Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory Page #12
No one else puts him there.
He puts himself there.
No alibi.
Can't account
for the crucial times
From 6:
30 to 8:00,8:
30 to 9:00,10:
00 to 11:15and from 2:
30 to 5:00 a. M.That's a lot of gap
in time of,
What were you doing, Mr.
Hobbs? Where were you?
Claims to have been
with Jacobi
At times, Jacobi denies.
Now here's your own witness
denying what you said.
To me, that doesn't
look too good.
Not interviewed or cleared
by the police.
Now there,
the west Memphis p. D., 101,
Totally fell
on their face.
They didn't go talk
to terry Hobbs
And question him about
what he did that night.
They didn't treat him
the way they treated me.
Inconsistent statement-
He never saw
any of the boys that day.
We know
that's wrong.
He was seen by three
witnesses that were neighbors.
That could have
come out
Back on May 5th or 6th
if the west Memphis p. D.
Would have canvassed
that neighborhood.
They just canvassed
this neighborhood,
Never went around and asked
any of Hobbs' neighbors a word.
They'd have told them
that back then.
He would have been caught
in his lie then.
He would have been the last
person to have seen them.
in on him instead of Damien
And they would have got
the real killer
And we would not be here
talking today.
I believe that if this was
presented to a jury,
They would find
terry Hobbs guilty.
This is more evidence
and facts
Than against
the west Memphis three
Or me or anyone else.
guess, to the d. N.A. Experts.
Over the course of time, it
seems that over and over again
It's been different family
members who have popped up
As kind of being
suspects in this case.
And I have to ask, is there
really significant enough
D.N.A. Evidence that
My personal opinion is I don't
think that that hair evidence
Would be enough
to convict Mr. Hobbs
Or anybody
in a similar situation,
Because it's simply not
strong enough.
The percentages
that I gave of people
Who could be the source
of those hairs
Are 11/2%
of the population.
That's not particularly
strong evidence,
And especially
in the context of
What most people are accustomed
to with d. N.A. Testing.
Woman:
so just to clarify,the d. N.A. Evidence-
isn't to say that Hobbs did it,
But it's just to say, one could
think it might be more likely
That Hobbs would have
done it versus Damien,
Because there's no
evidence there at all?
The last thing
as defense lawyers
We would
intend to do
Is indict
and convict someone
Beyond a reasonable doubt
of this case.
The evidence
as to Hobbs-
I don't think that it
should be viewed that way.
But is it evidence that would
lead any reasonable juror
To acquit Damien Echols?
Yes, it would.
Male reporter:
defenseattorneys announced
They had new DNA evidence
Or the other defendants
at the crime scene.
Even some of
the victims' relatives
Who initially agreed
with the verdicts...
That's what all three of 'em are
- Punks. Punks.
...now think the men
in jail are innocent.
I would like to see
another trial.
Give 'em a fair trial.
Present the evidence
That really wasn't presented
in the other trials.
And if they're guilty, so be
it. That's where they stay.
But if they're not, god,
don't put somebody to death,
Because, you know,
oops.
As Damiens lawyers,
we are not taking on
actually committed these crimes.
The question for the court
should be and will be,
Would a reasonable juror,
looking at the entire picture now-
All the evidence of guilt,
all the evidence of innocence,
Everything that was admitted at trial,
everything that surfaced thereafter-
Looking at that
And throwing into the mix
the DNA. Results,
Would a reasonable juror
And the answer
to that is no.
Female reporter:
judge DavidBurnett tentatively set up hearings
For next month to determine
To overturn the convictions
of the west Memphis three.
Defense attorneys want to
present new DNA. Evidence
They hope will lead
to a new trial.
Judge Burnett
made it clear
He could follow
prosecutors' suggestions
That the DNA. Evidence
isn't enough for a new trial
Or to overturn
the convictions.
favor of the state's opinion
On Echolss DNA. Pleading,
this very well could be
The end of the road
for his defense.
In the newsroom,
will carter, region 8 news.
In September,
judge David Burnett,
Who presided over
both trials,
Ruled he would not hear any
new evidence in the case.
So Damien Echols is now
appealing his case
To the Arkansas
supreme court,
Which has previously upheld
the conviction.
This is the first time that
Is going to interpret
the DNA. Statute.
So it's going to have
enormous implications
For everybody who
comes in their wake.
I'm thinking about
when we argue this
In the Arkansas
supreme court,
The approach
we want to take is,
"Justices, you may be aware
that this specific case
Has garnered
a lot of interest,
But the interests at stake
here are a lot broader
Than the three individuals
before the court,
Even though one of those literally
has his life on the line. "
Riordan:
good morning, yourhonors. If it please the court,
Obviously, since my client
is sentenced to death,
The resolution
of this case
Is of paramount
importance to him.
But the interests at
stake here are far broader.
And that is because
we are dealing with
Pure questions of law
about the interpretation
Of what Ill call
"the DNA. Statutes. "
What is the meaning of
this Arkansas statute?
There's language
in that statute
That says that
if the DNA. Evidence
Excludes the defendant
As the source
of the DNA.,
Which it did
in our case,
Then the trial court has to
consider all the evidence,
Whether it was admitted
at trial or not,
To see what a reasonable
juror would do today.
This statute was passed
to exonerate the innocent.
The state has
really proposed
An Orwellian interpretation
of the term "all. "
Horgan:
the state took the positionThat in weighing
all the evidence,
What the statute
meant to say was
all the evidence of guilt,
But not the evidence
of innocence,
Which is nonsensical,
Because, of course,
If a trial court were to
look at the DNA. Evidence,
But then only consider
all the evidence of guilt,
The court wouldn't be
considering everything
That makes a compelling
case for innocence.
Judge:
let me ask youa question, Mr. Riordan.
Let's focus on
the evidence situation
And let's say that
I agree with you
was in error
With respect to just limiting
the evidence to evidence of guilt.
What evidence then
would be considered?
Would it be the evidence that
Translation
Translate and read this script in other languages:
Select another language:
- - Select -
- 简体中文 (Chinese - Simplified)
- 繁體中文 (Chinese - Traditional)
- Español (Spanish)
- Esperanto (Esperanto)
- 日本語 (Japanese)
- Português (Portuguese)
- Deutsch (German)
- العربية (Arabic)
- Français (French)
- Русский (Russian)
- ಕನ್ನಡ (Kannada)
- 한국어 (Korean)
- עברית (Hebrew)
- Gaeilge (Irish)
- Українська (Ukrainian)
- اردو (Urdu)
- Magyar (Hungarian)
- मानक हिन्दी (Hindi)
- Indonesia (Indonesian)
- Italiano (Italian)
- தமிழ் (Tamil)
- Türkçe (Turkish)
- తెలుగు (Telugu)
- ภาษาไทย (Thai)
- Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
- Čeština (Czech)
- Polski (Polish)
- Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
- Românește (Romanian)
- Nederlands (Dutch)
- Ελληνικά (Greek)
- Latinum (Latin)
- Svenska (Swedish)
- Dansk (Danish)
- Suomi (Finnish)
- فارسی (Persian)
- ייִדיש (Yiddish)
- հայերեն (Armenian)
- Norsk (Norwegian)
- English (English)
Citation
Use the citation below to add this screenplay to your bibliography:
Style:MLAChicagoAPA
"Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory" Scripts.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2025. Web. 20 Jan. 2025. <https://www.scripts.com/script/paradise_lost_3:_purgatory_15567>.
Discuss this script with the community:
Report Comment
We're doing our best to make sure our content is useful, accurate and safe.
If by any chance you spot an inappropriate comment while navigating through our website please use this form to let us know, and we'll take care of it shortly.
Attachment
You need to be logged in to favorite.
Log In