Viable Suspect: John Mark Byers

[Wishbone]

There's actually a bit of both, which know if you'd bothered to read the overview of the evidence which I linked above.


Again, there were two trials, and both were held away from West Memphis in an effort to alleviate the issue of jury prejudice due to pretrial publicity. I'm at a loss as to what more one could expect regarding that.


That's something I mentioned in my previous post. Did you not even bother to read all of that short post before quoting and responding to it?

I'm not on trial here. I just don't agree with you and I will leave it at that!

 

[kyleb]

Nothing in what you quoted there is a matter of opinion. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with facts.

 

[Wishbone]

Nothing in what you quoted there is a matter of opinion. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with facts.

Speaking for yourself?

 

[Lulu67]

In watching both PL films, I found his behavior extremely disturbing. As soon as he heard there was a bite mark expert coming to investigate the autopsy photos, he mysteriously (3 different stories) had his teeth removed (and not one of the WM3's bite marks matched); his knife had blood that matched both him & Christopher; NO DNA at the crime scene matched any of the WM3, and sorry.....but a 16yr old, 17yr old and 18yr old aren't so proficient in crime scene cleanup that they leave not even ONE hair behind?!?

I believe they were railroaded, but really......only the killer, those little boys and God knows what happened, and one day, justice WILL be levied.

 

[kyleb]

Lulu, how did you conclude that Byers had his teeth removed after the claims of bite marks started, and have you ever seen a wound in any of the autopsy photos actually demonstrated as consistent with a bite mark? As for the blood on Byers' knife, it didn't necessarily match either him or Christopher, it was only able to be tested to the point which proved that it could have been from Mark, Christopher, or many other people who have similar blood.

Also, while no DNA testing results have matched the Baldwin, Echols or Misskelley, that doesn't rule out the possibility that they left DNA at the crime scene which investigators overlooked, or even DNA which was recovered by investigators but provided incapable of being DNA tested or simply never has been tested. In particular I've seen mention of hairs found to be microscopically similar to hair from Baldwin and Echols (on page 10 of this petition for example), but I've yet to find if any DNA testing was actually done on those specific hairs, or what results if any that a possible attempt at testing them produced.

As for your belief that the coveted are innocent, I'm curious: have you ever taken the time to examine a detailed argument to the contrary?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Mark Byers has said that he realizes that his behavior in the first two PL films cast suspicion on him. I'd advise one to watch the third PL film for a better picture of Mark Byers.

Yes, the blood on the Byers (Kershaw) knife is the same type as both Mark and Christopher. It is one of only six distinct types of blood found in human beings and is therefore inconclusive evidence of anything.

As to a "detailed argument" of the guilt of the wrongfully-incarcerated and finally freed young men, there is none.

(Sorry I've been absent for a while. I had eye surgery and had to heal!)

 

[Hez]

Mark Byers has said that he realizes that his behavior in the first two PL films cast suspicion on him. I'd advise one to watch the third PL film for a better picture of Mark Byers.

Yes, the blood on the Byers (Kershaw) knife is the same type as both Mark and Christopher. It is one of only six distinct types of blood found in human beings and is therefore inconclusive evidence of anything.

As to a "detailed argument" of the guilt of the wrongfully-incarcerated and finally freed young men, there is none.

(Sorry I've been absent for a while. I had eye surgery and had to heal!)

Good to see you. Your knowledge of this case is a welcome sight. :seeya:

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Mark Byers has said that he realizes that his behavior in the first two PL films cast suspicion on him. I'd advise one to watch the third PL film for a better picture of Mark Byers.

Yes, the blood on the Byers (Kershaw) knife is the same type as both Mark and Christopher. It is one of only six distinct types of blood found in human beings and is therefore inconclusive evidence of anything.

As to a "detailed argument" of the guilt of the wrongfully-incarcerated and finally freed young men, there is none.

(Sorry I've been absent for a while. I had eye surgery and had to heal!)

Just need to make a slight correction. Of course there are eight distinct human blood types, not six! I was in a hurry. Sorry.:blushing:

 

[xterrabyte]

Upon reading her autopsy and the overwhelming health issues noted, I'm actually surprised she lived as long as she did given her lifestyle in the end.

A detailed discussion of the death of Melissa Byers, consisting of information from the hospital in Ash Flats and the autopsy report, as well as anecdotal information directly from Mark Byers and his family, can be found in my book Untying the Knot: John Mark Byers and the West Memphis Three. But Larry is essentially correct: Melissa Byers was an accident waiting to happen.

I was also aware of the fact that both her and Mark were IV drug users. (Dilaudid being their drug of choice - which was also present in her system at autopsy.

This is untrue. Melissa was an habitual IV drug user, it's true, and Dilaudid was her drug. However, Mark never used IV drugs, and didn't even use cocaine (though he was arrested for attempting to broker a sale of cocaine to federal agents.) Again, details are in the book.

Actually, the list is longer than that, and he has done time more than once.

Mark was incarcerated in EARU in Brickeys, AR from May of 1999 until January 2000, at which time he was transferred to the Delta Regional unit, total time of incarceration=15 months of an 8 year sentence. He was paroled in June 2000, and fulfilled the conditions of his parole in May of 2007.

Melissa was aware of his infidelity long before her death.

Not sure where you are getting this information. Although Mark saw Mandy Beasley (d. July 26, 2002) for a period after Melissa's death on March 29, 1996, there is no evidence that he was having an affair with Beasley prior to that, and further there was no indication that Melissa thought anything was going on. Melissa and Mandy were friends (Beasley knew Mark from Marked Tree High School, and she coincidentally moved to Cherokee Village, where she and Melissa were introduced), and the two even fixed up Melissa's older son Ryan with Beasley's daughter Anneleise. Cherokee Village neighbor Fern Moyer described Beasley as Mark's "girlfriend" when police were investigating Melissa's death, but there was nothing to substantiate that claim.

Again, it's all in the book.

Since he was arrested for using a cattle prod on his first wife, I can't imagine anyone questioning whether or not he abused his partners.

It wasn't a "cattle-prod." It was a stun gun, and he didn't "use it on her", but merely threatened her with it (after she spat in his face, the intent of which was to provoke a conflict to help support her side of a custody battle which she was in danger of loosing). Sandra Sloan was an adulteress. The text of a letter to her lover is included in the book.

During his last stint in prison, he became a quasi-member of the arian [sic]group GFBD to "keep ******s off him" as he put it

For one thing, "GFBD" is not a gang name, but a slogan ("God Forgives, Brotherhood Doesn't) used by the Aryan Brotherhood. Mark was not a member of this ultra-violent, "blood-in blood-out" gang, but rather he was an associate of the smaller, much less radical Dirty White Boys. This is a matter of survival in prison as anyone who has ever been inside knows.

Again, the book has an entire chapter devoted to Mark's time in prison.

You can get a Kindle copy of the book for less than $4.00. If you're interested in this topic I think you should spring for a copy. Of course, if you'd rather, I'd be happy to send you a signed copy for $10 plus postage while supplies last. :facepalm:

~Greg Day Author: Untying the Knot: John Mark Byers and the West Memphis Three.~

P.S. For what it's worth, I believe that the West Memphis Three, and they alone, are guilty of the murders of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore.

My Blog

 

[kyleb]

Greg, I've got a couple of questions about Byers I'm hoping you might be able to answer:

1. When did he get his teeth removed exactly, and why?
   
   
2. Were his pumpkin shooting and mock grave burning ritual entierly his own ideas, or did he have some assistance in comming up with them, perhaps from Berlinger and Sinofsky?

Also, how should I send you money for a copy of your book? Feel free to private message me the answer to that one if you prefer not to post it publicly.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

You can get a Kindle copy of the book for less than $4.00. If you're interested in this topic I think you should spring for a copy. Of course, if you'd rather, I'd be happy to send you a signed copy for $10 plus postage while supplies last. :facepalm:

~Greg Day Author: Untying the Knot: John Mark Byers and the West Memphis Three.~

P.S. For what it's worth, I believe that the West Memphis Three, and they alone, are guilty of the murders of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore.

My Blog

Thanks for joining the discussion here xterrabye! Downloaded the book, and off to read. Thank you.

:welcome:

 

[texaslb218]

Me too. And sent to a friend..

 

[xterrabyte]

Greg, I've got a couple of questions about Byers I'm hoping you might be able to answer:

When did he get his teeth removed exactly, and why?

The best way to answer your question is to quote directly from the book.

"Mark lost all his remaining teeth in 1997. They were removed by a dental surgeon (a friend of his sister's) in Jackson, Mississippi.This was obviously suspicious to supporters, who reasoned that Mark had had his teeth removed to cover up complicity in the murders. The fact that he was initially evasive in this area did not help his cause. He also sensationalized how he lost his teeth for whatever reason. Attention? To taunt supporters?

"The truth is that Mark’s teeth had been deteriorating for years. Some were allegedly knocked out in fights. As noted previously, Byers claimed that he 'self-destructed' after the murders and 'got downright mean.' In one scene in Revelations, he tells viewers, 'The pain they [Echols, Baldwin,and Misskelley] caused me, physically and mentally, and all the fights and all I got into ’cause I went to lookin’ for ’em, and the bricks that hit me in the head, and the knives that cut these scars on my face, and”—he removes his dentures—“and the jerks that had the privilege of knocking teeth out of my mouth: well, that’s ’cause them three animals that provoked me so that cost me a whole set of teeth . . . and I can’t imagine why people want to say the things they say about me.'

"The “whole set of teeth” remark cost him plenty in light of the subsequent statements he made about the cause of his lost teeth. Although he had lost a tooth or two in fights—including, according to Mark, a bashing in the mouth with the butt of a shotgun years before the murders—he didn’t lose the whole set at one time or for one reason, and he wouldn’t get a full set of dentures until long after Christopher’s death."

And this:

"A notice appears on-screen during Revelations informing viewers that the makers of Tegratol do not list periodontal disease as a possible side effect of the drug (Mark had also claimed that this was the cause of his lost teeth).

But another similar drug that Mark took—Dilantin—does have this side effect. Endnote 118 adds: 'According to the American Academy of Periodontology, 'tobacco use may be one of the most significant risk factors in the development and progression of periodontal disease.' Mark was a heavy smoker. Additionally, following periodontal treatment or any type of oral surgery, [tobacco use] “can slow down the healing process and make the treatment results less predictable.' "

A whole lot of hubbub considering that there were no human bite marks on any of the victims!

Were his pumpkin shooting and mock grave burning ritual entierly his own ideas, or did he have some assistance in comming up with them, perhaps from Berlinger and Sinofsky?

These scenes and others (Mark at Christopher's and Melissa's graves, for example) were collaborative efforts between Mark and the filmmakers. Berlinger and Sinofsky were very suggestive as to ways to showcase Mark's histrionics. The mock grave burning in particular went something like, "Hey Mark, you know how you said (in PL1) that you wanted to spit and stomp on their (the WM3) graves when they die? They're a lot younger than you, and you may not get the chance. How about doing it now?" Mark was quite drunk during this particular scene. While he was waiting at the hotel bar he was drinking whiskey paid for by the filmmakers. Please don't read this to suggest that Mark had to be talked into anything. Mark's ego was his worst enemy. All he ever needed was a little push. On the other hand, the filmmakers are professionals and knew they were getting, in Berlinger's words, "great stuff."

An interesting aside to the pumpkin shooting involves Terry Hobbs. Mark invited both Todd Moore and Terry Hobbs to come pumpkin shooting, but only Todd took him up on it. According to Mark, Terry said he didn't have a gun (this is total, unsubstantiated hearsay, so please take it with a grain of salt). Oddly, Hobbs had a .357 magnum at least by November 1994-less than a year after the pumpkin shooting was filmed-when he shot his brother-in-law (Jackie Hicks, Jr.) in self-defense. (Hicks died years later due to complications arising from the eventual removal of the slug that had been left inside him.)

Also, how should I send you money for a copy of your book? Feel free to private message me the answer to that one if you prefer not to post it publicly.

Sent to your inbox!

P.S. Sorry for the delay in answering this post. I changed my notification settings to "Instant notification" so it won't happen again.

 

[kyleb]

No worries on the late reply, it was well worth the wait. So, Byers teeth were gone before Brent Turvey showed up on the scene to start bite marks nonsense which a quick Google image search demonstrates the absurdity of, and gone with a perfectly reasonable explanation. Yet Berlinger and Sinofsky didn't bother to explain any of that in the movie, and rather chose to portray the illusion that Byers might have got his teeth removed because human bite marks were found on the victims.

This leaves me to wonder: are you aware of the fact that that purported bite mark is actually [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202132"]consistent with the knife[/ame] found in the lake behind Baldwin's house, and more importantly, is Byers aware of this fact? Note that while I made the thread I linked, I'm far from the first to notice this, here is mention of it way back in 2002, with a few apparent quotes from forensic odontologists even, though so poorly attributed that one would have to contact the men to substantiate them.

Anyway, you've already give me my money's worth for your book, so I'll get that money order off to you shortly.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

xterrabyte In your book you say the WM3 'may be innocent' yet here and in your blog you are more willing to be staunchly convinced of their guilt, is there a reason for this. Did you become more convinced after writing the book, or were you equally convinced while writing the book, but did not want to write a pro-prosecution book for publication.

 

[xterrabyte]

Mrs. G, you are quite right. In my book I did make the statement that the WM3 may be innocent.

The statement reflected my belief, at the time, that it was at least within the realm of possibility that a doubt existed regarding their guilt. It was not, and is not, my personal belief that anyone else is guilty of the crime. During the writing of Untying the Knot, balance was my primary concern. I wanted to show both sides of the argument, and also to explain and reinforce John Mark Byers’s belief in their innocence. And I can say this: Byers truly does believe this and the book does much to outline his belief and the reasons for it.

And although I acknowledge that there exists some doubt, it doesn’t reach the standard of reasonable doubt. The reasonable person, when presented with the evidence, could only conclude that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley killed Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.

To more directly answer your question, my beliefs became much more galvanized during the writing of the book. Aside from a much more critical review of the evidence via official transcripts, etc., I also spent time with some of the principals involved in the case (i.e. Todd and Dana Moore – Todd via telephone – Terry Hobbs, profiler John Douglas and others), as well as attendance at two sessions of the Baldwin/Misskelley Rule 37 hearings and the ASSC hearing that ended up being the catalyst that freed the three. After all that, and committing it to writing, I could come to no other conclusion.

 

[xterrabyte]

Sorry that I missed this question. If I ever heard about the dome-shaped patterned abrasion matching the lake knife, I certainly don't recall it. I would only say that because of the superficial nature of the wounds on the victims - with the exceptions being the skull fractures that caused death, and possibly the wound on Stevie Branch's left cheek - the lake knife was never a viable murder weapon, at least in my opinion. I also find it unlikely that someone would use the butt of the knife without ever using the blade. I believe that the "sticks" that Misskelley stated were used were the weapons used to crush the skulls of the three boys, and possibly make the dome shaped pattern abrasion on Stevie Branch's eye. Just my opinion, of course

 

[kyleb]

Have you've you looked at the autopsy photos Peretti described showing wounds consistent with the lake knife, including the one Fogleman showed the jury asked them to compare it to marks left on the grapefruit? Did you review the threads I linked? I demonstrated consistency with more than just the hilt, and apparently Petetti and Fogleman did too, though I've yet to see high enough resolution copies of those autopsy photos to be sure.

Regardless, Lake Knife obviously wasn't a murder weapon. Rather, the murder weapon in the case of Michael Moore and Steve Branch was apparently the water in the creek, as the autopsy reports suggest they were drowned to death. On the other hand, it seems Christopher Byers' stopped breathing before his body was submerged water, which is hardly surprising given the horrific trauma inflicted upon him, apparently by Baldwin with a lock blade around 6" long, just like he explained in his confessions, and much like defense experts agreed back when they were trying to connect Byers' knife to the murders. And yes, all the boys endured blunt force trauma too, apparently from sticks like Misskelley described. That doesn't rule out the possibility that the Lake Knife was used to inflict some of the wounds too though, and and the evidence I referred to above leaves no room for reasonable doubt that it was.

Anyway, since you mention having spent time with John Douglas, I'm curious: did you ever ask him to consider the many elements of his suspect profile matches Echols to a tee, or did he ever give you an opinion on Echols at all?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Mrs. G, you are quite right. In my book I did make the statement that the WM3 may be innocent.

The statement reflected my belief, at the time, that it was at least within the realm of possibility that a doubt existed regarding their guilt. It was not, and is not, my personal belief that anyone else is guilty of the crime. During the writing of Untying the Knot, balance was my primary concern. I wanted to show both sides of the argument, and also to explain and reinforce John Mark Byers’s belief in their innocence. And I can say this: Byers truly does believe this and the book does much to outline his belief and the reasons for it.

And although I acknowledge that there exists some doubt, it doesn’t reach the standard of reasonable doubt. The reasonable person, when presented with the evidence, could only conclude that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley killed Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.

To more directly answer your question, my beliefs became much more galvanized during the writing of the book. Aside from a much more critical review of the evidence via official transcripts, etc., I also spent time with some of the principals involved in the case (i.e. Todd and Dana Moore – Todd via telephone – Terry Hobbs, profiler John Douglas and others), as well as attendance at two sessions of the Baldwin/Misskelley Rule 37 hearings and the ASSC hearing that ended up being the catalyst that freed the three. After all that, and committing it to writing, I could come to no other conclusion.

Thank you for replying .. It was reading posts by Todd Moore (on another site that is now gone) that I too became completely convinced .. More because he offered insights into some of the behind the scenes carry on than discussion of evidence. I think that eventually the truth will be obvious to all .. This story is far from over IMO.

On John Douglas I thought in his recent book that he considered WM3 not guilty .. Are his opinions more complex than that? Does he just think the satanic aspect was incorrect .. I agree with him of that is the case.

 

[kyleb]

Are you referring to the satanic ritual murder claims made by the media and such? If so, I agree that is incorrect too. If you're referring to Griffis' testimony regrading occult aspects of the crimes, I also agree that much of what he said was poorly reasoned conjecture. However, as for the satanic aspect of the murders as argued by the prosecution itself, I've yet to find anything incorrect in what Fogleman and Davis said on the mater. If you've found otherwise, please quote either or both of them here.