"Paradise Lost" + The West Memphis 3

Having just viewed the "Paradise Lost" documentary, I'm here to simply bring my own perspective to the case.

If you are familiar with the story, you know that on May 5, 1993, three young boys were mutilated and murdered in West Memphis, Arkansas. Not having much of a case, three teenage boys were later arrested, tried and charged with murder. They all are currently still in prison or on death row.

A case of this magnitude of course attracted much attention from the media, but more so in recent years due to the ambiguity of the case itself. Many feel the teenage boys were wrongly tried and convicted of a crime they didn't commit, and should at least be given a second chance at trial.

There are many factors that come into play: The parent's of both the victims and the accused did not seem stable. Mr. Byers (one of the victim's fathers) seemed a religious nut with psychological issues; he also produced a knife with blood on it for no apparent reason, after telling police he never cut himself or cut anything with it that would produce blood. There was an African American male spotted in a nearby restaurant that was muddy and bloody, yet left the scene unidentified before police arrived. The police themselves did a horrible job with such a horrific crime; losing blood samples, coercing one of the accused to confess and focusing more on the accused' odd lifestyle vs. their actual involvement in the crime.

The accused did not have a necessarily "healthy" upbringing by any means. Yet I was surprised this information did not come up in the case. Instead, the prosecution insisted on bringing up the fact that teenagers like Echols was a Wiccan, wore black clothing and listened to heavy metal music. In turn, the defense seemed to focus on only this as an attack on the prosecution; "they are sending an innocent man to jail for the way he dresses."

With lack of evidence, fabricated testimony that has arisen and questionable behaviors of both parties, it seems no one will ever know what happened unless the case goes to trial again.

Although some feel "Paradise Lost" to be one-sided in defense of the accused, I did feel it portrayed a lot about the behaviors and attitudes of the accused and the victims' families.

Often evil hides in disguises of good, and for that reason I was immediately suspicious of Mr. Byers, who seemed all too zealous singing in church while all too comfortable shooting a gun. His odd inclusion of a bloody knife and contradictory statements also made it seemed like he had something to hide or was in some way involved. He also was the one who called police at 7PM looking for his son, which in turn led the cops to the woods where they didn't find anything till around 1PM the following day; if Byers was involved, this would allow him to commit the crime elsewhere without having to worry about police involvement, than take the bodies to the woods when he knew the police left since there were no bodies yet to be found. When Echols stated that "he (Byers) actually seemed human" after hearing Byers' testimony, that confused me as well, as when Byers took the stand he appeared to act dumb on purpose and seemed more like a creepy bystander than the father of one of the victims.

Misskelly, one of the accused, seemed like he knew of what happened and was all too eager to confess, while he also seemed the type to fold under pressure. Baldwin probably spoke the least out of the three in the film, yet it seemed to me he was more guilty by association; probably protecting his friends' secret more than anything else. Echols did not seem disturbing to me, just narcissistic. I know many offbeat an eccentric people (I am one,) and I would never judge someone for the way they look or acted. Some of his statements were bizarre, such as suggesting his child's first words were going to be "capital murder," but only because he said these things in the spotlight of the media. Statements like this made him look cynical about his guilt vs. hopeful about his innocence, suggesting he did commit the crime and knew that he was going to be found guilty.

Whether or not the teenage boys did it, Echols himself alluded this superior demeanor, as if he knew he was doomed for the start although he claimed to be innocent every time he took the stand. I don't know why someone would do this, unless he truly enjoyed the media attention. This alone is something to think about, as many murderers who get caught tend to revel in their notoriety and fame, while others commit murder in the first place for this exact reason.

Still, if the boys were some way involved in the crime, why wouldn't they attempt to leave town? Wouldn't parents and girlfriends of the accused have noticed them acting strange? And the fact that there was no blood at the scene, (although the place where they actually died may not have been Robin Hood Hills,) makes one wonder if three teenage boys could have pulled this off.

Still, the boys' behavior is puzzling. I know how it feels to be a weird outcast, having interests separate or opposed from the majority of the world and the place you live. What I don't understand is how little passion they seemed to have in fighting for their innocence. If they didn't do it, then an explanation, as mentioned earlier, might be that they enjoyed the attention from the media and wanted to become a part of the controversy; but who in their right mind would want to serve a life sentence for such a brutal crime if they didn't commit it?

If the boys were involved in the crime somehow, I feel that someone else orchestrated the whole thing and/or committed the most heinous aspects of the crime, despite Echols appearing as the ringleader. A picture drawn by Echols (which I'm not sure was drawn in jail or before his arrest,) shows four tombstones with a pentagram on each, with one having some sort of force rising from it up to the sky, to a bigger pentagram. Many claim Echols and then girlfriend Domini planned to sacrifice their first born as part of their religion, which could mean the four tombstones represented the three dead children and Echols first born, or it could represent the three accused and the baby, or the three accused an another ringleader. In his testimony, Echols is questioned about something he wrote which contained Jason Baldwin's name, as well as Aleister Crowley's; perhaps Aleister Crowley was a code name for the real ringleader.

No matter what you believe, the aspects of when and how the murders were committed is hard to ignore. The crime happened on 5-5-93, a Wednesday, during a full moon. Misskelly stated before that the accused would have their meetings on Wednesdays, while (5) and the full moon are both of importance in the Pagan religion.

Also, this was a crime of passion. I feel that this was no random or accidental incident; it seems it was planned in advance, most likely by someone who knew the victims personally. I also feel that while a girl may not have been present at the crime, the rage of the attacker was caused by something he felt was done unjustly to a woman or girl that was close to him. Perhaps the man also knew or heard of the accused, and knew that they practiced Wicca, particularly on Wednesday nights. This would give him a great advantage in pointing the blame at these teenage boys, since Arkansas obviously did not take "Satanism" lightly.

There is tons of info online regarding this case, so I suggest you take a look and form your own opinions.

I do hope that the West Memphis Three get another chance at trial, if only to prove that justice doesn't have to be blind forever.