Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory Page #12

Synopsis: In 1993, a horrific triple child murder was discovered in West Memphis, Arkansas, but the reaction to it precipitated a horror of its own. This film follows up on the story of the three boys, called the West Memphis Three, who were convicted for this crime with questionable evidence. For years, the boys' fate sparked a mass movement striving to prove their innocence while the state is equally determined to avoid admitting it could have been wrong. Through the swirl of new evidence and suspects, the Three tell their own tale about enduring this injustice against the opinions of the victim's families in a debate that eventually came to an inadequate resolution.
Production: @radical.media
  Nominated for 1 Oscar. Another 5 wins & 5 nominations.
 
IMDB:
8.1
Metacritic:
85
Rotten Tomatoes:
100%
NOT RATED
Year:
2011
121 min
Website
150 Views


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 11:15

and 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.

The police would have zeroed

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.

Man:
Im gonna direct this, I

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

could point to terry Hobbs?

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-

The point of bringing it up

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:
defense

attorneys announced

They had new DNA evidence

that shows no trace of Echols

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

The burden of proving who

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

convict these people today?

And the answer

to that is no.

Female reporter:
judge David

Burnett tentatively set up hearings

For next month to determine

if there is enough evidence

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.

If judge Burnett rules in

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

the Arkansas supreme court

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, your

honors. 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. "

"All" simply means all.

Horgan:
the state took the position

That in weighing

all the evidence,

What the statute

meant to say was

That the court consider only

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 you

a question, Mr. Riordan.

Let's focus on

the evidence situation

And let's say that

I agree with you

That maybe the trial judge

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

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes

Unknown

The writer of this script is unknown. more…

All Unknown scripts | Unknown Scripts

4 fans

Submitted on August 05, 2018

Discuss this script with the community:

0 Comments

    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>.

    We need you!

    Help us build the largest writers community and scripts collection on the web!

    Watch the movie trailer

    Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

    The Studio:

    ScreenWriting Tool

    Write your screenplay and focus on the story with many helpful features.


    Quiz

    Are you a screenwriting master?

    »
    Who directed "The Grand Budapest Hotel"?
    A Martin Scorsese
    B Wes Anderson
    C Christopher Nolan
    D Quentin Tarantino