Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

The tale of the West Memphis 3 came to an end this past year, and Joe Berlinger's and Bruce Sinofsky's advocacy doc trilogy comes to an end, as well, and quite satisfyingly. Watching this third installment is quite painful, even with the mostly happy ending, because it cuts back and forth between the past and the present, showing us just how long these men spent in jail - literally over half their lives. It's particularly touching to see Damien Echols, the only one of the three who was sentenced to death (a sentence which was never off the table until he was freed), grow from an awkward, certainly skeevy-looking teenager to an intelligent, well-spoken adult. One has to wonder what he would have been like if none of this had ever happened. This doc has a lot to cover (you could probably get the gist of the whole series just by watching this one), and in a way it feels a tad unwieldy and perhaps unfocused. But it still does a great job. I sincerely hope the WM3 can now find some peace.

Back in 1996, filmmakers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky set out to make a documentary for HBO on the West Memphis 3 – three teenage kids that were accessed of murdering three 8-year-old boys and sentenced to life imprisonment with one of the teenagers been given the death penalty.

The documentary focused on the questionable evidence and lack of thorough police investigative work that lead to their incarceration and hit such chords with the American public that soon celebrities such as Johnny Depp were championing the cause in an attempt to get the three boys a new trial.

Four years later, Berlinger and Sinofsky followed-up their story with Paradise Lost: Revelations which was a more biased account of the teenager's innocence and used new information and footage to help promote their cause.

Fifteen years later, Berlinger and Sinofsky finish the trilogy with Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory that takes one final look at the teenagers that have grown into 30-year-old adults in prison for a crime that lacked the forensic evidence to convict if put on trial today.

Paradise Lost 3 opens in 1994 and we get the hard-to-watch actual crime scene footage of the three naked 8-year-old boys who were left hogtied with shoelaces in a small wooded area known as Robin Hood Hills.

With pressure from the media and the increasing tension amongst residents of the town, authorities soon charged teenagers Jason Baldwin, Jessie Miskelly and Damien Echols with murder and sentenced two of them (Baldwin, Miskelly) to life in prison without parole and Echols with the death penalty. The case was built upon their association with each other and loose allegations that the three were part of a satanic cult thanks to their preferred dark clothing and various graffiti and doodles of skeletons that were part of the group dynamic.

Although not as engrossing as 1996's Paradise Lost, Purgatory again presents its case of innocence by interviewing or taping experts in their fields discuss the case and with a 2007 re-examining of the evidence by authoritative members of their fields (DNA, forensics etc). Scattered interviews from 1994 through 2010 help assert that justice may not have been done and that stubborn individuals who had involvement in the case provided the judicial roadblocks to impede any progress.

Paradise Lost 3 spends a bit more time in an assumption of another potential murderer of the three boys and they are fueled by celebrities Johnny Depp, Eddie Vedder and even a member of the Dixie Chicks in their attempts to have new evidence presented and justice served.

Paradise Lost 3 wrapped filming in August 2011 – three days later, the Memphis 3 were released from prison on a lesser charge that does not clear their innocence. Berlinger and Sinofsky informed the sold out crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival that we will be the first and the last to see this theatrical version as a new ending has since transpired (which drew a loud applause from the agreeing audience).

One of the real tragedies of the now trilogy of Paradise Lost films is watching three teenage boys age while in prison. They have missed out on an entire life's worth of experiences (one did get married while incarcerated to a female fan) and we can only hope that a follow-up film 10 years from now shows us how the three were able to assimilate back into society and become everything that they should and could have been had they not been wrongly accused.

www.killerreviews.com

The filmmakers return to update the case of the West Memphis Three. In 1993, three boys Steve Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers were murdered in the woods. In 1994, three older boys Damien Wayne Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley were convicted for those crimes. The first half of this movie basically recaps the first two documentaries. John Mark Byers, stepfather of Christopher Byers, makes peace with Echols and is now convinced of their innocence. In turn, Echols apologizes for accusing John. For me, the most damning is the accusation against the jury foreman Kent Arnold. There is new DNA evidence against Terry Hobbs, Steve Branch's stepfather, but it's not that convincing for me. The Three is able to win a legal victory and after their judge moved on as a State Senator, the guys finally accepted an Alford plea essentially guilty but maintaining their innocence.

Is this justice? It's hard to say. The most obvious problem for the justice system and this movie as a drama is that nobody is in prison for the boys' murders. For a documentary, that's always the limitation. The real world doesn't always have a neat happy ending. They are able to point the finger at Terry Hobbs but the second movie pointed the finger at Byers. There is nothing done against the various people who did harm against justice in this case. It is able to wrap up the odyssey of the West Memphis Three but justice for the murders may never be done.

Watching makes one realize that if you are poor and accused of a crime the deck is very stacked against you. Hey Heather. These men got lucky to get the attention they did. If you are from Arkansas you will be embarrassed of the childish judicial system there....

Certainly an interesting documentary about the high-profile case of the West Memphis Three (Baldwin, Echols, Misskelley), convicted of killing three young boys in eastern Arkansas in 1993. The documentary takes the side of the defense, in saying the three teenagers (WM3) were railroaded through based on flimsy evidence. The verdict in 1994 was probably unjust, given the general absence of forensic evidence at the time. More recently, DNA evidence shows no DNA connection between the three teenagers and the three young victims. On the other hand, the program excludes some of the prosecution's case, which shows blatant bias on the part of the program's producers.

In contrast, bias appears much more pronounced in the legal system in 1993, and included police coercion, sloppy police work, and obvious jury misconduct, among other problems. The small town of West Memphis was overwhelmed with emotional hysteria of family and neighbors, all wanting revenge for the killings. The police were out to convict the easiest target, and the prosecutor wanted a quick win, and was facilitated by a judge who was anything but unbiased. No DNA testing was available back then.

At one point in the program, Misskelley says he was at a Dyess, Arkansas wrestling match at the time of the murders. So how is it that the prosecutor was able to convince a jury that Misskelley was guilty? Instead of answering the alibi question, the program proceeds down a different investigative avenue.

That is one glaring problem in a program that overall does not flow well. It jerks back and forth between people and time periods. There are so many people involved in this case, it's hard to keep track of names and faces. I also didn't like the inclusion of Hollywood celebrities who, despite their lack of involvement in the original trials, think they can determine the three guys' innocence via superficial arguments and secondary sources, which reeks of celebrity arrogance.

Despite the documentary's biased point of view in favor of the WM3, and despite how the program is put together, it is worth watching. By inference, it shows how the jury system is rigged against a defendant in a murder trial. In the future, one would hope that juries will be outlawed, and replaced by forensic evidence only, correctly obtained and tested, that proves innocence or guilt. Having hysterical people render life and death decisions based on the games lawyers play is truly frightening.