Scan barcode
Reviews tagging 'Injury/Injury detail'
Devil's Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three by Mara Leveritt
2 reviews
punisher's review
dark
sad
medium-paced
2.0
"one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in American legal history" but there's a nuance
Despite the author stating in the very beginning that this book is her attempt to present an unbiased account of the brutal triple murders and the subsequent trials which occured in her homestate, it is, just as most information on this case, anything but impartial and is heavily skewed towards the WM3's innocence.
However, I will give her credit for not completely glossing over some of the facts of the case which are often purposefully omitted by other supporters: Echols' extensive violent and mental health history, Misskelley's initial voluntary confession to a friend, some of the physical evidence, as well as the circumstantial one (albeit heavily debated, yes, but evidence nonetheless).
What I wish she had elaborated on more in the afterword is the bizarre circumstances under which the Alford plea was taken.
Why after finally getting the go-ahead to retest some of the DNA evidence in spring 2011, did the defense go through with the retests, and after obtaining the results of said retests in late July 2011, immediately approched the prosecution with an offer to skip the evidentiary hearing (set to late 2011) altogether and proceed directly with the retrial. Why after the prosectution denied the request, did the legal team propose the plea, therefore not having to disclose the results to the prosecution, the general public or the victims' families (as per Todd Moore, Michael Moore's father, in 'Abomination: Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders')? They had been pushing for a new trial for nearly two decades, so why take an easy way out now when they're so close to getting it? Why pass up on the first real opportunity to, in their own words, "clear their names" once and for all? What was in those test results that they didn't want anyone to know about?
If you've never heard of this case, this book is still a better place to start than the Paradise Lost documentaries (speaking of which - around the 840-minute mark in the audiobook, Leveritt states that in 1997, Pam Hobbs, Stevie Branch's mother, lost the lawsuit against the Paradise Lost filmmakers for "breaching an agreement not to show graphic material in the film", which boggles my mind almost as much as the fact that the filmmakers in question thought it was a good idea to include the autopsy and crime scene photos and videos of three little boys which should never have been seen by anyone except for the law enforcement, the victims' families if they so chose to, and the individuals present at the trials, for the whole world to see). But if you're somewhat familiar with the details of the case, you will get more out of reading the court files for yourself (all of which are readily available online), and drawing your own conclusions.
Did the police do a shoddy job of investigating the murders? Yes. Did the prosecution drop the ball by pushing the satanic panic narrative and, with the aid of PL and HBO, turn the trials into a media circus? Undoubtedly. Is there enough physical evidence to definitively say who did it? Not really, which is sadly why this case is unlikely to ever truly be solved. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but at the end of the day, no amount of 400-page books, two-and-a-half-hour documentaries and ill-informed celebrities (some of which include an "alleged" wife beater Johnny Depp and an "alleged" abuser Marilyn Manson - and you know what they say about birds of a feather) can make me personally sympathize with, let alone die on the hill of innocence of at the very least an animal abuser, and at worst a brutal murderer of three little kids.
Despite the author stating in the very beginning that this book is her attempt to present an unbiased account of the brutal triple murders and the subsequent trials which occured in her homestate, it is, just as most information on this case, anything but impartial and is heavily skewed towards the WM3's innocence.
However, I will give her credit for not completely glossing over some of the facts of the case which are often purposefully omitted by other supporters: Echols' extensive violent and mental health history, Misskelley's initial voluntary confession to a friend, some of the physical evidence, as well as the circumstantial one (albeit heavily debated, yes, but evidence nonetheless).
What I wish she had elaborated on more in the afterword is the bizarre circumstances under which the Alford plea was taken.
Why after finally getting the go-ahead to retest some of the DNA evidence in spring 2011, did the defense go through with the retests, and after obtaining the results of said retests in late July 2011, immediately approched the prosecution with an offer to skip the evidentiary hearing (set to late 2011) altogether and proceed directly with the retrial. Why after the prosectution denied the request, did the legal team propose the plea, therefore not having to disclose the results to the prosecution, the general public or the victims' families (as per Todd Moore, Michael Moore's father, in 'Abomination: Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders')? They had been pushing for a new trial for nearly two decades, so why take an easy way out now when they're so close to getting it? Why pass up on the first real opportunity to, in their own words, "clear their names" once and for all? What was in those test results that they didn't want anyone to know about?
If you've never heard of this case, this book is still a better place to start than the Paradise Lost documentaries (speaking of which - around the 840-minute mark in the audiobook, Leveritt states that in 1997, Pam Hobbs, Stevie Branch's mother, lost the lawsuit against the Paradise Lost filmmakers for "breaching an agreement not to show graphic material in the film", which boggles my mind almost as much as the fact that the filmmakers in question thought it was a good idea to include the autopsy and crime scene photos and videos of three little boys which should never have been seen by anyone except for the law enforcement, the victims' families if they so chose to, and the individuals present at the trials, for the whole world to see). But if you're somewhat familiar with the details of the case, you will get more out of reading the court files for yourself (all of which are readily available online), and drawing your own conclusions.
Did the police do a shoddy job of investigating the murders? Yes. Did the prosecution drop the ball by pushing the satanic panic narrative and, with the aid of PL and HBO, turn the trials into a media circus? Undoubtedly. Is there enough physical evidence to definitively say who did it? Not really, which is sadly why this case is unlikely to ever truly be solved. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but at the end of the day, no amount of 400-page books, two-and-a-half-hour documentaries and ill-informed celebrities (some of which include an "alleged" wife beater Johnny Depp and an "alleged" abuser Marilyn Manson - and you know what they say about birds of a feather) can make me personally sympathize with, let alone die on the hill of innocence of at the very least an animal abuser, and at worst a brutal murderer of three little kids.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence, Injury/Injury detail, and Child death
tonton2612's review
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Grief, Mental illness, Murder, Self harm, Injury/Injury detail, Child abuse, Child death, Physical abuse, and Violence
More...