Christopher Byers as primary victim...

Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by Ausgirl, Nov 9, 2013.

  1. Ausgirl

    Ausgirl Enough Is Enough!

    Messages:
    6,481
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IMO, the reason that this crime was long-mistaken to contain a sexual element was primarily because of the degloving of CB. If the defense experts that testified at the last Rule 37 hearing are correct (and I think that they are), the degloving was done by animals. Then, looking at injuries other than the degloving, SB was the victim with the most severe injuries and was, therefore, the primary target.

    However, CB was more injured than MM. So, we need to explore why this would be the case. One theory is that CB had a crush on SB's sister, Amanda. There's also anecdotal evidence indicating that TH sexually abused Amanda. Maybe he saw CB as a rival. I know that sounds sick, but anyone who killed three eight-year-old boys is sick to some extent, IMO.

    I'm still of the opinion that both CB and MM were killed because they witnessed Hobbs' attack on his step son. However, Hobbs could have been angry with CB over the Amanda situation. One thing is for sure. Neither Damien, Jason or Jessie had any problems with Christopher, Michael or Steven. In fact, they didn't even know the victims!

    One other theory to mention is that the boys came upon something that they weren't supposed to see. What that was is debatable - maybe a drug deal, maybe gay sex, maybe something else. This theory, IMO, doesn't adequately explain CB as the primary victim. It does explain SB as the primary victim. I have never heard a theory with MM as the primary victim, and IMO the evidence doesn't support such.
     
  4. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The mutilation of Christopher Byers isn't necessarily evidence of rage against him, only inflicted on him. As for who would do such a thing, see Misskelley's first confession:


    And then there's Misskelley's lawyer's notes from the confession to him a week latter which were read at an appeal hearing:

    Granted, mention of blonde suggests Stevie Branch, but that could either be an error in Stidham's notes or Misskelley's recollection, while the identification of Baldwin as the one who inflicted the genital mutilation remains consistent. And Misskelley was still confessing to his lawyer a few months later, a few weeks after having plead not guilty at the pretrial hearings, though he didn't go into detail on the genital mutilation there. Then there's the incident report regarding Misskelley's confession to the sheriffs who brought him back to the prison after his conviction:

    And a few days later Misskelley confessed to his lawyer yet again:

    And about two weeks after that Misskelley confessed to the prosecution, against the recommendation of his lawyers:

    Of course there's many who dismiss all those confessions as false, suggesting the prosecutors wanted Misskelley to lie on the stand against Baldwin and Echols, but that's not how he described the situation in a telephone call with his lawyer a few days after that last documented confession:

    Crow apparently wasn't interested in the truth though, and the same goes for many others.
     
  5. Pisces Cloud

    Pisces Cloud Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I have wondered myself whether TH could have got angry at CB with regards to Amanda. I think I've read that on the day of the disappearance CB was watching TV with Amanda and so have considered that maybe something triggered TH off. It could have been something insignificant, but someone with a temper could have blown it out of all proportion. That's if TH was there at the same time, though, as I don't know that for sure.
     
  6. LunaticFringe

    LunaticFringe I know you're out there...

    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sorry if this is off topic...

    Jessie says it was a locking blade buck knife....yet the knife presented in court as possibly being the murder weapon is a survival knife that is not self locking.Well,which is it?

    Hmmm,what am I missing here?
     
  7. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The survival knife was presented at trial as being consistent with multiple wounds on the victims, but not any fatal wounds, and hence not rightly even a murder weapon, let alone the murder weapon. The murder weapon in the case of Stevie Branch and Michael Moore was quite obviously not a knife at all, but rather the water in creek, as they died of drowning. As for Christopher Byers who died of multiple injuries before being submerged it the creek, the worst of those injuries being the mutilation of his genitals, it was the defense who presented a knife as possibly being the weapon responsible for that in an attempt to scapegoat Mark Byers as the real killer, a deception that turned into a decade and a half witch hunt against Byers which some are apparently still falling for, including whoever made this video:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1qlTYYlAWU"]John Mark Byers and the kershaw knife - YouTube[/ame]

    Granted, Mark Byers' knife obviously wasn't used to mutilate his son, but it was identified as consistent with those wounds and others, and it is consistent with the knife Misskelley described Baldwin as having used to mutilate Christopher Byers. As for the consistency between the Echols' survival knife and other wounds, part 4 of this article provides details on that.
     
  8. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's just a theory and nothing more, so it's subject to change, but my first thought is that Hobbs is pissed off that Stevie is being a pain in his a#$ by not coming home when he was supposed to and ruining his night. He's blown off looking for Stevie but now that Stevie still isn't home, he's even more pissed that he has to go out looking for him. He's already about to explode and probably planning on giving Stevie a beating at home for not coming home when he comes across the boys. When he finds them, he starts laying into Stevie and if Christopher has such behavioral issues, he may have said something to Hobbs in defense of his friend and this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Hobbs' temper explodes and he does something that can't be taken back.

    I've seen enough of Hobbs' demeanor to know that I'd be concerned about saying anything confrontational to him. He's shown the ability and willingness to try to kill another. Obviously, exactly what happened is all speculation, but that's the thoughts going through my head at this point.
     
  9. Cappuccino

    Cappuccino Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,554
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Christopher was also in a bad mood with his own stepfather at the time. He'd been punished earlier that day and told a neighbour that he was running away from home. In that state of mind, I could see many children giving cheek where they normally wouldn't, even to a friend's parent.
     
  10. gheckso

    gheckso New Member

    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Probably kicked his toe on the way out to. That always gets ya angry.
     
  11. LunaticFringe

    LunaticFringe I know you're out there...

    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48

    I realize the mistake I made in saying a murder weapon as opposed to a possible knife used at the crime scene.
     
  12. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I knew what you meant. Wasn't going to nitpick though.
     
  13. ScarlettScarpetta

    ScarlettScarpetta When the going gets tough, drink coffee

    Messages:
    12,667
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Everything Misskelley said, Is to me trash. He did not know important details and made others up.


    I think that there was a reason someone wanted them dead, And I always felt like it was triggered by an event.

    Im curious about how often the boys played in that spot?

    There was a Cold Case episode that kind of followed this case. It was of course fiction but the premise was that the boy angered his step father and so he killed him and the others because they were witnesses.

    I know it is fiction but in a way it always made sense to me. I don't believe that the WM3 have any guilt in this crime.
     
  14. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But do you realize mistake in assuming there could only be one knife involved in the murders?

    Sure, and for some people everything Neil Armstrong said is trash, that's just how positions of misplaced faith work.
     
  15. gheckso

    gheckso New Member

    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If Neil Armstrong's statements of the events of the moon landing didn't correspond to the actual evidence available then yes, it would be trash-able.
     
  16. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If Armstrong was anything close to the half-wit Misskelley is then his accounts would've surely had some notable inconsistencies too, but imagining otherwise just another part of how positions of misplaced faith work.
     
  17. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some people even have misplaced faith in LE. Just because LE says something doesn't make it so. It's called "being railroaded" I do believe.
     
  18. Ausgirl

    Ausgirl Enough Is Enough!

    Messages:
    6,481
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't wish to comment on the Hobbs theory yet, as I'd like to look into it myself a bit further before doing so, but yes - you're quite right about the injuries and the possibility Stevie Branch was the primary target.
     
  19. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you realize she's ignoring what the defense experts said about the other injuries? Dr. Werner Spitz summed it up at Echols' 2007 press conference:

    So, if you take what the defense experts actually said as correct, there's nothing about injuries which points to any of the boys being a primary target. Not that I'm suggesting the defense experts are correct by any stretch, neither these nor the previous ones who made claims of human bite marks back when the witch hunt was focused on Mark Byers.
     
  20. LunaticFringe

    LunaticFringe I know you're out there...

    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No.I'm going by what Jessie said.I do not recall him saying that there were two knives involved.I thought it was only Jason who had the "locking buck knife".

    I am not even sure if I believe there was a knife there at all unless little Stevie had his pocket knife in his pants pocket.
    It's just my opinion that if there were knives there...all three of them would have died from multiple stab wounds or their throats would have been slit.Sorry for being so graphic.I just can't for the life of me wrap my head around a knife being used only on little Stevie's face,Christopher's genitals and possibly cutting on the shoe laces.
     
  21. Ausgirl

    Ausgirl Enough Is Enough!

    Messages:
    6,481
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've looked at some crimes where a knife was used for some things and not others, injured some victims and not others, etc - it very well could indicate that there was more than one killer too.

    I realise the animals theory is both popular and backed up by experts -- but frankly? I am not one bit liking how every faction of opinion and legal team etc has experts to back up and directly contradict the other side's experts, and there's just SO many sides, isn't there?

    How many experts have contradicted other experts in this case? Really, someone ought to make a list, lol.

    Idk. Sorry for the mini-rant, I just sometimes find heavily biased and/or suspect-based POV's frustrating to deal with (where professional examination of evidence is concerned ;) ) 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.

    I think I am not very convinced so far that animals made all the wounds on those bodies, just now. Unless they were animals with knife-like teeth and really poor appetites, seeing as they just sort of sucked on the bodies a bit and put a few holes in, rather than consuming any satisfying portion of them. Yes, being a bit facetious there, but I think it's not a bad point.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice