48 Hours and Paradise Lost; West Memphis Three

animlzrule said:

I've just watched Paradise Lost, both editions. Based on the preponderance defense evidence discussed in the films, as well an investigative and court documents available for viewing, it's clear that this investigation and trial was an amateur effort at best and the convicted parties deserved a new trial. However, the tragedy and what is haunting me right now is to imagine the life of the little Byers boy. There wasn't enough film to give me much of an impression of the families of the other 2 boys, but it's pretty clear that Christopher never had a chance in life even if he hadn't met his brutal demise as a child. My heart breaks to imagine his life with those two whack jobs. That poor little boy. I wonder what he endured on a regular basis during his short time on earth. I'm off to do more reading about Stevie Branch's "family". From the brief footage I saw of his mother, I'd say he probably was growing up in similar circumstances to Christopher.

Click to expand...

AR,
Excellent post. Thank you for saying what I was leery of saying.

Does anyone know where i can see this (again) on the internet? I saw them the first time around but don't have HBO now nor a membership to Netflix. Thanks!

If you're a member of the Blackboard you can watch it here...

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=507.0

If you're not, all I can suggest is to register, because its no longer on You Tube. The user who had it posted has apparently terminated his account.

deelytful1 said:

Does anyone know where i can see this (again) on the internet? I saw them the first time around but don't have HBO now nor a membership to Netflix. Thanks!

Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR2sVKssjsI&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR2sVKssjsI&feature=related[/ame]

deelytful1 said:

Does anyone know where i can see this (again) on the internet? I saw them the first time around but don't have HBO now nor a membership to Netflix. Thanks!

Click to expand...

I think on you tube. I am on the waiting list on netflix and it says long wait....

gajonka said:

It is quite clear, and apparent to everyone that the wm3 didnot do it. No prints, no dna, no nothing. There is no rational basis from which to draw a conclusion they are guilty other than a coerced confessipn by a *advertiser censored*.
Not sure what you're thinking.
NEXT!!!!

Click to expand...

This is the the currently used IQ classification system for mental retardation in the USA. Notice that an IQ of 72 (Jessie's) is not considered to be a "*advertiser censored*" (your word, not mine).

IQ Range.....Classification
50-69......... Mild
35-49 ......... Moderate
20-34..........Severe
below 20......Profound

And 70 - 74 is considered "borderline mentally retarded" which is where Jessie falls.

Cappuccino said:

If you're a member of the Blackboard you can watch it here...

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=507.0

If you're not, all I can suggest is to register, because its no longer on You Tube. The user who had it posted has apparently terminated his account.

Click to expand...

I registered at the blackboard but all I get is a blank white square when I click on that link. Do you have to be a member for a certain amount of time or have a certain number of posts in order to see the videos?

Btw -- the first three parts of PL 1 are on YouTube, but that's less than half the movie. All 9 parts of PL 2 can still be found on YouTube.

Pensfan said:

This is the the currently used IQ classification system for mental retardation in the USA. Notice that an IQ of 72 (Jessie's) is not considered to be a "*advertiser censored*" (your word, not mine).

IQ Range.....Classification
50-69......... Mild
35-49 ......... Moderate
20-34..........Severe
below 20......Profound

Click to expand...

I just got to say it R word is awful and I am offend by it. not meant to this post. but really are we all not adult here:banghead:

CCmakes3 said:

I registered at the blackboard but all I get is a blank white square when I click on that link. Do you have to be a member for a certain amount of time or have a certain number of posts in order to see the videos?

Btw -- the first three parts of PL 1 are on YouTube, but that's less than half the movie. All 9 parts of PL 2 can still be found on YouTube.

Click to expand...

Just found out that HBO will be airing PL 1 again on August 29th.

Echols Rule 37 hearing May 5, 1998
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/rule37/may5.html

They talk about the defense attorneys fighting to NOT have cameras in the courtroom, but HBO doing filming of some testimony (not in court). And also talk about all of those in the film receiving compensation. It's pretty interesting consider the irony much?

UdbCrzy2,

The discussion about the money was merely indicating that some of the victim's families had been compensated for their appearance in the HBO film. It was made clear that neither the attorneys for the defense or the defendants received payments.

As to the camera issue, this was raised only to ascertain whether or not the defense attorneys, due to their inexperience, had been unable to properly represent their clients as a result of the cameras. One of Jason Baldwin's attorneys (Ford) had originally objected to the presence of the cameras. This is why during the Rule 37 hearing (whose purpose was to see if ineffective council had been afforded the defendants) the cameras are mentioned.

The attorney also discussed whether or not the Court (meaning Judge Burnett) had been affected by the presence of cameras or the potential interviews with him conducted by HBO. This was only brought up because the defense wanted Judge Burnett to recuse himself as they were at the time considering calling him as a witness. If one keeps in mind the purpose of a Rule 37 hearing, it helps one understand why some of the things that happened in it happened.

tfrohning said:

I just got to say it R word is awful and I am offend by it. not meant to this post. but really are we all not adult here:banghead:

Click to expand...

I agree. I am offended by it as well. I really don't like the way things are devolving on the West Memphis threads between people with opposite views. We used to all be friends for the most part here. The rudeness and anger at one another needs to stop, IMO.

And it is coming from both sides.

I really just want to come here for information and intelligent discussion about a historic moment and the murder of three little boys. Can we just get it together and act like adults? This is just not cool.

Compassionate Reader said:

UdbCrzy2,

The discussion about the money was merely indicating that some of the victim's families had been compensated for their appearance in the HBO film. It was made clear that neither the attorneys for the defense or the defendants received payments.

As to the camera issue, this was raised only to ascertain whether or not the defense attorneys, due to their inexperience, had been unable to properly represent their clients as a result of the cameras. One of Jason Baldwin's attorneys (Ford) had originally objected to the presence of the cameras. This is why during the Rule 37 hearing (whose purpose was to see if ineffective council had been afforded the defendants) the cameras are mentioned.

The attorney also discussed whether or not the Court (meaning Judge Burnett) had been affected by the presence of cameras or the potential interviews with him conducted by HBO. This was only brought up because the defense wanted Judge Burnett to recuse himself as they were at the time considering calling him as a witness. If one keeps in mind the purpose of a Rule 37 hearing, it helps one understand why some of the things that happened in it happened.

Click to expand...

Compassionate Reader,
Real good post. Thanks for pointing out who was and wasn't paid.

moo

gajonka said:

It is quite clear, and apparent to everyone that the wm3 didnot do it. No prints, no dna, no nothing. There is no rational basis from which to draw a conclusion they are guilty other than a coerced confessipn by a *advertiser censored*.Not sure what you're thinking.
NEXT!!!!

Click to expand...

BBM

You need to take that back. This is 2011. Name calling is not permitted.

Compassionate Reader said:

UdbCrzy2,

The discussion about the money was merely indicating that some of the victim's families had been compensated for their appearance in the HBO film. It was made clear that neither the attorneys for the defense or the defendants received payments.

As to the camera issue, this was raised only to ascertain whether or not the defense attorneys, due to their inexperience, had been unable to properly represent their clients as a result of the cameras. One of Jason Baldwin's attorneys (Ford) had originally objected to the presence of the cameras. This is why during the Rule 37 hearing (whose purpose was to see if ineffective council had been afforded the defendants) the cameras are mentioned.

The attorney also discussed whether or not the Court (meaning Judge Burnett) had been affected by the presence of cameras or the potential interviews with him conducted by HBO. This was only brought up because the defense wanted Judge Burnett to recuse himself as they were at the time considering calling him as a witness. If one keeps in mind the purpose of a Rule 37 hearing, it helps one understand why some of the things that happened in it happened.

Click to expand...

Excuse me you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
You must not have read the document link I posted, so here you go just in case you missed it.

___________________

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/rule37/may5.html


4 MR. MALLETT: We believe that Home Box Office
5 paid money through Creative Entertainment,
6 Incorporated. We know that they paid seventy-five
7 hundred dollars to the trust account of Mr. Davidson
8 on behalf of Mr. Echols.
9 We know from interviewing Mr. Stidham that money
10 was paid to the Misskelley family. We believe money
11 was paid to the Baldwin family. We likewise believe
12 that the families of the victims of these murders also
13 in all probability were paid money in trade for
14 agreeing to surrender their right to personal privacy
15 -- remain silent -- and give interviews.
16 We think that this raises or introduces into the
17 case issues of serious conflicts of interest about
18 which a neutral and detached magistrate will properly
19 make rulings.

Any monies paid into the Echols trust fund is for his son, Seth. The money paid was to the families, not to the defendants. And Baldwin's attorney denied that he received financial consideration:

6 The Court asked the question: "Did you say there
7 was a written contract?" At the top of page 459.
8 Mr. Ford answers: "There are written documents
9 entered into and signed by the client."
10 The Court: "Was there consideration given for
11 the statement? Was payment made?"
12 Mr. Ford: "No, he has received no financial
13 consideration."

I haven't read that document in its entirety in quite a while, but, as Ford later states, not all consideration is financial. So, any consideration received might not necessarily be money. And, money to the families of the defendants is not money directly to the defendant or to his attorneys. All attorneys were working pro bono (or pro se).

ETA: In case some one new doesn't know, Mr. Ford is one of Jason's attorneys.

Do you have a link to the document or is this your opinion? TIA

It's the same one you had linked, just a bit further into it.

Compassionate Reader said:

Any monies paid into the Echols trust fund is for his son, Seth. The money paid was to the families, not to the defendants. And Baldwin's attorney denied that he received financial consideration:

6 The Court asked the question: "Did you say there
7 was a written contract?" At the top of page 459.
8 Mr. Ford answers: "There are written documents
9 entered into and signed by the client."
10 The Court: "Was there consideration given for
11 the statement? Was payment made?"
12 Mr. Ford: "No, he has received no financial
13 consideration."

I haven't read that document in its entirety in quite a while, but, as Ford later states, not all consideration is financial. So, any consideration received might not necessarily be money. And, money to the families of the defendants is not money directly to the defendant or to his attorneys. All attorneys were working pro bono (or pro se).

ETA: In case some one new doesn't know, Mr. Ford is one of Jason's attorneys.

Click to expand...

It's not on the document I posted because that one only goes to page 207.

But I did find page 459 here:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/rule37/june10.html

And I don't see what you posted on it, however I did find this:

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/rule37/june10.html

24 BY MR. MALLETT:
25 Q. Well in advance of shooting, were you paying money and


459 (page)

1 promising money for the benefit of Damien Echols?
2 A. Well in advance of shooting the interviews or --
3 Q. Of the trial. Well in advance of the trial.
4 A. Of the trial, yes.
5 Q. Ah, Jessie Misskelley?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Ah, Jason Baldwin?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Ah, Mark and Melissa Byers?
10 A. Wasn't really a negotiation with the families of the
11 victims.
12 Q. You paid them money?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You entered into some sort of contract with them.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Ah, also the Moore family --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And also the Branch family?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You entered into an agreement whereby you would pay them
21 money in advance of trial for access to them to utilize them in
22 your movie?
23 A. It really wasn't designed for that purpose. In regards to
24 the families of the victims, it was much more a humanitarian
25 gesture than it was any kind of business decision.



460 (page)

1 Q. You are characterizing the payment of money for access to
2 people as a humanitarian gesture. Your business here was to
3 make a motion picture for artistic, commercial and professional
4 reasons.
5 A. Yes, but --
6 Q. You wouldn't have been here if you hadn't had artistic,
7 commercial and professional reasons?
8 A. But I have to say that the issue of financial, you know,
9 payments to any of those families came way, way into the filming
10 process. We were filming for three or four months before the
11 issue of money came up with any of the family members.
12 Certainly we were filming them throughout June, July, August,
13 September before any money, you knew, was even discussed.
14 So to say that access to them was only tied to money would
15 be incorrect.
16 Q. Well, of course, I'm doing what I can to make a record by
17 asking questions.
18 A. I understand.
19 Q. So the subject of money -- I believe you've now told us
20 that the subject of money came up after you had done some
21 filming?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did Mark Byers bring up the subject of money?
24 MR. HOLMES: Excuse me, your Honor. I object.
25 It's irrelevant what conversations he had with Mark


461 (page)

1 Byers about money or any other sources that he has.
2 This is not a discovery deposition regarding the
3 contracts between Creative Thinking and their --


This also was interesting about the content of the HBO documentary at the same link


14 BY MR. MALLETT:
15 Q. Did Home Box Office have the power to control the content
16 that would be incorporated in the film?
17 A. I would say that we had final cut. We would show cuts of
18 the film to the people at Home Box Office, but generally
19 speaking I would say 99 percent of what you see in the film was
20 decided by Joe Berlinger and myself.
21 Q. And I think it's pretty obvious -- but to make it really
22 clear -- in this small operation in which you have about five
23 people and you and your partner own the company, the
24 negotiations with Home Box Office about what would be included
25 or not included was really between you or Joe and someone


447 (page_

1 representing Home Box Office on the other side?
2 A. Right. Creatively it was us -- Joe and myself exclusively
3 -- and probably Sheila Nevins who was the executive producer at
4 Home Box Office.