West Memphis 3 go free, HBO's 'Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory' gets a new ending

Directors Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky were on hand on Friday

By Daniel Fienberg Friday, Aug 19, 2011 5:23 PM

"Paradise Lost" directors Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky, with subject Damien Echols

Credit: Bob Richman/HBO

Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelly, known as the West Memphis 3, were set free on Friday (August 19) morning, as HBO set a January 2012 premiere date for the third documentary focusing on their contentious case.

The three men served 18 years in prison following their convictions stemming from the a trio of 1993 killings.Â

The acclaimed 1996 documentary "Paradise Lost: Â The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" cast doubts upon many aspects of the case against Baldwin, Echols and Misskelly. Directors Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky continued their investigation with 2000's "Paradise Lost 2: Revelations."

The filmmakers were already deep into "Paradise Lose 3: Purgatory," but Berlinger and Sinofsky were in court on Friday as their latest documentary got a new ending.

"Eighteen years and three films ago, we started this journey to document the terrible murders of three innocent boys and the subsequent circus that followed the arrests and convictions of Baldwin, Echols and Misskelly," Berlinger said in an HBO statement. "To see our work culminate in the righting of this tragic miscarriage of justice is more than a filmmaker could ask for."

Adds Sinofsky, "Today, we, along with HBO, are humbled to be a part of this remarkable outcome."

"Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory" will premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in September and run the fall festival circuit before its January 2012 airing on HBO.

While the "Paradise Lost" documentaries called into question the validity of the West Memphis 3 verdicts, it should be noted that Baldwin, Echols and Misskelly were not exonerated in the Friday ruling. Instead, they entered what are known as Alford pleas. In an Alford Plea, a criminal defendant maintains innocence while simultaneously acknowledging the ability of the prosecutor to prove the charges given the evidence at hand. It's effectively a guilty plea without an admission of guilt, while simultaneously precluding the need for the new trials which could have been a possibility later this year. Judge David Laser sentenced the three ment to the 18 years already served and they were given 10-year suspended sentences.

For a sense of the degree of face-saving in this plea, check out post-release statements by prosecutor Scott Ellington and from Echols.Â

Inside Analysis

Â

Â

Daniel Fienberg
Executive Editor

A long-time member of the TCA Board and a longer-time blogger of "American Idol," Dan Fienberg writes about TV, except for when he writes about movies or sometimes writes about the Red Sox. But never music. He would sound stupid talking about music.

Related Searches: West Memphis 3, Paradise Lost, Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, HBO

Next Article - FX unveils kinky new 'American Horror Story' key art
Previous Article - Watch: Stylish scares haunt cast in new 'American Horror Story' teaser

rowan729

Dan, I think it's worth noting that this plea deal helped the state save face-they cannot be sued now for wrongful imprisonment, and I believe the plea precludes the WM3 from being able to sell their story and directly profit from it. In essence, the state didn't want to admit any mistakes but needed to set these men free, thus the Alford plea.

August 19, 2011 at 5:47PM EST Reply to Comment
- dan Rowan729 - I've read a dozen reports on this verdict, but obviously there are things I'm definitely still missing as a non-lawyer. Do you have a preferred news story/analysis of the plea? I'm happy to polish up that last paragraph, just as soon as I feel like I fully understand what I'm polishing!
  
  -Daniel
  August 19, 2011 at 5:59PM EST
- rowan729 Dan, as a long-time follower of this case, I found the Arkansas Times blog to be the most comprehensive in explaining today's developments. I do believe the prosecutor stated that the Alford plea itself is what prevents them from being able to sue the state, but this was not in his direct statement, it comes from the press conference he held after. Alford is a messy thing, no one thinks it's ever been used this way before, but one of its provisions is that probable cause for arrest is admitted, thus making it near impossible to sue the state over wrongful imprisonment.
  The fact that a death row inmate walked free today is astounding-this plea was a way for both sides to save face, and avoid costing the state lots of money.
  I'm sure the documentarians will cover this angle more in their latest film. So great to have a happy ending to this nightmare!
  
  The Arkansas Times blog has links to all of their coverage of this case, all the way back to 1994, for anyone who wants to learn more details and follow an informative timeline of how this mess unfolded. Hope that helps!
  August 19, 2011 at 7:15PM EST
rowan729

Oh, heck, I should add that today's hearing was not really out of the blue, there was time scheduled in December of this year to hold a hearing to determine if the new evidence in this case would be enough to warrant a new trial, and it has been widely believed recently that the December hearing would have ordered a new trial, costing the state more money.
By offering the Alford plea, the state still gets "convictions" for this horrific murder case, the defendants go free, and the state is insulated from lawsuits by these three because they made them sign the Alford plea. Essentially, everyone gets what they want this way, and the state doesn't have to look for new suspects.

More on topic, it was the second Paradise Lost doc that first exposed me to this case, and I have followed it ever since. The film makers here have really fought for these three, and to see their work pay off in two different forms is wonderful. I look forward to seeing their new analysis of this plea in the latest film.
August 19, 2011 at 7:27PM EST Reply to Comment
- dan I added links to the prosecutor's post-plea statement and to Echols' post-plea statement. That should flesh out the context a bit more... Gracias!
  
  -Daniel
  August 19, 2011 at 8:29PM EST
nic919

I will definitely try to see this at the Toronto Film Festival next month. I only recently became aware of the documentaries and it is just scary how basically being Goth in the 90s is the basis for a conviction and death sentence. I am about the same ages as them and so many of my friends wore black and listened to heavy metal or punk music as teens and yet they all turned out to be contributing members of society 18 years later. I also noted how many broken families there were with both the victims and the accused. And while I have not read the original trial transcripts, I can't understand the basis of the convictions other than the moral panic that was happening in the community at the time. The confession from Jesse was obviously coerced and the cross examination of the police officers was quite effective in demonstrating that. The prosecution's cult "expert" was also dismantled as a joke who got his degree from a mail order mall. Any jury who was paying attention would have had to find reasonable doubt on the evidence that was presented, but it seemed like there was such a need to convict "someone" for the despicable crimes that these three were probably convicted in the jury minds before the trial started. I wonder what would have happened had the trial been held in a different county, or somewhere where the media had made slightly less of an impact.

And when we hear of the other evidence regarding one of the stepfathers, and other unknown hair samples that don't seem to have presented at trial, it really is disgusting that the convictions were allowed to stand.
August 20, 2011 at 11:58AM EST Reply to Comment
Sareeta

This is good news in the sense that these 3, if they really are innocent, were able to go free and still have to work on clearing their names of the murder charges. The sad part is they have little chance of determining who actually murdered those three boys.

I read about there being an incident with a black man hiding in the women's bathroom of a restaurant around the time of the crime. He had blood on his arm and was in a panic. There was also hair found at the crime scene belonging to a black person. The police contaminated the bathroom so apparently the evidence was not admissible.

Also, the stepfather of one of the victims seemed fairly shady. He's apparently a big supported of the three convicted men and is planning on writing a book about the ordeal. Doesn't sound like the kind of thing the parent of a victim should be doing.
August 21, 2011 at 2:15PM EST Reply to Comment