West of Memphis

source: West of Memphis

'West of Memphis', the latest documentary from Amy Berg, focuses on the story of 'the West Memphis Three' – Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jesse Miskelly, three teenagers who were wrongly imprisoned in Memphis, Arkansas, in 1993, for being accused of brutally murdering three 8 eight year-old boys from the area. This documentary chronicles how they spent nearly two decades in jail before being released and also details the meticulous investigation that was carried out from the moment they were placed behind bars. The great miscarriage of justice is the primary focus here, as Baldwin, Miskelly and Echols suffer (the latter's health began to deteriorate) in prison for a crime they were blamed for because they are considered "the type of people who would do something like that", for example, Echols listened to heavy metal and was interested in the area of Satanism so the finger was instantly pointed at him. After the blame was eventually lifted from the three, it was then directed at one of the boy's fathers as he was, like Echols, considered "the type of person who would do something like that." When the documentary reaches its conclusion, it becomes apparent how ludicrous the accusations against both parties were because they were simply scapegoats and consequently very few people in the area questioned the credibility of them being the murderers. Simultaneously, we are offered a balanced look at the topic, frequently seeing opinions from both sides of the argument. The injustice that prevailed here was already explored in HBO's 'Paradise Lost' trilogy, but many have argued that this film presents a more compelling and thorough account of the 18 year saga. Produced by Peter Jackson (who appears throughout the documentary as one of the many famous guest stars) and Fran Walsh, the film expertly combines specially-recorded interviews, news and archive footage and forensic examinations. This combination results in a documentary that is by turns shocking, tragic, infuriating and always gripping.

West of Memphis (2012) **** (out of 4) This here is basically the fourth documentary to take a look at the West Memphis Three case, which gained worldwide attention after the PARADISE LOST trilogy. Countless celebrities including Johnny Depp, Eddie Vedder, Henry Rollins and Peter Jackson came to the three men's cause and they are also featured here. So what this fourth film basically does is give you an overview of the case as well as new bits of information regarding who the killer might be. Let me start off by saying that this is a wonderfully entertaining film even though it is hard to watch at times since crime photos are shown in great detail. In fact, I will say that all four films on the subject were wonderful and certainly highly entertaining. With that said, as they bring up in this movie, the case will always be controversial with some believing the three men are guilty and others believing that they were set up by some crooked cops. Some believe that the media attention got three killers off with murder while others believe that the media forced the state of Arkansas to set the guys free. Even at the end, the controversy continues as the three men admit to be guilty but take a loophole law to say they're also innocent. I must admit that the PARADISE LOST series tried to place blame on one of the stepfather's but that person is shown as a great guy here. A new suspect is brought into play with evidence linking him to the crime but due to this loophole he will never be brought to trial. All four movies have demanded that the three men be released from prison and they have been. My question is now: what about the person who committed the crimes? What about the parents to the three murdered children? Is anything being done for them?

My first thought after viewing this documentary was how could three innocent youths be charged/convicted/sentenced to this crime based on the post trial evidence I'm viewing? It's really tragic if these three are innocent. But what if the guy who directed this film, the clear leader of the three, actually duped the justice system. He befriended two boys who are clearly less intelligent, and appear to be very manipulative. When he's being interviewed in prison, he expresses his interest in magic and his desire to be considered the best at this craft. He finds a young women in whom he bears his soul and they connect. Over time he gets some influential people in his corner. Serious doubts based on lack of evidence, specifically DNA, plus some focus now on Hobbs, the stepfather who's at the very least abusing his step children. The bodies of the boys are found in the water perhaps damaging the chance for some/any DNA recovery from the actual perp(s)sans the hair from Hobbs. But since Stevie lived with Hobbs it is possible a transfer occurred not related to the crime. Hobbs would be an easy target to manipulate, he's unable to answer some of questions with a logical answer even if it were a lie. Damien Echols is an odd character in my opinion, capable of manipulating the other two boys easily. Capable of creating the illusion of innocence with the people that got involved on his behalf. Did a guilty man actually get himself off death row by creating the illusion of misjustice? Quite a magic trick, among the best if he did.

There's no such thing as a nice murder, but the deaths of three children in West Memphs, Arkansas in 1993 seemed particularly horrific: the killer had apparently cut off his victim's penises and drunk their blood before throwing the corpses into a creek. The police promptly rounded up some local kids with a passing interest in Satanism, and a conviction as duly secured. Only later, amid mounting concerns over a potential miscarriage of justice, did it emerge that an incompetent pathologist had failed to recognise that the wounds were almost certainly inflicted post-mortem, and not by the killer, but by turtles. Not only had the wrong people been convicted of the crime, but the crime was perhaps just an "ordinary" murder after all. But getting the State to agree was a further long struggle. Amy Berg's documentary charts the story. It's horrific (the crime was still an awful one, even if not quite as originally portrayed, and the false imprisonment of the accused a second tragedy), fascinating, and beautifully filmed. On the downside, it is a bit long, and while it does a good job at suggesting who might have actually committed the crime, one can feel a bit uneasy about making such charges in a film like this (although one can also note that the authorities seemingly have no interest in re-investigating the case). More than anything else, the film is an interesting (and scary) look into the life of the American poor, a long way from the glitz of Manhattan. For many of the people we see in this movie, life would have been a hard, tough grind, even without the terrible events displayed. When one of the three accused finally gets out of prison, he tells us he isn't going back to Arkansas; and one doesn't feel like blaming him.

First of all, if you have seen the 3 Paradise Lost films or the 48 Hours coverage there is nothing new here. The film explains yet again why the WM3 are innocents - which is difficult to doubt - and tries to find another suspect, like Paradise Lost 3 did with Byer. Even if the man in question is guilty, it should not be up to a film to make accusations and substitute itself to a court of law. Paradise Lost 3 proved you can easily be wrong, even if all the evidences seems to be there. A lot of questions about he film itself are left unanswered, like why we see almost exclusively Damien and so few of Jason and Jessie. Did they refuse to participate? Were they left aside by the production? The implication of Peter Jackson and his wife is weird too; listening to him we have the impression he financed and directed all the process leading to the liberation of the 3. Moreover, a lot of things are pointless, especially the part with Stevie Branch sister's. What are we to make of her ordeal? She had a difficult life, but it doesn't prove anything. Last but not least, the film is incredibly badly filmed and edited. I don't remember having seen so many useless images in a documentary in a long time. It is like every time she doesn't have an image that goes with the sound, the filmmaker turns to meaningless images of cars, chairs or whatever. There is no visual imagination here, which is kind of frustrating giving the power of the subject. If you know nothing about the case, this film can work as a summary, but nothing more.

WEST of MEMPHIS is a very compelling documentary about a huge--and not as uncommon as we'd like to think--apparent miscarriage of justice. The most haunting aspect of the film is how guilty the "Memphis 3" appear during the trial, yet how innocent they seem once certain facts emerge afterward. No matter what really happened in this particular case, WEST of MEMPHIS succeeds in showing how completely innocent people can be routinely convicted of the most heinous crimes imaginable due to corruption and human error, some of it understandable, some of it otherwise. The ease at which prosecutors motivated by their own "professional" or political agendas can distort the truth and elicit confessions from the innocent and vulnerable is truly bone-jarring. Most of us want to believe in the fundamental integrity of America's justice system, which is why cases such as this are so irksomely inconvenient. Having said all of this, I must add the following caveat: It's still entirely possible that the Memphis 3 were guilty all along. I found this film very persuasive at first, but a little further investigation into the matter revealed many new aspects, with much conflicting evidence, to this story. WEST of MEMPHIS really stacks the cards in only covering the "these poor, innocent,misunderstood boys" side of things. This documentary is long and detailed, which is obviously helpful in allowing the audience to understand how everything supposedly happened. Still, it may prove a little ponderous for the more casual viewer. There are some very disturbing images--crime scene photos of the eight-year-old victims, etc--as well as blunt descriptions of the mutilations done to the bodies. The film is tasteful as possible, however, in what it shows/does not show.

In 1993 three young boys are found in a ditch, bound and mutilated. The local police, desperate for a conviction, make a connection between the marks on the dead children's bodies and Satanic rituals. Before long suspicion falls on three local teenagers, and in particular, Damien Echols, who with his died black hair, stands out from the rest of the community. At the 1993 trial, evidence of Echols interest with Satanic symbols surfaces, which, along with a confession from Jessie Misskelley, is enough to convict all three, and in Damien's case, bring a death sentence. Over the following 15 years, doubt over the convictions grows, and fanned by several celebrities taking up the cause (Eddie Vedder, Jonny Depp among them), eventually force the Arkansas state to re-look at the case. This documentary, produced by Peter Jackson, and directed by Amy Berg, is more than just a skillful re-telling of the story, from the original trial through to the eventual final judgement. Far from just reporting the defence campaign, the film-makers get involved in the campaign, helping organise DNA analysis, and setting-up a strong case against another member of the family for the killings. The film gradually dismantles the original prosecution case, pointing out the lack of the teenagers DNA evidence at the crime scene, explaining that far from sexual mutilation, the dead children's injuries were actually post mortem, from snapper turtles, living in the creek. In the final third of the film, having done a convincing job of un-picking the evidence, the film makers pull out a final card. Using new DNA techniques, they test the single strand of hair found in the shoelaces used to tie up one of the victims. It's found to belong to one of the dead children's step father's, Terry Hobbs. The film then focuses on Hobbs, using interviews with his estranged wife and family to accuse him of being a child sex abuser, one with a violent temper, and jealous of the attention his step-son was receiving from his partner. Eventually, in 2012, the District Attorney strikes a deal, that grants the convicted teenagers freedom, in return for their guilty plea, thereby avoiding a costly re-trial and compensation. It's an un-satisfactory legal outcome, but one that Misskelley, Echols and Baldwin understandably elect to take-up, and finally secure their freedom after 15 years of incarceration. This is undoubtedly a very skillful documentary, which after a slow start, grows into a riveting story, with twists in the evidence and the legal process with up to the end. But it's a one sided affair, and the film-makers direct involvement with the campaign, muddies the waters, and asks the viewer to take their side. While probable that there was mis-carriage of justice, or at the very least, that the convictions were "unsafe and unsatisfactory", the film and the case leave significant ambiguity behind. Some of the parents of the dead children still firmly believe that the real killers were indeed the ones that were found guilty back in 1993, and Terry Hobb's is left with the finger of suspicion hanging over him, never to be proved or dis-proved for the rest of his life.

West of Memphis This documentary, produced by Peter Jackson, examines the 1993 triple homicide of three eight-year-olds, investigation and trial of three teenagers and the subsequent efforts to overturn their conviction. While the story itself spans a 20-year period, this documentary focuses upon the most recent attempts at re-examining the evidence and freeing those convicted (one of whom confessed). The story's already been told in HBO's "Paradise Lost" 1 - 3 (yep, this is the FOURTH doc on the subject), but this tale has been going on for twenty-years and has had multiple layers. If you haven't seen any of the other movies, or know nothing of the case, not to worry - West of Memphis does a fantastic job telling you the story from start to finish and in refreshing the memories for those of us to whom it's familiar. I'm normally not bothered by graphic images, but my only complaint for this movie is the frequency of the explicit crime scene and autopsy photos of the victims - truly disturbing and haunting...I felt it was too much and took away from the film - the story itself, and sad realization that there were six actual victims, is overwhelming enough without being visually assaulted. I'm not one to normally feel the need to close my eyes or to look away, but here, I did. And what a shame, by forcing me to look away, it forced me to tentatively recommend this film to everyone - it's tough to watch and revisiting how six children lost their lives is harrowing. While our country has the best justice system in the world, it's not perfect and works best for those who are able to afford the finest legal council money can buy (right, OJ?!) - in any case, "Justice delayed is justice denied". I highly recommend it - but, I've warned you...it's tough.

'WEST OF MEMPHIS': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five) A documentary film on the West Memphis Three case, in which three teenage outcasts (Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley) were arrested and charged with the murder of three 8-year old boys (Steven Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore), despite the lack of any conclusive evidence and apparent police and prosecutor misconduct. The boys spent eighteen years in prison and were released in August of 2011 as part of a deal reached with prosecutors due to new evidence. The film was directed and co-written (along with Billy McMillin) by Amy Berg (who also directed the 2006 documentary 'DELIVER US FROM EVIL', about the Catholic Church's cover up of a priest's sexual abuse, towards dozens of young boys, in the 70s). It was produced by Berg, Echols and Lori Davis as well as filmmakers Peter Jackson and his wife Fran Walsh. The movie is heartbreaking, frustrating and very disturbing but it's also inspiring in the way it shows how many people came forward to support justice and the freeing of these (presumably) wrongfully convicted men. The film tells the story of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley (known as 'The West Memphis Three'), who were tried and convicted of the 1993 murders of three 8-year old boys in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1994. Echols was sentenced to death and the other two were sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution claimed that the three misfits killed the young boys as part of a satanic ritual but had no physical evidence to backup their claim. They were convicted on a theory, a forced confession of a mentally handicap teen (Misskelley) and the testimony of some shady witnesses (who later retracted their statements and admitted they were lying). Multiple HBO documentaries have been made on the subject which have motivated many to come forward in defense of the accused, including several celebrities (like Jackson, Walsh, Eddie Vedder, Henry Rollins and Johnny Depp to name a few). New forensic evidence allowed a deal to be reached with prosecutors where 'The Memphis Three' were released from prison under time served (18 years) due to Alford pleas (which allowed the three to maintain their innocence while admitting that the prosecution had enough evidence to convict them (a disgraceful way for the prosecution to avoid the embarrassment of a retrial and admitting they were wrong). The events of the entire ordeal are explained in detail through interviews with several of those involved. There's also a lot of evidence provided pointing to the most likely killer of the three young boys (Steven Branch's stepfather Terry Hobbs). The film is the classic tale of people in power taking advantage of the weak that can't defend themselves (three misfit teens in this case) and society exploiting someone for looking different and acting 'weird' (therefore he's 'creepy' and there must be something wrong with him). This sort of thing happens all the time, this is just one of those times it's been brought to the public's attention. Which is a good enough reason, on it's own, why no one (with any morals of any kind) should support the death penalty. The movie is infuriating, depressing and horrifying but it's also ultimately inspiring. It's also very relatable, to some, and shows how people that are different are often used and abused by society. That's why so many musicians and other celebrities felt for these young men and got involved in trying to help them. It's a movie that we can all learn a lot from. It still leaves a lot of questions and doesn't reach a completely satisfying conclusion (because one wasn't reached in real life) but the filmmakers did about as good a job bringing this story to light (in more detail, to the masses) as they possibly could. A must see!