The criminal case describes what investigators say happened at a lake dock, while Lowry’s family is examining why he was there.
McCORMICK, S.C. — The four days between Daryl Martinez Lowry’s arrival at a temporary foster home and his death at a nearby lake dock have become the focus of an independent family investigation into how South Carolina placed and supervised the 13-year-old while he was in state custody.
Lowry was placed in a McCormick County home on July 16 and died July 20, according to his family’s attorney and local reports. Authorities have charged 17-year-old Landen Austin Moore with murder and taken a 16-year-old into juvenile custody after alleging the two older teenagers participated in an altercation that ended with Lowry being held underwater. Those charges address the alleged attack. They do not, by themselves, explain how the temporary placement was chosen, what was known about the home or what supervision was in place during Lowry’s short stay.
That gap is where attorney Tyler Bailey says the family’s work begins. Bailey was retained shortly after Lowry’s death to conduct an inquiry separate from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division investigation. He has said his office wants to reconstruct the placement decision, determine what information state social-services officials possessed and identify who had responsibility for watching Lowry on the night he died. The family also wants to understand why the Chester County teenager was sent to a home more than 100 miles from his community.
The home was operated by Bernard “Bernie” Hamby, who is also chairman of the McCormick County Council. Local reports said Moore and the unnamed 16-year-old were foster children living there as well. Hamby has not been accused of participating in the attack and has not been charged with wrongdoing in Lowry’s death. He later expressed grief over the boy’s death and said he was sorry that the circumstances that brought Lowry to his home ended in tragedy.
Public reporting has said Hamby was asleep during the early-morning events. Bailey has argued that the supervision question deserves close examination, particularly because the children had access to the lake area. His statements represent the family’s position, not an official finding that Hamby or a state agency violated a rule or caused the death. No publicly released government review has established that inadequate supervision was legally responsible for what happened.
The criminal allegations begin at the boat dock. An arrest warrant says Lowry, Moore and the 16-year-old were involved in a physical altercation on July 20. Investigators allege Lowry sustained knife lacerations during the confrontation. The warrant further alleges that Moore and the younger teenager held Lowry underwater until he died. Authorities have not publicly said who possessed or used the knife, and they have not announced what started the fight. The warrant’s allegations remain subject to the court process.
Deputies responded to the Modoc Shores area that morning and found Lowry’s body at the dock. The McCormick County Sheriff’s Office then asked SLED to investigate, with Sheriff Chad Cox citing a conflict of interest involving the parties. The sheriff did not publicly spell out the conflict. SLED charged Moore with murder and booked him into the county detention center. The 16-year-old was transported to the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice, and his identity has remained confidential in public reporting because of his age.
The decision to call in a state agency was especially notable because the foster parent held one of McCormick County’s highest elected council positions. Hamby’s public role does not establish that he influenced the investigation, and SLED has not accused him of doing so. Still, the overlap between the foster placement and county government has contributed to the family’s insistence on an independent examination of decisions made before Lowry’s death. SLED has said the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office will prosecute the criminal case.
Lowry’s relatives have also sought records that could show whether anything in the placement history should have raised concern. Bailey has said information he received was incomplete and that his office is investigating reports about prior incidents involving the home. He has said other parents contacted him with claims that children had previously run away while placed there. Those accounts have not been publicly confirmed as findings by DSS or SLED, and it remains unknown whether state placement officials had documented notice of information that should have changed their decision.
The distinction between a question and a verified failure has been central to the case. Bailey has publicly criticized the level of transparency surrounding the placement, but neither his criticism nor the family’s requests for records prove that an agency violated policy. Foster-care information involving minors is often not publicly available in full. As a result, the public record currently provides a detailed allegation about the final confrontation but a much less complete account of the administrative decisions during the four days before it.
The human cost of that missing information became clearer when Lowry’s family spoke after his funeral. His cousin and godmother Sandrina Sanders described him as a happy, loving teenager who was usually smiling and laughing. Bailey said Lowry’s relatives should have been preparing him for eighth grade rather than holding a funeral. Their public statements have sought to keep the focus not only on how he died but on the life that ended and the state-custody decisions that brought him to McCormick County.
By late August, those questions had moved into McCormick County’s public meetings. The family planned to address the County Council on Aug. 18, but officials canceled the meeting and said it would be moved to a larger location because of expected crowds tied both to Lowry’s case and an unrelated development proposal. A small protest organized days later called for accountability, with participants saying they hoped residents would attend the rescheduled council session.
The criminal and administrative questions therefore remain on different timelines. Prosecutors must determine how to proceed against Moore, while the 16-year-old is handled through the juvenile system. The family’s lawyer, meanwhile, is seeking records and reconstructing the placement process. A criminal conviction would not automatically answer whether the foster placement was appropriate, just as questions about the placement do not establish Moore’s guilt or prove that an adult is legally responsible for the death.
What is already clear is the brevity of Lowry’s placement. He arrived July 16. Four days later, deputies found him dead. The state has publicly described the homicide investigation but has not released a full account explaining why the placement was selected or addressing every supervision question raised by the family. A motive for the alleged attack also remains undisclosed.
SLED’s publicly announced case centers on the murder charge against Moore and the involvement of the unidentified 16-year-old, while Lowry’s family continues its independent examination of the four days he spent in the foster home. Until additional records, court proceedings or agency findings become public, the most consequential placement questions remain unresolved.
Author note: Last updated August 26, 2026.