knew. For example, there was no reason on Earth as to why he didn't report this to the authorities after he witnessed it. Unless he was involved. The man named very well could have been his accomplice, and maybe Meador was the more passive of the two who didn't want to hurt or kill the boys but this other man did, and that's when Meador took off running. Maybe his reasoning for coming forward was a bit of guilt eating away at him, and to strike some sort of deal.

The more I think about this, the more I don't know. This is based on re-enactments. If Meador was there, it is remotely possible he did have these interactions and could have left the scene before the other witnesses came around.

Overall, I think it's unlikely though. On that note, how well traversed was this area that this many people (all of whom shady reputations) could have been there and seen all of this go down?

Well Meador says he walked up to the shack 5-10 minutes after the fire started. And in the reenactment, one of the guys is holding up the 2x4 to the door. Why would the one guy stick around and simply stare at the two teenagers, if they were parked less than 50 yards away? Seems like he would want to get out of the area ASAP, especially if more time had lapsed since Meador left and the two teens arrived.

Rewatched the case on Amazon. Very creepy case

On that note, how well traversed was this area that this many people (all of whom shady reputations) could have been there and seen all of this go down?

Watching this one recently, I asked myself this same question. Bullhead City has a population of just under 40,000 (as of 2010, I'm not sure what it was in 1974), but even today, that area of homes is pretty spread out connecting to the desert as opposed to the rest of the city.

Regardless, the distance from the Johnson home to the shack is just 50 yards. Sue Johnson said she never had any apprehension towards her kids playing in it because the shack was within sight of the house and she could easily grab their attention if she needed them.

Whoever did the killing had to grab the boys, possibly drug them (if Meador was telling the truth there), force them into the shack, start the fire and hold the plank to the door long enough for the boys to be killed by the fire. That is not a quick murder to pull off. It's very time consuming. And to do this just 50 yards from the boy's own house is incredibly risky. It might have been sheer luck that Sue Johnson didn't walk out her front door and see anything. But there ended up being witnesses anyway. And these guys STILL got away with it.

Rewatched the case on Amazon. Very creepy case
Is it on season 4? If so, what episode?

Is it on season 4? If so, what episode?

Episode 16.

I have been fairly inactive on this forum for a few years, but the case of the Scott Johnson and Peter Hill has always stuck with me. I did some digging around and found some info that may have been unknown to others here. I have also reached out to some people who had known the Johnson and Hill families, and/or had been involved with the investigation of the events that day.

Here is some info that is confirmed:

1. The shed, as well as another building that was close to the shed were torn down a few years after the deaths of Scott and Peter. The shed used in the UM segment was built by Cosgrove/Meurer for the filming of the segment.

2. The shed was not a "powder magazine" used by copper miners as UM said it was - it was actually built on the site of/for an old shooting range in the 50's and was used as a camp for Army war games in the 60's.

3. A local Judge (Harold Pershall) ordered a Coroner's inquest into the deaths. The inquest/jury consisted of people who lived in the city, like any jury pool. They poured over police reports (one person described it as "mounds and mounds" of reports), viewed the bodies of the two boys at the funeral home as well as the shed itself.

4. The inquest/jury concluded without a doubt that the boys died as a result of playing with matches and gasoline in the shed. There was a mattress in the shed that they may have tried to hide behind once the fire started, as the whole inside went up fast due to the fumes, sucking the oxygen out quickly.

5. The 2x12 piece of wood that Larry Adams described in the UM segment was indeed investigated but was determined by the inquest/jury to not have been involved in the case, it was possibly something the boys had played with at a time before the fire.

6. There were upwards of 20 officers dispatched to the scene to scour for clues and evidence. That being said, it was still determined that the boys died accidentally.

7. Peter Hill's Mother accepted the conclusion of the inquest/jury that the boys had been playing with matches and died accidentally. She wanted nothing to do with the UM segment and did not want to talk about what happened.

8. The boys were both known to play with matches and fire. Allegedly, Peter Hill had caused a fire at his home not too long before his death.

I am hoping to hear back from the other people soon and will update this thread with more info, if I get any. Such a sad situation all the way around... my heart breaks for those two families.

I have been fairly inactive on this forum for a few years, but the case of the Scott Johnson and Peter Hill has always stuck with me. I did some digging around and found some info that may have been unknown to others here. I have also reached out to some people who had known the Johnson and Hill families, and/or had been involved with the investigation of the events that day.

Here is some info that is confirmed:

1. The shed, as well as another building that was close to the shed were torn down a few years after the deaths of Scott and Peter. The shed used in the UM segment was built by Cosgrove/Meurer for the filming of the segment.

2. The shed was not a "powder magazine" used by copper miners as UM said it was - it was actually a built on the site of/for an old shooting range in the 50's and was used as a camp for Army war games in the 60's.

3. A local Judge (Harold Pershall) ordered a Coroner's inquest into the deaths. The inquest/jury consisted of people who lived in the city, like any jury pool. They poured over police reports (one person described it as "mounds and mounds" of reports), viewed the bodies of the two boys at the funeral home as well as the shed itself.

4. The inquest/jury concluded without a doubt that the boys died as a result of playing with matches and gasoline in the shed. There was a mattress in the shed that they may have tried to hide behind once the fire started, as the whole inside went up fast due to the fumes, sucking the oxygen out quickly.

5. The 2x12 piece of wood that Larry Adams described in the UM segment was indeed investigated but was determined by the inquest/jury to not have been involved in the case, it was possibly something the boys had played with at a time before the fire.

6. There were upwards of 20 officers dispatched to the scene to scour for clues and evidence. That being said, it was still determined that the boys died accidentally.

7. Peter Hill's Mother accepted the conclusion of the inquest/jury that the boys had been playing with matches and died accidentally. She wanted nothing to do with the UM segment and did not want to talk about what happened.

8. The boys were both known to play with matches and fire. Apparently, Peter Hill had caused a fire at his home not too long before his death.

I am hoping to hear back from the other people soon and will update this thread with more info, if I get any. Such a sad situation all the way around... my heart breaks for those two families.

Wow.

Thank you for all of that. I've recently come to suspect that UM left a ton of information out of this one (mostly due to the lack of cooperation from Peter Hill's family, and no mention of him or his family in the segment whatsoever, no mention fo where the gas can came from, etc.), and am glad to see that it appears it was in fact an horrible tragedy, and that there aren't murderers out there roaming around freely.

Here are some photos of the shed from the UM segment. I had always thought they had used the real shed but it had been torn down by the time filming commenced. Upon closer inspection, it's easy to see that it was not the same shed (rock patterns are different, wood roof is different, door lines up differently, etc.)

https://i.imgur.com/Jx3Zgna.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/rRVqPy5.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/KyqcPjH.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/CImENm5.jpg

Also, kind of interesting - for the scene where the kids are forced into the shed by the two men, they moved the shed entirely to a different spot - I presume this was done so residents watching the filming from a distance didn't need to relive that/see it but I am not positive. I have seen this segment dozens and dozens of times but never noticed it until recently.

Initial shots of the shed:

https://i.imgur.com/sfhH4JP.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/2h5EXRm.jpg

And here's where the boys are forced in - note the proximity of the slope and fence as opposed to the other photos:

https://i.imgur.com/npIkGYL.jpg

I have been fairly inactive on this forum for a few years, but the case of the Scott Johnson and Peter Hill has always stuck with me. I did some digging around and found some info that may have been unknown to others here. I have also reached out to some people who had known the Johnson and Hill families, and/or had been involved with the investigation of the events that day.

Here is some info that is confirmed:

1. The shed, as well as another building that was close to the shed were torn down a few years after the deaths of Scott and Peter. The shed used in the UM segment was built by Cosgrove/Meurer for the filming of the segment.

2. The shed was not a "powder magazine" used by copper miners as UM said it was - it was actually built on the site of/for an old shooting range in the 50's and was used as a camp for Army war games in the 60's.

3. A local Judge (Harold Pershall) ordered a Coroner's inquest into the deaths. The inquest/jury consisted of people who lived in the city, like any jury pool. They poured over police reports (one person described it as "mounds and mounds" of reports), viewed the bodies of the two boys at the funeral home as well as the shed itself.

4. The inquest/jury concluded without a doubt that the boys died as a result of playing with matches and gasoline in the shed. There was a mattress in the shed that they may have tried to hide behind once the fire started, as the whole inside went up fast due to the fumes, sucking the oxygen out quickly.

5. The 2x12 piece of wood that Larry Adams described in the UM segment was indeed investigated but was determined by the inquest/jury to not have been involved in the case, it was possibly something the boys had played with at a time before the fire.

6. There were upwards of 20 officers dispatched to the scene to scour for clues and evidence. That being said, it was still determined that the boys died accidentally.

7. Peter Hill's Mother accepted the conclusion of the inquest/jury that the boys had been playing with matches and died accidentally. She wanted nothing to do with the UM segment and did not want to talk about what happened.

8. The boys were both known to play with matches and fire. Allegedly, Peter Hill had caused a fire at his home not too long before his death.

I am hoping to hear back from the other people soon and will update this thread with more info, if I get any. Such a sad situation all the way around... my heart breaks for those two families.

Wow, fascinating stuff, thanks for sharing. Out of curiosity, did you learn any information about the two witnesses, Tena Moe and John Kalous, who claimed they saw two men running away from the shed? I know they claimed they were ignored by investigators because of previous scrapes with the law, but I wonder if there were other credibility issues with them.

I don't think this has ever been shared here, but I also just discovered that Gordon Dale Meador, the convict who shared the story about two men shoving the boys in the shack, filed an injunction against the New Times newspaper after they published an article about the case. This actually contains the names of the two suspects (Marc Stubblefield and Mark Waldy) Meador accused of committing the crime. However, because the paper also printed that Meador was a suspect, it led to him repeatedly attacked by other inmates who believed he was a child killer and prompted him to file an injunction for using his name:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/36/1103/563772/

Wow, fascinating stuff, thanks for sharing. Out of curiosity, did you learn any information about the two witnesses, Tena Moe and John Kalous, who claimed they saw two men running away from the shed? I know they claimed they were ignored by investigators because of previous scrapes with the law, but I wonder if there were other credibility issues with them.

I don't think this has ever been shared here, but I also just discovered that Gordon Dale Meador, the convict who shared the story about two men shoving the boys in the shack, filed an injunction against the New Times newspaper after they published an article about the case. This actually contains the names of the two suspects (Marc Stubblefield and Mark Waldy) Meador accused of committing the crime. However, because the paper also printed that Meador was a suspect, it led to him repeatedly attacked by other inmates who believed he was a child killer and prompted him to file an injunction for using his name:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/36/1103/563772/

Ha, yeah I saw the same thing - I actually emailed the author of that article and defendant Terry Greene to see if I can get a copy of that article because it’s nowhere to be found online. I’ll definitely post it if she writes me back.

I haven’t yet asked anything on John Kalous or Tena Moe, I am working my way toward that. I was able to locate John Kalous on facebook and also found some inmate pages for each of them, it looks like they were both in trouble with the law as recently as 2006:

https://www.rapsheets.org/arizona/doc-prisoner/JOHN_KALOUS/038847

https://arrestfacts.com/Tena-Moe-3F2P32

Getting a chance to hear what they say now after all these years would be pretty interesting to say the least.

I don't think this has ever been shared here, but I also just discovered that Gordon Dale Meador, the convict who shared the story about two men shoving the boys in the shack, filed an injunction against the New Times newspaper after they published an article about the case. This actually contains the names of the two suspects (Marc Stubblefield and Mark Waldy) Meador accused of committing the crime. However, because the paper also printed that Meador was a suspect, it led to him repeatedly attacked by other inmates who believed he was a child killer and prompted him to file an injunction for using his name:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/36/1103/563772/

I found that a few months ago and is another reason why I doubted the murder story. UM makes it seem like Meador walked up to two men who he didn't know, but when I found that and saw that Meador actually named the people he said he saw, I figured they had to have been at least looked at and were probably ruled out. I've always thought it was weird how law enforcement never really took Meador's account seriously.

I haven’t yet asked anything on John Kalous or Tena Moe, I am working my way toward that. I was able to locate John Kalous on facebook and also found some inmate pages for each of them, it looks like they were both in trouble with the law as recently as 2006:

https://www.rapsheets.org/arizona/doc-prisoner/JOHN_KALOUS/038847

https://arrestfacts.com/Tena-Moe-3F2P32

Getting a chance to hear what they say now after all these years would be pretty interesting to say the least.

Wow, Kalous in particular has quite a lengthy record and I see that he got a four-sentence for aggravated assault only a few months after the UM segment. So, yes, I can see some credibility issues here.

To be fair to UM, this wasn't a case where the victim's family approached the show because they felt investigators were ignoring them. The case was officially reopened as a murder investigation by the new Chief of Detectives in 1989, so I wonder what compelled him to do so when there seemed to be enough compelling evidence to suggest it was nothing more than an accident.

Well, Meador’s credibility is severely hamstrung by the fact that he’s currently serving life without the possibility of parole for murder. The UM segment didn’t indicate if those charges were what he was incarcerated in New Mexico for when he talked to Detective Melton about the Johnson/Hill deaths.

That being said, It is difficult to give traction to anything he said to police regarding the case. Was there “knowledge there” as Detective Melton said there was? There very well could have been. However, this admission came four years after the deaths and in a small town like Bullhead City, you know everyone and their mother knew many details of the case and had an opinion. A quick google search of Meador reveals numerous lawsuits/complaints he has filed from prison, most of which sound extremely frivolous to me. He is a convicted murderer and in my opinion, quite possibly could have made up the entire story about what he allegedly saw that day.

What I really want to know is this - How soon after the fire did John Kalous and Tena Moe report what they saw to authorities? And did investigators look into any possible link between Meador, Kalous and Moe? Here is what Kalous said in the segment:

“That’s when I said, ‘You know, Tena, I think we should go call the fire department on this, because I think them guys set this place on fire.’ And that’s when we left.”

“It didn’t seem like they took it seriously at all. It seemed like they didn’t believe my story and, from my past reputation, they seemed like they just disregarded it. And I never heard anything more about it.”

It is unfortunate that UM didn’t mention the following details:

1. When exactly did Kalous and Moe contact the police to report what they said they saw? Did they call the police when the shed was on fire? Were they on the scene when fire and police arrived? Were they acknowledged as the person/persons who reported the fire in the first place?

2. When their statement to the police was recorded, if it ever was recorded. Was it that day? That month? That year? Meador’s story about what he saw came four years after the fact - if Kalous and Moe made any statement at all, it should have been recorded and noted in the police report, especially if it was in close proximity to the actual incident.

3. Did Kalous and Moe know Gordon Dale Meador? Did they know Marc Stubblefield or Mark Waldy (who Meador told police were the two men he saw at the scene)? Bullhead City was not a very big place then (or now) so one has to wonder if their paths had ever crossed or if they had mutual acquaintances.

Also, some additional info from that Justia link that RobinW posted which I found interesting - it reveals that Meador is himself a suspect in the death of the boys, which was never mentioned in the UM segment. It also mentions that Meador evidently passed a polygraph test on the day he was interviewed by police:

“Meador asserts that the article says that he killed the boys. Contrary to this assertion, however, the article states only that Meador is a chief suspect in the homicide investigation and that he denies that he had any part in the killing. The article quotes from a police report regarding the police officers' interview with Meador, in which Meador asserts that his friend Stubblefield was responsible for killing the two boys. The article also notes that on the day of the interview, Meador passed a lie detector test and that his statement " 'had been fairly well confirmed.' "

Also mentioned in that link is a quote from Meador, where he mentions possible political ties to the death of the two children:

"’My God. I was a kid back then. Just barely 17, and as I recall it, a local politician's son was involved and I was told to keep my mouth shut and pending criminal charges would be dismissed. I did, and they were. End of story." It continues, "Both kids were locked inside and caught on fire, but both were unconscious prior to.’"

He kept his mouth shut? Was that before or after he tried to implicate Stubblefield and Waldy? His statements don’t add up and to me they reek of inconsistencies and falsehoods.

I really, REALLY want to read that entire article but am still waiting for a response from the author (Terry Greene). It’s sad to think that the only thing that could be separating Sue Johnson from the truth of what really happened to her son and his friend is the word of three less than credible individuals.

Just wanted to provide a quick little update to this case.

I was able to locate Larry Adams (the Fire Chief who was was first on the scene and discovered the bodies of Scott Johnson and Peter Hill). He was featured in the segment and was fairly old back in 1993 when it aired. I am happy to report that he's alive and well and owns a construction business.

Anyway, I sent him an email:

Hi Larry. My name is Brian __________. I am not a law enforcement official by any stretch, though my Father is a retired Lieutenant and my brother is currently a homicide detective with a local department. The reason I am writing you is because as a teenager, I was a huge fan of “Unsolved Mysteries” on NBC. I happened to see the segment which you were featured in, the unexplained death/murders of Scott Johnson and Peter Hill. I have always been hoping that this case could be solved once and for all in order to give Sue Johnson and her family some peace - my heart breaks for her every time I re-watch the segment and I think about the case all the time even to this day.

As you likely are aware, details on the case in general are extremely scarce when it comes to public accessibility. The segment on Unsolved Mysteries is really the only thing someone like me has to go on, in addition to trying to locate anyone who lived in Bullhead City in 1974 and is familiar with the case. I would like to help to try to piece things together as best as I could and part of that would involve asking some questions to good people like yourself who may still recall some of the details and are willing to discuss it. I understand the gravity of the situation and completely understand if you would prefer not to talk about it but I wanted to reach out and ask just in case you are ok with talking to me about it.

I hope you have a great rest of your day and I look forward to hearing from you.

A week went by and I didn't hear back. Then another week passed and I figured I wouldn't hear back and that was ok with me... I wasn't going to email again and bother him. Finally, the next week I had a missed call from his construction company and there was a voicemail. Here is the transcribed voicemail from him:

"Yeah hi, this is Larry Adams from Bullhead City, calling for Brian ________. Brian, I got your email earlier in the week and I appreciate your interest in that powder house case, but I gotta tell you in all honesty, that case is 44 years old, the vast majority of the people who had anything to do with it are dead and buried - very few of us left, memories fade over the years. On three different occasions, Mojave County Sheriff's Office and the latest, Bullhead City PD have tried to work that cold case but nobody's ever had any success with it. I appreciate your interest, we all have interest in it but your efforts are going to lead to nowhere. I assure you that I and everybody else have beat that horse for the last 30 years actively and couldn't get it done - it's just too much time passed... I don't think you're gonna be able to do anything with it. Nobody left to talk to, for the most part. But anyhow, I appreciate your interest. Thank you."

I sent the VM to my Dad so he could listen to it because he knew that I had emailed Larry in the first place. My Dad sent me a simple, somber response that is sadly accurate.

He said "It's no longer a cold case when everyone involved is dead - It's history."

I know not everyone involved with this case is dead (Gordon Dale Meador, John Kalous, Teena Moe) but with each passing day, the chance of this case being solved once and for all becomes less and less likely. After researching this case as much as humanly possible without talking to the aforementioned three individuals, I truly feel that the boys may have very well died accidentally. I feel that way based on what I discussed with people whose parents were on the coroner's jury and the fact that both boys were reportedly known to play with matches/gasoline. Not one of those jury members suspected homicide and for all of them to unanimously agree on that (to me) says something. Hopefully one day we will find out exactly what happened.

Thanks for the updates, Fletch! This is great stuff.

My thoughts have really changed on this case. I used to heavily believe this was murder, but now I think it may have been an accident. If the kids used gasoline, the fumes could easily build up to dangerous levels in a small space like that. If one of the kids struck a match, they could be rendered incapactitated in seconds, and dead soon after.

I was always bothered by the burnt board, but it could have been the kids themselves that did it.

In any case, it would have been a horrible way to die. I feel bad for the parents and investigators. Not easy to lose a child, and not easy to have to investigate it either.

what happened to Sue Johnson?

interesting to be street viewing the house there in the desert. as someone from Europe I find it incredible how the American poor live in such mediocre places, unchanged after 40 years.

as someone from Europe I find it incredible how the American poor live in such mediocre places, unchanged after 40 years.

Usually poor people have no choice but to live in "mediocre places". And there was no evidence to suggest that the Johnson's were poor.

Well all you have to do is look at their house on streetview. These look like hastily built shacks in the desert.

As someone who lived in England for two years, I always found it depressing how so much of the country lived. Row after row of indistinguishable, interconnected buildings, cramped together on narrow streets. No yards. No privacy. Barely room to park your vehicle. It felt like a prison. I was so glad to return to the U.S., with its wide-open spaces and sense of freedom.

I digress.

As for the Scott Johnson case: has it ever been stated where in the shed the fire's point of origin was?

All of the talk about the two boys being able to leave the shed assume an unobstructed exit. What if the exit was blocked?

Are a couple of nine years olds going to realize the seriousness of the situation and run through fire to escape, or are they going to try to run for safety to the back of the shed, away from the fire?

Shacks in the desert is not a sense of freedom I would want, regardless of how much privacy you have or how big your drive is. I do agree, a lot of England is mediocre, but England is not the world's richest and most powerful country. One of the reasons I love UM is that by highlighting small communities of shacks in the Arizona desert, it shows you a side of America which is not projected outwards to the world. The nearest we see to Arizona is Las Vegas. So much of the USA is vast expanses of mediocrity and that's not something you know about in Europe unless you have either been to places like Arkansas as I have, or watched stuff like UM

I'm sure you'll be a welcome addition to this site Lit Up. Is there a link to the case?

Thanks

http://unsolvedmysteries.wikia.com/wiki/Scott_Johnson
https://unsolved.com/gallery/scott-johnson/

A particularly brutal and cold blooded crime. I hate how nobody has ever been brought to justice over this.

A particularly brutal and cold blooded crime. I hate how nobody has ever been brought to justice over this.

It was probably an accident. No one could be brought to justice.

has it ever been stated where in the shed the fire's point of origin was?

All of the talk about the two boys being able to leave the shed assume an unobstructed exit. What if the exit was blocked?

Are a couple of nine years olds going to realize the seriousness of the situation and run through fire to escape, or are they going to try to run for safety to the back of the shed, away from the fire?

There was never anything in the segment about where in the shed the fire originated, but from what I gathered in my correspondence with the Daughter of one of the Nurses who assisted in the autopsies of Scott and Peter, I came to believe the fire was basically in the middle of the shed, on the ground/dirt. She mentioned how quick a fire could have started in such a small place with trapped vapors, of course and how two small children could easily become overcome by the chaos of it all. I have two small children myself and I can 100% see how that could happen, and my kids are older than Scott and Peter were at the time. Also, the mattress could have obstructed the door and if visibility was instantly poor and due to the sudden amount of smoke, they likely didn't know which way was out.

After researching as much as I could on this case and talking with the people I did, I truly believe those boys died on their own and it had nothing to do with anyone else.

On a side note, Tena Moe passed away in 2013:

http://www.tributes.com/obituary/show/Tena-R.-Moe-96623177

If it was an accident, what then do we make of the 2x12 with the burn mark that the former Fire Chief found at the scene?? A coincidental find, unrelated to the fire perhaps?

If it was an accident, what then do we make of the 2x12 with the burn mark that the former Fire Chief found at the scene?? A coincidental find, unrelated to the fire perhaps?

Probably. It's likely the kids had played with fire before. It wasn't proven that the board had been used to hold the door shut -- that was just his theory. I think the kids just used it to burn stuff on.

Probably. It's likely the kids had played with fire before. It wasn't proven that the board had been used to hold the door shut -- that was just his theory. I think the kids just used it to burn stuff on.

The burn mark on the 2x12 was a perfect half circle off to the side that just so happened to match the circle opening on the medal door to the shack...

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/unsolvedmysteries/images/8/88/Scott_Johnson_shack1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170714195600

If the mark on the 2x12 was the result of a previous attempt by the boys to burn things on, wouldn't there be other uneven marks as opposed to just one circle in a restricted area?

Also, what do you make of Tena Rhee Moe and John Kalous's account of seeing one man standing in front of the shack while it was burning and another man running away once he saw they were there? Do you think they were lying? I know that as teenagers, they had previous scrapes with the law but what would be the point of reporting the fire like they did but lying about seeing two men outside the shack? If they had something scandalous to hide, I would think they wouldn't even bother reporting the fire.

The burn mark on the 2x12 was a perfect half circle off to the side that just so happened to match the circle opening on the medal door to the shack...

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/unsolvedmysteries/images/8/88/Scott_Johnson_shack1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170714195600

If the mark on the 2x12 was the result of a previous attempt by the boys to burn things on, wouldn't there be other uneven marks as opposed to just one circle in a restricted area?

Also, what do you make of Tena Rhee Moe and John Kalous's account of seeing one man standing in front of the shack while it was burning and another man running away once he saw they were there? Do you think they were lying? I know that as teenagers, they had previous scrapes with the law but what would be the point of reporting the fire like they did but lying about seeing two men outside the shack? If they had something scandalous to hide, I would think they wouldn't even bother reporting the fire.

I think this is a side effect of the broad shift towards seeking out "Occam's Razor" in a lot of these cases. Yeah, in good number of them, the simplest explanation does make sense and does fit.

By the same token though, that causes people to turn and look the other way when, in other cases, the explanation is more complicated.

If the boys were indeed murdered, my guess would be the perps were small-time dealers/players who themselves have expired by now

The burn mark on the 2x12 was a perfect half circle off to the side that just so happened to match the circle opening on the medal door to the shack...

If the mark on the 2x12 was the result of a previous attempt by the boys to burn things on, wouldn't there be other uneven marks as opposed to just one circle in a restricted area?

Also, what do you make of Tena Rhee Moe and John Kalous's account of seeing one man standing in front of the shack while it was burning and another man running away once he saw they were there? Do you think they were lying? I know that as teenagers, they had previous scrapes with the law but what would be the point of reporting the fire like they did but lying about seeing two men outside the shack? If they had something scandalous to hide, I would think they wouldn't even bother reporting the fire.

I used to be all in on this being murder. The more I looked at it and the more I learned about kids, fire, and gasoline, the more I think it was just an accident.

Boys of that age and of that time were known to play with fire. I remember doing that with my friends as kids -- nothing arson related but just burning small things because we thought fire was cool. Obviously the kids played in that shack. Most kids (and many adults) have no idea how dangerous gasoline fumes are. I think the kids were messing around burning stuff and at one point, poured gasoline out to burn. In a small area like that, the fumes would build up very quickly and if they lit a match, that could cause a flash fire that probably knocked them out and started the inside on fire. (There are lots of good examples of this on YouTube, many of them even in well-ventilated areas.)

I think the kids might have lit something on fire on the 2x12 earlier so it just burned a little circle as the item burned. Think of burning a small object on a sidewalk. They put a little wood/paper/plastic item on it, light it on fire, and watch it burn. They could have been using a magnifying glass to light stuff on fire. I remember doing that as a kid with my friends, too.

I doubt necessarily discount the eyewitness accounts, but like so many others, I'm not convinced of the time lining up and/or correctly interpreting what they saw. They may have seen the men on a different day or thought they saw them burning the shack. They may be accurate, though.

The other big reasons I got away from murder was motive and method. What would a couple of young kids have seen that would really warrant murdering them? Even if they saw something, they would probably have to know the identity of the criminals to effectively pass that on to the police. I just don't see a couple of thugs burning kids alive. That would be a horrible thing to do to children (yes, I know it happens but it's still rare and messed up). It also would be highly likely to be noticed because of the smoke and if the kids were yelling for help (if we assume they were alert at that point because the 2x12 was holding the door shut).

I don't doubt the investigators were sincere and I feel horrible for the mom, but I personally don't see a strong motive for murder, while I do see the high potential for young boys to have been hurt playing with gasoline and fire.

This is one of those cases, though, that wouldn't shock me if it was accident or murder. But if I had to pick one, at this point, I'd definitely say accident.

I doubt necessarily discount the eyewitness accounts, but like so many others, I'm not convinced of the time lining up and/or correctly interpreting what they saw. They may have seen the men on a different day or thought they saw them burning the shack. They may be accurate, though.

They couldn't have messed up the days in this instance, though. Tena and John were the ones who reported the fire and gave statements to investigators on that day. From where they were standing, they could see the shack on fire and according to them, two men standing beside it.

If that's true, I have to remain leaning towards murder unless someone can think of another reason why two adult men would be standing outside a shack where two young boys were being burnt and not doing anything to help them.

I've learned from watching many UM cases growing up that many brutal crimes don't always have to have a motive. Why did the Connecticut man driving the black pickup shoot "Carol" in the face? Why did the trucker try to ram Jay Durham in to the back of another trucker? There was absolutely no reason for them to do either crime but they tried to brutally kill another human being anyway. It's a depressing issue to come to terms with but there are evil people in this world and they don't always need a logical reason to kill.

If that's true, I have to remain leaning towards murder unless someone can think of another reason why two adult men would be standing outside a shack where two young boys were being burnt and not doing anything to help them.

The boys were probably already unconscious from the smoke inhalation, so they didn't hear screams. As to the 2 men outside of the shack, they could have been just like Tina and John...2 random witnesses who saw the burning shack and out of curiosity walked up to it.

They couldn't have messed up the days in this instance, though. Tena and John were the ones who reported the fire and gave statements to investigators on that day. From where they were standing, they could see the shack on fire and according to them, two men standing beside it.

DOH! You are 100% correct. Sorry -- I was actually confusing my cases. :crazy:

I forgot they called it in. I'm still not convinced that means what they saw was nefarious. There was that other guy who claimed to have seen this go down but I'm pretty sure he was completely discredited.

I don't think anyone did anything because they didn't know the boys were in there. I suspect they were knocked out by the flash of the gasoline vapors going up and that's why they didn't crawl to the door. They were quickly overcome by smoke and fumes. People coming by might have seen smoke but no one would have realized kids were inside the shack.

I've learned from watching many UM cases growing up that many brutal crimes don't always have to have a motive. Why did the Connecticut man driving the black pickup shoot "Carol" in the face? Why did the trucker try to ram Jay Durham in to the back of another trucker? There was absolutely no reason for them to do either crime but they tried to brutally kill another human being anyway. It's a depressing issue to come to terms with but there are evil people in this world and they don't always need a logical reason to kill.

I hear you on this and I'm not saying it's impossible. But again, it not just killing the kids but doing it in such a heinous, and noticeable, way that makes me wonder. They were so young and I can't imagine they were much of a threat to anyone. So not unprecedented but I still just don't see that as likely.

So I wouldn't be shocked if there was foul play involved but I really think the most likely cause was just two kids playing with fire and gasoline and this was the tragic result. I read somewhere else that the kids had been known to do this.

Question for anyone who might know: Why was there never any real mention of Scott's dad? Also, why was the other little boy, Peter Hill, never named (until much later)?

The reason I ask is because it seems like Scott's mom was on a quest with this but none of the other players really wanted a part of it. Is that because they didn't believe it or something else?

My heart aches for Scott's mom and the other family. It must be horrible to lose a child, but even worse in such a horrific manner of death and then to have the uncertainty of what happened on top of it... Oof.

Question for anyone who might know: Why was there never any real mention of Scott's dad? Also, why was the other little boy, Peter Hill, never named (until much later)?

A poster in another thread said that the Hill family accepted the accidental death, which is why they had nothing to do with the segment.

A poster in another thread said that the Hill family accepted the accidental death, which is why they had nothing to do with the segment.

Ahh... thank you!

The Scott Johnson/P. Hill segment (though Hill is never mentioned in the segment) is especially horrific. Two little kids who play near an abandoned shack on a regular basis, end up somehow being trapped in there & die when the shack is set on fire.

I agree with many on the segment that believe this was murder, not an accident. I do believe the two teens (later interviewed as adults on the segment) were credible when they reported seeing two men standing in front of the shack as it burned - one of whom fled when he noticed the two watching the burning shack.

The case is especially horrible due to the young age of the kids. I do think they probably stumbled upon some adults committing some illegal activities and/or found something incriminating in the area, and were killed as a result.

I think this is a side effect of the broad shift towards seeking out "Occam's Razor" in a lot of these cases. Yeah, in good number of them, the simplest explanation does make sense and does fit.

By the same token though, that causes people to turn and look the other way when, in other cases, the explanation is more complicated.

Not sure this is the case where I would apply this observation, but the observation itself is astute and a good one.

I tend to think the witness, Dale Meador, was telling the truth when he says he encountered the two men pushing the boys into the shack. He even had 2 independent witnesses corroborate his story. I also think it's fairly likely that the man who Meador id'ed as the killer is more than likely one of the guy's who's repsonsible. I think it's one of those cases where the police are fairly certain of who did it but can't make a case against them.

I was quite naive 6 years ago. I just watched this segment yesterday and noticed that when Meador is retelling his story to the cops, he says that the two guys were pushing two kids (one drugged, one fighting) into the shack before one of them grabbed a gas can. If these kids were killed because they witnessed two guys smoking pot, why would these pot heads just so happen to have a gas can with them ready to use if needed? It's nonsensical.

Meador is still serving his life sentence in a California prison.

I've always believed this was most likely an accident. Maybe they were pretending to be soldiers at a military camp, the fire got way out of hand because of the gasoline, after which they couldn't get to the door and then (hopefully) they passed out due to the toxic fumes.

I wonder if Scott's mother is still living

I wonder if Scott's mother is still living

That would be a difficult task to find out. Sue Johnson is a very common name and you're going to come up with endless matches just from google alone.

If there were drugs involved somehow I wonder if the kids were actually involved somehow. Low level selling/dealing and maybe they were (or felt like the kids were) keeping money from them? People who have their brains fried (I am referring to perhaps the men were using other drugs, harder drugs) can get mean, paranoid, angry, and maybe this is what happened. They perceived something and their whacked out brain circuits shorted and they lost what little was left of their reasoning. It's just a thought. Matt C's most recent post seems to be possibly a good account of what happened...just not why.

Scott and Peter were dealing? Ages 8 and 6. Umm...just....no

Wouldnt be surprising these days :(

That would be a difficult task to find out. Sue Johnson is a very common name and you're going to come up with endless matches just from google alone.

The site unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com does a good job of keeping up to date as for who (from the various cases) has passed away. That's is how I found out that Steve Brown and Captain Chuck Scherer from the Judith Hyams case have since passed away. As well as others from other cases. However, no real updates have been made to the Scott Johnson case. In fact, it even states that no further information could be gathered regarding whatever become of, or the current whereabouts of Scott's mother and sister. So, finding out will be a difficult task at best

I have been fairly inactive on this forum for a few years, but the case of the Scott Johnson and Peter Hill has always stuck with me. I did some digging around and found some info that may have been unknown to others here. I have also reached out to some people who had known the Johnson and Hill families, and/or had been involved with the investigation of the events that day.

Here is some info that is confirmed:

1. The shed, as well as another building that was close to the shed were torn down a few years after the deaths of Scott and Peter. The shed used in the UM segment was built by Cosgrove/Meurer for the filming of the segment.

2. The shed was not a "powder magazine" used by copper miners as UM said it was - it was actually built on the site of/for an old shooting range in the 50's and was used as a camp for Army war games in the 60's.

3. A local Judge (Harold Pershall) ordered a Coroner's inquest into the deaths. The inquest/jury consisted of people who lived in the city, like any jury pool. They poured over police reports (one person described it as "mounds and mounds" of reports), viewed the bodies of the two boys at the funeral home as well as the shed itself.

4. The inquest/jury concluded without a doubt that the boys died as a result of playing with matches and gasoline in the shed. There was a mattress in the shed that they may have tried to hide behind once the fire started, as the whole inside went up fast due to the fumes, sucking the oxygen out quickly.

5. The 2x12 piece of wood that Larry Adams described in the UM segment was indeed investigated but was determined by the inquest/jury to not have been involved in the case, it was possibly something the boys had played with at a time before the fire.

6. There were upwards of 20 officers dispatched to the scene to scour for clues and evidence. That being said, it was still determined that the boys died accidentally.

7. Peter Hill's Mother accepted the conclusion of the inquest/jury that the boys had been playing with matches and died accidentally. She wanted nothing to do with the UM segment and did not want to talk about what happened.

8. The boys were both known to play with matches and fire. Allegedly, Peter Hill had caused a fire at his home not too long before his death.

I am hoping to hear back from the other people soon and will update this thread with more info, if I get any. Such a sad situation all the way around... my heart breaks for those two families.

Holy crap!

After all these years of thinking these two boys were murdered, it turns out that they likely did die accidentally. Of course UM conveniently left out points 7 and 8 in their broadcast.

I'm still leaning towards murder. Specific things still nag at me.

Say what you want about Dale Meador. If you want to throw out his sighting because he's unreliable, OK. But Tena Moe and John Kalous' sighting seems to back up his statement. They claim two men were at the shack when it was on fire. One of them ran away when they were sighted and the other just stared at them not seeming to care.

Their story didn't change from being teenagers to present day adults. What would be the end game in lying about the two men? They were the ones responsible for reporting the fire. If they wanted to be troublemakers and lie to the police at the time, then why bother reporting the fire at all? And why keep up the lie nearly two decades later as adults in their 40's with the investigation being renewed?

The Peter Hill part of the story was never groundbreaking to me other than learning what his name was. Even as a kid when I watched this segment, it seemed obvious that because UM never mentioned his name, then it must be because the family didn't want anything to do with the segment. That's fine and that's their right. But just because they believe the boys burned themselves to death doesn't lean more credence to a tragic accident over murder.

The 2x12 piece of wood that Larry Adams described in the UM segment was indeed investigated but was determined by the inquest/jury to not have been involved in the case, it was possibly something the boys had played with at a time before the fire.

Scott and Peter died in 1974. So I'm assuming the inquest was probably a year later or around 1976. The jury at the inquest allegedly came up with that decision in the 70's but the actual chief fire investigator who inspected the shack and crime scene was still going on record two decades later that he believed the boys had met with foul play and the 2x12 was most likely used to hold the door shut because the shack had no lock. So the inquest's final say doesn't hold enough water in my book. It's nothing more than a guess that the 2x12 was something the boys used to play with. Not actual evidence. But it would still be interesting to read the inquest's rulings in full.

An accidental death OR murder, shouldn't there have been a gas can at the scene since that's what so many people think spread the fire? To my knowledge, one was never found.

I'm not saying an accidental death is impossible here but there's not enough evidence for a full on slam dunk ruling.

Say what you want about Dale Meador. If you want to throw out his sighting because he's unreliable, OK. But Tena Moe and John Kalous' sighting seems to back up his statement. They claim two men were at the shack when it was on fire. One of them ran away when they were sighted and the other just stared at them not seeming to care.

I think they did see the two men. These men were merely witnesses and the one running away could have been going to get help. No one besides Meador claims to have seen these men with the two boys. Tena and John saw them there after the shack was already on fire. We don't know how long after the fire started to when these men arrived to be seen by Tena and John.

The presence of the 2X12 was suggested to have been used by the killers to trap the boys inside yet none of the witnesses who claim to have seen two men outside the shed while it was on fire, ever said that they were holding a 2X12. It seems odd to me that not a single person ever saw them holding the 2X12.

In case anyone is interested, here is a recent article (May 2022) about Larry Adams, the Firefighter who opened the shed door and found Scott Johnson’s and Peter Hill’s bodies:

https://mohavedailynews.com/news/139943/adams-recalls-early-days-of-fire-districts-growth/

I'm still leaning towards murder. Specific things still nag at me.

Say what you want about Dale Meador. If you want to throw out his sighting because he's unreliable, OK. But Tena Moe and John Kalous' sighting seems to back up his statement. They claim two men were at the shack when it was on fire. One of them ran away when they were sighted and the other just stared at them not seeming to care.

Their story didn't change from being teenagers to present day adults. What would be the end game in lying about the two men? They were the ones responsible for reporting the fire. If they wanted to be troublemakers and lie to the police at the time, then why bother reporting the fire at all? And why keep up the lie nearly two decades later as adults in their 40's with the investigation being renewed?
I've never been able to wrap my head around why they would burn children for fear of being caught smoking pot but be perfectly cool with so many witnesses to the murder though. Either the 2 men weren't connected with the fire or the motive would have to be something very different.

I'm thinking the most obvious answer to the case is the correct one, the boys died in an accident. I was a boy, I liked playing with fire when I was that age, I can relate. I'm also thinking this is another example of UM making a dramatized recreation of events for the viewer's pleasure as its a eerie case, you know just how everyone likes.

Having said that, I'd like to know the Autopsy report, see exactly how the boys died and if there were any signs of foul play, were they sedated? And I'm wondering why it took the prison inmate 4 years to open his mouth?