Byers Question

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[76387]

76387 Posts in 6760 Topics by 681 Members
Latest Member: wiltar

[dhdvd]

Hello all.  New here.  First and foremost, I should say I'm still relatively new to this case.  All of the info I have comes from the documentaries and what I've read from various forums (including this one) so most, if not all, here likely know more about the case than I do.  I'm still somewhat undecided on exactly how I feel about this case.  One thing I do feel strongly about though, is that I don't think there was enough evidence to convict Damien, Jason and Jessie of these crimes, regardless of whether or not they actually committed them.  And there most certainly wasn't enough evidence (from what I have heard/read) to be handing out any death sentences.  Okay, enough rambling.  My question (and I apologize if this has been asked before) is what do the 'non-supporters' make of John Mark Byers?  There just seems to be so many inconsistencies in his stories.  I mean, the guy gives three different stories as to why he got the dentures.  He says his wife "was murdered" minutes after saying she died of a broken heart or something like that.  He says he has been diagnosed as Bi-polar/PTSD and admits to hallucinations, etc.  Not to mention his inconsistencies regarding the knife from the first doc.  So do the non-supportes attribute all that to his brain tumor or what?  Does he not even seem at least a bit suspicious?
BTW, I'm not looking to start an argument here.  As I said I still don't know exactly what to make of this case.  I'm really interested in hearing legitimate arguments from both sides.  At this point I just don't understand how anyone could be absolutely sure that Damien, Jason and Jessie are responsible for these murders. 

[sheer]

Hi dhdvd,

He says his wife "was murdered" minutes after saying she died of a broken heart or something like that.

I think that when Mark Byers says his wife was murdered and that she died of a broken heart, he means that damien, jason and jessie murdered her as much as they murdered her son, becuse she died of a broken heart. He's not giving 2 different reasons, he's offering an explanation.


I mean, the guy gives three different stories as to why he got the dentures

There's 3 issues here:
1.) Isn't it more likely to lose your teeth for a variety of reasons, rather than just one? It's not surprising or unusual.
2.) It doesn't matter how he lost his teeth. For it to matter, it means that you believe he may have bitten the children. The defence now claims that some marks on the children's bodies were the result of Animal bites. The one bite that they said was human....well the defence change their story about these murders as much as Mark Byers changes his story about his teeth....................draw your own conclusions from that. 
3.) If your point is that establishing inconsistancy in a story indicates guilt, then take a look at Damien on the stand when he's discussing his alibi.

And there most certainly wasn't enough evidence (from what I have heard/read) to be handing out any death sentences

I don't agree with the DP anyway, but it's my understanding that the DP is not given out on the basis of how much evidence there was, it's given out because guilt has been established and it's an acceptable form of punishment in some states in the USA. So there is no point in saying there wasn't enough evidence for the DP.

One thing I do feel strongly about though, is that I don't think there was enough evidence to convict Damien, Jason and Jessie of these crimes, regardless of whether or not they actually committed them

The Arkansas Supreme Court and 2 juries disagree with you.


Does he not even seem at least a bit suspicious?

No.


sheer

[dhdvd]

Hi dhdvd,

He says his wife "was murdered" minutes after saying she died of a broken heart or something like that.

I think that when Mark Byers says his wife was murdered and that she died of a broken heart, he means that damien, jason and jessie murdered her as much as they murdered her son, becuse she died of a broken heart. He's not giving 2 different reasons, he's offering an explanation.

That makes sense.

I mean, the guy gives three different stories as to why he got the dentures

There's 3 issues here:
1.) Isn't it more likely to lose your teeth for a variety of reasons, rather than just one? It's not surprising or unusual.

Yes, but it still seems strange to me to give three different specific reasons to three different people without even mentioning the other attributing factors.  Also, you would think one factor would be more responsible for the loss of your teeth than the others, therefore wouldn't that be the short answer you would give to people who asked?  I can see your point, but IDK, this one doesn't quite fly with me 

3.) If your point is that establishing inconsistancy in a story indicates guilt, then take a look at Damien on the stand when he's discussing his alibi.

No, my point is not that inconsistencies indicate guilt.  Not at all.  My point is that the more inconsistencies in your story, the more suspicious you become.  And yes, I understand there are inconsistencies regarding Damien's statements.

And there most certainly wasn't enough evidence (from what I have heard/read) to be handing out any death sentences

I don't agree with the DP anyway, but it's my understanding that the DP is not given out on the basis of how much evidence there was, it's given out because guilt has been established and it's an acceptable form of punishment in some states in the USA. So there is no point in saying there wasn't enough evidence for the DP.

It was pretty late last night when I typed that first post so I probably could've worded this better.  I was basically just trying to convey that I don't understand how a judge could be comfortable handing out a death penalty when there is no physical evidence linking the convicted to the scene or the bodies.  This is more just a personal feeling of mine, rather than something I'm attempting to debate though. 


Thanks for your response Sheer.

[Storm]

the death penalty is given with special circumstances. These boys ere mutilated and murdered. it wasnt a crime of passion, or something done without thinking. In some states, the death penalty has many different legal reasons to use it. I was involved in a case where the perps received death penalty, and then because the law had changed, they got a new sentencing and were resentenced to Life w/o parole. So it all depends with the state laws. 

I do think JMB  comes off as very suspicious. But i do not think he had anything to do with killing the kids. I JMB is money grubbing whore who is trying to use his dead step son as a payment. I think he wants his day in the celebrity sun, which is really sad that he using his stepson as the bait. I think alot of things about that dead end, but i do not think he killed the kids. I do not think Terry Hobbs had anything to do with it either..and it is really sad JMB is accusing him, when he himself went thru that for years. I know the 3 that did this horrible crime are where they need to be.

[TJM]

Brent Davis/Closing Statement= We don't have to put evidence out the sky. We gotta convince you so you have that conviction in your stomach when you go back there and look at that evidence. And I put to you that we've done that in this case, that the defendants are guilty of capital murder--couldn't be a worse capital murder ever committed in this state that I'd be aware of. I mean, it's premeditated and deliberated, it's the worst possible kind of killing you can have.


I mean, what exactly is so hard to understand why a judge would allow a jury to sentence a man to death for killing THREE eight year old children?  Three little innocent boys that were bothering noone, and  were only wanting to go into the woods to play, have fun, laugh, and do what little boys do.  Really now, what SHOULD be the punishment for a grown, young MAN taking it upon himself to do what he did to these three little boys?  For all the pain that they suffered even BEFORE they were finally murdered?   For all of the pain and torture that they each had to watch be inflicted upon each little friend?   
Seriously, if that isn't worthy of the death penalty, nothing ever has been and never will be.


Why has Byers told so many versions of why he no longer has teeth?  Hell if I know.  I honestly think that he had meth mouth and they were probably rotted down to nubs and he finally had them removed. 
Could he have gotten into that bar fight in Cherokee Village and had them knocked out?   I don't see someone slapping ALL of someone elses teeth out, but I have read about Cherokee Village being a dry county, so this story had some reasonable questions in regards to that, how did he get in a bar fight in a dry county?  Cherokee Village does have a private club called the CopperFeather which has been established for a loooooooooooooong loooooooooong time.   From what I have heard, it is a very rough dive to hang out at too, so that could be plausible too. 


I have my own little thoughts on Byers and this case.  They are only my thoughts though, not backed up by anything but local hear-say, grapevine/gossip.  I think that Byers may have been involved with the satanic stuff.  In fact, I have been told that he very well may be the one known as Lucifer.  Not saying anything as fact, but just expressing my opinions.  I do not  think that he killed the children, by laying his hands on them that evening,  but I do wonder about his  involvement in some other way.  I also can't help but think that maybe through these late nosing arounds  and stuff if someone didn't find something out that makes Byers uncomfortable, hence another reason for his side swapping.  I just really do think that there is more up with that than money.  That's just me though.        

[sheer]

Yes, but it still seems strange to me to give three different specific reasons to three different people without even mentioning the other attributing factors.  Also, you would think one factor would be more responsible for the loss of your teeth than the others, therefore wouldn't that be the short answer you would give to people who asked?  I can see your point, but IDK, this one doesn't quite fly with me

But why is it relevant?


My point is that the more inconsistencies in your story, the more suspicious you become.  And yes, I understand there are inconsistencies regarding Damien's statements.

But what is suspicious about Mark Byers? You appear to be using the teeth thing to substantiate your suspicions...what is it that you suspect him of?


sheer

[mikespadre]

Storm pretty much nailed it on byers, good job.
TJM may have a point as well.??????

[kerriew]

"the death penalty is given with special circumstances."

In Maryland the criteria is murdering more than 1 person, torturing before murder and comitting murder during  the comission of a felony (robbery, burglary, home invasion, kidknapping)

"I JMB is money grubbing whore who is trying to use his dead step son as a payment."

Me too. However, I didn't use to believe this because I found it hard to accept that a father, even a stepfather, would do something like this. It's still hard to accept but it's the truth.