From left: Joe Berlinger; Jessie Misskelley, Jr.; Damien Echols; Jason Baldwin; Bruce Sinofsky at the film's premiere in NYC. |
The third and most recent entry in the Paradise Lost documentary series, titled
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, by Joe
Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky has a much more focused plan of attack. Much more
than its predecessors, it seems somehow more professional, more bona fide,
which I suppose is a reflection of the fact that they’ve incorporated
contemporary documentary film techniques to tell their story.
Because the case of the West Memphis Three and their
conviction in 1994 for the 1993 murders of three 8-year-old boys involves so
much information and has such a varied cast of characters, that gives them a
massive job for this final piece. That is, if it is actually the final piece,
but more on that later. The movie’s narrative is organized into distinct
chapters, the first of which is a condensed recap of everything that’s come
before. If you’ve just watched the first two films in succession or have
followed the case with studied interest, the prologue will be tedious. For
those who are new to the story, it is informative if incomplete. Even each of
the first two films is incomplete so there’s no way a 25 minute segment of a
single film can accurately sum up all the pertinent information.
We know that three teenagers were convicted for the
crimes despite professing their innocence. We know there is a wealth of
evidence that wasn’t originally investigated thoroughly and new evidence that
has come to light. We remember that John Mark Byers, stepfather to one of the
murdered boys, was implicated by the teenagers, the filmmakers and by the
national movement to free the three prisoners. And we certainly remember that
Byers was a man who came across as basking in the spotlight of fame. Nothing he
said ever had the ring of truth to it. It always felt staged, prepared and
false.
Now, a decade after the second film, Byers seems more
natural in presenting himself before the camera, although I still get the sense
he’s parading a bit. The difference is that now he’s turned to side with the
Free the West Memphis 3 movement based on new evidence that may help eliminate
the teens as suspects. A hair found in the shoelaces used to tie one of the
boys was determined that it belongs neither to any of the victims nor any of
the defendants. It could – and that’s very important to remember even when
Berlinger and Sinofsky perhaps don’t – COULD belong to Terry Hobbs, stepfather
to another of the three victims. A forensic scientist says it could belong to
1.5 percent of the population at large, among them is Hobbs. So now the focus
of the defense and the movement has shifted its gaze toward Hobbs.
By most accounts, Hobbs is no saint. He’s had trouble
with the law including domestic abuse and shooting his brother-in-law during an
altercation following such abuse. And according to witnesses who were never
interviewed by investigating police, he was the last to see the boys alive, although
he denies this. Most experts will probably tell you that eyewitness testimony
18 years after the fact is about as unreliable as it gets. No bother, as the
Movement needs a scapegoat.
I’m as convinced as anyone that the three defendants are
not guilty – or at least that there simply isn’t enough evidence to convict
them. I don’t believe Jessie Misskelley’s coerced confession for one moment.
Without that confession, it’s never made clear in any of these documentaries
how the prosecution connects the murders in any way to Damien Echols and Jason
Baldwin. And here lies a major problem in the trial of Echols and Baldwin. The
confession was inadmissible as Misskelley refused to testify, even though he could
have gotten a lighter sentence. Yet there is some evidence of jury misconduct
in which they considered the confession as a piece of evidence to convict. This
is a major, I mean MAJOR miscarriage of justice in my opinion. But my problem
with the Movement generally, and with these filmmakers specifically, is that
they have a strong enough case to get the three men out of prison without
pointing fingers at other people who are just as likely to be innocent.
In the first decade of the millennium, celebrities began
to join the cause and Natalie Maines of The Dixie Chicks made some damning
accusations toward Hobbs. He sued for defamation thus opening himself up to
questioning under oath about the murders. Here is where he gets caught in some
erroneous statements. This side plot to me is secondary and almost
inconsequential.
To me the most interesting parts of this documentary are
the interviews with the three defendants, now grown men with very interesting
perspectives on their situations. Damien was always the most articulate of the
three and he still is. The way he has kept himself sane through 18 years on
death row demonstrates remarkable will.
Berlinger and Sinofsky had expected to release this film
in September. But a sudden and surprising plea deal was struck in August,
forcing them to add an epilogue and delay the film’s release. Finally having a
new judge assigned to the case (the original trial judge heard all the appeals
for a new trial over the years), the three men were granted an evidentiary
hearing for December of last year. Then suddenly they took Alford plea
bargains. This is a guilty plea that allows the defendants to assert their
innocence for the record. They were sentenced to time served and released. On
the books, they are guilty murderers, but in reality they are now free men who
are likely to continue from outside prison to get their convictions overturned.
Essentially, the State recognized that they were most
likely going to be granted a new trial and they didn’t feel they had sufficient
evidence to convict them again. In the interest of everyone involved, they
offered the plea deals so the three would not have to spend more time
languishing in prison. As Baldwin states, this is not justice. He was reluctant
to plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit, but did so for Echols’ sake, who
would have been executed if they were found guilty again.
It occurs to me that I’ve said a lot more about the facts
of the case than about the documentary that presents them. I think that’s
because Berlinger and Sinofsky have put together a compelling portrait over the
last 17 years of all that has happened. They present a convincing case for the
injustice of it all. I’m not personally 100 percent convinced that the West
Memphis 3 are innocent, but these movies have certainly convinced me that there
was not sufficient evidence to put them away for life and to kill one of them.
For that, I think these filmmakers have done an astounding thing. Without the
first documentary in the series there never would have been such a strong public
movement which ultimately helped set them free.
No comments:
Post a Comment