When God asks Cain where his brother is, Cain replies, "I know not, am I my brother's keeper?". Documentary film-makers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky shed the light of their focus not as much on the brother's guilt over the accusation of killing his brother, as on the massive social divide caused by this incident in a small rural village in New York. Living almost in solitude on the farm owned by their family for generations, the three remaining brothers Ward - Delmar, Lyman and Roscoe - were largely ignored by the townsfolk and dismissed as harmless simpletons until the media circus that engulfed their surrounding following the death of eldest brother William descended.
Shot in cinema verite style (Berlinger and Sinofsky worked under the Maysles brothers for a time), the three Ward brothers prove to be strange yet oddly sweet characters. They clearly haven't bathed for weeks, possibly months, their farm is half crumbled, and their living room is cramped and dank. When approached about the topic of women, it becomes clear that they probably haven't ever been with one, therefore inevitably condemning their family line. The main reason the townsfolk quickly gather their support for Delmar after he is accused of murder is because of their simple innocence, and because they have simply never caused any bother. On the opposite side of the spectrum, things are different, with hick stereotypes and cries on incest being broadcast of national TV.
Like Berlinger and Sinosky's Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hoods Hills (1996), the court room scenes are tense and overwhelmingly unfair. One of the most powerful scenes has one of the brother's, a man clearly of social ineptitude, lose his breath on the stand, requiring serious medical attention. This is a world almost alien to them, and they suffer in it due to illiteracy and possible retardation. But it's more than a simple court-room documentary, this is about how society fears and judges people and cultures they simply don't understand. The 'simple' folk seem to easily distinguish right from wrong, yet the fat suits sat behind their big desks play God against people not educated enough to properly fight back.
And so, after 18 years, the story of the West Memphis Three finally reaches its conclusion. As does Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky's epic documentary trilogy. These films, as Echols confesses, were so important to their lives that without them, the judicial system would have forgotten about them and left them to rot for the rest of their lives (and until Echols' death by lethal injection). Purgatory picks the case up ten years after the second entry, Revelations, to find the case in a never-ending loop of denied appeals by original Judge David Burnett. With more evidence surfacing, the case is taken to the Arkansas Supreme Court, to argue that enough has been unearthed to warrant a new trial for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley.
After spending way too much time going over what occurred in the first two documentaries (about 45 minutes - which is a massive drag if you've just watched them back-to-back), we finally get to new ground as new interviewees give statements and leading experts in their respective fields give lectures uncovering new revelations about misinterpretations and misconduct given by the original trial 'experts'. Much of the trial focused on these murders being the work of ritualistic sacrifice due to the sexual mutilations of the victims and scratches left on their persons. It turns out that these are clearly the work of animals, most probably turtles (the area where the bodies were found is nicknamed 'Turtle Hill'). It reveals poor research by the original lawyers working for the defendants, and general ineptitude by basically everyone involved back in 1993/94.
Purgatory commits the same sin as Revelations, as suspicion moves from a noticeably more subdued John Mark Byers - who is now a supporter of the West Memphis Three and pen-pal to Echols - to Terry Hobbs, stepfather of Stevie Branch. Although, accusations don't come from character alone, but instead stem from a hair found within the knot of the shoelace with which the boys were hog-tied with and some alarming inconsistencies in Hobbs' story. But (ironically), this is something for the court to pursue and not documentary film-makers. The ending, which sees the West Memphis Three released from prison but not with their innocence intact, comes out of nowhere, as filming had already wrapped when the court called the plea appeal. For a more satisfying closure to the story, I would recommend West of Memphis (2012), which gives a more detailed account of their release, and also a more focused and detailed investigation of Hobbs. Still, it's a relief to finally watch these three walk free, even though it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
After the storm kicked up by the first film, film-makers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky returned to West Memphis four years later. Whereas the first film seemed to simply document the case in as much detail as possible and allowed you to make your own mind up, with Revelations, they seem to have their own agenda. New 'evidence' has been discovered, and perhaps the real killer still walks the streets, and it's clear who Berlinger and Sinofsky believes it to be. That crazy bastard John Mark Byers, who took so much pleasure in giving Biblical rants to camera, hardly covers himself in glory, and he's back here to build fake graves for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley at the crime scene, only to set them on fire amidst his demented monologues.
It's sad that Berlinger and Sinofsky decided to take such a manipulative approach to the sequel, as although Byers is clearly an unhinged and simple-minded hick, there is no evidence against him killing the three boys (Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, and his stepson Christopher Byers) aside from the fact that he comes across as scary and strange. The first film was an intense study of mob mentality and the dangers of pre-judgement by appearance, and how the West Memphis Three managed to get themselves convicted simply for being black-wearing outcasts. So Revelations comes across is hypocritical.
When new evidence is presented, suggesting teeth marks on the head of one of the victims, tests prove that none of the WM3's teeth match. When Byers is confronted, he reveals that he had his teeth removed but keeps changing his story as to when this took place. He is repeatedly confronted by a support group that help fund and promote the case against the WM3, but they come across as equally strange as Byers, following Echols like groupies as if he was some kind of prophet, and they berate Byers into handing in his dental records voluntarily to prove himself innocent. Byers refuses, stating that there is no case against him, and this is shown in the film as if an admittance of guilt. The film-makers never take any time to explain the reasoning behind Byers' behaviour, clearly convinced of his guilt.
In the end, it's a case of there being too little here to warrant a two hour-plus movie. The new evidence is flimsy to say the least, and as revealed in West of Memphis (2012), is probably completely wrong. Yet when the film gets back down to cold facts, it becomes as riveting as the first film, unveiling a justice system that seems unwilling to open the doors to the possibility that they simply got it wrong. It's just a shame that too much time is spent on a personal witch-hunt, and even when Byers passes a voluntary lie-detector test, the film suggests that Byers was on so much prescription medication that the results of this cannot really stand up, yet fails to ask to conductor of the test of his views regarding this. It's certainly a confused film, and one that works best when it stays on topic and documents the facts rather than revelling in propagandistic speculation.
With the recent release of theclosing chapter to the trilogy, Paradise Lost: Purgatory (2011), and the Peter Jackson-funded West of Memphis (2012), it seemed a perfect time to re-visit the original HBO documentary that focused on the original trial of the accused now known as the West Memphis Three. Knowing now that they have only recently been released in 2011, the first thing that shocked me about the first film was realising it was made way back in 1996, and the trial was back in 1993. I was 8 in 1993, and I cannot imagine the torment that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, Jr. went through, spending almost twenty years in prison for a crime they did not commit. Paradise Lost is still as utterly sickening as it was when I first viewed it over five years ago.
The question here is not if these three were innocent of this hideous crime - you can make your own mind up about that - but it is how can three teenage boys be sentenced to life in prison (and the death penalty for Echols) with not a shred of evidence against them? The irony is that these murders were believed to be the work of satanic sacrifice, but the West Memphis Three were condemned to a modern day witch-hunt by ignorant townsfolk terrified of them because they wore black and refused to blend in with the dungaree-wearing hicks in their dirt-poor neighbourhood. It seemed like everyone was against them, eager to lay the blame on something they simply did not understand. Judge David Burnett highlighted the need for evidence of a motive, so the answer was to get 'expert' testimony from a man with a mail-order PhD in the occult. When his lack of qualifications is highlighted by the attorney representing Echols, this is dismissed without a second thought.
Film-makers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky were granted unlimited access to the entire trial, so as a documentary, it is incredibly detailed. After the uproar this film caused, this access was quickly denied for the sequel, no doubt they were terrified that more shameful misconduct would be unearthed. Interviewers are given by the parents of the accused and of the three murdered boys (Christopher Byers, Michael Moore and Stevie Branch), and their emotion is laid out raw. Special attention is given to John Mark Byers, stepfather to Christopher, who handed the film-makers a hunting knife stained with blood as a present, which was quickly handed over to the authorities. Byers is a strange and often terrifying character, pumping bullets into a target and stating his wishes that he could do the same to the three boys on trial. It is easy to find yourself thinking that he must be the real killer, but as the trilogy of films progress, I learned that appearances can be deceiving, and that I was guilty of the exact same thing that led to the imprisonment of the West Memphis Three.
This is powerful stuff, provoking more emotion than probably any other film I have ever seen. The atmosphere is extremely gloomy, right from the get-go when we see crime scene footage of the young boys hardened corpses lying naked in the woods. It certainly doesn't pull its punches, and Metallica's magnificent soundtrack, the first time they have ever allowed their music to be used in film, only adds to this. But ultimately, it's the story itself that proves to be the most powerful aspect. They were guilty from the moment they came to court - these sullen kids with their black clothes and long hair. Individuality doesn't go down well in the Bible Belt, it would seem. As each heavily flawed accusation flies at Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley, you must simply watch and grit your teeth. This is a truly terrifying story and also one full of tragedy, both for the young boys who were murdered and for the three that were the fall guys swept up by an almost neo-Nazi institution.
Shot in cinema verite style (Berlinger and Sinofsky worked under the Maysles brothers for a time), the three Ward brothers prove to be strange yet oddly sweet characters. They clearly haven't bathed for weeks, possibly months, their farm is half crumbled, and their living room is cramped and dank. When approached about the topic of women, it becomes clear that they probably haven't ever been with one, therefore inevitably condemning their family line. The main reason the townsfolk quickly gather their support for Delmar after he is accused of murder is because of their simple innocence, and because they have simply never caused any bother. On the opposite side of the spectrum, things are different, with hick stereotypes and cries on incest being broadcast of national TV.
