I'd like to look at the possibility that Christopher Byers was the primary target of this crime, and the other boys were 'collateral damage', ie, witnesses who just happened to be there when the killer got his chance.
Do you think CB was the primary victim?
How does the evidence support this idea, or negate it?
I'm pondering it, as he was the one with the most physical damage. He was also, as reports have stated, having some fairly serious behavioural issues, which could have contributed to motive.
But if rage against this boy was the motive, why wait til he was in the company of not one, but TWO little friends before attacking? This suggests to me there was no pre-med, if it was indeed a crime of rage. Was it, then, an immediate situation between victims and killer that escalated past the point of anger and into murder?
Who would have cause to build that much rage against Christopher Byers? Had he had trouble with any of the neighbours/neighbourhood kids/immediate locals in the days and weeks prior to the crime?
I'm thinking, if this was all about rage, he must have royally p'd somebody off -- had he vandalised something, annoyed the heck out of a neighbour, bullied somebody else's kid? How thoroughly was that angle explored, and were there any obvious stand-out local people who'd had issues with CB prior?
Please do NOT assume I'm victim-bashing or victim-blaming here, I'll be most annoyed if that is raised, as it isn't at all the case.
The fact is, CB -did- have behavioural issues, this is known, and to me it seems very possible a person with anger problems could have lost control to the point of not caring that there were three kids to deal with.
Do you think CB was the primary victim?
How does the evidence support this idea, or negate it?
I'm pondering it, as he was the one with the most physical damage. He was also, as reports have stated, having some fairly serious behavioural issues, which could have contributed to motive.
But if rage against this boy was the motive, why wait til he was in the company of not one, but TWO little friends before attacking? This suggests to me there was no pre-med, if it was indeed a crime of rage. Was it, then, an immediate situation between victims and killer that escalated past the point of anger and into murder?
Who would have cause to build that much rage against Christopher Byers? Had he had trouble with any of the neighbours/neighbourhood kids/immediate locals in the days and weeks prior to the crime?
I'm thinking, if this was all about rage, he must have royally p'd somebody off -- had he vandalised something, annoyed the heck out of a neighbour, bullied somebody else's kid? How thoroughly was that angle explored, and were there any obvious stand-out local people who'd had issues with CB prior?
Please do NOT assume I'm victim-bashing or victim-blaming here, I'll be most annoyed if that is raised, as it isn't at all the case.
The fact is, CB -did- have behavioural issues, this is known, and to me it seems very possible a person with anger problems could have lost control to the point of not caring that there were three kids to deal with.
) on several levels, most importantly being that even the hard evidence gets wobbly and even non-existent, once folks that are heavily invested in, and therefore forever superglued to, one particular theory get through with it. And that messes with the truth, which sometimes takes a back seat to winning or being 'right', eh.