[Susan]

no offence meant there

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Of course it is; because just like the supporters, I doubt the prosecution's case for the very same reasons. That's why I find the Alford plea so ironic: correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Alford plea state that the defendant maintains his innocence but pleads guilty as an acknowledgement that the prosecution has a case strong enough to convict them?

Yet even you yourself, as an informed believer in their guilt, have stated that the physical evidence against them was weak.

And the fact that the defense initiated the deal does not in and of itself prove that they lacked sufficient evidence to justify a second trial. Couldn't it have been exactly the opposite, and the deal was suggested as a means of saving both themselves and the state the expense of a second trial?

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

And no offense taken. Like I said, I cite the same things as the supporters because those things create reasonable doubt in my mind.

[Susan]

But if the defense had had the evidence they say they do that they are innocent and all this proof that everything was done wrong in the original trial then they could not be refused another trial. So it shows that everything that comes from the defence camp is a load of spin. And dna evidence is overrated in this day and age thanks to CSI and the rest.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

But even if the defense had sufficient evidence, they still could have decided to do things "the easy way." If they had been refused a second trial in the first place, then the prosecution wouldn't have agreed to the deal in any way based simply on that. They approached the prosecution first, found that they were agreeable to the idea, and went with that instead of a second trial.

If the prosecution knew they had no chance at getting a second trial, then they would have just told them that a deal was out of the question, right? The state attorney general may have been unfamiliar with the case, but that's no real excuse. Politics or not, it just seems to me that the state didn't want to risk a second trial, and the defense didn't want to put everyone else through it a second time; they just wanted to get their clients out as quickly as possible.

[Arevalosocom]

Respect Susan! Respect!

[blancadon]

That's fucked up.

[nofuckinway]

Poor babies. No justice in sight for the little ones and three men who lost years of their life for nothing. I hope they catch the sick piece(s) of shit who really did it and punish them not only for killing 3 innocent kids but destroying 3 more lives in the process.

[caroliner]

6 innocents..3 that will never live and 3 others that will never live it down, such a waste!

[nzcelt]

Originally Posted by susanmarie79 ↗

3.)Why did John Mark Byers have his teeth removed so soon after the incident? Why didn't investigators examine his original dental profiles upon discovering that his stepson, Christopher Byers, was the only victim whose body bore bite marks or signs of genital mutilation?


John Mark Byers has a clad iron alibi, accounted for by multiple people West Memphis police investigated him early on, took hair and blood samples, interrogated him at length, but never uncovered anything suspicious. As for the "bite marks", this theory was disproven. The bite marks were actually caused by the end of the knife connected to the wm3. If you need any more proof that there were no bite marks then i suggest you just look at the documented chat with Brent Turvey.

Wasn't there evidence of snapping turtles, that contradicted the bite mark claims?