JACKSON, PETER – WEST OF MEMPHIS
AN ARKANSORE
Why did Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh spend millions of their own
money on the defence of a stranger halfway across the world in
Arkansas and $2 million more on the documentary - West of Memphis -
about the case? And what does Satan have to do with it? Andrew L.
Urban put the questions to Jackson on the eve of the film’s
Australian release (February 14, 2013).
It’s lunchtime for busy Peter Jackson, one of the world’s most
talented and successful filmmakers, and the only time he can
spare 20 minutes for a phone interview about a film that’s
finished but a matter that is far from over. It all began in 2005
while Jackson and his partner Fran Walsh were watching a 1996
documentary on
TV, called Paradise Lost (by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky).
The film was an exploration of the three teenagers found guilty
of the horrific 1993 murder of three 8 year old boys in West
Memphis, Arkansas.
"it was watching a miscarriage of
justice"
“We were intrigued and horrified,” says Jackson, “it was
watching a miscarriage of justice.” And at stake was the life of
one of three convicted, who faced the death sentence: Damien
Echols. He, along with Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley were
to become known as the West Memphis 3 – WM3 – in the protracted
fight to have their innocence recognised. That fight continues,
despite all three being free men. The irony is that they are free
only because after 18 years in jail they pleaded guilty, a legal
trickery referred to as the Alford plea, in which the State of
Arkansas records a guilty plea but allows the defendants to claim
their innocence.
Nonsense? Not if you see it from the State’s point of view. First
there is the money: three men wrongly convicted spending 18 years
in jail could sue the State (short of cash as it is) for as much
as $60 million between them. Second, there are careers and
reputations, from judges to lawyers to police officers … and the
State’s own reputation for irresponsibility in their justice
system. So, Alford is the name of the bitter tasting compromise.
But that’s the story at the end of 2012 when West of Memphis was
finished and edited. In the seven years from the time Jackson and
Walsh jumped off their couch and onto the internet to find out
more, they were drawn deeper and deeper into the fight. “We
expected by then to read that they’d been freed since the doco
was made.” Not so.
"We just wanted to help"
“On their website we found they were asking for donations to
help fight the case, and we sent a donation. We just wanted to
help. Then Damien’s wife, Lorri Davis, who was leading the
campaign, wrote to thank us and we quickly struck up a
friendship. It became personal; there was a life in jeopardy.
She’d talk to him every day, visit him once a week … and we got
more and more actively involved, especially bringing more
organisation to the project. But we didn’t want our names
attached at that stage, and we didn’t want to draw attention to
us funding the investigation.”
The investigation had to be more sophisticated than the original
probe carried out by a hamfisted small town police force. Jackson
and Walsh took the attitude that “it was God who put them in jail
and science was going to get them out.” What he means by God
putting them there is that a key part of the prosecution case
relied on linking the murders to Satanic practices. That was 1993
and there was a world wide panic about Satanic cults, almost like
a black fashion, that infected hundred if not thousands of murder
probes. In Arkansas, a deeply religious State where superstition
and Satan linked arms, such things had enormous impact. And
before you scoff, remember Lindy Chamberlain …
Damien Echols’ defence team now had serious muscle, with Jackson
and Walsh hiring five of the top forensic pathologists plus a
reluctant John Douglas, a highly respected FBI profiler who had
to be persuaded to join a defence team; he was used to “putting
bad people behind bars, not working to get them released”.
“We wanted John Douglas to profile the actual killer,” says
Jackson. And finally he agreed – and he also pointed out that in
his 20 years with the FBI he had never found a single murder case
in which there was any evidence to implicate a Satanic cult,
although many a case had been presented that way.
"The conversation is
damning"
One of the most extraordinary scenes in West of Memphis is a
phone call between Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of one of the
murdered boys, and his good friend Derek Jacoby. By this stage,
Hobbs has been identified as a suspect (not by police, mind you,
but the DNA evidence dismissed by Judge Burnett); the camera is
on Jacoby as we hear the actual conversation. Jacoby had been
coached by Douglas. “If Hobbs is the perpetrator, he’ll try to
confuse you,” Douglas told Jacoby. “He’ll try to confuse you
about the time and everything else, and to implicate you to scare
you and get you on his side…” The conversation is damning, if not
in any direct confessional sense, in its contextual impact.
All this investigative was taking time – 4 years by then – and it
meant working with Damien’s legal team (they were working
exclusively with Echols’ team - the other two defendants had
their own legal teams.), who had to be convinced that “we didn’t
want to exploit the situation, that we weren’t there to make a
movie.” And at the time, they weren’t.
That came when they hit the brick wall of Arkansas justice. “It
was late in 2008 when Damien had his last real chance in the
Arkansas court to get an evidentiary hearing so we could present
the new evidence we had gathered, including the DNA material
which was critical and the evidence that negated the
prosecution’s emotive but nonsensical argument about Satan’s
role. It was to have been the last step before a retrial.”
The hearing was back before Judge Burnett, the same judge who
tried the case and who again showed less than judicial fairness.
“We felt he’d want to preserve his own judgement …” and sure
enough, Burnett dismissed everything put forward with an
irritable wave of his judicial hand as if to say why are you
wasting my time. “He was trying to get Damien killed,” says
Jackson, “and it made us angry. It was a helpless situation and
that’s when we thought we should make a documentary where we can
present all this evidence.”
Echols’ legal team reluctantly agreed – subject to strict
guidelines, including the timing of the film’s release.
"We now needed a filmmaker who
could devote the time and had the ability to make the
film"
“We now needed a filmmaker who could devote the time and had
the ability to make the film,” says Jackson, and they thought of
Amy Berg, who made Deliver Us From Evil (2006), exploring
priestly abuse of children. “We felt she wouldn’t be intimidated…
so we rang her and she flew to New Zealand and it took a while
before she felt confident she could do it. It was after she got
people to talk who had never spoken to investigators before that
the legal team gave her their full confidence.”
Berg was in final stages of post production, editing together her
own footage with archival material, when the office got a call
“about the possibility of Damien’s release,” Jackson recalls.
This was when his team recommended the unusual Alford plea. “Amy
jumped on a plane and got a crew to shoot what became the last 20
minutes of the film.”
Damien’s life had been saved, “but the result made nobody happy,”
says Jackson. And he’s still pursuing the goal of having Damien
Echols proclaimed innocent. “We’ve got private investigators
working on it continuously.”
Published February 14, 2013
 |
 |
|
Email this article
 Peter Jackson
REVIEW

Peter Jackson and Amy Berg

Lorri Davis & Damien Echols
|