'West of Memphis' Director Amy Berg Talks New Evidence in Arkansas Case UPDATE: New Trailer

10 Comments

• | Reply

• Kate | March 22, 2013 5:38 AMReply

  Paula aka Michael Blatty: You seriously need to get your head examined! And so does anyone else who thinks that the West Memphis three are guilty. It's pretty crystal clear that they are innocent. Why would the state of Arkansas let them out if they truly believe that they are guilty? Why because Johhny Depp and Eddie Vedder said so? Get real! They knew if they took it to trial they would most likely lose the case and end up getting sued for millions.

• Paula | March 9, 2013 4:59 PMReply

  It makes me sick that they got out. Echols is a disgusting psychopath, people don't just change like that. He is the same . Making money off his disgusting name, the blind followers, you'de think he was a friggin rock star. Celebrity friends. Narcissist! His book is so robotic, poor me,me,me. Everything is everybody else's fault. I think when they killed those poor boys it was symbolic. They were killing themselves-poor,abused. He is so controlled. His mental health records before the killings say he was enraged. He is so full of shit! He still practices magick(that is how he spells it). Moved to Salem cause that is the only place he feels comfortable? He is disgusting. He doesn't take those stupid glasses off because he doesn't want people to see the guilt in them. His eyes are dead, he is as dead as those poor boys.

• Baalbarath | March 6, 2013 7:32 PMReply

  Now, you might expect the director of this film to know the details. She claims to have
  spent six months researching the case to form her own opinion before she agreed to take on
  the film. Six months is not enough time to grasp this monstrosity and she proves this on a simple question about polygraph testing. Jesse was given one polygraph test by the WMPD. Echols was tested and failed. Baldwin has never been tested, but I challenge Amy to film Baldwin taking a polygraph and making the video public. She's not sure if the Misskelley results were presented at trial? Maybe she skipped over the trial documents in her research. There was plenty of incentive for her to conclude that the three were innocent. If she determined they were guilty she wouldn't get the job.
  Her answer to the alibi question is just awful. Did she ever look for Don Namm or Ken Watkins? Jason, who is very dense regarding his own case, still thinks Don Namm and Ken Watkins somehow supported his attempted alibi.
  Governor of AR is not a Republican. Good guess, though.

• Donna Marie | March 6, 2013 1:03 AMReply

  Amy Berg check this out ............http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/de_polygraph_charts.html http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/depoly.html

• Michael Blatty | November 19, 2012 1:19 PMReply

  Here is a small dose of truth serum for those who really care about the truth.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGWa4KomcuA&NR=1&feature=endscreen

• Michael Blatty | November 19, 2012 1:23 PM

  The site I was attempting to copy below can be found under:
  Damien Echols; Hex, Lies and Videotape. It is eye-opening.

• Michael Blatty | November 19, 2012 1:01 PMReply

  This interview is chock full of lies and half-truths. These men are guilty. They were convicted by two juries and there is absolutely no solid evidence that points in the direction of anyone
  but these three. For 14 years they accused one of the fathers of the victims and when that never
  panned out they changed course and are now blaming another father. Mr. Echols is a pathological liar, a sociopath, and a con-man par excellence. I live and Salem and am disgusted
  by the fact that this child-torturer and murderer now lives in my community. You can be certain that our police department is keeping a close eye on him as well they should. Go to our
  local website Salemweb.com for more commentary on this despicable fraud.

• susan baldwin | November 15, 2012 2:40 PMReply

  "The documentary presents new witnesses and forensic evidence that exonerates the three men and points to others as responsible for the murder of Stevie Branch, Chris Byers and Michael Moore. It reveals a gross miscarriage of justice by the Arkansas justice system." ----------
  Ms. Thompson, this statement is a blatant lie (at the most) or a reflection of your complete lack of understanding of the case (at the least). Neither those who have been found guilty of murder and have pled guilty of murder (albeit under Alford), nor their supporters, have the ability to determine that a guilty party has been "exonerated." They HAVE NOT been exonerated. They WILL NEVER be exonerated because they committed these cruel murders in 1993 and twenty years later they have no proof of their innocence nor proof of guilt by another.

• Michael Blatty | November 19, 2012 1:09 PM

  You are 100% correct, Susan. As you know, in signing their Alford pleas these three convicted child-killers admitted their guilt, agreed that were there to be a retrial the
  prosection must likely had enough evidence to convict them again, and agreed that
  they could not ever sue the state for 18 years of what they laughably claim is "false
  imprisonment." Mr. Echols tries to give the impression that the court in some way
  decided that they had convicted the wrong men buy as you know that is far from the
  case. In fact, it is just the opposite. And a side note: Mr. Echols' lying book was on the
  NYT bestseller list for a total of 2 weeks just after its release and has since then sank like
  a stone, despite Mr. Echols' appearances and book-signings and hype. It has not appeared
  on the NYT list since those initial 2 weeks since then, not even on their lowest slot which
  is #35. Looks to me like most people don't want to pay money to support a lying, whining,
  talentless child-murderer.

• David | November 18, 2012 2:12 PM

  And Susan Baldwin knows this for sure because she saw it with her own eyes!
  
  Seriously, it amazes me how people some people get so attached to wrong verdict that they cannot ever admit they were wrong. The new evidence and witnesses are irrefutable and do indeed prove their innocence. Watch this or Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory. Then you'll see that Susan Baldwin is the one guilty of blatant lying or complete lack of understanding.