The supposed "evidence" against Mark Byers

[Ausgirl]

And if Byers mtDNA was tested and proved to be consistent with one of the other five hairs from the shoelaces would you all go back to pointing fingers at him too?

That is actually a really good question.

It would depend on -where- the hair was found. Ie, if it was found in an article of CB's clothing, maybe not.

If it was found tied into one of the ligatures, or somewhere else that wasn't easily explained by transfer -- well, sure. That's when I'd be re-examining his alibi and so on.

I think the term 'pointing fingers' is a bit pejorative here. Personally, I consider this case "unsolved" and so -everyone- is a suspect. Everyone! Until I see reason for them not to be.

I'm not a court, so suspecting -everyone- until proven innocent is my prerogative.

It just so happens that there's a long list of really good suspects in this case. One, some or none of those might have killed those three boys. But IMO, it's still worth examining all possibilities.

Since you know. WMPD really didn't. They made a start on it. No follow through..

 

[Graznik]

Talking about other hairs and such, is any further testing actually happening? Is anything going on behind the scenes so to speak?
In fact, has anything happened since Pam Hicks' and John Mark Byers' FOI suit and the following affidavits?
http://callahan.8k.com/hicks_wmpd/hicks_wmpd_index.html (that's what I'm referring to)

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Talking about other hairs and such, is any further testing actually happening? Is anything going on behind the scenes so to speak?
In fact, has anything happened since Pam Hicks' and John Mark Byers' FOI suit and the following affidavits?
http://callahan.8k.com/hicks_wmpd/hicks_wmpd_index.html (that's what I'm referring to)

The case was dismissed and the plaintiffs were satisfied with that.

The WMPD do NOT consider Hobbs a suspect.

They are not going to allow Byers and Hicks access to juvenile records plain and simple. There are records that are simply off limits period.

 

[missy_g]

The case was dismissed and the plaintiffs were satisfied with that.

The WMPD do NOT consider Hobbs a suspect.

They are not going to allow Byers and Hicks access to juvenile records plain and simple. There are records that are simply off limits period.

Not necessarily. Juvenile records aren't as "sealed" as everyone thinks.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

JMB and PH do not want access to "juvenile records." They simply want to see the "evidence" (clothing, bicycles, etc.) that belonged to their children. They don't even want to touch it - just look at it. If the case is closed, as the wmpd and the State of Arkansas claim, then there is no reason to deny these parents access to their children's belongings. However, if there is some doubt as to the strength of the case against Damien, Jason and Jessie, the wmpd would be well within their rights to keep the "evidence" off limits.

So, by denying access to the parents, IMO, the wmpd (and the State of Arkansas) are admitting that it is possible that this case isn't over. Since the three plead guilty under Alford, the only way that makes sense is if the wmpd (and the State of Arkansas) know that the three are innocent and that the killer(s) is/are still at large. It's one or the other. Again, since permission to see the "evidence" has been denied, I have to deduce that it is the latter rather than the former.

 

[Graznik]

That the way I understood it too. If the case is closed, the evidence should be available for the parents to view.

 

[kyleb]

Since the three plead guilty under Alford, the only way that makes sense is if the wmpd (and the State of Arkansas) know that the three are innocent and that the killer(s) is/are still at large.

It makes sense for Ellington to review the case regardless of he believes the three are guilty or otherwise, as explained by the judge Hill in his order regarding the FIOA suit:

The prosecutor has the right and the obligation to ascertain whether a miscarriage of justice might have occurred, or whether there were others who might have acted in concert with those who pled guilty, but who have, as yet, not boon brought to justice. That is his prerogative, and he might even be said to derelict in that duty if he failed to conduct such an investigation.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It makes sense for Ellington to review the case regardless of he believes the three are guilty or otherwise

Then why hasn't he?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

That the way I understood it too. If the case is closed, the evidence should be available for the parents to view.

It's the retention rules for law enforcement:

13-4-409 (c) (1) An item relating to the investigation of any of the following crimes shall be retained for ninety-nine (99) years:

(A) Capital murder, § 5-10-101;

(B) Murder in the first degree, § 5-10-102;

(C) Murder in the second degree, § 5-10-103;

(D) Rape, § 5-14-103;

(E) Sexual assault in the first degree, § 5-14-124; and

(F) Arson, § 5-38-301.

ftp://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/bills/2011/Public/HB1136.pdf

 

[UdbCrzy2]

JMB and PH do not want access to "juvenile records." They simply want to see the "evidence" (clothing, bicycles, etc.) that belonged to their children. They don't even want to touch it - just look at it. If the case is closed, as the wmpd and the State of Arkansas claim, then there is no reason to deny these parents access to their children's belongings. However, if there is some doubt as to the strength of the case against Damien, Jason and Jessie, the wmpd would be well within their rights to keep the "evidence" off limits.

So, by denying access to the parents, IMO, the wmpd (and the State of Arkansas) are admitting that it is possible that this case isn't over. Since the three plead guilty under Alford, the only way that makes sense is if the wmpd (and the State of Arkansas) know that the three are innocent and that the killer(s) is/are still at large. It's one or the other. Again, since permission to see the "evidence" has been denied, I have to deduce that it is the latter rather than the former.

I love your stories, but aren't you stretching the truth just a tad bit?

 

[missy_g]

I'm interested to know, what story is being "stretched"?

Here is an article stating that Pam Hobbs wants to see the evidence but her request has been denied in case there is a future prosection...

http://wm3org.typepad.com/blog-dele...ily-request-to-see-west-memphis-evidence.html

If the case was "closed" then shouldn't the evidence be available? I'm sure some of the parents want closure and just want their kids belongings back.


Here is the original article
http://wreg.com/2013/04/02/judge-denies-family-request-to-see-west-memphis-evidence/

 

[kyleb]

If the case was "closed" then shouldn't the evidence be available?

According to the order regarding the FIOA suit I linked previously the case is being reviewed, which is why the FIOA request was denied.

 

[missy_g]

Ok thanks. I must have missed where it said the case was being reviewed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I love your stories, but aren't you stretching the truth just a tad bit?

In a word, no. The case has been solved, according to the State. Although the evidence must be held for 99 years (as the law requires), there is no requirement preventing the parents from simply viewing the evidence, which was the request. I understand the necessity of not handling it, but not being able to view it is beyond me.

As to Ellington saying that the case is still under review, IMO, that's a bunch of garbage, to quote TH. Ellington admitted that he had not even reviewed the existing evidence before the new information was presented to him. He has made no communication with the defense team to indicate that anything is now being reviewed. The only communication, to my knowledge, that he has made to the defense team is acknowledgement of receipt of certain items. IMO, that doesn't consist of review. So, I repeat, why won't Ellington review the evidence and new information in this case?