This case should've been solved - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

UMfan77 · 10-06-2007, 11:15 AM

I think everyone here is familiar with the case of the 2 boys that were found dead in a burned shack back in 1974. (this case is on volume #5).

After viewing this segment for the first time, I am appalled that this hasn't been solved!! There are three people that actually witnessed the crime being committed! One of the witnesses told the police that he saw two men grabbing Scott Johnson & his friend, and forcing them into the shack. He also approached the man that was standing in front of the burning shack, and asked him what he was doing. The eyewitness gave the name of this man to the police, the police interviewed the man, but he was never questioned further. What?? The other two eyewitnesses (a man & a woman) were not believed by the police because of their previous run-inns with the law. They saw the shack burning & called the fire dept. They also saw the two men by the shack!!

I know that this case was re-opened in 1989 as a murder case, but I think this could have been solved years before. Didn't the Bullhead City Police Department want justice for these two innocent boys?? They should have aggressively investigated this case back in 1974.

justins5256 · 10-06-2007, 11:24 AM

I always thought it was odd that they didn't show a picture of the other boy or interview his parents. I often wondered if his parents were satisfied with the official ruling and didn't wish to pursue it any further. Just a thought. I have not seen this one in quite some time.

SitcomsAreTheWay · 10-06-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UMfan77

I think everyone here is familiar with the case of the 2 boys that were found dead in a burned shack back in 1974. (this case is on volume #5).

After viewing this segment for the first time, I am appalled that this hasn't been solved!! There are three people that actually witnessed the crime being committed! One of the witnesses told the police that he saw two men grabbing Scott Johnson & his friend, and forcing them into the shack. He also approached the man that was standing in front of the burning shack, and asked him what he was doing. The eyewitness gave the name of this man to the police, the police interviewed the man, but he was never questioned further. What?? The other two eyewitnesses (a man & a woman) were not believed by the police because of their previous run-inns with the law. They saw the shack burning & called the fire dept. They also saw the two men by the shack!!

I know that this case was re-opened in 1989 as a murder case, but I think this could have been solved years before. Didn't the Bullhead City Police Department want justice for these two innocent boys?? They should have aggressively investigated this case back in 1974.

This makes me all the more suspicious regarding the police involved in the investigation. If it's actually considered an investigation considering what little they did.

wiseguy182 · 10-06-2007, 01:33 PM

yeah, it's seems pretty open and shut that the two guys did it, with 3 witnesses and all. One of the authorities on the segment tried to rationalize his not paying attention to the eyewitness accounts because the witnesses themselves had run-ins with the law, so she said that anyone doing that in their situation has an ulterior motive. But the board with the burn hole in it points to murder, plus it was learned they could have easily escaped. Plus, the $100 bill found on the ground a few weeks earlier leads me to believe there were drug transactions going on in the area at the time. The two persons named as suspects didn't appear to be pillars of society, although nothing is ever learned of them, they're just referred to as two guys.

Not sure why the other boy wasn't mentioned, although UM profiled the case a full 18+ years since it happened, so it's possible they moved and couldn't be contacted.

Todd Mueller · 10-06-2007, 10:19 PM

Sounds like drug trafficking was involved. With all of the witnesses and evidence and no arrests made, it makes you wonder if this wasn't another example of "selective policing."

It is so obvious these kids were murdered and people saw it happened, yet the police acted like it could have been anything. WTF?

I hate to say "small town police coverup" yet that's almost what it feels like. (Awaiting a comment about "small town justice" from LooksLikeCRicci!

)

Jbilly85 · 11-18-2010, 05:11 PM

This case would be solved in about 4 months time nowadays. They'd take fingerprints from the board and find out whose they were.

Back in ,74 those types of technologies weren't avaliable and...well...I don't think they'd have kept that board.

Guardian · 11-18-2010, 06:43 PM

Anyone have a link to this? I havent seen this case in years. I remember thinking it was quite stupid that it hadn't been solved at the time, but I don't remember a lot of specifics.

Guardian · 11-18-2010, 06:52 PM

nevermind. i found it.

cocytus · 11-19-2010, 12:04 AM

This case is clearly why even small town departments need professionally trained police officers, regardless of the costs involved with doing that.

1) They seem to have barely questioned witnesses.
2) Even if they couldn't evidence at that time, they could have sent it to the FBI or held it until the technology came into being.
3) It's doubtful that either suspect asked for a lawyer, so a lengthy questioning wouldn't have been out of order.
4) It's almost certain that one or both of the suspects had warrants and/or felony records. Why not hold them on the warrant(s) or detain them as long as legally possible?
5) Where were the clothes that they wore that day? Wouldn't they have smelled of smoke and the accelerant used?

Those are just five items that a competently trained officer would have looked for or done in this type of case. At this point, unless they confess to the crime, the killers got away w/ murder.

10-06-2007, 11:15 AM	#1
UMfan77 Member Senior Member Join Date: Nov 28, 2003 Posts: 1,064	This case should've been solved I think everyone here is familiar with the case of the 2 boys that were found dead in a burned shack back in 1974. (this case is on volume #5). After viewing this segment for the first time, I am appalled that this hasn't been solved!! There are three people that actually witnessed the crime being committed! One of the witnesses told the police that he saw two men grabbing Scott Johnson & his friend, and forcing them into the shack. He also approached the man that was standing in front of the burning shack, and asked him what he was doing. The eyewitness gave the name of this man to the police, the police interviewed the man, but he was never questioned further. What?? The other two eyewitnesses (a man & a woman) were not believed by the police because of their previous run-inns with the law. They saw the shack burning & called the fire dept. They also saw the two men by the shack!! I know that this case was re-opened in 1989 as a murder case, but I think this could have been solved years before. Didn't the Bullhead City Police Department want justice for these two innocent boys?? They should have aggressively investigated this case back in 1974.

10-06-2007, 01:33 PM	#4
wiseguy182 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 11, 2006 Location: Wendy's salad bar Posts: 7,030	yeah, it's seems pretty open and shut that the two guys did it, with 3 witnesses and all. One of the authorities on the segment tried to rationalize his not paying attention to the eyewitness accounts because the witnesses themselves had run-ins with the law, so she said that anyone doing that in their situation has an ulterior motive. But the board with the burn hole in it points to murder, plus it was learned they could have easily escaped. Plus, the $100 bill found on the ground a few weeks earlier leads me to believe there were drug transactions going on in the area at the time. The two persons named as suspects didn't appear to be pillars of society, although nothing is ever learned of them, they're just referred to as two guys. Not sure why the other boy wasn't mentioned, although UM profiled the case a full 18+ years since it happened, so it's possible they moved and couldn't be contacted.
	__________________ "Dottie had said, in the event I got transferred that she was not interested in going with me. I wasn't expecting her to go with me. And wouldn't have even wanted her to I guess."

11-18-2010, 05:11 PM	#6
Jbilly85 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Nov 16, 2010 Posts: 7	... This case would be solved in about 4 months time nowadays. They'd take fingerprints from the board and find out whose they were. Back in ,74 those types of technologies weren't avaliable and...well...I don't think they'd have kept that board.

11-18-2010, 06:43 PM	#7
Guardian Member Forum Regular Join Date: May 19, 2010 Location: WA Posts: 522	Anyone have a link to this? I havent seen this case in years. I remember thinking it was quite stupid that it hadn't been solved at the time, but I don't remember a lot of specifics.
	__________________ For every mystery there is someone, somewhere, who knows what happened. Perhaps... it's you...

10-06-2007, 11:24 AM	#2
justins5256 Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Aug 08, 2002 Posts: 3,866	I always thought it was odd that they didn't show a picture of the other boy or interview his parents. I often wondered if his parents were satisfied with the official ruling and didn't wish to pursue it any further. Just a thought. I have not seen this one in quite some time.

10-06-2007, 10:19 PM	#5
Todd Mueller Member Senior Member Join Date: Feb 11, 2005 Posts: 1,626	Sounds like drug trafficking was involved. With all of the witnesses and evidence and no arrests made, it makes you wonder if this wasn't another example of "selective policing." It is so obvious these kids were murdered and people saw it happened, yet the police acted like it could have been anything. WTF? I hate to say "small town police coverup" yet that's almost what it feels like. (Awaiting a comment about "small town justice" from LooksLikeCRicci! )

11-18-2010, 06:52 PM	#8
Guardian Member Forum Regular Join Date: May 19, 2010 Location: WA Posts: 522	nevermind. i found it.

11-19-2010, 12:04 AM	#9
cocytus Member Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 15, 2010 Location: NE Indiana Posts: 781	This case is clearly why even small town departments need professionally trained police officers, regardless of the costs involved with doing that. 1) They seem to have barely questioned witnesses. 2) Even if they couldn't evidence at that time, they could have sent it to the FBI or held it until the technology came into being. 3) It's doubtful that either suspect asked for a lawyer, so a lengthy questioning wouldn't have been out of order. 4) It's almost certain that one or both of the suspects had warrants and/or felony records. Why not hold them on the warrant(s) or detain them as long as legally possible? 5) Where were the clothes that they wore that day? Wouldn't they have smelled of smoke and the accelerant used? Those are just five items that a competently trained officer would have looked for or done in this type of case. At this point, unless they confess to the crime, the killers got away w/ murder.