Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory Page #8

by a knife

With that kind of

serrated pattern?

There are injuries consistent

with this type of serrated pattern.

As some of you know,

a critical prosecution theory

At the 1994 trials

Was that the defendants

used a survival knife

To inflict most of the

injuries on these victims

And that they

used the knife

Before

the children died.

Is it a coincidence

This knife

is found behind-

In the lake, hidden,

Behind Jason Baldwins

house?

Horgan:

the knife was critical

Because if it looked like one

that Damien Echols had once owned

And if the injuries to these

kids were caused by a knife,

It tied Damien Echols to-

To the crime itself.

So it was a key link

if it was to be believed

That it had been involved

in mutilating these kids

And had been used in,

you know,

Probably castrating

Christopher byers.

But now we know

that's just not the case.

Good morning.

I analyzed

a lot of pictures.

I analyzed a lot of

written material.

It is my opinion-

Or the following are

my opinions:

Injuries on

the body surface

Of all the three victims,

three boys,

Including the emasculation

of Chris byers,

Were produced by animals

after death.

When a dog or other

carnivorous animal

Attacks a body

after death,

Or before death

sometimes,

They scrape

the body.

They move their claws

on the body

And try to bring the body

closer to them.

They do this

several times.

And you have here

two of the victims

That have the same

identical injury.

They were obvious

claw marks.

The spacing and the

configuration of those injuries

Is not compatible with a

serrated knife such as this

Or, for that matter,

any knife.

Over a period of time,

Our understanding

of what actually happened

Has changed.

What we know now is that

the lawyers on the case

Hadn't gone

to the crime laboratory

And looked

meticulously

Through all of

the laboratory's notebooks

Of what was done

out at the crime scene.

The crime scene techs

recovered

A bunch of

animal hair.

Dr. Richard Souviron: there's no

possible way this could have been done

With this knife.

Animals do this.

This is what happens

to a body that's dumped

In a wooded area,

in the woods,

In a creek,

in a swamp.

This is what

you're going to get.

Dog, coyote,

fox, possum-

I've seen

all of those.

It's a carnivore.

Could it be turtles

that had done this,

Aquatic crabs,

for instance? Sure.

Anything that would

eat flesh

Is what did this.

Joe Berlinger:
can you talk

about the original case,

I mean,

just in general terms?

I mean do you think

it was a solid case?

Do you think

it was a case- I mean,

Do you think Damien got

a fair trial?

Oh, I don't-

In my mind,

There's no question that all

three received a fair trial.

The jury heard

the evidence

And were convinced

of guilt.

So that speaks for itself,

I think.

A jury takes an oath

to base their verdicts

Only on the evidence

that comes before 'em.

And they're

not to consider anything

Other than the evidence that

comes from the witness stand,

The exhibits that are

introduced in the evidence.

And if they violate

that oath,

It's a very, very

serious matter.

Female reporter:
Lorri

Davis, wife of Damien Echols,

Spoke for the first time

about a new

Defense allegation

of jury misconduct

In the trial

of the west Memphis three.

Davis says the jury foreman

contacted an attorney

During the trial

15 years ago.

Philipsborn:

we know from a lawyer

Who has now submitted

some paperwork to the court

Who talked to that

jury foreman

And who became aware

that the jury foreman

Was considering

some information

That the jury foreman

Shouldn't have been

considering.

Lloyd Warford:
anytime

you're caught in a situation

Where you know

something

That calls

into question

A judgment that's been

made by a court,

When you're sitting at home

in your easy chair

And you read an article about

somebody's facing the death penalty

And you feel like there's something

you might, could have done,

It's- It's troubling.

You know, Im getting

dangerously close

To the whole issue about what

happened in the jury room.

As an officer of the court,

Im not permitted

To talk about certain things

with regard to this case.

Gina Reynolds:
I had started

working for Lloyd Warford

At that point in time

as a law clerk.

I met the jury foreman

Kent Arnold.

The first time

I encountered Kent

at Lloyds office

Was when he hired Lloyd

to represent his brother

On a different case.

But at that time,

Kent already knew

He was being called

for jury duty

For Baldwin

and Echols trial.

During Miskellys trial,

he talked about

All of the things that had

been printed in the newspaper.

Kent Arnold was passionate

about what he thought he knew.

He- He believed

That they were guilty

and they had been caught

And they should be

convicted.

I was sitting

in Lloyds office

And he was talking to

Kent on speakerphone.

And he was saying, "well,

Ive gotten my jury summons.

How do I make sure

I get on this jury?"

And Lloyd was going, "you know,

you've got some pretty strong ideas

About whether these guys

are guilty or not.

You know, you'll never get on

the jury. Don't worry about it. "

After Kent was on the jury,

Lloyd specifically said,

"How did you

get on this jury?"

And he basically said, "dumb

judges and dumb lawyers-

They don't ask

specific questions. "

During the trial, Kent

was still calling Lloyd

On a regular basis

about what was going on.

He really wanted Lloyd

to tell him things about

How to get this jury

to convict these boys.

And Lloyd would just kind

of brush him off and say,

"Oh, you know, that's not

something I can talk to you about. "

He also asked Lloyd

Specifically

on that phone call,

When were they gonna play

the confession?

Mr. Arnold would be

saying stuff like-

One particular phone call

- "The state hasn't proven their case.

They're supposed to

rest tomorrow.

If anybody's gonna be able

to get these boys convicted,

It's gonna have to be me

in that jury room. "

The next thing we know,

he's foreman of the jury.

He's foreman

of the jury,

Which is exactly

where he wanted to be,

Because he wanted

these boys convicted.

Kent Arnold believed

That what he knew

was the truth

And that it was gonna be

up to him

To make sure his idea

of justice happened.

He had to introduce the

confession to the jury room.

He had already basically

told us he was going to.

In the last couple of years,

quite fortuitously-

And this is the sort of fortune

that can save a man's life-

We have found that the jury

put up big sheets

Of factors that they considered

in convicting Echols and Baldwin.

And they've been

kept in evidence.

And here

the Echols' one is.

No one has really asked

what that might be.

Why was it crossed out?

Who crossed it out?

One of the jurors

had copied

A facsimile of that list

into her notebook.

The crossed-Out item is

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes