May 20, 1992 -- Boys killed in a fire

[Wiggycool]

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!

[Arnold_OldSchool]

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

[crystaldawn]

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

[DarkDante]

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.

[crystaldawn]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

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... 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.

[mikele]

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

[everprincess]

Originally Posted by mikele

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!

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by everprincess

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

[kane7474]

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.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by kane7474

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.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by kane7474

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.

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by justins5256

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.

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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??

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by kane7474

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.

[justins5256]

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.