Viable Suspect: John Mark Byers

[kyleb]

Documentaries, by and large are character studies in a specific situation or event.

Hardly by any dentition of the terms I've seen. For example:

documentary

• a factual film or television programme about an event, person, etc, presenting the facts with little or no fiction

character study

• a work of fiction in which the delineation of the central character's personality is more important than the plot

Given such definitions, suggesting the former is primarily the latter is akin to saying black is white. I thank you for bringing the second term into the discussion though, as I'd yet to think of doing so. Particularly in the case of PL2, rather than calling it a documentary as so many people do, it's far more accurately described as a character study.

This gets back to what I was saying about Berlinger and Sinofsky spending the bulk of their runtime casting suspicion Byers, though of course I haven't sat down and tabulated out the times for every clip, so I may have overstated myself there. However, I was primary referring to how they started showing clips of the polygraph test around a third of the way into the movie and saved the results until nearly the end, along with all the other clips throughout demonstrating Byers' peculiar behaviors, and of course the clips of Echols, Baldwin, and various others pointing their fingers at Byers. Considering all that, it seems to me that PL2 might best best considered a character study casting suspicion on John Mark Byers.

Of course Byers did play into that suspicion, but considering the fact Berlinger and Sinofsky gave him money to participate in the movies, one is left to wonder how much was done at their prompting rather than his own accord. For instance, I can easily imagine Byers mentioning visiting his wife's grave and Berlinger and Sinofsky simply asking to tag along to end up footage they used, but I rather doubt Byers came up with the whole ritual of incinerating mock graves in the creek bed on his own. Regardless, Berlinger and Sinofsky obviously made the chose to tell the story they wanted people to see rather than going were the evidence leads as an actual documentary would.

 

[HastingsChi]

kyleb if you already knew the answer (as we know you're right, anyone with a different take than you is not so much correct) and had a detailed rebuttal; why did you even ask the question in the first place?

 

[EntreNous]

doc·u·men·ta·ry (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

while your definition of "character study" is true in the sense of an author creating a fictional person, it is incomplete. most adults are able to make the mental distinction between the real world/real people and fantasy. i apologize if you felt unclear to the point of looking up the definitions. i will try to simplify my responses to you from this point forward.
understand kyleb that JMB is a real person thus that is the context in which "character study" is used in this case. i have spent my life in film making, production, and theater. i fully understand the industry terms. the documentarian's job is to allow his/her subject tell their own story through a standard character study--
physical description: a formidable figure-backwoods in appearance, disheveled, ill-fitting dentures, blonde mullet, tall, defined mustache with beard unshaven, unkempt; traits: bombastic, waxing poetic, under the influence of drugs and or alcohol, (trouble enunciating at times/slurred speach, trouble with balance at times, etc.), frequent biblical references on vengeance, vitriolic, intense anger, intelligent and higher level of verbal proficiency than others; and analysis: JMB's story/association to the crime and victims as told by himself throughout the films.
here is a helpful tool that will perhaps give you a better understanding of documentary making basics, including character studies...http://documentarystudies.duke.edu/...ng-the-digital-video-documentary.original.pdf

Hope this helps you!

 

[kyleb]

HastingsChi,

I made this threads because I like to consider other people's understandings of matters so that I might better inform my own. I had no way to know how EntreNous would answer, or even that she would, and certainly had no means of formulating my reply to her until I read her response to me. That said, if your interest is in asking questions of me rather than discussing the topic of this thread, please use the private messaging function or perhaps start a new thread if you insist on doing it publicly, as I'd prefer this thread can remain focused on the topic at hand.

EntreNous,

Those definitions your quoted are for when the term is used as a verb, and the concur with the definition of documentary when used as a noun which I quoted previously. As for your claim of most people being able to distinguish between reality and fantasy, I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. A 2003 poll which showing 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link is one notable example of this, and I can provide plenty more upon request.

And of course Byers is a real person, but that doesn't make Berlinger and Sinofsky's portrayal of him as likely to have murdered his son and two other boys any less "a work of fiction in which the delineation of the central character's personality is more important than the plot" , and puts the movie a long way from being "a factual film or television programme about an event, person, etc, presenting the facts with little or no fiction." The same is true of the wild finger pointing at Hobbs throughout the most recent Paradise Lost and West of Memphis.

 

[EntreNous]

hmm...wow.

 

[kyleb]

What, am I to take that you are among those so tragically misinformed as to still believe the notion that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks? Even Bush has long since admitted it has no basis in reality.

 

[HastingsChi]

What, am I to take that you are among those so tragically misinformed as to still believe the notion that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks? Even Bush has long since admitted it has no basis in reality.

While no rational human being of sound mind would never bring the fabricated connection between Iraq and the September 11, 2001 attacks; you certainly found it appropriate to bring it up in this non-discussion...

I look forward to more of your nonsensical ramblings from Crazytown USA... You're teetering on the edge of me laughing at your drivel and my serious concern for your mental stability. Goodness.

 

[tapu]

Well, that was 5 minutes of my life wasted....

 

[kyleb]

While no rational human being of sound mind would never bring the fabricated connection between Iraq and the September 11, 2001 attacks; you certainly found it appropriate to bring it up in this non-discussion...

EntreNous claimed:

most adults are able to make the mental distinction between the real world/real people and fantasy.

So I responded:

I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. A 2003 poll which [sic] showing 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link is one notable example of this

HastingsChi, if you have a rational basis for your contest with my example, please present it.

 

[HastingsChi]

Kyleb I'm not going to respond as it would only throw fuel on the fire of your life passion which seems to be trolling these threads solely to: attack people who disagree with your views, raise questions which you already know the answer to, present drivel which is not related to the case and not based in logic, and, bully members like myself until you can take control of every thread and attack us until we just go away.

It's spring now, a great time to get out of the house and take up a new hobby. If you need suggestions of potential hobbies, I'm happy to help.

 

[kyleb]

I'm not attacking people who disagree with my views here, but rather attacking views which disagree with reality. Were I to start attacking people who disagree with my views, my posts would be completely different, and I can provide you a personalized example of that upon request. I've no interest in going there though, and hope you might give up on your interest in attacking me.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I think it's a major issue, the fact the JMB was targeted as a potential suspect in PL2, and the fact that they've now moved that focus to TH.

It's a step beyond what is necessary, the killers are free after 18 years (which may be a fair sentence in a way for what happened - 3 drunken boys not quite of age, not really a planned event, although since DE was a clear ringleader, I assume if facts had been presented in a more measured and realistic way he may have served longer) so why drag someone else's name through the mud?

I think in the producers heart of hearts they know that TH had nothing to do with this crime. That's the sad part, why? The hair was a secondary transfer, if it was his at all. He is just as much of a scapegoat as JMB was, and for what?

Is all the money from the 'Pardon the WM3' donations being distributed evenly amongst them or is the bulk of the money going to Lori and Damien? If that is the case expect to see a huge fall out between the three of them in the years to follow. It appears that Jessie is just trying to move on with his life, I don't really expect ripples from him, but I think Jason will buck.

In the meantime I wish they'd just drop the whole TH thing. It's not credible after spending so long on JMB for so many years and hounding him so mercilessly.

Here's his website, with pictures of TH and Pam mucking it up for the cameras if you scroll down, clearly she doesn't believe he committed the crime.

http://www.terryhobbs.com/

 

[Nova]

^^^Uh, DE was SENTENCED TO DEATH! There is no "longer' sentence than dead.

He was allowed to take the Alford Plea because the State knew it had no case.

***

I don't know whether TH is guilty or not, but his are the only forensic artifacts left at the scene where the bodies were found. That automatically makes him at least a "person of interest". If he is innocent of the West Memphis killings, I don't want him falsely convicted. (And there's very little chance he will be, IMO.)

But the man shot his brother-in-law and dumped his wife because she wouldn't get over the death of her son quickly enough. He makes a strange object of sympathy, if you ask me.

***

As for the original assertion that the filmmakers of PL2 did not spend more time "investigating Mark Byers' alibi", wasn't Melissa Byers a big part of that alibi? She was dead by the time most of PL2 was made.

 

[kyleb]

He was allowed to take the Alford Plea because the State knew it had no case.

The state proved it had a case when it brought the three to trial and convinced them the first time around, and further supporting evidence has come out in the hearings since then. However, state also has a limited budget to spend on such trials, and doesn't have any way to guaranty that a jury will side in their favor, particularly not when going against defendants backed by virtually unlimited funds.

I don't know whether TH is guilty or not, but his are the only forensic artifacts left at the scene where the bodies were found.

That's simply not true. For instance "There was a single negroid hair recovered off of a sheet, I believe it as off of the Byers - used to cover the Byers child." That hair obviously didn't come from Hobbs. Granted, it quite possibly wound up where it was found through secondary transfer, much like the hair which is consistent with Hobbs. Furthermore, the hair consistent with Hobbs isn't even provably from Hobbs, but rather only provably from either him or the approximately 1.5% of the population which shares his mDNA.

As for the original assertion that the filmmakers of PL2 did not spend more time "investigating Mark Byers' alibi", wasn't Melissa Byers a big part of that alibi?

The filmmakers didn't spend any time on Byers' alibi at all, and that's not simply an assertion, it's a fact. Also, Byers' wife is only one of many people he mentioned having been around at various moments during the relevant time frame.

 

[Cappuccino]

As for the original assertion that the filmmakers of PL2 did not spend more time "investigating Mark Byers' alibi", wasn't Melissa Byers a big part of that alibi? She was dead by the time most of PL2 was made.

Most of JMB's alibi is either Melissa, Ryan Clarke, or both. By the time PL2 was made Melissa had passed away and Ryan had left town and disappeared off the radar. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of PL2, but this isn't one of them.

 

[kyleb]

By the time PL2 was made.. Ryan had... disappeared off the radar.

Source?

Furthermore, even if what you claim is true, there's still quite a few more people Mark mentioned having been around at various moments during the relevant time frame. There's interview notes from Ryan and Melissa, and even a statement from Melissa which at least partially cooperate Mark's alibi. All of that has to be considered to properly establish opportunity, while Berlinger and Sinofsky simply didn't bother with anything of the sort when casting suspension on John Mark Byers. Even more absurdly, they unquestioningly presenting the fraudulent alibis of Echols and Miskelley, and glossed over the fact that Baldwin never even attempted to present an alibi in court. Double standard much?

Anyway, last time we spoke you persisted asking me "Where's the evidence?", and as I replied there, there's plenty of evidence discussed in the "The Case Against the WM3" section at WM3 Truth, and you're free start acknowledging the existence of all that evidence whenever you like.

 

[Wishbone]

Source?

Furthermore, even if what you claim is true, there's still quite a few more people Mark mentioned having been around at various moments during the relevant time frame. There's interview notes from Ryan and Melissa, and even a statement from Melissa which at least partially cooperate Mark's alibi. All of that has to be considered to properly establish opportunity, while Berlinger and Sinofsky simply didn't bother with anything of the sort when casting suspension on John Mark Byers. Even more absurdly, they unquestioningly presenting the fraudulent alibis of Echols and Miskelley, and glossed over the fact that Baldwin never even attempted to present an alibi in court. Double standard much?

Anyway, last time we spoke you persisted asking me "Where's the evidence?", and as I replied there, there's plenty of evidence discussed in the "The Case Against the WM3" section at WM3 Truth, and you're free start acknowledging the existence of all that evidence whenever you like.

All the evidence you refer to does nothing to convince me that three young men received a fair and impartial trial. Their trial was a travesty of justice.

 

[kyleb]

All the evidence you refer to does nothing to convince me that three young men received a fair and impartial trial.

Nor was it ever intend to do anything of the sort. Can you at least acknowledge the evidence for what it is?

Their trial was a travesty of justice.

There were two trials, one for Misskelley and another for Baldwin and Echols. I'm aware of jury misconduct in the latter trial, but no prosecutorial or judicial misconduct to rightly substantiate your "travesty of justice" claim. If your claim is based on any such evidence, please share.

 

[Wishbone]

Nor was it ever intend to do anything of the sort. Can you at least acknowledge the evidence for what it is?


There were two trials, one for Misskelley and another for Baldwin and Echols. I'm aware of jury misconduct in the latter trial, but no prosecutorial or judicial misconduct to rightly substantiate your "travesty of justice" claim. If your claim is based on any such evidence, please share.

There is no physical evidence. No witnesses. Denied a fair trial untainted by prejudicial pretrial publicity.


Something else to ponder…..

http://blog.law.northwestern.edu/bl...-is-game-changer-in-arkansas-supreme-cou.html

 

[kyleb]

There is no physical evidence. No witnesses.

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

Denied a fair trial untainted by prejudicial pretrial publicity.

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.

Something else to ponder…..

http://blog.law.northwestern.edu/bl...-is-game-changer-in-arkansas-supreme-cou.html

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?