Relatives of 13-year-old Daryl Lowry say the murder prosecution addresses only part of what happened during his brief foster placement.
CHESTER, S.C. — More than a month after 13-year-old Daryl Martinez Lowry died while living in a temporary foster home, his family is still pressing South Carolina officials for an explanation of how he was placed there, what was known about the household and who was responsible for supervising him.
The family’s questions extend beyond the murder case filed after Lowry’s July 20 death at a residential boat dock in McCormick County. Landen Austin Moore, 17, has been charged with murder, and a 16-year-old whose name has not been released was taken into juvenile custody. But relatives have hired attorney Tyler Bailey to investigate the decisions that preceded the confrontation, including a foster placement that began July 16 and ended with Lowry’s death four days later. Bailey has said his investigation is separate from, and does not seek to interfere with, the state’s criminal case.
The effort has moved from private requests for information to public pressure. Lowry’s relatives planned to speak before the McCormick County Council on Aug. 18, but the meeting was canceled after county officials said a larger venue was needed because significant attendance was expected over Lowry’s case and a separate data-center controversy. The county said the meeting would be rescheduled. A family member then organized an Aug. 22 protest in McCormick. Attendance was small, but organizers said the goal was to keep attention on the unanswered questions and encourage residents to attend the eventual council meeting.
Those questions have been consistent since the first days after Lowry’s death. His family wants to know why a 13-year-old from the Chester area was placed more than 100 miles away in McCormick County, how the temporary placement was selected and what the state knew about the home and other youths living there. The family also wants to know what supervision was expected overnight and who was responsible for providing it. Public reports have not established that state officials had advance knowledge of a specific threat to Lowry, and Bailey’s questions should not be treated as findings that a state employee or foster parent committed wrongdoing.
Lowry had entered the temporary placement on July 16, according to Bailey and local reports. The foster parent was Bernard “Bernie” Hamby, chairman of the McCormick County Council. Two older teenagers staying in the home were also reported to be foster children. Hamby has not been charged with a crime in connection with Lowry’s death. He later issued a statement expressing grief and saying he had seen promise in Lowry during the brief time the boy was in his home.
Four days after the placement began, deputies were called to the Modoc Shores area and found Lowry dead at a boat dock on Lake Strom Thurmond. An arrest warrant says Lowry, Moore and the 16-year-old had been involved in a physical altercation. Investigators allege Lowry suffered knife lacerations during the fight before Moore and the other teenager held him underwater. Authorities have not publicly identified what caused the confrontation, and no motive has been announced. The allegations against the teenagers remain allegations unless proved in court.
The McCormick County Sheriff’s Office asked the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division to take over the investigation. Sheriff Chad Cox cited a conflict of interest involving the parties, but the precise nature of that conflict was not publicly explained. SLED charged Moore with murder and said he was booked into the McCormick County Detention Center. The 16-year-old was transported to the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. The state Attorney General’s Office is responsible for the prosecution.
For Lowry’s family, however, the criminal process does not answer how the boy reached that dock. Bailey has said his office is examining the foster-placement process and seeking records about the home, Lowry’s stay and prior incidents that might have been relevant to the placement decision. He has publicly complained that information supplied by the Department of Social Services has been incomplete. The department’s records involving foster children are subject to confidentiality restrictions, and the public record so far does not resolve what officials knew before July 16.
Bailey has also said people contacted him with claims that other children had previously run away from the home. Those claims have not been established as official findings, and it remains unclear whether DSS received or documented information that should have affected Lowry’s placement. The distinction matters because the family’s inquiry is still attempting to establish whether warning signs existed, whether state officials were aware of them and whether they had any connection to the events of July 20.
The family began speaking publicly after burying Lowry on July 30. At a news conference the next day, his cousin and godmother Sandrina Sanders described him as loving, joyful and full of life. Bailey contrasted the funeral with what Lowry’s relatives expected to be doing at that point in the summer: helping him prepare for eighth grade. Relatives have emphasized Lowry’s life and personality while asking officials not to reduce the case to the actions described in the murder warrant.
That approach has created two parallel tracks. In one, prosecutors must address the evidence against Moore and whatever juvenile proceedings apply to the 16-year-old. The warrant alleges intentional conduct that caused Lowry’s death, but a criminal court will determine guilt. In the other track, Bailey’s inquiry is asking whether the state and adults responsible for the placement met their obligations before the confrontation occurred. A failure in one track does not automatically prove liability in the other.
The political role of the foster parent has also complicated the public response. Hamby’s position as county council chairman means Lowry’s family is seeking to address a local government body led by the man whose home was used for the placement. That circumstance helps explain why the sheriff sought an outside investigation and why the council meeting drew unusual attention, but there has been no public finding that Hamby’s office influenced the placement or the criminal investigation. Hamby has not been identified by SLED as a suspect.
By Aug. 20, one month after Lowry died, his relatives were still telling local reporters that they lacked answers about why he had been placed in the McCormick County home. The family’s attorney said the independent investigation would continue. The planned council appearance and later protest showed that relatives were also trying to obtain answers in public forums rather than waiting only for the criminal case to unfold.
The known facts establish a short and devastating timeline: Lowry entered the temporary placement July 16, died July 20 and was buried 10 days later. What remains unresolved is broader. Authorities have not announced a motive for the alleged attack, the public record does not explain the complete foster-placement decision, and no official review released to the public has determined whether the supervision or placement process failed. The family says those unanswered questions are why its investigation is continuing even as the murder case proceeds.
Moore remains accused of murder, the younger teenager’s case remains within the juvenile system, and SLED has not announced a final resolution of its investigation. Lowry’s relatives continue to seek records and accountability, while McCormick County has not publicly resolved all of the questions that prompted the family’s planned council appearance.
Author note: Last updated August 26, 2026.