Paradise Lost 3 is in post-production (for Spring 2010 release, per directors Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky, who also directed the first two Paradise Lost documentaries). For those unfamiliar with the West Memphis 3 case, here’s wm3.org and Wikipedia, as well as [thread=545549]three[/thread] [thread=194689]prior[/thread] [thread=281868]threads[/thread] discussing the case.
After seeing the first two documentaries and reading about the case, I’m convinced that the WM3 did not receive fair trials in 1994. I’m looking forward to seeing the new documentary for an update on the status of the appeals, which are of course procedurally complicated and technical. Apparently the defense is presenting multiple new arguments, including DNA evidence that implicates Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of one of the victims, as well as evidence that injuries to the victims’ bodies were caused by animal bites rather than knife wounds. Time for Truth 1 and 2. (It’s unclear to me what the status is regarding prior theories that Mark Byers, stepfather of a second victim, might have been involved in the murders, or that there were human bite marks present on the victims’ bodies).
I will be very curious to see if Mark Byers agreed to appear in Paradise Lost 3. In some ways it’s hard to imagine that he could resist the spotlight, but I also wonder if he had any regrets about appearing in the second film after seeing it. I was surprised that Judge Burnett agreed to be interviewed for the second film, too (although cameras were excluded from the courtroom itself). I wonder if he volunteered to participate again.
Just in case anyone is interested, 48 Hours (CBS) will be doing an episode on the West Memphis 3. From what I’ve heard, the episode will be 2 hours long and will air on February 28th, however, I would check your tv guide etc. just in case I have the date wrong.
He’s now an advocate for their release and has an upcoming memoirto promote, so there’s little doubt he’ll be in it.
There’s been a ton of new developments in recent years, most notably witnesses recanting, family members of the victims changign sides, and DNA evidence at the crime scene. I’m not convinced of their innocence but I’m absolutely convinced that I could not have voted guilty in their trial, and if I had to go one way or the other I’d go with innocent.
Thanks. I’ll be watching it (providing I have power in the expected snowfall). For such a high profile case this case is amazingly low profile, if that makes sense.
I like Depp as an actor, but stuff like this drives me nuts. Why waste screen time on him when you can talk to people actually involved with the case? And if you just want a celebrity, Henry Rollins has been involved with the case longer than any celeb and even Depp-ex Winona Ryder has several years of involvement on Depp.
I’ve kept up with the case since I saw the first documentary and I’ve read the books and the court documents. This was definitely railroading.
Even if they really are as guilty as hell (and I don’t believe they are) I honestly can’t see how anybody anywhere could have voted to convict based on the ‘evidence’ at the trial. Just give them another trial already that doesn’t involve the same frigging mongoloid judge as the first one and preferably doesn’t involve “experts” like “Dr.” Dale Griffis*. You would think that the people of West Memphis would want the case reopened more than anybody since if these kids (well, now they’re in their 30s, but they were kids then) are guilty the world needs to know and some apologies and lawsuits are in order, and if they’re innocent it means a child murderer got away.
I also blame Geraldo Rivera for a part of this case for that insane whackjob bullshit “investigative special report” he did on Satanic murders in the late 1980s. People honestly believed that Satanic cults were abducting and murdering kids left right and center in every town in spite of a complete lack of physical evidence. I’m not stereotyping when I say this but speaking as somebody who grew up in the very rural south: hicks eat shit like that up; I’d be surprised if there were more than two jurors who hadn’t ‘heard’ about the satanic murders going on everywhere (and so well covered up by satanic officials that there were no bodies or reports of any kind).
(For those not familiar with the case, Dr. Griffis was the “author of more than 50 books on the occult” and an expert on satanic crimes; his 50 books were all, literally ALL, self published- some of them on photocopiers- and his Ph.D. came from an unaccredited mail order school.)
Maury Povich, Geraldo Rivera’s partner in sleaze, also did a show. It covers the same ground as Rivera’s show unfortunately the transcript isn’t available on line.
Holy crap. I had no idea of that. I love this jewel:
And this was aired between Misskelley’s trial and the Echols/Baldwin trial, and you know that everybody in the jury pool probably saw that episode.
A legal question: when two people are accused of working together to commit the same crime (ala Damian Echols and Jason Baldwin), do they have the right to be tried separately or is it up to the courts to decide whether to try them together or separately? If they have the right to an individual trial, wouldn’t it seem more advantageous if you were the defense attorney to request a separate trial? I was thinking particularly of Jason Baldwin- Echols was known as a ‘problem child’ and all around weirdo with a history of mental illness while Baldwin was relatively unknown in the town and it would seem that he had a lot more to lose than gain by the association.
The show actually aired in Jonesboro (where the Echols/Baldwin trial was held) the last week of their trial and on a day when the jurors were not in court because of a daylong continuance. The jurors had been given the usual instructions not to watch/read read anything pertaining to the case but who knows if they listened. They certainly didn’t listen to other instructions they were given.
Not a lawyer, but Paul Ford and George Wadley (Jason Baldwin’s attorneys) did request a severance and were denied. IIRC, this was an issue brought up on appeal and shot down by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1996. And Jessie Misskelley had to have a separate trial because of his confession.
Both sets of attorneys argued for Echols and Baldwin to be granted separate trials. IIRC the court cited multiple reasons that separate trials were not necessary, including that the defense strategies were not determined to be conflicting (Echols was not arguing “I’m innocent but Baldwin did it,” and vice versa). I understand that the state has an interest in having a single trial when possible to save money, especially for a long trial like this one, but in this case I do think it hurt both defendants, although probably Jason more. This is pure amateur speculation but I don’t think that the evidence of the knife behind Jason’s house or the jailhouse snitch who testified that Jason confessed would have been allowed as evidence in a trial against Damien only, and I don’t think that the satanic arguments and Damien’s mental health history would have been allowed as evidence in a trial against Jason only.
Not a lot of new information in the special but a decent introduction for those new to the case so hopefully it’ll get some exposure.
Byers, even though he now supports the innocence of the WM3, strikes me as somebody who would accuse Dolly Parton of the murders if he thought it was convenient. Whether he should be a suspect or not that man has some deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep issues and scares the hell out of me.
I almost felt sorry for Terry Hobbs since they were definitely shining a bright spotlight on him and I doubt the DNA evidence would even be enough to indict.
I hope Judge Burnett ends up one day cleaning toilet bowls with a toothbrush for $3.00 per hour. He’s the most arrogant, stupid, zealous SoB in the case.
So, the case remains:
-There was no significant physical evidence that connected them to the victims
-There was no apparent motive that connected them to the murders
-There were no witnesses who put them in the same vicinity other than a retarded boy whose story had many known inaccuracies and who was questioned for many hours without his parent/guardian or a lawyer with him
-Two witnesses have recanted their testimony saying that they were offered ‘testify or go to jail’
-The jury foreman admits the jury openly considered a confession they were told to disregard
-The judge made it clear to the jury he assumed they would return a guilty verdict
-A key witness was from a vanity press book authoring charlatan whose credentials were a joke and whose ‘knowledge’ of occult crimes was often demonstrably wrong
-A bleeding mud covered deranged person who appeared in a local fast food place the night of the murders was uninvestigated at first and then the blood sample was lost
-DNA evidence found nothing that connected the convicted to the bodies but DID connect another person to them
-Forensic experts for the defense and for a neutral investigation found major problems with the forensic analysis used at the trial and in fact actually said it was flat out wrong
-The neighborhood was not canvassed and several family key people connected to the children were not questioned
How in the hell can they NOT grant a new trial in this case? And if the Arkansas Supreme Court should rule not to grant a new case is there any further appeal? And is it normal for the judge at the original trials to hear the petition for appeals for a capital case?
How is it legal that Misskelley and Baldwin’s appeals keep coming before the same judge who sentenced them in 1994? He’s certainly not impartial. Why can’t they petition to have him replaced? This all seems outrageous to me.