MovieChat Forums > Paradise Lost 2: Revelations (2001) Discussion > This film totally ruined the first film

This film totally ruined the first film

posted 15 years ago by bexlyspeed
31 replies | jump to latest

I have had both of these films sitting for a while waiting to be watched.
Wednesday night i watched the first and thought it was great. what happened is a true mystery it seemed that the boys may be guilty and was very suspicious of Mark Byers. but then i watched the second film last nigt and it was terrible.
It basically just tried to give you reason after reason why byers had to have done it, but the more they followed him the less i believed that this guy was mentally capable of not getting caught! i am sure he could have done it physically, but mentally?, this guy is a mess. i also think that not being able to get access to the court room hurt this film. the case is interesting but from the brief research i have done the last few days on my own it seems that the filmakers did leave out a lot of incriminating things regarding the three.
the only thing that really bothers me is that the police still have the audacity to say the killings haapend in the woods when there was ZERO blood. that theory is just impossible. I am not saying they got the wrong people, maybe they do, maybe they dont, but you have to put some effort into an investigation.

[–] mojo-71 15 years ago

the only thing that really bothers me is that the police still have the audacity to say the killings haapend in the woods when there was ZERO blood.

That's because the "zero blood" nonsense simply isn't true.

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php

[–] fedaykin666 15 years ago

Yes it is.

[–] mojo-71 15 years ago

Yes it is.

What a moron.

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php

[–] blackwood_sugar 13 years ago

Why say "what a moron" instead of linking to something that illustrates your point about the zero blood evidence? It makes your argument weak. I can't even tell if your facts are good or bad, because of your "what a moron" response, which makes you seem a bit...moronic.

there was this screw wot really had it in for me

[–] okaay 13 years ago

That's because the "zero blood" nonsense simply isn't true.

Do you have something evidence to back up that claim ? Then show it.

I went through a great deal of the documents on the callahan website and this is at least one instance where the lack of blood at the crime scene was mentioned.

Excerpt from Transcribed Case Summary:
<b>A CRIME SCENE SEARCH FAILED TO LOCATE ANY TRACES OF BLOOD OR OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD LEAD INVESTIGATORS TO BELIEVE THAT THE VICTIMS’ HAD BEEN MURDERED IN THE AREA WHERE THEIR BODIES WERE LOCATED.</b> A FINGERPRINT AND SEVERAL TENNIS SHOE PRINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE MUD NEAR THE SITE. TWO PLASTER OF PARIS CASTINGS WERE SUCCESSFULLY MADE FROM THE SHOE PRINTS AND THE EARTH CONTAINING THE FINGERPRINT WAS REMOVED FROM THE AREA. THE CREEK WAS DRAINED BY ATTEMPT TO LOCATE ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AT THE BOTTOM WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.THE TWO BICYCLES BELONGING TO TWO OF THE VICTIMS’ WERE LOCATED SUBMERGED IN APPROXIMATELY 5 FEET OF WATER, ABOUT 50 YARDS AWAY IN THE BODT OF WATER KNOWN AS TEN MILE BAYOU. THE CREEK WHERE THE VICTIMS’ WERE LOCATED FLOWS INTO TEN MILE BAYOU.
<url>http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/casesummary.html</url>;

There's also the question of the lack of mosquito bites on the bodies, and opinions seems to differ in that regard.

Excerpt from Neil Haskell's affidavit:
The most significant entomological aspect is the complete absence of mosquito bite reactions on any of the bodies. These bodies were nude and if killed in the evening around sunset/dusk or early morning as suggested by the lividity, mosquitoes would have been at their most active periods. It would be unthinkable, with the observations of the police investigator (Regina Meek) in testimony, that the presence of swarms of mosquitoes would not have left hundreds of bite marks on three nude boys being killed in that type of environment. The only conclusion would be that they were not nude nor murdered in that brushy, wooded, swamp like area. Again, there should have been a forensic entomologist assisting with the defense counsel during trial
<url>http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/nhaf.html</url>;

And the reply from Forensic Entomology Services sent to B. Davis in 1998:
3g. The question of mosquito bites is interesting. I base my comments on my work (10+ years) with mosquitos as vectors of avian malaria here in Hawaii and personal experience with mosquitoes in California. Any bites inflicted on the victims by mosquitoes would have had to occur prior to their deaths. Adult female mosquitoes are obligate blood-feeding ectoparasites. They require blood from a living host and will not feed on a dead host. Male mosquitoes are nectar-feeders and can not take a blood meal. The tissue reaction to the mosquito bite varies in severity among individuals and is not an immediate reaction. A period of time is required for the inflammatory reaction to develop at the site of the bite. If the individual was killed prior to the reaction developing, there would be no area of inflammation visible. The bites of mosquitoes are relatively small puncture wounds and, lacking visible inflamation, these would not be readily apparent on a dead body. I have attempted to locate bites on bodies of dead birds, where the approximate site was known, with very limited success. A pathologist should be consulted with respect to the duration of inflammatory reaction following death. I do not feel that Dr. Haskell's conclusions that "they were not nude nor murdered in that brushy, wooded swamp like area" is supported by the lack of apparent mosquito bites.
<url>http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/nhaf.html</url>;

Now I haven't gotten every single document there is, so how about showing us something that disputes the lack of blood at the crime scene? Thanks.

[–] strangebrw-1 15 years ago

----------------------
I have had both of these films sitting for a while waiting to be watched.
Wednesday night i watched the first and thought it was great. what happened is a true mystery it seemed that the boys may be guilty and was very suspicious of Mark Byers. but then i watched the second film last nigt and it was terrible.
It basically just tried to give you reason after reason why byers had to have done it, but the more they followed him the less i believed that this guy was mentally capable of not getting caught! i am sure he could have done it physically, but mentally?, this guy is a mess. i also think that not being able to get access to the court room hurt this film. the case is interesting but from the brief research i have done the last few days on my own it seems that the filmakers did leave out a lot of incriminating things regarding the three.
the only thing that really bothers me is that the police still have the audacity to say the killings haapend in the woods when there was ZERO blood. that theory is just impossible. I am not saying they got the wrong people, maybe they do, maybe they dont, but you have to put some effort into an investigation.
-----------------------

As I said in a previous post I also agree the film was a dissapointment in comparison to the first. I have a feeling they focused so much on Byers because they didnt have much else decent footage to use. So many explanations in the movie where they were denied permission to film, and you have to remember any time anyone appears on a documentary, the filmmakers have to get written permission to use the footage. Also Joe Berlinger mentioned in his book "This Monster Lives" that around that time the partnership between himself and Bruse Sinofsky was at its lowest, and he also followed up PL2 with Blair Witch 2 which not only was one of the most harshly criticised sequals in recent memory but more or less bankrupted the studio. So I think it was a combination of bad filmmaking and lack of decent material to use that they concentrated so much on Byers, the WM3 support group (who were about as interesting on camera as dishwater), and previous footage (some previously not used). They made up for it at least with the fantastic Metallica documentary which was the best thing they had done (IMO) since Brothers Keeper and PL1. But yeah I think they dropped the ball with this one.

[–] boss83 15 years ago

yea, this one was brutal. i enjoyed the original, so gave this one a shot.

to me, the evidence presented was compelling enough, and the case didnt seem as 50/50 as the documentarians wanted in the original. and damien's comments at the end seemed damning.

but this film? lack of material was one problem. not only were the support people uninteresting, but they just seemed like knobs who were looking for 15 min of fame. if the 'bite mark' was the smoking gun, it certainly wasnt compelling. beyond the court not being interested, they didnt really prove that it was a bite mark, so the fact that the kid's teeth didnt match wasnt very meaningful.

they also seemed to go after byers because he wasnt very savvy. i think if the man had a PR guy (yea right), they couldnt have cast him in such a bad light.

i wish i didnt waste my time watching this one.

[–] whatever94401 15 years ago

Oh, about Byers, I don't think a PR person could save this guy. He just doesn't act like a grieving father. He shows up the most at any event when the cameras are there. He really seems to milk his son's tragic death for his 15 minutes of fame. I feel like all his monologues are fake, and I wonder if he is truly sad. Pam shows up the second most out of the parents, but her grief seems genuine, like she is speaking out because she has to, not because she is an attention starved freak like Byers. I've never lost a kid, so maybe I have no right to an opinion on this, but as an outsider, Byers and Echols are the two most disturbing people in the film. Considering most murders are committed by people they know, I would think the public, the police, would be more inclined to investigate Byers than Damien.

[–] mojo-71 15 years ago

I would think the public, the police, would be more inclined to investigate Byers than Damien.

They did.

In fact, Byers and only Byers was questioned by the FBI regarding this case.

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php

[–] Nearvana 14 years ago

i don't know if i am sold that the step fathers did it after hearing about the distressed bloodied man at bojangles on the same night as the murders. they had blood samples & everything, basically, but LOST it. to write that off is ludicrous. that would mean the manager was in on it & planted fake evidence. i think they let the killer get away.
so echols behaved naively thruout his trial. he was interested in alistair crowley & anton levay. i know lots of people who have read up on these guys. that doesn't make them satanists or killers. echols is guilty of being a disinterested, aloof, emo teenager. & man did his friend's lawyer's strategy backfire. stupid representation.

serva me, serva bote

[–] mojo-71 14 years ago

echols is guilty of being a disinterested, aloof, emo teenager.

Echols was a violent psychotic gasoline huffing dabbler in Satanism who's own parents were afraid of him.

This isn't opinion, it's documented fact.

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php

[–] Nearvana 14 years ago

so he had emotional problems as a teen. still doesn't make him a murderer. his parents were in full support of his innocence thruout his trial. if they were truly afraid of him & knew he could even remotely be responsible for the disgusting heinous murders of 3 young boys, i think they would have stepped out & let the system do it's job. however, given the circumstances of his youth, the idle threats were made AFTER parents separated him & his gf, the threats weren't made unmotivated. these murders were unmotivated if he was the killer & his prior behavior all had motive, these killings, simply did not. i think, you mojo, may be shaking in your boots because they may finally be proven innocent, focusing a new investigation for the real killer or killers. judging by your obsession with this case on this board & many all over the internet, i'd say you would be more likely involved. weirdo.

serva me, serva bote

[–] Captain_Midnight 14 years ago

his parents were in full support of his innocence thruout his trial. if they were truly afraid of him & knew he could even remotely be responsible for the disgusting heinous murders of 3 young boys, i think they would have stepped out & let the system do it's job.

Sorry, but that argument is so weak. What would you do if your kid was accused of such a heinous crime and he (or she) said they didn't do it? Why, you would stick by them...I hope.

Hell, even Jefferey Dahlmer's folks stood by him throughout his trial WHEN THEY KNEW HE DID IT.

i think, you mojo, may be shaking in your boots because they may finally be proven innocent, focusing a new investigation for the real killer or killers.

They have exhausted every avenue of trying to prove their innocence.

judging by your obsession with this case on this board & many all over the internet, i'd say you would be more likely involved. weirdo.

That just may be the stupidest thing I've read in the history of message board posting.

No offense.

[–] Nearvana 14 years ago

hey, mojo jr! glad you could reply under another name.
you still miss the point. his threats to the parents were made after they split him & his gf up. the threats had motive. killing these children did not. the altercation with the boy in juvie with him, has even been stated by the professionals who witnessed it, that it was not indicative of any devil worship etc, but more likely an initiation of some sort within the juvie facility. i know many kids, just like this echols kid, well now he's an adult, but have known many who were just like them, perhaps worse, they are not or have ever been involved in a murder, much less 3 without motive. it was obvious & has been obvious to everyone but save a few of you, that these guys were railroaded. the state needed an arrest & they made one happen, with false, coerced, & self interested testimony. there is not one single shred of physical evidence that links these boys to the crimes. not. one. HOWEVER, there has been physical evidence, lost, & otherwise, pointing the finger of blame elsewhere. NOW, you even have some of the parents recanting the guilt of these young men. so why is it, some nut jobs on this board still want these young men behind bars, to the point of desperation, when even the parents, the people most affected by this case, are calling for a retrial. i think you are the guilty ones, & frankly, you creep me out. just reading your posts make me sick. i think you are more guilty than they are. let's throw you behind bars, & if you are innocent, let's see you hold it together as well as these young men have. why don't you try fighting for your lives over crimes you may not have committed, simply because you had an alternative lifestyle in your adolescence. it does not make them murderers. his prior mental state, does not make him a murderer. not one of these 3 young men had a prior of any kind, regarding sexual misconduct with male minors. echols had an underage gf. that's it, nothing more. lets lock up every kid who has been in juvie for outbursts & threatening their parents after said parents split them up with the ones they loved. quite common that is. you still have zero evidence attaching these men to those crimes, except a coerced confession from a scared borderline mentally retarded boy. why don't you speak to anyone who has been in police custody, for a crime of any sort, violent or non, in the good ol boy southern justice system, & ask them the tactics used on them to get a confession, a false confession, also VERY common. in this case, they preyed on a weak minded individual to get the confession & hold onto it for fear he would be put to death or with his cooperation, life. you are either the ones guilty of this crime, or mental midgets.

serva me, serva bote

[–] mojo-71 14 years ago

Hey nearvana, you are a blathering idiot.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and you are making a fool of yourself.

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php

[–] Thomas Dunson 14 years ago

"mental midgets" <-----> "serva bote" – hm...

Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to (P. Green)

[–] Nearvana 14 years ago

? it's called latin. google can be a useful tool if you use it. i love how i am just seeing responses made to me, because the people who responded were too simple minded or too afraid for me to see it & respond back. i think some of you must be part of the people who committed these heinous acts and are shivering in your pants at the thought of being caught & for justice finally being served. you people are more concerned with defending potential suspects, than being mournful & outraged for the innocent boys who were brutally slaughtered. unbelievable. those of you who constantly use foul language & express extreme hostility towards anyone who wants to see the case re-opened (even some of the parents of the victims want to see this), are indicative of the same behavior of the type of people who are capable of committing these atrocities.

serva me, serva bote

[–] Thomas Dunson 14 years ago

Conjugate the verb "servare" for me, please. Then consider what you wrote ("simple minded" etc. pp.). Let it sink in.

I'd appreciate a response.

Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to (P. Green)

[–] Nearvana 14 years ago

you psychos -are- simple minded. why don't you write marc jacobs and complain that his latin isn't up to par. i have a feeling his travels are a bit more extensive than your own.

serva me, serva bote

[–] mojo-71 14 years ago

i love how i am just seeing responses made to me, because the people who responded were too simple minded or too afraid for me to see it & respond back.

Perhaps you're just a blathering idiot?

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php

[–] Cirative 14 years ago

"Dabbler in Satanism"

Yeah, doesn't cut it. If you knew anything about Satanism, you'd know it works VERY similarly to Christianity. The biggest difference is you can indulge yourself so long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and if someone hurts you then you may freely seek reasonable vengeance.

This is why the United States has acknowledged and accepted Satanism as an official and protected religion.

Only the ignorant think Satanism is about sacrificing goats, babies, etc.

[–] mojo-71 14 years ago

"Dabbler in Satanism"

Yeah, doesn't cut it. If you knew anything about Satanism, you'd know it works VERY similarly to Christianity.

You seem quite confused, I actually know a great deal about it.

Here, Let me help you.

You see, this wasn't a Satanic ritual killing, and it wasn't presented as one.

Nor were the defendants ever said to be real Satanists, but "Dabblers" as I stated.

Fogleman was very clear in his closing argument why the "satanic" evidence was presented:

This satanic stuff--satanic picture in and of itself does that mean they're Satanists or anything like that? No. This mean in and of itself, Satanist? No. But, why present it? Why present this stuff? And by the way this doesn't have anything to do with Wicca, doesn't have anything to do with it. The reason to present it, is that to try to inflame you all and make you all so angry because it's something different--because it's something different and something we don't understand? Is that why we would present it? No, not at all.
When you looked at those pictures of what was done to those three little boys, could you understand it? Could you have any reason to understand why someone would do that to three eight-year-old boys? Well, you've got three eight-year-old boys done that way, and then you got the defendants looking like choirboys during the trial--during jury selection. In fact, think back to jury selection when the defense trying to say, well, as they sit here right now what do you think about them? And either you or your fellow juror--you heard a fellow juror say, I think they look like typical kids. Well, think how hard it would be for you to conceive of typical teens doing what was done to these three eight-year-old boys. And I think you'll understand why the need to put on this evidence.

It was character evidence, and nothing more.

Griffis was presented simply to show Echols was a "Self styled dabbler" in Satanism, and that's what he testified to.

In a report from the FBI done prior to these crimes during the "satanic panic" of the 80's, Kennith Lanning set out to find cases of "satanic ritual killings".

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys3/lanning.htm

He scoured the largest criminal database on the planet and he never found one.

What he did find were several distinct catagories of "Satanists" - some of which committed "satanic" crimes, or crimes with trappings of occultism.

1. Youth Subculture - Most teenagers involved in fantasy
role-playing games, heavy metal music, or satanism are going
through a stage of adolescent development and commit no
significant crimes. The teenagers who have more serious
problems are usually those from dysfunctional families or
those who have poor communication within their families. These
troubled teenagers turn to satanism and the occult to overcome
a sense of alienation, to obtain power, or to justify their
antisocial behavior. for these teenagers, it is the symbolism,
not the spirituality, that is important. It is either the
psychopathic or the oddball, loner teenager who is most likely
to get into serious trouble. Extreme involvement in the occult
is a symptom of a problem, not the cause. This is not to deny,
however, that satanism and the occult are negative influences
for a troubled teenager. But to hysterically warn teenagers to
avoid this "mysterious, powerful and dangerous" thing called
satanism will drive many teenagers right to it. Some
rebellious teenagers will do whatever will most shock and
outrage society in order to flaunt their rejection of adult
norms.

2. Dabblers (Self-styled) - for these practitioners, there is
little or no spiritual motivation. They mix satanism,
witchcraft and paganism. Symbols mean whatever they want them
to mean. Molesters, rapists, drug dealers and murderers may
dabble in the occult and may commit their crimes in a
ceremonial or ritualistic way. This category has the potential
to be the most dangerous, and most of the "satanic" killers
fall into this category. Their involvement in satanism and the
occult is a symptom of a problem and a rationalization and
justification of antisocial behavior. Satanic/occult practices
(as well as those of other spiritual belief systems) can be
used as a mechanism to facilitate criminal objectives.

3. Traditional (Orthodox, Multigenerational) - These are the
true believers. They are usually wary of outsiders. Because of
this and constitutional issues, such groups are difficult for
law enforcement to penetrate. Although there is much we don't
know about these groups, as of now there is little or no hard
evidence that they are involved in serious, organized criminal
activity. In addition, instead of being self-perpetuating
master crime conspirators, true believers probably have a
similar problem with their teenagers rebelling against their
belief system.

Now, Lanning claims "The teenagers who have more serious problems are usually those from dysfunctional families or those who have poor communication within their families. These troubled teenagers turn to satanism and the occult to overcome a sense of alienation, to obtain power, or to justify their antisocial behavior."

Over and over again Echol's mental health history speaks of his dysfunctional family, his issues of control, obtaining power over others, and his total lack of compassion for anyone but himself - from his first comittal in 92, to his out-patient therapy just weeks before the crime. He wasn't just a misunderstood "Wiccan" with "teen angst", he was a violent psychotic drug abusing sociopath who dabbled in the occult.

Lanning goes on to say "It is either the psychopathic or the oddball, loner teenager who is most likely to get into serious trouble."

Echol's mental health history leaves nothing to the imagination there.

But further, Lanning noted "Dabblers (Self-styled) - for these practitioners, there is little or no spiritual motivation. They mix satanism, witchcraft and paganism. Symbols mean whatever they want them to mean.
This category has the potential to be the most dangerous, and most of the "satanic" killers fall into this category."

This catagory was discussed at trial as well.

Q: Now, do you have something called a self-styled satanist?
A: Yes, those are -- that boils down, counselor, with the different types of groups.
Q: Okay.
A: Which would start out with an experimenter, usually one who practices alone in an unorganized manner, a self-styled occultist and we are talking here only in the field of satanism. And this person has some kind of problems in life and they use the trappings of occultism to get along. Then we have an occult cult group, and this has a little charismatic leader and some followers. Sometimes they got a name for their group, sometimes they don't have a name for their group. But they use -- all three of those use the trappings of occultism.

See, the Prosecution couldn't present Echol's psych history unless the Defense entered it, so they couldn't show the jury his history of violence and drug abuse, his psychotic disorder, his dysfunctional family, or his issues of controling and demeaning others, but they COULD show the jury that Echols was a "self styled" dabbler in Satanism - and they did, through Griffis with Echol's own writings.

Q: I wanna show you State's Exhibit 110 and ask if you – if you'll look at that and also -- have you seen that before?
A: Yes sir, I have.
Q: If you'll look through that again.
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright, and what does that appear to you to be?
A: What I would refer to as a partial book of shadows.
Q: Book of shadows --
A: A partial.
Q: -- partial.
A: Partial.
Q: Alright. Now, the items drawn on the front, what is that?
A: That is a pentagram, that happens to be a Wiccan, or white witchcraft pentagram.
Q: Alright. Now if you would open the book to the front page.
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. Now, explain what that is.
A: That's confusion to me.
Q: Alright.
A: And the reason why we've got a white witchcraft pentagram, then we have upside down crosses which comes from another type of occultism.
Q: What type of occultism do the upside down cross come from?
A: That's black witchcraft.
Q: Black witchcraft?
A: Yeah, and that is at the stations.
Q: That's what?
A: That's at what we call the points, the five points.
Q: Alright, what significance does that -- that it's at the five points?
A: Usually in traditional occultism -- excuse me -- satanism they'll have various activities take place or --
Q: Okay. Now --
A: -- figures --
Q: In white witchcraft or wiccan do you have upside down crosses?
A: No sir.

Just as the category Lanning had described years earlier, To Echols, symbols meant whatever he wanted them to mean, and he mixed Satanism Witchcraft, and Paganism into what he called "Demonology".

Like it or not, that's relevant.

And the fact is, the only "satanist" catagory Echols DIDN'T fall into was the traditional or "true believer" Satanist.

The real ones.

The ones for which no evidence of serious criminal activity exists.

The ones YOU are refering to.

But he was the very definition of the type "satanist" who has traditionally committed violent crime - the psychotic, drug addled self-styled teen "dabbler" from a dysfunctional family who had issues of obtaining power over others.

Lanning isn't simply speculating on a "psychological mindset" like some sort of profiler, he developed these distinct catagories through researching documented historical examples.

This wasn't real "satanic panic" - the people of West Memphis weren't afraid of cloak wearing, latin speaking figures lurking in the shadows snatching babies, they were afraid of a group of stoner anti-social teens who sat around campfires tripping, killing animals, and playing "devil worshiper".

And they had a right to be afraid, because that silly crap was going on at the time.

Witness after witness reported going to these little get togethers, and police found the remnants.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jdreport.html

Now, whether you are willing to accept it or not, those are the type folks who are most likely to commit just such a sick and sensless crime, and the fact that Echols was one of them is relevant.

Like Rod Ferrell, Richard Ramirez, Ricky Kasso, and a host of others.

Echols and his gas-huffing, anti-social, heavy metal "devil worshiper" pals did this crime - make no mistake about it.

They were out there in those woods stoned and drunk when the kids came by, they started bullying and humiliating them and in a frenzy, the brutality escalated into savage murder - just as Misskelley described, and just as the evidence clearly shows.

The simple fact is, There was no motive.

They did it just to see what it was like, and they bragged about it to anyone who would listen.

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php

[–] okaay 13 years ago

Witness after witness reported going to these little get togethers, and police found the remnants.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jdreport.html

I'm not disputing Echol's involvement in rituals and animal killings, however this particular report dates 6/8/1993, 5 days after the trio was arrested. Unless of course, the local authorities screwed up the year in the report, which they seemed to have penchant for doing from time to time.

[–] mojo-71 13 years ago

I'm not disputing Echol's involvement in rituals and animal killings, however this particular report dates 6/8/1993, 5 days after the trio was arrested.

You are more than a little confused.

Several of these reports were prior to the arrests.

Some were prior to the murders.

You really should look into the facts for yourself.

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php

[–] Death163 12 years ago

Except that isnt really fact theres no proof Damien was a Satanist theres proof he was into wicka which doesnt even believe in a "Satan" and is a peaceful religion saying oh Damien read about Satanism or Alister Crowly so he's a Satanist is beyond stupid thats like saying anyone that reads about Hitler or Nazi's either follows Hitler or is a Nazi its just not true also if his own parents were afraid of him then why did his mother talk to him regularly though out the movies? plus say he's innocent about a million times? parents scared of there children dont do those things please stop lying.

U wanna talk about fact lets talk about Byers past the fact that he's been cought lying about what happened to his teeth atleast a 100 times flat out refused to give the xrays of his teeth to the defense to compare to the bite marks (which would have proved he's innocent if they didnt match) his extremely violent past hell the man gave up a knife which he said was never used that had blood on it then he changes his story then theres the case of his wife being murdered hint if she died of natural causes or sucide the state would have released her autospy report a longgggggggggggg time ago then theres his repeated lies about his felony record hell the man spent what 10 years in prison after the second movie?

"The People Of America Have Spoken THE REAL TITLE TOWN U.S.A IS VALDOSTA GEORGIA"

[–] Thomas Dunson 14 years ago

Hiya. Would be much appreciated if someone with the requisite knowledge (I'm interested in documented, verifiable facts and reasoned opinions, not emotions and conspiracy theories), time and inclination could help me with some questions I have on the case – where appropriate and available, pertinent excerpts from official documents are obviously highly welcome (many thanks in advance).

1. The Damien Echols dog "stomping" (?) incident: a) What exactly happened? b) Is it proven it was him? Has he (or someone else possibly involved) spoken about it c) at the original trial or d) in the last few years? Independent of his actual guilt or innocence with regards to the murders, e) how do supporters "feel" about this, what's their assessment of it? f) Were there other such ouccurences?

2.

See, the Prosecution couldn't present Echol's psych history unless the Defense entered it [...] (mojo-71, 2010-09-08)

Why is that?

3. The John Mark Byers alibi: a) How solid is it? b) How much time would he have had to commit the crime? c) Would it even have been humanly possible, taking into account the time it would've taken him to move around, the actual murders, the clean-up time, ...?

4. The Misskelley confession: a) Is it true that he upheld it over months before recanting? If so, b) has Misskelley ever commented on that? c) Was or wasn't his lawyer present during the WHOLE interrogation? In the same context: d) The things he apparently knew but allegedly couldn't have know without having been involved in the crime, can it be ruled out that this information was instilled into him by his interrogators? e) How many and what statements of his account were demonstrably false? f) Without the confession, do you guys think there there still would haven been a case beyond reasonable doubt, enough evidence to convict one or several of the defendants? (yeah, I know, some – many? most? – of you believe there was reasonable doubt even with the confession)

5. In case someone has broader insight into the judicial system, a) are there [many] cases where the jury has no choice but to convict or acquit, even though they are personally convinced the opposite to be true? b) Would the Robert Blake or c) Michael Jackson trials qualify? d) Would this case qualify?

6. To the people who think the right people are behind bars: a) What do you make of the recently found hair at the place where the bodies were discovered that "matches" Terry Hobbs? And b) what's the likelihood that the hair really belongs to him? And c) why couldn't it just have been carried there by his stepson?

7. OK, this one has a bit of a buildup. When perusing the assorted YouTube uploads on the case (amongst them the «Paradise Lost» docs), someone (by the username of Satonica) wrote in the comments section to one of those clips (specifically, to this one: Terry Hobbs in 3 minutes by 322melissa from the 2010-03-31, accessible at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btnuodxd5Es) with regards to Terry Hobbs "my Mother always taught me to be careful of the quiet ones" and that there were "something behind his eyes that spells sociopath" (he didn't proclaim him to be guilty, though), to which someone else (Sonnenwirthle) replied:

But you DO realize that your description of a sociopath also perfectly fits the Damien Echols of today, don't you? In his youth, Echols probably was kinda "Byers weird", now he seems more "Hobbs weird" – doesn't mean ANY of the three must've necessarily had anything to do with the crime, just something to think about...

So, a) what do you all make of those observations and comparisons by those users? I happen to agree with the second user, to me, Echols comes across as very cold and creepy (which doesn't mean he must be guilty of anything), but virtually no one else seems to think that. b) How come?

c) Do his supporters, for example, take into consideration the – clinically founded – picture painted of him in the trial transcripts (of which I've only seen a few snippets so far, but what I've seen looks pretty damning), or do they just dismiss that wholesale as "prejudiced", "biased", "overblown", "taken out of context" or whatever?

8. In connection with the previous point: It's astounding to me how many of the people who claim the WM3 were railroaded because they were misfits profess to seek justice, yet are quicker by far to rush to judgement than those they accuse of wrongdoing (don't lose it, WM3 supporters out there: I wrote many, not all or even most, and if you go through IMDb's fora, YouTube's comments sections as well as other sites you will have no choice but to agree). Ya know, all that stuff along the lines of "Echols was just made a scapegoat because he was considered weird, but Byers must be guilty because... he acted weird!" (and with similar "logic" used against Hobbs). Why are so many people downright gung ho to throw just about anyone under the bus, as long as it helps "their cause", no matter what?

9. Further, "extremist" supporters or not, how come so many people are so sure, so ardent in their conviction that the WM3 must be innocent? What is it that makes so many people (many famous) campaign on their behalf? They can't all just be idiots, can they? What am I missing here? Where's the "smoking gun", the "slam dunk" that shows the WM3 weren't involved? (I know, there are also those who don't necessarily believe them to be innocent but argue that the trial / trials just didn't meet the standards than can and must be expected, especially when someone's life is on the line; but they [at least] seem to be in the minority and much more mute about the situation)

10. And finally, an unsolicited recommendation rather than a question: Those fascinated by such mysteries (and to me it is a mystery – as of yet –, as opposed to the many people on both sides who seem to be so dead certain about their version of things), you might want to take a look at the Arnold and Jesse Friedman case, competently (although rather manipulatively) portrayed in the documentary «Capturing the Friedmans (2003) [Andrew Jarecki]» (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342172). And here's an insightful discussion about it: Guilty as sin! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342172/board/nest/135105709) – and it's not as one-sided as the thread's title might imply.

Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to (P. Green)

[–] mojo-71 14 years ago

1. The Damien Echols dog "stomping" (?) incident: a) What exactly happened? b) Is it proven it was him? Has he (or someone else possibly involved) spoken about it

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117293/board/thread/169163163

2. Why is that

Doctor/Patient confidentiality.

Tell you what, to save a little time here, there are five other posts on the Paradise Lost board - about halfway down the page all titled "reposted by request...."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117293/board/threads/

Give those a read, and if you still have questions that aren't answered there, I'll be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php

[–] Thomas Dunson 14 years ago

Hey, mojo-71, thanks for your reply. I read the threads you suggested, but while they were very interesting, a lot of questions remain – actually, many new ones popped up to boot!

And then there are some formal things I didn't quite get, like, what about the the origin and nature of those documents / transcripts presented at http://callahan.8k.com? Are those exact, minute, one-to-one reproductions of the originals? (where there are photocopies / scans it's obvious, but much of it is searchable full text)

I'm asking since there are many orthographical, grammatical and punctuation errors to be found throughout; for example, it reads "it was Dead It's intestines was strung out of his butt" (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/blh.html), and elsewhere they don't even get Echols' first name right, calling him "DAMION WAYNE ECHOLS" (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/pamh2.html). So were those errors already present in the original case files and simply carried over or did they emerge in the [automated?] conversion process? If the former applies, then this would be a telling indirect commentary on the people involved, the degree of diligence they put into the recording of the investigation and legal proceedings and the level of their education.

Speaking of which, can somebody explain to me what "DOGGIN PISTONS" (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/pamh2.html) are? And what's a "ruling partner" (http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/052.jpg) in this context?

TD

Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to (P. Green)

[–] Thomas Dunson 14 years ago

Oops, should've looked a bit closer before posting. Some of the formal stuff (not all, though) that bugged me in connection with the documents is elucidated in that website's FAQs section:

Frequently Asked Questions

[...]

Are the trial transcripts official?

The vast majority of the two trials have been transcribed from MP3 audio files. All entries where "Images" are available are official. The official transcript differs slightly from the audio recordings, as all words and sentences were not taken down by the court reporter. Although there are no images available for Echols' Rule 37 hearing, those transcriptions are from the official transcipt.

[...]

(http://callahan.8k.com/faq.html • accessed on the 2010-09-27)

Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to (P. Green)

[–] birdfeatherss 12 years ago

I just watched the first installment of the series yesterday and watched the second today.

In my opinion, the first installment was a top-notch documentary. HBO was so privileged to have so much access to the victims and the accused, and to have so much footage of the hearings. Also, I really applaud their lack of bias, leaving the case as much of an open-ended mystery as it was in reality (i.e. "you decided what you believe").

The second episode, however, was not so much of a gem. Though personally, I believe the teenagers to be innocent of the crimes they were convicted, "Revelations" really painted them as probably-innocent, fading the sense of mystery around the unfolding of the case.

In the film there were two sparring opponents: the Free the West Memphis 3 support group vs. John Mark Byers. The former is a group of mostly middle-aged men and women probably to whom the worst crime to have happened to them is being short-changed at the grocery store. The latter is a bible banging, toothless, full-blooded-American weapons enthusiast who often rambles on in strange, vengeful monologues to pictures of his son or his wife, followed by a breach of the fourth wall as he looks straight into the camera and addresses those "filthy devil worshippers", commanding them to go to hell and barking at them like an enraged spaniel.

Here are my real problems with the film:

The members of the support group are like a bunch of fan girls. Annoying.

Byers is an enormous media whore. He seems to be around the corner from every camera. Annoying.

No real progress is made in the end except that some unexamined evidence is under the scrutiny of higher technology than was available.

Guess I have to go watch episode three now.

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 8 years ago

Agreed, but the bias of the filmmakers comes through in all three films. But it was especially bad in this one where they did nothing but try to implicate Byers. They did the same in the third one with Terry Hobbs, but at least it wasn't as blatantly done as in this one.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried