Devil's Knot_ The True Story of the West Memphis Three - Mara Leveritt [213]
325. Specifically, the court wrote that “Dr. Griffis had much more than ordinary knowledge of nontraditional groups, the occult and Satanism”; that testimony about the “trappings of occultism” was proper because it “admitted the evidence as proof of the motive for committing the murders”; that the dog’s skull, posters, and books had been “relevant to show motive”; and that Driver’s testimony was relevant because “the trial court ruled that the murders could have been committed with staffs and that they could have been occult murders.”
326. The justices explained that the lawyers had not demonstrated in their appeals that the defendants had been “prejudiced in any matter by the state’s failure to pay.”
327. Janet Maslin wrote in theNew York Times that the filmmakers captured “the orgy of emotion and prejudice” the case stirred in West Memphis, and the town’s “tattered social fabric.” A reviewer forEntertainment Weekly noted that the case’s “shivery ambiguities” inspired “a gripping sense of moral vertigo.” Gene Siskel describedParadise Lost as “an aching portrait of a small town with small minds and broken hearts.” Other reviewers thought the film portrayed mass hysteria or “satanic panic.” In a review in theLos Angeles Times, writer Howard Rosenberg quoted Berlinger’s recollection of his first sight of the defendants. “The portrait of them was so black, so monstrous, that we bought into the stereotype,” Berlinger told the reviewer. “And when we first saw Damien turn to us and the rest of the press in the courtroom, there was a chill, as if he was Hannibal Lecter. While we were down there, there was never a voice in the dark saying these kids didn’t do it.” Rosenberg said the film explored “the impact of deadly stereotypes.” By the end of 1997,Paradise Lost had won a dozen awards, including an Emmy, a Best Documentary award from the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, and a Silver Gavel Certificate of Merit from the American Bar Association.
328. Lisa Fancher, one of the Web site’s early supporters, said she hated the documentary. “I can almost demarcate my life into “before PL” and “after PL,” she wrote. “Before, I had my eyes closed, and I guess I was happy that way.” She considered the film’s account of the trials to be “the most sickening, outrageous, scurrilous, cruel thing ever to be perpetrated on three goofy teens.” Like hundreds of others who contacted the site, she said she wanted to right the wrong.
329. Max Schaefer, a college student who had also become intrigued by the case, designed and maintained the site in its early days.
330. “We’re not about raising money,” Pashley said in a 1998 interview that was published on the site. “We’re about raising awareness. But it takes money to raise awareness.”
331. By 1998, that archive had become the most extensive resource of its kind on the Internet relating to a single case. It was all the more unique for having been created and funded entirely through the efforts of lay volunteers. Visitors were advised that the site was maintained by three individuals who had “no involvement with law enforcement or the justice system.” Sauls, Bakken, and Pashley asked readers to regard it as “a storage space” for information and opinions. Never claiming that the site was neutral, they announced their belief that the three young men in prison were innocent and their purpose of mobilizing whatever public action might lead to them being freed. They declared, “Our primary goal is justice, and our method of reaching this goal is publicity. We want the state of Arkansas to know that the world is watching.” Visitors to the site could read large chunks of the trial transcripts. They could peruse a lengthy examination of the Arkansas Medical Examiner’s Office, which, at the time