Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Cream Calendar / Moving Pictures Damien Echols to Appear at West of Memphis Belcourt Screening
Posted by Adam Gold on Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:42 PM
West of Memphis, a documentary chronicling the strange, dramatic and controversial case of The West Memphis Three, is screening at The Belcourt on Jan. 26, just after premiering at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. And when it does, Damien Echols — one of the WM3 — his wife Lorri Davis, and the film’s director, Amy Berg (Deliver Us From Evil), will appear on hand for an audience Q&A. This, according to a press release the Scene received mere moments ago.
Echols and Davis are the film’s producers. And Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson and partner Fran Walsh are the film’s executive producers.
For those of us who grew up in the ’90s, Damien Echols is a household name. As one of The West Memphis Three, Echols spent nearly 18 years languishing in an Arkansas prison. A steadfast chorus of detractors — in addition to the state of Arkansas — say that’s because Echols (along with Jessie Misskelley Jr. and Jason Baldwin) savagely murdered three 8-year-old cub scouts in small-town West Memphis, Ark., in 1993.
But worldwide masses of supporters, and a shocking lack of physical evidence, say Echols was unjustly convicted in a kangaroo court and railroaded to Death Row because he wore black, read the writings of Aleister Crowley and listened to Metallica — activities prosecutors argued was textbook evidence of those who commit ritualistic Satanic sacrifices.
Over the past decade-and-a-half, WM3 supporters have fought for the Three's freedom. And last summer, they celebrated a victory. The re-examination of crime-scene evidence, new developments in DNA analysis unavailable at the time of the crime and serious allegations of juror misconduct had obliterated the case that originally sent Echols and his co-defendants to prison. And in August of last year, The West Memphis Three were, to the surprise of detractors and supporters alike, freed from prison under an unusual plea agreement that allowed them to continue proclaiming innocence, while simultaneously pleading guilty to the murders.
That compromise has shifted the WM3 movement’s goal from freeing Echols, Misskelley Jr. and Baldwin to seeing them pardoned and/or fully exonerated by the state of Arkansas. So theirs, a story made famous by the HBO documentary series Paradise Lost, is a story that’s still far from over. And one that, in addition to a third Paradise Lost film that debuted on HBO last week, a forthcoming big-screen dramatic feature (set to star Reese Witherspoon) and West of Memphis fight to tell. See the trailer above.
At press time the Belcourt event is sold out. Keep checking back here in the event that more tickets become available.
Comments (23)
Showing 1-23 of 23
Many people believe the WM3 were not innocent but guilty as charged and that they were the ones that committed the crime. They were found guilty by a unanimous jury the first time. They plead guilty instead of waiting for a trial the second time.
Misskelley confessed three separate times, once with his lawyer present. Misskelley also told two other people about the crime before he was arrested. Baldwin told someone else he committed the crimes. Echols was seen in muddy clothes near the crime scene. Echols is reported to have either told or bragged about the crime to four people before he was arrested.
Echols also had a history of psychiatric treatment. His reported actions included brutally killing a dog, starting fires at his school, threatening to kill his teachers and parents and stating he liked to drink blood
The DNA found at the scene of the crime of the three murdered boys that supposedly from the step father was from a hair that could have come from simple contact with one of the victims. The hair could have belonged to 1.5 percent of the population (or several million people).
like
dislike
Not exactly, M S.
And I’m not even going to try and pretend I don’t have a subjective opinion here. First of all, one of the biggest puzzle pieces that invalidated the 1994 Echols/Baldwin trial was proven, physical evidence that the jury foreman broke the law in bringing the Misskelley confession to the attention of his fellow jurors. The confession was inadmissible in court because defendants have a right to confront their accusers, and Misskelley refused to testify against Echols and Baldwin in spite of prosecutors offering him a reduced sentenced to do so. So, yes, Misskelley -- a 17 year old with an IQ of 72 -- confessed under duress after hours of interrogation, and repeated said confession to attorneys at a later date shortly thereafter, telling them what he thought they wanted to hear ... just like someone with a 5 year old's cogitative ability would do.
This indiscretion on the part of the jury foreman alone is enough to declare a mistrial, not to mention wholly invalidate the Echols/Baldwin verdicts.
Misskelley's confession is also laughably inaccurate. Even more so NOW than it was at the time he made it, because the detectives guiding him through it had an understanding of the actual crime scene and conjectures as to how the murders were committed that are now known to be completely counterfactual and physically impossible. At least that's what Dr. Werner Spitz and Dr. Michael Baden -- superstars in the world of forensic pathology -- have observed. And I think they probably know a little bit more about crime scenes than the podunk West Memphis PD did, or you do.
The Misskelley confession has absolutely no validity and every criminology and pathology expert involved in this case -- including former FBI profiler John Douglas (the inspiration for Jack Crawford in “Silence of the Lambs”) -- knows that. If Misskelley had something true to confess, he probably would have done it in court when it would have saved his hide. So, there goes your confession argument.
Moving on. If you’d watched the trailer posted up top, you would have noticed the “someone else” who testified that Baldwin confessed is shown RECANTING his statement on camera. So you can forget that argument as well. Same goes for Vicki Hutcheson -- the woman who testified that she heard Echols brag about committing the crime. She recanted as well … on camera. She also claimed that policed coerced her into making such statements.
In regards to your comments about Echols’ history of psychiatric treatment: this is not evidentiary of him being a murderer. Lots of teenagers are treated for psychiatric issues, both legitimate and illegitimate. And not only does your stated belief that Echols is a professed vampire ignore that vampirism and Satanism aren’t the same thing, but suggests that you actually believe in satanic cult murders. The FBI has long found that belief in rampant satanic cult killings is for gullible types who believe tall tales and childish, salacious nonsense. Welcome to the witch hunt, M S.
How is anything you bring up in this paragraph about Echols evidence that he committed this crime? You’re saying that where there’s smoke, there’s fire – either because you’re grasping at straws or because you’re an idiot. Let’s hope it’s the former.
Now, in regards to your grand finale about the hair found at the crime scene. Congratulations, you don’t rush to condemn Terry Hobbs, who the DNA potentially implicates. Ask yourself: If that same hair implicated Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley in that same 1.5%, would you extend them the same courtesy of such reasonable doubt? Or would you hold it up as circumstantial evidence of their guilt the way you do with third-hand claims that Echols drank blood or reports of him wearing muddy clothes on a muggy Summer day in Arkansas?
What’s even more significant about the hair and the DNA testing done on it, is that it is not a match for any one of the West Memphis Three. Indeed, it could belong to several million people, none of whom are Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin or Jessie Misskelley, Jr. In fact, there isn’t a single piece of physical evidence that demonstrates that any of the three accused ever came into physical contact with the three victims while they were alive, dying or dead.
That is why prosecutors offered the Three an Alford plea. Because the state knew that if the case went to trial again, it would almost certainly lose. If prosecutors thought they’d win, if they thought they had a case, they would’ve presented it to a jury. Instead, they cut their loses and came up with the best way to protect the state from a lawsuit and from having to hold its nose in acquitting the WM3 and admitting what an absolute travesty – whether the WM3 did it or not -- the 1994 trial was. The current prosecutor even admitted this. It’s well documented. It’s also unfathomable to expect people to believe that the state of Arkansas would just let the WM3 plead guilty and then immediately walk when the state believed they were Satanic child killers and had the evidence to prove it.
Why did the WM3 take the deal instead of waiting out a retrial then? That’s not a bad question. They probably would’ve won, explaining why Baldwin didn’t want to take the deal. But, remote a possibility as may have been, they might have lost. And for Damien Echols, losing meant almost certainly going to face a lethal injection. I certainly have never been in such a position to gamble, even on good odds, with my own life and I'm guessing you haven’t either. Same goes for being subjected to a modern day witch trial when you’re a teenager -- you know, the kind of thing that wouldn’t exactly instill a whole lot of faith in the prevailing nature of the U.S. justice system.
So who are you to make such an assumption? I suppose that if you’d really like to know the answer to that question, you can try and go to this screening and ask Damien Echols yourself. He’ll be FREE to answer you or not. And if you manage to find the smoking gun that unquestionably links the WM3 to these murders and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it, don’t hesitate to step up and present it. Millions of people around the world would be curious to see it.
There are seriously people out trolling websites that assert the innocence of the WM3?
That said, there are people who believe the moon landing was faked, or that Elvis is still alive, or that reason that the Chicago Cubs haven't won a World Series in several human generations is a curse involving a goat.
Praise to Gold for trying to reach this person, but some efforts are a waste of lean tissue.
All these movies prove is that money can get people out of prison
@eddie vedder
Well, since it takes a lot of money to fund an effective post-conviction defense team, then yeah, money can help pave the way to freedom. DNA testing is expensive. Of course, said testing does have to go the way of the accused in order to be effective. And no amount of money can change a person's DNA.
If the WM3 had had a of money when they were first put on trial, they probably never would have gone to prison in the first place. The only money that enticed the state of Arkansas to free the WM3 is the money it would have lost if and when the accused sued the state.
Arkansas fought for 17 years to keep these men in prison, do you really think officials would all of the sudden just cave to the wishes of a deep-pocketed dude from Pearl Jam?
That's ridiculous.
If money could just buy a cause-de-celebre convict's way off Death Row, then how do you explain the recent execution of Troy Davis in Georgia? Davis had the support of famous millionaires the likes of Sean Combs, Russell Simmons, Kim Kardashian, Lupe Fiasco and Big Boi. And Amnesty International canvassed the Internet with ads promoting the cause to keep Davis out of the death chamber. Ads cost money. And that campaign ultimately failed. If evidence comes to one day completely exonerate Davis, he won't be able to get a retrial, or take an Alford plea, or petition the court for either.
who is using eddie vedder's name falsley in the comments here???
Maybe if HBO had made 3 docs about Troy Davis he would be alive right now. And Gold can still believe that truth can only be found in HBO movies not in courtrooms.
@Natalie.
I'd say you're being a little presumptuous. You're also sticking to your own script and not really responding to the words on THIS page. Your script is "HBO sensationalized this case, created false doubt, lemmings followed along, donated money and bailed these guys out of jail. Courts are never wrong, judges are never wrong and juries are never wrong. So, the only logical conclusion is that these guys did it."
But sometimes juries are wrong, Natalie. And if Troy Davis' jury was wrong, then maybe HBO SHOULD have made three documentaries about his case.
The facts are that neither of them should have even gone to court with what the state had. Just because someone says you did it . Means that they needed to build a case with facts. They had none.Arkansas has a flawd system. Having a new trial would have been a mistake for all of them because the same kind of people would have been on the jury. This was so far off a cult killing it was a joke. Want to see a cult killing look at the RIPPER CREW.Our state lived through it. And the state of IL gave them a fair trial. So I see them innocent till proven guilty. And shame on you the govener of Arkansas you should have pardon them. The state of Arkansas owes them 18 years of their life back. Shame on you Mike Beebe . I would never take a vacation in Arkansas. I would be to afraid of getting pulled over and have a bad hair day.
Oh did want to add bipolar doesnt make you a killer. Since everyone in that town seem to be treated with the same thing. Actually, it's 5.7 million adults , over 18, suiffer from Bipolar Disorder. 2.4 million age 18 are disgnosed with Bipolar disorder. That's alot of people.
Pru
So sad when nons have to spew their venom on every piece of information out there. You look silly. Go home.
The justice system is a joke. Not because it "convicts innocent people" but because high priced lawyers are able to poke holes in ANY evidence and create "reasonable doubt" that can get anyone off. I hope that your family or kid never gets murdered and you have to watch as the killer gets set free because there's "reasonable doubt" that he/she didn't do it.
Sure, I'll admit that there are a few "innocent people" who are wrongly convicted now and then, but the number of them pales in comparison to the number of people who are "properly convicted". And it's probably a million to one ratio in comparison to the number of "innocent people" who get murdered every single day in this country. But how much attention do they get? None. We're focused on the wrong thing here. There are larger societal issues that are being ignored because it's not as interesting/sensational. Put the focus/resources on things that really matter.
But I doubt that a movie about how pitiful the state of affairs is in the US would be something ANYONE would go and watch. It would probably only sell like 3 tickets at the Belcourt.
@unpopularviews
First off, learn how to "properly" use quotation marks. For example, when you put quotes around the phrase "properly convicted," you're mocking the idea that a lot of convicts are properly convicted. You're essentially saying that the idea of proper conviction is laughable and suspect. Just an FYI.
And secondly, in case you haven't heard, the law of the land here in the US (yes, even in Arkansas) is that there must be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime. All defendants are entitled to the best defense possible, and a good defense lawyer is one that pokes holes in evidence. Or calls the the court to task when evidence is insufficient or circumstantial.
Evidence in any criminal trial, especially a murder trial, should be iron clad and unassailable. The cold truth is that even if someone commits a crime, they should only be convicted if the state can prove its case. And if they can't do that in the face of the best defense money can buy, justice is prevailing when a defendant is acquitted.
This all pretty basic stuff, dawg. And the pitiful state of affairs in the US is that our education system is such that basic tenets of the American justice system need to be explained to people like you like you're a fourth grader. Fourth grade, that's where most people learn this kind of stuff.
Have you ever served on a jury before? If so, then you are walking, talking (or sitting, typing) example to make the case for vigilance in regards to wrongful convictions.
I read the reviews on this movie. I am sorry this movie is a far cry from paradise lost movies They reenact scenarios of pouring a bunch of turtles in with a pig carcass to make a point. Dumb ! Are they saying in one day there was a dozen turtles in that pond eating the flesh. And instead of just showing more details about the case they put Mr Hobbs on trial in the movie.None of the evidence should have made the movie It should have been turned over to the DA Sorry I will sit out on this movie. They are doing exactly what was done to WM3. My sympathy went out to them because I thought they didnt have a fair trial. This movie seems like it is out for the money and pointing fingers.
Pru
Oh by the way free the WM3 was supose to be about the injustice of the trial.
Pru
Ok gold
On the issue about the retrial .......that is what I dont understand. If it is a mistrial. Damiem would not stay in prison or on death roll. And it would have been found a mistrial I have no doubt about . All of them would have been set free and with all the money they would have made bond. And if they really thought they had enough evidence to clear them ( they did have the best of the best lawyers) why not clear your name. Why point the finger and have a witch hunt in a movie to clear your name. I really dont understsand why this town cant face it someone outside that town really could have commit these murders. This crime doesnt seem like someone that was just mad and killed them. It looks like it was from someone that has done it before. To perfect no evidence. Tied the children up and beat one to death and drown the rest. Has anyone check other states to see if others where killed like this. I dont mean just around them. State to state. They were right off the highway. And I dont buy the theory that one person murdered these children.
Ok back to the movie. 18 years has gone by ......recanting their testimony. I think this town is full of poor people that would do anything for money. Pam Hobbs look up how many false claims she has made against her ex husband. The court found them all to be untrue. Then Mr Byers he just jumps on the band wagon. Guess all the famous people made him change his mind. He made up so many lies and so has Pam Hobbs.
And now they want to start up a new witch hunt. There is no true evidence against anyone but hearsay and weird phone calls.And lots of gossip.
I wonder how much the reward was this time?
There was no 12-hour interrogation. Misskelley first confessed at 2:20 pm, roughly 4˝ hours after Sgt. Allen picked him up at his father’s workplace. That 4˝ hour period included maybe 3 hours of actual interrogation. Misskelley’s lawyer and WM3 defenders often make the similar claim that Misskelley functions at a five-year-old level. There’s no evidence for this claim. He was 17 at the time of the crime and confession, and he functioned at the level of a street-smart but low-IQ 17-year-old.
http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-con…
Echols had a long history of violence and psychotic behavior and IMO the potential to commit the crimes he was convicted of. People who considered Echols dangerous, violent and potentially homicidal in 1993 had very good reasons for doing so. http://wm3truth.com/damien-echols-profile/
The FBI never studied "satanic cult killings." One member did, who never formerly interviewed any of the victims. His writings are his own opinion and ignores the evidence and criminal convictions.
The lack of DNA evidence from the 3 convicted is not surprising considering the conditions (the bodies were found in water) and the length of time it took to find the bodies.
Police took a necklace from Echols when he was arrested. An outside crime lab later found blood from two distinct DNA sources on the necklace. One source was consistent with Echols himself. The second source was consistent with both victim Steven Branch and co-defendant Jason Baldwin.
Paradise Lost III: Purgatory glosses over the irrefutable fact that the defendants themselves requested the Alford Plea and chose instead to portray the situation as if the defendants were forced to plead guilty. The truth is that the defendants were given the opportunity to present their case for innocence, but four months prior to the evidentiary hearing, they requested that the Court allow them the opportunity to plead guilty instead. After 18 years proclaiming their alleged innocence, these men were given the chance to prove that they did not kill our children, and they declined. Perhaps this was because their attorneys knew that sufficient exculpatory evidence does not exist.
http://wm3truth.com/2012/01/letter-to-ampa…
Everything I wrote is documented.
For information on what Paradise Lost left out, see the video at
http://wm3truth.com/2012/01/youtube-video-…
Paradise Lost was made with an agenda from the start.
While we were grieving for our children, the HBO film crew assured us that they only chronicled the events as they unfolded, and that they believed the defendants to be guilty. They earned our trust, and then they violated it. Director Joe Berlinger aptly referred to himself as a “storyteller first, a journalist second…” an accurate description given the fable he has conjured. Berlinger decided within “five minutes” of meeting Damien Echols that he was innocent and immediately set out upon a mission to prove it, truth and facts be damned. The fabricated innocence of the defendants made for a better “documentary” than the truth that these three teenagers killed our children for nothing more than a sick thrill.
While it can be argued that virtually all documentaries are biased in some way or another, Paradise Lost III: Purgatory blatantly misrepresented the truth, staged scenes, contrived confrontations, distorted the facts, and lied by omission. '
http://wm3truth.com/2012/01/letter-to-ampa…
Supporters are not going to change their minds about this. But this comment section, unlike the movies, presents both sides of the story for readers to make their own decisions about the guilt of the 3.
@M S
Reading comprehension isn't exactly your strong suit, is it? If it were, perhaps this post's headline would've tipped you off to that this isn't a post about the Paradise Lost films. It's a post about a film called West of Memphis. Have you seen it yet? Perhaps you should before commenting again. You're obviously just trolling the net looking for any opportunity to plug what I'm guessing is your own parasitic propaganda site. You're like Nancy Grace without a paycheck.
Vote here for best Band of the Week
Slideshows
Top Commenters
