Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory (2011)

Excellent use of first person video archives to bring the viewer up to date regarding the crime, it's casualties, and developments. Smashing use of new video interviews, study of involvement and final results of the entire episode surrounding the three accused in this criminal case. The documentary is well put together. Video and sound are excellent.

This is a true historical document that shows a "Crime in America" from start to bitter end. My twenty six year as a law enforcement officer of which twenty were as a death investigator give me a unique opinion of case facts.

It was a genuinely interesting experience for me to look at this documentary from an outside perspective using no real explored physical evidence or deduction.

It intrigued me to follow the case through media coverage, photographic and video graphic statements, as well as personal thoughts, assumptions, and fabrications. This was absolutely what could be expected for the information available to the general public. I have never had to look at information in this manner of privacy and what is available for the average citizen.

There are some pretty eyeopening realizations raised by this case of the Memphis Three but for me these are poignantly tucked away in the first film. That one really was a searing depiction of ignorance and delusion worthy of Herzog, in large part because it was unfolding 'now' in some backwoods court that was deciding the lives of kids.

This has an altogether different aim. It presses a case that had by then garnered wide traction, attempts some investigative journalism about who really did it and offers a summation of a fight that was justly won, however late for these people. It was the third film at this point, everyone by now looks more accustomed to the presence of the camera, more self-conscious about us being there to see. It has closure and a moral.

So it doesn't feel like we are catching ignorance unawares and seeing it as it mangles lives. I see instead an article about how terrible it is. I'm glad that it documents what it does of course, dismayed at the redneck judge who is now in the state senate, but that's it.

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.

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.

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.