What, for each of you, was the 'entry point'

[reedus23]

But as soon as they demonstrated their disregard for the victims by gratuitously flashing video of the children's naked corpses across the screen I figured they weren't the people to be learning about the case from.

I had heard vague references to "West Memphis Three" for years I guess. Can't pinpoint when I first heard the phrase. Feel bad saying it, but I didn't pay any attention to it. In one ear, out the other. Paid so little attention, I just assumed "West Memphis Three" was some rap group or something. Just gave it that little thought. Was actually on here maybe a year or so ago when someone mentioned the case in a different case thread and that got me to looking for the case on Websleuths. Read a couple posts, determined the very basics of the case and that there was a question as to who was responsible. Instead of reading more posts or threads, I decided to read the documents on callahan's to form my opinions from the raw documents instead of someone's posts here. Didn't watch any of the documentaries until some time well after that. It wasn't until I posted here that I quickly, and I mean quickly, found out how polarizing this case is and just how difficult it is to have a rationale discourse regarding it because both sides can be so entrenched in their views.

As for the documentaries, that is why I quoted you kyle. I couldn't agree more. I find it very distasteful and even cringe here when I see the photos here. Of all the people involved in this case, for some reason, whenever I see those pictures, I picture Dana Moore viewing the pictures we're posting (or in the movies) and picture how she'd react to them. Breaks my heart and makes me cringe.

I hope she never comes here or anywhere else that discusses this case.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Unfortunately, those that love Christopher, Michael and Steven are constantly exposed to those autopsy photos - and much more hurtful comments - on the Internet, especially on Facebook. I, too, was appalled that the bodies were shown with such disregard in the documentaries. Sometimes I feel that, in our zeal to "know everything," we often forget the privacy of those involved.

However, most documentaries about grizzly murders do show the bodies. So, personally I wouldn't totally discount the documentaries as a source of information based solely on the shots of the bodies (which were taken from police footage, as the documentary crew was not on the scene when the bodies were found). As I said before, unfortunately, the public's insatiable lust for "information" in cases such as this too often leads to the divulging of what I consider TMI. I don't think that will stop any time soon, unfortunately.

 

[reedus23]

Unfortunately, those that love Christopher, Michael and Steven are constantly exposed to those autopsy photos - and much more hurtful comments - on the Internet, especially on Facebook. I, too, was appalled that the bodies were shown with such disregard in the documentaries. Sometimes I feel that, in our zeal to "know everything," we often forget the privacy of those involved.

However, most documentaries about grizzly murders do show the bodies. So, personally I wouldn't totally discount the documentaries as a source of information based solely on the shots of the bodies (which were taken from police footage, as the documentary crew was not on the scene when the bodies were found). As I said before, unfortunately, the public's insatiable lust for "information" in cases such as this too often leads to the divulging of what I consider TMI. I don't think that will stop any time soon, unfortunately.

And I cringe at the others as well. It's the privacy that's violated and the pain it just has to create. Anyways, I agree, the documentaries certainly provide facts and information about the case. Obviously, I wouldn't suggest anyone form an opinion solely on them, but information can be gleaned from them and followed up on for one to make their own determinations.

 

[kyleb]

Of all the people involved in this case, for some reason, whenever I see those pictures, I picture Dana Moore viewing the pictures we're posting (or in the movies) and picture how she'd react to them.

While I share Danna Moore's "shock and disgust when the first film opened with gruesome and gratuitous images of the crime scene", I've never seen her take issue with presenting the autopsy photos in the context of discussing what they evidence, and I doubt she would have a problem with that.

However, most documentaries about grizzly murders do show the bodies.

Perhaps, but at least the ones I've seen tend to present images of the bodies respectfully in context of discussing the evidence, not flashing them across the screen while blaring music to create an art house gore *advertiser censored* segment as was done in opening minutes of PL.

 

[reedus23]

While I share Danna Moore's "shock and disgust when the first film opened with gruesome and gratuitous images of the crime scene", I've never seen her take issue with presenting the autopsy photos in the context of discussing what they evidence, and I doubt she would have a problem with that.


Perhaps, but at least the ones I've seen tend to present images of the bodies respectfully in context of discussing the evidence, not flashing them across the screen while blaring music to create an art house gore *advertiser censored* segment as was done in opening minutes of PL.

If it were my child it would absolutely tear me up to see those photos regardless of the setting. My mind might understand why it has to be done in certain settings, but my heart would still break every time I saw them and I'd do my best to avoid seeing them at all if I could.

 

[kyleb]

Well I find efforts to argue around the evidence rather than addressing it heartbreaking regardless of the fact that I've no familial connection to the children.

 

[reedus23]

Well I find efforts to argue around the evidence rather than addressing it heartbreaking regardless of the fact that I've no familial connection to the children.

I am just not the brightest bulb on the block and I'll admit it. I just don't follow what you're talking about. All I was doing was expressing empathy for the parents, Ms. Moore particularly, and somehow that got turned into arguing around the evidence? Not everything has to be a conflict kyle.

 

[kyleb]

Stating conclusions regarding the wounds without demonstrating those conclusions by referencing the autopsy photos and corroborating evidence is arguing around the evidence, and I wasn't suggesting your were doing as much in your previous post. That said, if you believed the scrape marks were accurately identified at the trial as consistent with the survival knife, as Ms. Moore and the other parents who continue to support the convictions likely do, surely you wouldn't appreciate people disputing that consistency with bare assertion, would you?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This thread is about what caused people to be interested in the crime and pick a side, Not arguing the sides.

There are plenty of other threads for that..

 

[Miranda!]

...... as Ms. Moore and the other parents who continue to support the convictions....

'The OTHER parentS being her former husband and Terry Wayne Hobbs, who is as eager that the case 'go away' as the State!

Also, it has been all but formally agreed, that autopsy and other photos from the ME are not passed around. Sometimes, when essential, then very expert cropping has been done to remove any identifying features to spare the families and friends.

Sorry all - I could not let that post stand!

 

[EntreNous]

This thread is about what caused people to be interested in the crime and pick a side, Not arguing the sides.

There are plenty of other threads for that..

:goodpost:

 

[kyleb]

This thread is about what caused people to be interested in the crime and pick a side, Not arguing the sides.

I'm not arguing a side here, I'm disputing the claim that presenting autopsy photos is inherently distasteful, and I'm only doing it in this thread because Reedus chose to make the argument here, and I don't mean any offense to anyone by doing so.

'Sometimes, when essential, then very expert cropping has been done to remove any identifying features to spare the families and friends.

Oh come on, surely you've seen the posterboard of Steive Braches' face flashed around by Stidham and Turvey in PL2?:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkb2gf1Vl5c#t=6380s"]HBO ParadiseLost Pt2 Revelations - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Compassionate Reader]

This thread is about what caused people to be interested in the crime and pick a side, Not arguing the sides.

There are plenty of other threads for that..

And IMO there is no need to attack other peoples' motives!

Sheesh!

 

[kyleb]

Where has anyone even claimed to know another's motives in this thread, let alone attacked someone on such grounds?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Where has anyone even claimed to know another's motives in this thread, let alone attacked someone on such grounds?

Here:

"flashing them across the screen while blaring music to create an art house gore *advertiser censored* segment as was done in opening minutes of PL. "

IMO, this is an attack on the motives of the film makers in showing those images (and a blatant attempt, IMO, to discredit the film). Although I abhor seeing those images as much as anyone, I don't think the intent was "to create an art house gore *advertiser censored* segment" as was stated.

Sorry to derail a bit, but the statement angered me.



I know, scroll and roll! :blushing:

 

[kyleb]

That's just what that segment reminded me of when I saw it, not a claim regarding what motivated the creation of it.

 

[primitivefuture]

Here:

"flashing them across the screen while blaring music to create an art house gore *advertiser censored* segment as was done in opening minutes of PL. "

IMO, this is an attack on the motives of the film makers in showing those images (and a blatant attempt, IMO, to discredit the film). Although I abhor seeing those images as much as anyone, I don't think the intent was "to create an art house gore *advertiser censored* segment" as was stated.

Sorry to derail a bit, but the statement angered me.



I know, scroll and roll! :blushing:

I always get upset seeing those images. I think anyone would. I assumed that was the point. when these murders happened, they were absolutely unimaginably horrible. As a result, tempers raged and emotions ran high throughout the area and the police were under immense pressure to solve the crime as fast as possible. I assumed the footage was shown in an attempt to impress on the viewer the gravity of the situation. To help the viewer understand how the townsfolk were catapulted into this freaked out frenzy due to the hideousness of the crime. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's how I interpreted it. I hope I'm making sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[reedus23]

Stating conclusions regarding the wounds without demonstrating those conclusions by referencing the autopsy photos and corroborating evidence is arguing around the evidence, and I wasn't suggesting your were doing as much in your previous post. That said, if you believed the scrape marks were accurately identified at the trial as consistent with the survival knife, as Ms. Moore and the other parents who continue to support the convictions likely do, surely you wouldn't appreciate people disputing that consistency with bare assertion, would you?

Kyle, IMO not the thread to discuss what caused what injuries. And if you think I'm saying some photos must be used at trial, you are sorely mistaken. Doesn't change the empathy I feel for the parents for having to sit through it or view them.

 

[reedus23]

I'm not arguing a side here, I'm disputing the claim that presenting autopsy photos is inherently distasteful, and I'm only doing it in this thread because Reedus chose to make the argument here, and I don't mean any offense to anyone by doing so.

Whoa!!! You might want to go back and re-read what I've said. I agreed with you about some of the photos in the movies being distasteful and then went on to state how hard it must be for the parents to view the photos regardless of the setting even though it must be done in certain settings. I also said that viewing the photos, regardless of setting, makes ME cringe. That isn't going to change and I won't apologize for it. I don't like viewing photos of dead bodies. Plenty of other threads for you to pick fights in my friend. This isn't one of them.

 

[kyleb]

I always get upset seeing those images. I think anyone would.

It's not imagery itself which upsets me, as I respect that for what's evidenced in it. My issue is with the way clips from the crime scene footage were edited together and set to music, as that's bound to upset all but the few sick freaks who take pleasure in such things, in turn hampering the critical thinking abilities of viewers and sending them on an emotional rollercoaster instead.

Kyle, IMO not the thread to discuss what caused what injuries.

If that were my intent then I'd be posting autopsy photos of those wounds along with pictures of surfaces consistent with them and analysis of the measurements, but what I'm actually doing here is taking issue with this argument you made earlier in the thread:

I find it very distasteful and even cringe here when I see the photos here. Of all the people involved in this case, for some reason, whenever I see those pictures, I picture Dana Moore viewing the pictures we're posting (or in the movies) and picture how she'd react to them. Breaks my heart and makes me cringe.

I hope she never comes here or anywhere else that discusses this case.

Since this is the thread that you chose to argue that Dana Moore would find the presentation of autopsy photos here distasteful regardless of context, it's become the thread where I contest that argument. And in that regard I'd enjoy seeing Ms. Moore come to this form to discuss the case, as I'd doubt many would be so quick to argue around the evidence in her presence, regarding what caused what injuries and otherwise.