Questions About Mark Byers and Paradise Lost 2

[UdbCrzy2]

If you wait about 2-seconds there will soon be another 'real killer'. Strange how a defense attorney will always try to blame someone else to create reasonable doubt. I think they call that a 'smoke and mirrors defense'. On the other hand a prosecutor cannot make crap up like that, they uphold the law and cannot prosecute without having enough evidence to convict.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

On the other hand a prosecutor cannot make crap up like that, they uphold the law and cannot prosecute without having enough evidence to convict.

Sorry. That is simply not true. People are convicted on bogus evidence all the time (as happened in this case). The list of people exonerated through DNA testing continues to grow. False confessions also lead to unjust convictions.

Sometimes in a case, the evidence presented in court simply doesn't say what the prosecution tries to convince the jury it says. Sometimes juries "buy" the prosecution's theory and an unjust conviction is the result. We have an appeals process in this country in order to correct mistakes like this.

Also, often a defense attorney will use a plea deal in order to free his client from unjust incarceration. That's what happened in this case. The Alford plea allowed the men to go free and still maintain their innocence. Now they can work more closely with their attorneys as they gather the evidence to prove their innocence.

As I have said before, I believe that the evidence to prove their innocence is already in the hands of the defense team and it is just a matter of time until everything needed to get the real killer behind bars is presented to Ellington. Then we will see if he is a man of his word or just another corrupt Arkansas politician. I hope it's soon!

 

[AngelontheRiver]

I hope this purported evidence is better than the evidence against Byers. That didn't work out too well.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I hope this purported evidence is better than the evidence against Byers. That didn't work out too well.

The evidence against JMB was always circumstantial, as is the evidence against the three falsely convicted men. We all know about the hairs, which is physical evidence that Hobbs or Jacoby or both could have been at the discovery ditch. I will admit that the other evidence that I know of against Hobbs is circumstantial. However, IMO it is much stronger than the circumstantial evidence against either the WMFree or JMB. So, if the case is to be proven based solely on circumstantial evidence, Terry Hobbs should be a suspect. As I have said before, I believe that the defense does have a "smoking gun" implicating Terry Hobbs. However, I don't know when they will present it to Ellington. I hope it is very soon.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

After a certain amount of time goes by they claim it's someone else. I am beginning to see a pattern here. Byers, now Hobbs, which other parent will be next?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

After a certain amount of time goes by they claim it's someone else. I am beginning to see a pattern here. Byers, now Hobbs, which other parent will be next?

It's called "following the evidence" - something alien to the WMPD in this case. I recently saw a story on the Investigation Discovery channel where a 25 year old murder case was solved. The killer wasn't even on the radar of the police department at the time. They accused the husband, but, unlike the WMPD, since they didn't have any substantial evidence, they never charged him. However, the town and his wife's relatives believed him to be guilty for 25 years - until newly found evidence (I think it was DNA) revealed the real killer. This kind of thing is not unheard of by any means. It's just that finding the evidence often takes time. If you're unjustly imprisoned, that is a difficult pill to swallow, for sure.

 

[UKGuy]

That's exactly how I feel about JMB. He's out for himself and himself only.

He's not someone I would trust. And as for his alleged brain tumor, he seems to be doing so much better now, maybe he's got some magic meds? He had a girlfriend when Melissa died, maybe some JMB's supporters have forgotten about that? How about those Rolex watches that he and Melissa stole right before the murders? What about the neighbor's house he and Melissa burgled AFTER the murders? I mean, let's be serious here, he should have been in prison long before he called the wrong number and got the undercover and sold drugs to him. If any one of us did that, they'd bury us under the jail.

Apparently, those things are forgotten and now he's the Patron Saint of the three wrongly convicted young men, who he HELPED stay in prison.

I'm sorry, but JMB is lower than a whale turd, and yes, I believe he is responsible for Melissa's death. And no, he didn't misspeak when he said his wife was murdered, because IMO, he murdered her.

tezi,
I've seen all three documentaries to date. The last one I was dissapointed with it just seemed to be a rehash of old material.

I always found Byers suspicious. There was mention in one doc' that he had his teeth removed, after forensic evidence of bite marks were found on the children? Is this factually correct or simply media spin?

I always thought Byers protested too much, and his speeches at the graveside seemed deliberately dramatic. I remember one scene where he is reading some sermon in church, that looked scripted at the time.

I have never been able to decide whether he was mostly acting a role, or was a confused person reacting to events?


.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

tezi,
I've seen all three documentaries to date. The last one I was dissapointed with it just seemed to be a rehash of old material.

I always found Byers suspicious. There was mention in one doc' that he had his teeth removed, after forensic evidence of bite marks were found on the children? Is this factually correct or simply media spin?

I always thought Byers protested too much, and his speeches at the graveside seemed deliberately dramatic. I remember one scene where he is reading some sermon in church, that looked scripted at the time.

I have never been able to decide whether he was mostly acting a role, or was a confused person reacting to events?

Mark did have his teeth removed. It seemed suspicious at the time because of the belief that there was a bite mark on Stevie's forehead. However, additional investigation has revealed that the bite mark was not human. (See the testimony of the forensic odontologist at the Rule 37 hearing for Jason and Jessie. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_souviron.html )

Yes, Mark can be dramatic. That's just his personality. At the time of the filming of the first documentary, he was a grieving parent whose actions in that film should be considered in that light. In the second documentary, he was on the defensive as he felt that he was under suspicion. In the third documentary, he is fighting for the release and exoneration of the falsely accused men.

Yes, the third documentary did rehash a lot of the old information. However, we must remember that, because of the release of the three men, it is probable that there are people watching this third documentary that have not seen either of the other two. From what I've heard, it's the Sir Peter Jackson-financed, Amy Berg-directed documentary West of Memphis (which recently obtained a distributor and should be in general release in a few months) that disclosed new information. I really look forward to seeing it.

 

[SNOWINMEMPHIS]

I just re-read his interview w/Gitchell from January 1994 (think that's the right date) in reference to the Kershaw knife.
At the beginning of the interview he doesn't know that human blood (same type as Chris had) was found on the knife.
He said it was given to him by a man for Christmas sometime around xmas 1990.
Then he says his wife Melissa bought it from a man that sold "Mapco" tools and she gave it to him as a Christmas gift.
He claimed he had meant to use the knife when deer hunting but it wouldn't stay sharp and he also had not had the opportunity to go deer hunting that year.
Then Gitchell says that he has a problem because the knife (which he then shows to Byers) had been given to the WMPD by the cameraman from HBO that Mark had given it to. And that human blood consistent w/Chris' bloodtype was found on it.
This is when Mark says that neither Chris nor Ryan had ever handled the knife.
Then he says he used it when he was cutting up deer to make jerky.
And after he is asked, he produces a valid hunting license.
He offers to take a polygraph test without being asked to.
Gitchell asks him what meds he is taking. Byers says he is taking xanax and an antidepressant. Obviously this would exclude him from taking a polygraph. Gitchell never says this, but he is not polygraphed.
Can anyone explain why there is so much inconsistency in Byers' account concerning the Kershaw knife?
Also, I know many don't consider Perretti a reputable medical examiner. But didn't he testify in court that the Kershaw knife "could" be consistent with some of the wounds on the three boys?
I am not in any way suggesting Byers is guilty of murder.
This is just one of the things about this case that I fail to understand.
For anyone who can explain it without saying Byers made mistakes because he was ill, using prescribed and/or unprescribed meds, or was just confused, please do.
TIA and all jmo

 

[SNOWINMEMPHIS]

The interview with Byers was actually done by both Ridge and Gitchell.
Here's part of it that is problematic for me:

RIDGE: That would have been October 1st or 1st November

BYERS: First part of October or in November, I don't remember when we were eating
on it there for two or three weeks I was making jerky everyday

GITCHELL: Okay, Alright, let me, let me go on a little bit further and say there's a
problem with that, I mean I'm not saying that's not true, the problem is we have sent this
knife of and had it examined and it has the blood type of Chris on it

BYERS: Well Gary I don't have any idea how it could be on there

GITCHELL: That's our problem

BYERS: I have no idea how it's on there

GITCHELL: Why, why would this knife have his blood on it?

BYERS: I have no idea Gary

GITCHELL: That's what scares me

 

[SNOWINMEMPHIS]

Byers said he was using the Kershaw knife while making deer jerky sometime around the 1st of October or November. After having said this:

GITCHELL: Had you ever taken that hunting or use it recently just prior to giving it to
um, what did you say his name was Kook?

BYERS: I think Kook, no that knife had not been used at all, it just been kept up, put in
my dresser and I didn't use it and the reason why was is because of those serrated edges

GITCHELL: Uh-huh

BYERS: You couldn't keep it sharp, and he thought it was near because it had a Velcro
case that you could carry it on your belt with, and it kinda had a grip on it that felt like
pachmayr's on a gun, and he just really like it and admired it and I really didn't like it so
I gave it to him.

GITCHELL: Okay

BYERS: But no it had not been out in the woods or anything

GITCHELL: Do you know if any member of your family was so ever has ever injured
themselves or cut themselves on that knife?

BYERS: Which knife?

GITCHELL: Oh, this Karshaw knife here, mentioned?

BYERS: No sir


^Can anyone w/knowledge of this crime and trials explain what is up w/the different things Byers said in reference to the Kershaw knife? Seriously, thanks in advance if you can!
jmo

 

[Compassionate Reader]

There is a new book out. The author is Greg Day, but it's JMB's story. It's available on Amazon and Kindle. It's called Untying the Knot. The Kershaw knife is discussed in detail there, and I don't want to lessen the explanation contained in the book by trying to summarize it here. BTW, the blood found on the knife matched not only Chris' blood type, but Mark's as well - and about 9% of the Caucasian population, IIRC.

 

[SNOWINMEMPHIS]

I know about the book. Thanks anyway.
But that doesn't explain to me why Mark said the knife had never been used, never been out in the woods or anything, until the detectives told him they had a problem. That the problem was that human blood (or as they also said "of a higher ape") was found on the knife.
Then he tells them it was probably on there from making deer jerky.
I have read the introduction to the book. I have friends that have it on their Kindle so if I want to read it I can.
Maybe one of them can explain to me why Byers changed his story about the knife in the middle of questioning, because I just don't understand. I don't know anyone involved in this crime on either side, so it's just a lingering question.
Thanks!
jmo and all that

 

[SNOWINMEMPHIS]

One other thing that has continued to bother me is that many people understandably point to TH's beating his stepson and daughter.
There were several accounts from friends who visited the Byers home of Mark beating Chris. One report from a friend of the older brother of Chris was that Mark had Chris basically stripped down and whipping him with a belt. When the friend said something to the brother about it, RC replied that it was not unusual.
Also the autopsy report on Chris showed several healed marks on his buttocks region.
Leads me to wonder if Chris was a child of repeated abuse.
This is no way makes Byers guilty of the murders. But does it make TH any more of an abusive dad?
I realize that Byers has a much more solid alibi than TH. There are some holes in it though.
Just thinking about this old case.
all jmo

 

[Compassionate Reader]

IMO, sexual abuse is much worse than physical abuse. If some of the stories that I've read are true, TH was guilty of both with his children and physical with his wife. I'm not sure that I believe all of the stories about JMB as some of those people, IMO, were simply seeking their 15 minutes. As to TH, most of the stories are from Pam's relatives and could also be biased.

So, discounting the supposed abusive nature of both men, what is left? First and foremost is the mtDNA evidence that indicates that in all likelihood either TH or David Jacoby (or both or people who share maternal ancestors with them) was (were) at the discovery site. TH has said, over and over, that he was in and out of that 2.5 acre patch "all night long" searching for Stevie. Jacoby has stated that he did not search the discovery area. So, the most likely explanation for the hairs is that TH is responsible for them.

Additionally, TH has holes in his alibi. JMB does not. For instance, David Jacoby stated in his deposition for the Pasdar suit that TH was playing guitars at his (Jacoby's) house on the evening of May 5, 1993, from about 5:15 pm or 5:30 pm until about 6:15 pm or 6:30 pm. Then, TH left to look for Stevie. He returned later (other testimony puts the return at about 7:30 pm or 7:45 pm) at which time David joins in the search while Amanda is left with David's wife, Bobbye. Then, again, TH goes off alone. In short, there are several stretches of time during which TH was alone. All of JMB's time has been documented as having been spent with at least one other person.

Now, if you are truly wondering about Mark's apparently conflicting statements, I can summarize his explanation in the book (pp. 70 - 76). However, if you are simply wanting to cast doubt on Mark, I doubt that the explanation will satisfy you. However, here is a summary from the book.

Mark said that when he said that the knife had not been used he was referring to hunting. He misunderstood Gitchell's question to be in reference to hunting and not a general question regarding whether or not the knife had ever been used. So, his statement was simply an affirmation that the knife had not been used for hunting. He also mentioned that, due to the medication he was on (I am assuming the anti-depressant), he did have trouble remembering everything clearly.

A great deal of attention was paid to the fact that the blood on the knife matched Chris' type. However, little mention was made of the fact that Mark and Chris share the same blood type. Remember, there are only four basic blood types in human beings: A, B, AB and O. When the Rh factor is consider, the types are doubled to eight. The types are not equally distributed, however. So, the fact that Chris and Mark share the same blood type although they are not biologically related is really not all that remarkable.

The whole incident of the Kershaw knife was really a red herring. The defense, as is their job, was trying to establish reasonable doubt of their clients' guilt. Mark just happened to provide a possible avenue.

As a further example of what I'm saying, consider the necklace video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKnGYZfuBBQ"]Deleted scene from Paradise Lost - Necklace - YouTube[/ame]

Although the blood on the necklace had the same type as both Jason and Stevie, the prosecution had no intention of pointing out that the blood could have been Jason's (who often wore the necklace and could have easily cut himself shaving while wearing it and left the "specks" on it). All they wanted to establish was that the blood matched Stevie's type. The necklace was never discussed from the stand because it didn't really provide any inculpatory evidence. OTOH, the defense introduced the Kershaw knife because, although not exculpatory, it could have provided reasonable doubt for their clients.

 

[SNOWINMEMPHIS]

Why do some consider TH's bad memory during the Pasdar deposition many years after the murders so incriminating when JMB had this bad of a recall of his own statement when on the stand during one of the trials:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1qlTYYlAWU&feature=related"]John Mark Byers and the kershaw knife - YouTube[/ame]

And no I am not seeking to bait anyone or argue with anyone.
It is simply something I find troubling.
Thank you for posting the video concerning the necklace, but I had already seen it several times. I am sure it will prove interesting to those who have not.
jmo

 

[SNOWINMEMPHIS]

Also I recently stumbled upon a blog run by TH and he has pictures posted publicly of him and Pam and Amanda together at a park w/other friends and family right around Easter of this year.
If Pam thinks TH murdered her son, why would she be hanging out with him or having anything at all to do with him?
Color me a little bit confused by that!
jmo

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Pam has said, reported by her sisters as she doesn't have Internet access, that she didn't write the email referenced in that blog and that she spent most of that day in the car. She was there solely to protect her grandchildren and her daughter. The pictures were a gag, done for Amanda. There were many other pictures taken that day in which Pam does not appear. Terry (or his surrogate) chose to post those particular ones on the Internet, knowing that Pam has no access and therefore could not respond directly. Just another example of how underhanded he (or his friends/surrogates) can be. Don't believe everything on the Internet!

 

[SNOWINMEMPHIS]

I don't believe much I read on the internet. For sure!
If Pam remained in the car much of the day, there sure seemed to be plenty of pics of her w/TH and Amanda as well as with their grandkids.
If it was a gag, and I saw her posing w/a fork pretending to stab TH, I still don't understand why any mother who thought her exhusband murdered her child would be anywhere near him. Period.
Why would Pam feel the need to protect Amanda? Hasn't Amanda been living at times w/TH? I know Pam has had internet access in the past because I have read her posts.
She seems, at the very least, to be very conflicted about Terry's involvement.
I know she went out to the Sundance Film Festival and met Damien. So I don't get why someone in her position wouldn't have access to the internet. You can get on it with most cell phones.
Who would TH's "surrogate" be?
As I have said, I don't know anyone on either side of this horrible case.
I just don't understand anyone who would even be in the same room with an exhusband if they even suspected him of murdering their child. Why let your picture be taken with that person for any reason?
Somethings just don't add up IMO

 

[Compassionate Reader]

From what her sisters say on Facebook, Pam has struggled about this case a lot. I understand your feelings, and I don't think I would be able to sit down with a man that I suspected of murdering my child. However, I'm not Pam Hicks. (She has reverted to her maiden name.) I don't presume to understand her pain or her grieving process.

All I can do is read what I can and make an informed decision as to who is telling the truth. IMO, I don't believe anything out of TH's mouth! I don't know who his surrogate is, but I know from reading his deposition and wmpd interview that he is not writing that blog. That's why I mention a surrogate. I'm assuming either a family member or a minister or a lawyer, but I don't know. I'm sorry, but I believe Pam's sisters (and Pam) in this regard.