Steven Hicks: PART 3 - The Confession Scandal That Corrupted Justice
How Jeffrey Dahmer's Impossible Timeline and Missing Evidence Expose the Truth About America's Most Accepted Serial Killer Case
The Final Piece of the Puzzle That Changes Everything
Welcome back to our groundbreaking bonus series, where we continue our deep dive into the mysterious and unsettling case of Steven Mark Hicks. In Part 1, we explored the Missing Person/Homicide Investigation of Steven Hicks, dissecting key elements such as:
A father’s missing person report that raised red flags
Conflicting physical descriptions provided by Steven’s own parents
The official investigative timeline of Steven Hicks’ final hours
The Bath Police Department’s investigation report
And the critical question: What does the evidence really suggest?
The contradictions and inconsistencies we uncovered in official documents were staggering, raising serious questions about the case.
In Part 2, we examined the infamous traffic stop story that never made sense, Jeff’s mother, Joyce Flint’s, sudden silence, and the mounting evidence of a cover-up rather than a serial killing.
Now in this final installment of our latest investigation, we will examine the most damning evidence yet: Jeffrey Dahmer’s own confession interviews, the pristine ‘‘murder weapons’’ that tell a different story, and the timeline impossibilities that expose the entire Steven Hicks narrative as potentially fabricated.
The Confession That Doesn't Confess
On July 26, 1991, Jeffrey Dahmer sat down with Bath Police detectives at the Milwaukee County Jail. What emerged from this interview wasn’t the detailed confession of a methodical killer—it was the uncertain testimony of a man struggling to maintain a story that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
The Most Telling Moments
When shown photographs of Steven Hicks, Dahmer’s identification was hesitant and uncertain. The Bath Police Department Homicide Investigation report notes his ‘‘tentative identification’’ and describes him as ‘‘appearing more certain’’ only after multiple attempts—hardly the confident recognition you’d expect from someone who allegedly spent hours with his victim, killing and dismembering him. Below are excerpts from the report that shed further light on this aspect.
Even more troubling, as previously highlighted, is the inconsistency in Dahmer’s accounts of the disposal process, which shifts between interviews. Additionally, he claims to have scattered bones ‘‘south and west of the house, approximately seventy-five feet away’’ by throwing them down a ‘‘rocky abutment to a cliff.’’
The property diagram he drew for the investigation (featured below) demonstrates these geographic features.
Jeffrey Dahmer Interview Regarding Steven Hicks (July 26, 1991)
This report details the aforementioned Bath Police Department Homicide Investigation interview conducted with Jeffrey Dahmer in Milwaukee regarding Steven Hicks. I’ve included some excerpts and observations below.
Interview Location and Attendees: The interview took place on July 26, 1991, at the Milwaukee County Jail, attended by Detective Dennis J. Murphy, Detective John T. Karabatsos, and Lt. Richard W. Munsey (referred to as ‘‘this officer’’ in the report). Dahmer’s attorney, Scott E. Hansen, was also present.
Ohio Death Penalty: Prior to the interview, Dahmer’s attorney inquired about the death penalty in Ohio in 1978 and was reassured that it was not in effect then.
Dahmer’s Cooperation: Dahmer waived his Miranda Rights and expressed willingness to speak with the detectives. This echoes Jeff waiving his rights to a trial in Ohio on May 1, 1992.
Disposal of Remains: When shown photographs of his former residence at 4480 West Bath Road, Bath, Ohio, Dahmer stated that he had scattered human bones ‘‘south and west of the house,’’ approximately seventy-five feet away, by throwing them down a ‘‘rocky abutment to a cliff.’’
Victim Identification: Dahmer confirmed that Steven Hicks was his ‘first victim’, killed in his home at 4480 West Bath Road, Bath, Ohio.
Method of Killing: Dahmer states that he struck Hicks with a barbell, resulting in his death. He then stripped Hicks’ body and placed it in the basement.
Dismemberment and Disposal: Dahmer states that he dismembered the body, separating bones and flesh. The flesh was flushed down the toilet over several days, while the bones were crushed with a sledgehammer and scattered in the woods behind his house.
No Assistance: Dahmer explicitly stated he had no assistance from anyone in any of his alleged murders.
Unrecorded & Unverifiable Confessions: This investigation report crucially omits any mention of a videotaped or recorded confession. This alarming detail echoes the Wisconsin investigation, where Detectives Dennis Murphy and Patrick Kennedy testified in the Court TV trial that 60 hours of Dahmer’s alleged confessions were never videotaped or recorded. This leaves zero verifiable evidence that Jeffrey Dahmer verbally confessed to anything, or that he wasn’t under duress during these alleged critical interrogations.
The interview concluded after Dahmer confirmed he had provided the complete story of Steven Hicks’ death and agreed to continue cooperating with Detective Murphy if further questions arose. He also acknowledged that criminal charges would likely be filed against him in Ohio.
Jeffrey Dahmer's Residence: Unseen Photos & Unanswered Crime Questions
Adding another layer to this puzzle, the Bath Township Police investigation report included photographic evidence—some of which I have included below.
The photographs include images of a bridge crossing a river, the Dahmer residence at 4480 West Bath Road, Akron, Ohio, nestled among trees, a driveway with vehicles, and various shots of interior and exterior areas that appear to show a crawl space.
While these photos provide a visual context for the described locations of the crime and disposal, their direct linkage to specific events remains implied without explicit captions within the report itself.
Presented below are examples from the evidence log included in the Bath Township Police investigation report.
The lack of clear links between these images and the alleged crime itself leaves much of the narrative in the shadows, deepening the sense of uncertainty and demanding further scrutiny.
The Evidence That Tells a Different Story
The photographic evidence included in the investigation report raises more questions than it answers. Among the most problematic:
The Pristine Murder Weapons
Two saws photographed as evidence—a bow saw and a hand saw—appear completely unused and new. These tools, which we assume were depicted as used to dismember human remains, show no signs of wear, blood, or organic material. The stark contrast between these pristine implements and an old, worn mallet also pictured suggests these items were added to the evidence long after any alleged crime.
Without explicit captions or direct references in the investigation report, their relevance remains ambiguous at best. Adding to the uncertainty, their absence from the aforementioned evidence log further weakens their credibility, leaving their connection to the events in question implied rather than firmly established.
The ability of these tools to actually dismember bone remains another open question, further clouding the narrative.
The new, seemingly unused saws stand in stark contrast to an old, worn mallet pictured below.
The Property Transfer Issue
To complicate matters even more, public records reveal that the house changed hands twice after the Dahmers moved out: it sold in 1982 and again in 1985.
This means any items or photographs taken from the property after those dates may not even tie back to the Dahmers at all. All these uncertainties combine to deepen the shadows around this case, demanding far more scrutiny and skepticism regarding what the evidence actually shows.
In short, the investigation report’s crime tool images lack crucial context. Without it, the inclusion of pristine saws alongside a worn mallet is questionable, raising doubts about their connection to the alleged acts and further clouding the evidence in the Steven Hicks case.
The Timeline Problem
The evidence bag containing bone fragments in the image shown below is labeled ‘‘DATE: 8-1-91’’—August 1, 1991. This is thirteen years after the alleged murder. How were these fragments identified as belonging to Steven Hicks? No DNA testing is mentioned in any of the reports (including the publicly accessible FBI files titled FBI Records: The Vault - Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer), and the chain of custody for materials found over a decade later is highly questionable.
Bag Labeling Details: The Ziploc bag features a white label with handwritten notes that provide intriguing clues.
‘‘CONTENTS: 2 RR’’: This notation corresponds to the extensive data file issued by the National Museum of Natural History - Smithsonian Institution, which was consulted by the County of Summit Coroner, Dr. William Cox, and Assistant Prosecutor Fred Zuch for assistance in identifying remains. It likely serves as an identifier or quantity marker.
The data file (below) identifies this piece of evidence as ‘‘Unident. Long Bone Location: 2, Length 3.0cm.’’ This refers to an ‘‘unidentified long bone,’’ a term used for bones that are long in shape (like a femur, tibia, or humerus) but cannot yet be definitively linked to a specific body part or species without further analysis.
Beneath the date, another handwritten note reads ‘‘Sdw #12’’ or ‘‘Sdw A12’’, a cryptic detail that could represent initials, a location marker, or another form of identification. Each element of the label adds a layer of mystery, leaving room for interpretation and further investigation.
The Detail That Exposes Everything
Perhaps the most revealing oversight in the entire investigation: Jeffrey Dahmer’s pet dog, Frisky.
In Dahmer’s own hand-drawn property diagram depicted above, dated July 26, 1991, he clearly marks Frisky’s kennel in the top left corner. Yet nowhere in the official investigation reports is this dog mentioned. This omission is staggering for several reasons:
A dog would have immediately detected the scent of human remains.
The animal would have exhibited behavioral changes around decomposing flesh.
When Dahmer left for Ohio State University in September 1978, Frisky would have been left alone with any remains.
The complete absence of any mention of the dog’s behavior or reaction suggests investigators never seriously considered whether the alleged murder and disposal actually occurred as described.
Jeff's Impossible Murder Window
A Father’s Contradiction
Further clouding Jeff’s ‘‘home alone’’ confession timeline, his father, Lionel Dahmer, reveals a critical detail in his book A Father’s Story.
Lionel and Shari (Jeff’s future stepmother) moved back into the family home ‘‘right away’’ to be with Jeff, stating specifically not wanting his young son to remain alone, after discovering Joyce had left in August, and Lionel’s frequent calls to his sons suddenly went unanswered (page 71).
‘‘Not wanting Jeff to remain alone, I moved back into the house right away. Shari came with me.’’ (page 73)
Lionel Dahmer himself further referenced ‘‘the remaining weeks while Jeff continued to live in the house’’ (page 74) and noted that ‘‘within two weeks of the drinking episode,’’ Shari discovered Jeff’s friend had stolen her jewelry (page 74), all before they drove Jeff to Ohio State University that September (page 77).
This documented timeline leaves virtually no window of opportunity for Jeff to have committed the alleged murder.
Even more damning, the official investigation report fails to mention Lionel or Shari Dahmer as potential witnesses (unlike Jeff’s mother Joyce Flint), despite their presence during critical periods. This omission casts serious doubt on the official narrative.
The Mother's Silence Speaks Volumes
As detailed in Part 2, Joyce Flint’s sudden withdrawal from cooperation on January 6, 1992, wasn’t maternal protection—it was legal self-preservation. The prosecutor’s letter to her attorney reveals the exact moment when those closest to the truth recognized the fragility of their narrative.
The Strategic Implications:
If Steven Hicks died in June 1978 as claimed, Joyce could have been implicated in complicity and a cover-up. Her presence at the family home during this period made Dahmer’s claim of being ‘‘alone’’ impossible. The alternative timeline, placing the murder in the fall of 1978, conveniently removed Joyce from the equation—but also placed Dahmer at Ohio State University, far from the family home.
This timing manipulation wasn’t coincidental. It was damage control.
The $10 Million Question
The 1992 civil wrongful death lawsuit against the Dahmer family pointed to vehicular homicide, not murder. This legal action, largely overlooked in true crime narratives, suggests a completely different version of events surrounding Steven Hicks’ death.
The Implications:
A vehicular homicide would explain the need for a cover-up.
It would account for the family’s involvement and subsequent silence.
It would explain why traditional murder evidence is absent from the case.
It would justify Joyce Flint’s legal concerns about self-incrimination.
When Evidence Becomes Convenient
The investigation into Steven Hicks’ death represents everything wrong with accepting confessions without verification. Key problems include:
Missing Critical Evidence:
No DNA analysis of the bone fragments.
No forensic examination of the alleged murder weapons.
No soil analysis from the claimed disposal site.
No investigation into the dog’s behavior or reactions.
Impossible Physical Evidence:
Pristine tools supposedly used for dismemberment.
Bone fragments collected 13 years after the alleged crime.
No blood evidence from the claimed basement crime scene.
Timeline Impossibilities:
Dahmer’s presence at the family home during the alleged murder window.
Joyce Flint’s residence making the ‘‘alone at home’’ claim impossible.
The alternative timeline placing Dahmer at university during the fall 1978 period.
‘‘This whole thing is ironic. It’s like it’s been orchestrated. It’s odd’’ - Jeffrey L. Dahmer.
The Truth Hidden in Plain Sight
The Steven Hicks case isn’t just about Jeffrey Dahmer—it’s about our collective failure to demand evidence over narrative. When we examine the facts critically, a different picture emerges.
What Really Happened?
Steven Hicks likely died in a tragic accident, possibly involving a vehicle. The Dahmer family, potentially including Joyce, may have been involved in covering up the circumstances of his death.
Remember, Joyce Flint’s inclusion as a defendant in the 1992 civil wrongful death lawsuit cited an allegation of negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument to her son Jeff, with motor vehicles being the notable exception to parental liability immunity once a child reaches adulthood in Ohio (Jeff was already 18 years old).
During an already tumultuous time—a pending divorce, a custody battle over younger brother David, and now their eldest son Jeff, barely eighteen, facing prison and a potentially devastating wrongful death lawsuit, with the added risk that his parents could also be held liable for his actions—the family may have felt driven to conceal the truth. To protect Jeff. To protect Joyce. To safeguard David’s future.
This unsettling scenario raises powerful questions about morality and the desperate choices people make under pressure.
When Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested in 1991, he may have been persuaded to confess to a murder that never occurred, protecting his family from vehicular homicide charges while accepting responsibility for alleged serial killings that would result in life imprisonment rather than death.
Did Jeffrey Dahmer Ever Truly Enter Prison?
The prospect of life imprisonment raises another critical question that strikes at the heart of everything we think we know about Jeffrey Dahmer: did he truly enter the prison system at all? My efforts to obtain his incarceration files from the state have yielded results that are as shocking as they are inconclusive.
Considering that transparency, as outlined in Wisconsin Public Records Law (Wis. Statutes 19:31 - 19:39), is a fundamental principle, the historical significance of such well-documented records cannot be overstated.
However, when I submitted public records request R038832-061125 for Dahmer’s complete Adult Institution Case File—seeking details on retention policies, record disposition, transfer protocols, and search methodology—the Wisconsin Department of Corrections responded with a very lengthy and detailed explanation claiming the records had met their retention requirements and were ‘‘confidentially destroyed’’ in accordance with their authorization protocols ‘‘RETENTION: EVENT + 7 years, with 10% transferred to the State Historical Society and the remainder destroyed confidentially.’’
But here’s where the story takes another impossible turn: Further inquiries (my records request case ID #534474, concerning the Termination File #432388 for Dahmer’s closed status as provided by the Wisconsin Integrated Corrections System) with the Wisconsin Historical Society confirmed they have never found any of Dahmer’s corrections records within their collections.
‘‘The inventory lists all of the files by their ‘‘T-Number,’’ which is the ‘‘Termination File’’ number you provided ‘‘432388.’’ I’m sorry to say that we do not have a case file under that number, which leads me to conclude that it was probably one of the 90% that were destroyed. In fact, I have never found any of Dahmer’s Corrections records in our collections.’’ - Wisconsin Historical Society
Similarly, when I reached out to the Milwaukee County Office of the Sheriff to obtain Jeffrey Dahmer’s detention records during his pre-trial and trial period—from his arrest on July 22, 1991, to his sentencing and transfer to state prison on February 17, 1992—I encountered a similar roadblock.
Dahmer, who was reportedly held in facilities under the Milwaukee County Sheriff's jurisdiction, including the Milwaukee County Jail and holding cells at the Milwaukee County Courthouse, was, at this stage, detained under the pretext of violating his non-existent five-year probation.
But despite my request for these detention records, the response I received mirrored the previous challenges of uncovering the evidence behind his reported time in custody. No records exist.
Think about that for a moment. The most notorious ‘serial killer’ in Wisconsin history allegedly spent years in their prison system, yet NO documentation of his incarceration exists anywhere.
Not in state archives. Not in historical collections. Nowhere.
This isn’t just missing paperwork—this is the complete erasure of what should be one of the most documented incarcerations in American criminal history. The absence of these records adds yet another layer of mystery to a case already drowning in impossibilities, fabrications, and convenient disappearances of evidence.
The Cover-Up:
The pristine tool evidence, convenient timeline adjustments, and selective memory of key witnesses all point to a coordinated effort to transform an accidental death into a serial killer’s first victim. This transformation served multiple purposes:
It protected the family from vehicular homicide charges.
It provided a neat origin story for Dahmer’s alleged killing spree.
It avoided complex questions about accident circumstances.
It satisfied public demand for a clear narrative.
The Final Verdict
After examining these additional parts of evidence, interviews, and official documents, the conclusion is unavoidable: The murder of Steven Hicks, as described in Jeffrey Dahmer’s confession, never happened.
The evidence suggests Steven Hicks died in circumstances that required a cover-up, not a premeditated murder. The bone fragments, pristine tools, and convenient timeline all point to a fabricated narrative designed to protect the living while satisfying public demand for answers.
This isn’t just about one case—it’s about the entire foundation of criminal justice and our responsibility to demand truth over convenience.
Steven Hicks deserves justice, whatever form that truth may take. His family deserves to know what really happened. The public deserves honesty about one of America’s most infamous criminal cases.
The evidence is clear. The timeline is impossible. The confession is fabricated.
The truth about Steven Hicks’ disappearance remains hidden, but the lies have finally been exposed.
What This Means for Criminal Justice
The Steven Hicks case represents a fundamental failure of our criminal justice system. When confessions are accepted without verification, when questionable evidence is collected decades after alleged crimes, and when impossible timelines are ignored in favor of convenient narratives, we fail both victims and society.
Key Lessons:
Confessions must be verified against physical evidence.
Timeline analysis is crucial in any criminal investigation.
Missing evidence is as important as present evidence.
Family dynamics and legal implications must be considered.
Public pressure should never override investigative integrity.
The Steven Hicks case should serve as a cautionary tale about accepting convenient truths over uncomfortable realities. In our rush to understand evil, we may have overlooked a tragedy that required compassion rather than condemnation.
The questions we’ve raised demand answers. The evidence we’ve uncovered demands investigation. The truth Steven Hicks deserves demands justice.
This final installment has laid bare the impossible truths and fabricated narratives surrounding the Steven Hicks case, exposing a justice system that prioritized convenience over verification. But this deep dive is just the beginning.
Don’t miss the next revelation in the Dahmer case. Subscribe now to join our community of truth-seekers and get exclusive access to all future investigative findings, challenging the official narrative and exposing the uncomfortable realities in one of America’s most infamous cases.
Click to subscribe and demand the truth!
What aspects of this investigation do you find most compelling? Share your thoughts in the comments below and join our community of truth-seekers demanding accountability in one of America’s most infamous criminal cases.
This whole story is wild! This is an incredibly detailed and well-written analysis. One of your best yet!!
I think the discrepancies in Hicks' story are the most profound. So basically, it's said that serrated blades cannot cut through bone. Both saws alleged to have been used were serrated. From personal experience living in the woods, having 8 trees fall per year, I've done a lot of manual sawing, and cutting through a 20" diameter tree (super small) with both of those types of saws is EXHAUSTING and physically demanding. I'm over it after 3 minutes and it can take 15 minutes to complete. Wood is infinitely easier to saw through than bone. I can't imagine anyone sawing through bone. Even though bones are smaller, there's just no way, they're too hard.
Also, smashing bones with a sledgehammer and then transporting those bones to scatter them sounds odd. It would leave tons of fragments behind, unless done on a tarp in an enclosed setup, but the tarp would make it harder to smash.
I always had the impression he was never in prison, and it was all just for show. Like they moved him to some kind of safe house or something. The fact that the prison records are in limbo says everything.
This entire story falls apart at the seams here!!
This case gets weirder and weirder. Especially the lack of prison documentation.