After the massive high that was 'Mission to Lars', 'West of Memphis' was the ultimate downer. And not just because it is about a gross miscarriage of justice leaving the true killer of 3 young boys able to walk free for the rest of time, but also because this movie was overlong and a bit dry and contained some very confronting real footage of the dead bodies. OK, I had a killer headache that was preventing me from sitting still and concentrating at a high level, but still I don't think I was the only one thinking it.
The documentary tells the tale of the "West Memphis Three" from the very beginning up to the present day. This is a case of a horrific crime in 1993 where three Arkansas 8 year old boys went missing and were found drowned in a creek, arms and legs tied, and their bodies cut and mutilated in some areas (particularly genitals). The police immediately decided that this must be a satanic cult related killing and soon arrested three local teenagers - Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Miskelley Jr. Because these guys were pretty alternative, had some petty crime convictions (vandalism and shoplifting), Damien had spent some time in a mental institution and his diary contained writings about being depressed and wanting to drink blood etc. The policy had basically made their minds up that these were the guys. They got a confession from Jessie Miskelly Jr that they had done it, and there you go, case closed.
1. Never mind the fact that Jessie's 'confession' was riddled with inconsistencies and didn't match the facts of the case. When you hear the tape of the interview, you can see that the police involved were feeding him facts and leading him towards the true information whenever he had something wrong. There was some indication that Jessie may not have 100% mental faculty and was probably intimidated into that confession.
2. Never mind the fact that one of them was not even in the county that night (corroborated by multiple witnesses).
3. Never mind the fact that despite being offered a generous deal if he ratted on Damian, Jason said 'no' because they were both innocent and went to trial.
4. Never mind the fact that there was no evidence, including DNA, to link any of the 3 to the crime scene.
Despite the above facts being tendered in the boys' defence, all 3 were convicted of the murders, with Damian being given a death sentence as the alleged ringleader, and the others being given life sentences. An appeal against their conviction in 1994 failed. After about 10 years of research and investigation by various people engaged by the family and friends of the men, a growing movement believed they were innocent and the police had bungled the crime scene and used inappropriate methods of questioning the defendants and witnesses. A key witness recanted her statements saying they were all lies under coercion by police. New DNA testing in 2007 strengthened the view that they were not guilty, and turned the attention to Terry Hobbs, step-father to one of the young boys who was amazingly never questioned by police or treated as a suspect. There may have been some jury misconduct.
Damien made a request for a retrial in 2007 but the hearing was continually put off. Finally in 2010 the Supreme Court ordered a lower judge to consider the evidence and decide whether a re-trial should occur. In August 2011, the re-trial was ordered but the defendants immediately put in a plea known as an 'Alford plea'. This allowed them to maintain that they were innocent of the crime (which they had all done over the many long years in jail) and still plead guilty. The judge then sentenced them to the time already served, so they walked free that day.
The real injustice of all this, other than the 17 years these men spent in prison for a crime they claim they did not commit and it does seem that the police just had it in for them, is that the true killer has never been found and never will be since there are three people who have been convicted of the crime. Someone cruelly killed three children and got away with it. It's sickening really.
As for the movie itself, it's a fairly even-handed look at the whole thing, with interviews with the police and prosecutors balancing out those of the friends and family. It's long because there is so much detail, even though not all details have even been included. It has some high-profile supporters' thoughts, including Henry Rollins (the only humourous part), Eddie Vedder and Peter Jackson (who executive produced this movie and it emerges that he and his wife probably financed a large part of the 2007 request for re-trial and subsequent legal bills). It's not sensational at all, although towards the end it seems to be firmly pointing the finger at Terry Hobbs, so in that way it is probably the best way to present the story. This is not really a cautionary tale as there's probably nothing that could've changed the outcome, but it does serve as an indictment of the 'judge a book by its cover' mentality.
No comments:
Post a Comment