The Case of the Drowning Men (25 page)

Noteworthy too, the CDC’s “Death and Dying” stats for the year 2010 indicate
d
the data
they
collected for this period was totally “stable” with findings from previous years dating all the way back to 1997 when the first questionable drowning of Patrick McNeill occurred. The only prominent statistical deviation being a
steady
decline in suicides.

Finally, it’s important to
note
at least a decade’s worth of CDC studies consistently show that nearly all accidental deaths in the 15 to 24 age bracket are caused by motor vehicle mishaps, not water. Recreational drowning deaths are included
under
this category, of course, because the
y
do
occur
once in awhile, but these fall very, very low on the list. And non-recreational drowning
s
,
as I’ve already
demonstrated
,
w
ere
completely off the CDC’s radar
.

B
ecause of
the those
gaps
in
the logic and science of
CHR’s “Drowning the Smiley Face Murder Theory” study
, there
is no
practical reason to
debate
each and every issue they’ve enumerated in it. Notwithstanding, and for those readers who may still be curious, the
objections
they made are listed verbatim next, stripped of the accompanying arguments
but
briefly
summarized
. The
twelve
-page
research document itself is copyrighted and therefore could not be reproduced in its entirety here, but a complete copy of CHR’s analysis of this case is available for free download via their official website, a link to which can be found in this publication’s resource index in the last section.

CENTER FOR HOMICIDE RESEARCH
(
SYNOPSIS
):
“DROWNING THE SMILEY FACE MURDER THEORY”

1.
      
“There is a problem of time order.”
[
the Center
is
i
mplying
there is no classic “cooling off period”
between killings
,
a required showing
per established serial murdering patterns,
and
that
sometimes
two or
more
“drownings”
are
occurring
on the same day
throughout the corridor
]

2.
      
“Graffiti is omnipresent.”
[
since its advent
in the 1960’s
,
smiley faces are found everywhere
in the world
, even online]

3.
      
“None of the smiley faces exactly match one another.”
[different
artisans
would suggest
an organized
group
of murderers
—
traditionally,
serial killers don’t work in teams]

4.
      
“The word ‘Sinsiniwa’ is a red herring.”
[this was found
at
one drowning site and seemed to reference the street name where another victim
was
later
discovered, but
this
graffiti
was not repeated
often enough to establish a perceivable  pattern
,
and the Native American word
meaning “
home of the
young eagle”
or “rattlesnake”
is geographically common
place
]

5.
      
“No criteria has been established specifying the necessary distance that a smiley face must occur in proximity to a deceased body in order to be counted.”

6.
      
“There is no evidence of victim trauma
…
in one death (Patrick McNeill) this was present, but he was deceased prior to entering the water and did not drown.”
[
Center asserts
murder must leave a mark
]

7.
      
“Homicidal drowning is extremely rare.”
[less than 1000 over
a
21 year
period
– the Center estimates the portion of that total which were
actually
college-age victims to be approximately 117]

8.
      
“The idea that water washes away evidence is a myth.”
[if a body is recovered
from water
quickly
enough
,
sometimes
evidence like
blood and
fibers
“when correctly processed” c
an be lifted
from it
]

9.
      
“The drownings don’t
fit a serial killer motif.”
[serial murders kill one at a time
; employ
torture,
sexual assault
and mutilat
ion;
select easy prey like women and children
;
rest between kills
]

10.
   
“
Confessions by correction inmates are unreliable.”
[purportedly a prisoner bragged
to a cellmate that
he
took part
in the
Jenkins
crime
;
this case has
since
been reclassified a homicide]

11.
   
“The general environment
[s]
of these disappearances are conducive to accidental drowning.”
[
nighttime in Great Lakes region,
as opposed to
a
well-lit desert
-
*also
see
#
18
]

12.
   
“The supposition that only males are drowning does not necessarily support a serial killer theory.”
[
s
erial
murderers don’t target
strong young
men
-
more males drown than females do
]

13.
   
“La Crosse Wisconsin foot patrols and police
[allege they]
have stopped over 50 intoxicated persons (fall 2006 through February 2010) from approaching the river late at night.”

14.
   
“The process by which intoxicated men accidentally fall into the river is already known and well-documented.”
[
the Center
“documented” some “footwear slipmarks
on the riverbank in Minneapolis”
]

15.
   
“Many of the drowning cases are likely to have involved aspects of auto-assassination.”
[
the Center is
implying that
the
victims
had a
risky lifestyle and didn’t
consciously
know they
really
wanted to
kill
themselves
at the time they
allegedly
drowned
]

16.
   
“Malicious drugging of victims is unsupportable by the evidence.”
[
a number of victims’ autopsy reports show
ed
elevated levels of GBH in their systems
;
GBH is a
n easily
manufactured
or obtained
date-rape drug
– the Center finds th
e
drugging contention “untested and untestable”
]

17.
   
Presence of GBH (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid) in the victims’ bodies does not indicate whether these victims were maliciously drugged or they knowingly administered the substance themselves.”
[
also, but
not noted
by the Center
: miniscule levels of GBH
are
produced through decomposition]

18.
   
“The drowning of college students is not limited by region, but by climate.”
[
in example,
the Center
says it
found n
o
such
drowning
s
in
arid
U.S.
states like
Arizona, Utah and Nevada
due to
“their absence of water” but
allegedly did
in
the UK and
Canada
]

The Center For Homicide Research concludes its harsh
,
twelve-page
rebuke of the Smiley Face Murder theory by expressing
extreme
frustration with the public’s
unwavering
belief in it. They credit
ed
this to the theory’s persuasive “central authority” veteran detective Kevin Gannon,
claiming
this
“highly decorated and well-seasoned
lead homicide
investigator from the largest city in the United States
”
has
blinded
followers with
his
impressive
credentials
.

What th
e Center
didn’t
explain
is whether
they found any evidence that would suggest Gannon ma
k
e
s
a habit of doing such things, and, frankly, I couldn’t find
any
proof that he does either.

As a matter of fact, this
appears to be the
only case the detective has ever
so
publicly
pursued
in this manner.
Th
e
Smiley Face
“conspiracy
theory
”
is the one
,
and only one
,
Kevin Gannon has ever promulgated.

The Center’s assertion
is odder still
because i
nvestigator
Gannon and
his
team of experts made it more than abundantly clear in their 2008 CNN live interview that
the
linkage in
these cross-country
case
s
did
not solely
depend on
smiley face
graffiti
;
that the cases themselves did not involve genuine drownings, and that there was plenty of other evidence that necessarily had to be kept close to the chest for fear of copycats marring
an ongoing
investigation.

As well, t
he
parents of the
victims
have
also
repeatedly stated
they do not believ
e their sons died
by drowning
in
lakes and rivers
.
Many
have routinely conveyed this belief to the authorities and in the media, saying over and over and over again that
the
ir sons
were
killed
in an unknown manner
elsewhere and
then
dumped in
to
the water
at a
much later
date,
their
carefully
deposited corpses
to be discovered
sometimes days, sometimes weeks, sometimes
months
, sometimes never
.

So, unless it’s an intentional mix
up, unless the
Homicide
Center really didn’t want to do its homework here, I cannot understand why it chose to
obsessively
devote all of its
time and
effor
t
s to debunking the least important features of the theory
,
leaving the
most
salient ones outstanding.