Abomination: Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders (38 page)

16. A DREAM TEAM WITH STAR MONEY

Due to the popularity of the Paradise Lost films, an outraged group of sympathizers coalesced to work towards the release and exoneration of the West Memphis Three. This group included famous and wealthy celebrities, who donated time and a significant amount of money to the cause. The legal fund was estimated at one time to amount to between 10 and 20 million dollars. This allowed for the hiring of the best attorneys and experts as possible, and included arguably the best appellate attorney in the United States.

Dennis Riordan

Nicknamed "the Last Hope,” Riordan consistently ranks as one of the nation's top appellate lawyers. His input was instrumental in overturning a new trial motion in the corruption convictions of former San Diego councilman Michael Zucchet. The Sacramento Bee named Mr. Riordan as one of the nation’s best known lawyers of last resort. In a 2007 article, the
New York Times
described Mr. Riordan as "one of California's top appellate lawyers... known as a brilliant writer of motions, briefs and jury instructions."
²⁴²
Baseball player Barry Bonds hired Riordan to defend him in a federal trial involving allegations he perjured himself before a federal grand jury in 2003, where he testified that he never use steriods. Convicted of only one obstruction of justice charge, Bonds received a mere 30 days of house arrest, two years of probation and 250 hours of community service. After record producer Phil Spector fired defense counsel Bruce Cutler (who also represented “Teflon Don” mafia boss John Gotti) he hired Dennis Riordan as a member of his defense team.

For the past ten years prior to his employment by the West Memphis Three, Mr Riordan was included as one of "The Best Lawyers in America"

John Douglas

The defense also enlisted the help of famed FBI profiler John Douglas, the inspiration for the character Jack Crawford, the mentor for Clarice Starling in the film “Silence of the Lambs.” He argued publicly that the killer was unremorseful, has a violent history and a skilled liar, an apt description of Damien Echols:

The offender acted alone and was familiar with the victims and the geographical area. He will in fact have a violent history in his past and future. The offender was not a teenager at the time of the homicides. The crime demonstrated criminal sophistication and knowledge not observed in previous and very rare cases in which teens were subjects in multiple homocides (i.e., school shootings). There was no evidence at the scene or in the way that the victims were murdered that this was some Satanic-related type of crime. This was a personal cause driven crime with the victims dying from a combination of blunt force trauma wounds and drowning. What was believed at the time to be some type of Satanic ritualistic mutilation upon the victims we know from forensic experts was in fact caused as a result of animal predation.
²⁴³

Peter Jackson

His involvement in the West Memphis Three case began in 2005, when he and his wife Fran Walsh heard of the case. They believed that a “combination of human error and politicized decision-making” characterized the original trial.
²⁴⁴
Outraged by the perceived injustice, they believed that additional evidence supported a fresh approach. “The more court documents we read, the more dreadful it all became, and the natural hope was that the three were about to get out soon. But, in fact, nothing was happening.” The sympathetic Jackson and his wife began sending Echols large amounts of reading material---books and magazines. By 2005, all of Echols appeals were exhausted. They got in contact with Lorri Davis, Damien Echol’s jailhouse wife and decided to financially support a new investigation. Peter Jackson discusses the case:

We got interested in it the way that just about everybody outside of Arkansas has, through the Paradise Lost documentary that came out about a year after the case. I believe it was about 1994 or 1995, but we didn’t actually see it until probably eight years ago when we just happened to get the DVD randomly. We had never heard of the case before, watched the documentary and became incredibly intrigued by the events as they unfolded. Of course, afterwards, you think “Well hang on, that was back in 1994, what on earth has happened since then? You Google it thinking “There’s going to be some end to the story” and we were horrified to find that these guys were still in jail. We actually couldn’t believe it even just based on what we saw in the documentary, which was covering only the events around the trial.

We were offering our help and support and anything we could do. It was interesting, because we have never done anything like this in our lives.

They were on their way to the third or fourth generation of lawyers, because these guys had no real money and were just at the mercy of the state.

Each of the boys had sort of a separate legal team, and through Lorri Davis, we were more connected to the Damien Echols team than the other two.

We hired Jim Douglas, who developed the behavioral science unit at the FBI. He’s retired and we engaged him as our consultant. He went down to Arkansas. He interviewed people.

In 2008, the renewed DNA evidence went before Judge Burnett, who found it uncompelling and denied the motion. Jackson said he had no interest in being seen as on the wrong side of the case.

Yeah, I mean you’ve got to give huge credit to Joe and Paradise Lost. I honestly believe that, if Paradise Lost didn’t exist, Damien would be dead now. It’s a simple fact. That film has galvanized and activated so many people into this case.

There are some potential suspects who they didn’t even interview back then and you’ve got to ask “Why did that happen?”
²⁴⁵

Court of Public Opinion

In a media-saturated Internet Age, attorneys recognize and accept that representation of their clients takes place both in and outside of the courthouse. Global law firm Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, the recepients of “The Litigation Department of the Year” for 2012, earned this title from
The American Lawyer
based upon their skill outside of court:

Well, according to American Lawyer in its profile of this year's winner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, media savvy is a key ingredient. AmLaw puts it this way:

The most important battles can't be won solely with legal filings or courtroom arguments. Gibson, Dunn partners strongly believe that public perception can shape the outcome of a case. So its litigators aren't shy when it comes to engaging the media. Take the firm's successful challenge to Proposition 8, the California statute outlawing gay marriage. In the days leading up to the trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, partner Theodore Olson penned a 3,000-word cover story for Newsweek, entitled "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage." And Olson estimates that he, along with his co-counsel David Boies, has participated in scores of interviews to explain the team's advocacy for marriage equality.
²⁴⁶

Changing the perception of the legal adversary can alter the final determination of a case. As one legal writer interested in the subject observed:

I often say that most battles in the court of public opinion come down to a case of reasonable vs. unreasonable—if it appears I am being reasonable and my adversary unreasonable, I win. And vice versa.
²⁴⁷

The West Memphis Three case perfectly exemplifies this approach to legal defense and representation. Manipulate opinion in the public courtroom, then leverage that support to assist in obtaining the desired outcome in the halls of justice.

Todd and Dana Moore, parents of murdered 8-year-old Michael Moore, claim documentary creators Bruce Sinofsky and Joe Berlinger "profited from one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated under the guise of a documentary film." The Moore parents believe the West Memphis Three “were unjustly able to enter into a plea agreement, were released from prison and now pose additional threats to society."

The following is the unedited letter sent to Chairman Epstein of the Documentary Branch of the Academy Awards by Todd and Diana Moore:

Todd Moore

Diana Moore

November 22, 2011

Chairman Robert P. Epstein

Re:       Paradise Lost III:  Purgatory

Dear Chairman Epstein and members of the Documentary Branch of the Academy:

We are Todd Moore and Dana Moore.

Our cherished eight-year-old son, Michael, was brutally murdered on May 5, 1993 by Jessie Misskelley, Damien Echols, and Jason Baldwin.  Misskelley was tried and convicted in 1994.  Baldwin and Echols were convicted by a separate jury later that year.  All three entered Alford pleas to our son’s murder August 19, 2011.  They are now, as they have been for the past 17 years, guilty as a matter of law.  They have been guilty as a matter of fact since the moment water flooded Michael’s lungs after he was beaten, stripped, hogtied, and then discarded into a stream to drown.

Michael was the joy of our lives. 

In addition to our son, his murderers also tortured and slaughtered two other children, Christopher Byers and Stevie Branch.  These three precious victims were classmates and friends, and their loss was a tragedy felt throughout the entire community.

We are horrified to learn that a documentary that glorifies Michael’s killers, Paradise Lost III: Purgatory, is among 15 documentaries being considered for an Academy Award.  Because of public pressure that exploded due to gross misrepresentations of fact in two previous documentaries, Michael’s killers were unjustly able to enter into a plea agreement, were released from prison, and now pose additional threats to society.  This third documentary further insulted the families of these three boys and may lead to further injustice.  We implore the Academy not to reward our child’s killers and the directors who have profited from one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated under the guise of a “documentary film.”

We realize that documentaries have a point of view and advocate a position to some degree or another.  As with the two before it, this film crossed the line into a cruel hoax that had real-life consequences larger than even those of us who still mourn our horrific losses.  It is not art.  This film is cynical and exploitative deception that compounds our pain needlessly and rewards those who inflicted it.  It and the two films that preceded it are simply tasteless tabloid entertainment presented as social commentary.

We are private individuals.  The directors, Bruce Sinofsky and Joe Berlinger, are aware of this because we refused to participate in their last two films.  We appeared solely in the first film because the directors lied and told us their purpose would be to “protect children.”  You can imagine our shock and disgust when the first film opened with gruesome and gratuitous images of the crime scene and remained exploitative and salacious until the credits rolled.  It did nothing to promote child welfare.  It did everything to support child killers and to benefit monetarily from a ghastly crime.

We were hardly the only people Sinofsky and Berlinger misled or manipulated.

Consider what happened to John Mark Byers. He was Christopher Byers’ adoptive father. Confrontations between Mr. Byers and Echols’ supporters at hearings were staged.  Of course, Berlinger and Sinofsky were there to film these episodes.  Berlinger and Sinofsky would transport Mr. Byers to the hearings and wire him for sound beforehand.  Furthermore, Berlinger and Sinofsky maneuvered Mr. Byers and Echols’ supporters in order to film the anticipated confrontations.  Later, after the cameras were packed away, Mr. Byers acted like a different person.  Instead of being belligerent, he was affable. When asked about his change in demeanor, Mr. Byers stated that he was supposed to act that way when the cameras were present.  Mr. Byers was quoted as saying he received $500 per hour for “exclusive interviews.”

These contrived “confrontations” and other distortions caused many viewers to believe Mark was the “real killer.”  It had a terrible impact on his life.  We brought this to the attention of HBO. Our complaint was ignored because these falseHoods proved lucrative.

The complete list of distortions would be a long one. The above example is illustrative of the manipulation and distortions that are prevalent throughout the entire Paradise Lost franchise. The films are bereft of ethics, principles, or factual accuracy and basis.

Publicity from the first two films did generate millions of dollars in donations.  Much of that money went toward the defense’s investigation of the case.  Not a single piece of exculpatory evidence was produced.  In other words, between $10,000,000 and $20,000,000 has been collected, although no one knows the exact amount collected or how it was spent.  In eighteen years, nothing was found to clear the names of the actual killers.  Late last year, the windfall that went toward the legal defense resulted in the granting of an evidentiary hearing which was set to be held a few weeks from now.  Instead, the murderers opted to initiate a plea negotiation with the State.  As a result, they remain convicted of the deaths of three children.

We have to note that this situation is similar to the one that confronted the Academy when Capturing the Friedmans was nominated for Best Documentary Film of 2003.  Two of the Friedmans’ sexual abuse victims presented another Open Letter to the Academy.  Capturing the Friedmans had much more artistic merit and integrity than Paradise Lost III: Purgatory, yet it did not receive the award. The Academy made the right decision then, and we pray it does so this time as well.