Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

I haven't seen the first two films in the series, directed by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky, detailing the murders of three boys and subsequent investigation in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993. But, since this one, Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, was nominated for an Oscar for Best Documentary Feature, I took a look. As one would imagine, it mostly covers the appeals and ultimate resolution of the men convicted of the crime.

I have no idea what I missed from the first two films: it's hard to imagine there could be enough for two other films. The opening brings us up to speed--three eight-year old boys were seen pedaling on their bicycles, and were not seen again until they were found bound, naked, and mutilated in a nearby wood (actual footage of the corpses is unsettling, to say the least). A month or so later, three teenagers were arrested for the crime. One of them, who the film says is mentally retarded, but there was no verification of that by any expert, gave a confession, which he later claimed was forced out of him.

Perhaps what I'm missing from the first two films is just how in the hell these boys were convicted. Because the confessor (Jesse Misskelly) did not testify, his confession was not admissible. There is no mention of any physical evidence. It appears the three, later dubbed the West Memphis Three, were convicted because they were strange, and rumors associated them with a Satanic cult. As the FBI has repeatedly pointed out, there is no evidence of any murders in the United States ever having been committed as part of a Satanic ritual.

But the three teenagers languished in jail, repeatedly bringing up appeals, all of them denied (by the same judge that tried them in the first place). They attracted the attention of celebrities like Johnny Depp and Eddie Vedder, and had teams of lawyers trying to get them a new trial. DNA evidence, not feasible at the time of their trial, revealed that there was no DNA belonging to them at the scene. Also, it came to light that there was jury misconduct, with the confession discussed in deliberations when it wasn't supposed to be.

The film also makes a pretty good claim as to who the killer is. I don't want to reveal who that is here, because the film plays out like a mystery. This person made the mistake of suing the Dixie Chicks for defamation, and because he did he was open to questioning by deposition, which made him look more guilty.

Since I wasn't sure of the outcome, there's a good deal of suspense toward the end, wondering if these now men would get a new trial. The film itself is without filigree--there is no voiceover narration, just interviews, archival footage from news shows, and videotaped testimony. It's not a very artful film, but it lays out its case clearly and concisely.

Comments

Popular Posts