West of Memphis (2012)

Good start, but then it gets ruined

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

It is an Infamous Case. Three Young Boys were Found Bound and Mutilated in a Stream. The Police, Prosecution, and the Community Zoomed in on Three Teenagers who were known Misfits, liked Heavy Metal Music, and were doing "Odd Things" and had a Fascination with the Occult. Since the Murdered Kids showed Signs of Genital Trauma it was Assumed that this was a "Satanic" Ritual. All Three were Found Guilty and One got the Death Sentence.This Film Focuses on the Weak Case, with No Physical Evidence and Witness Testimony that was Later Recanted to Shine some Light on a Probable Injustice, Suspect Police Procedures, and Perhaps Corruption, or at Least Prejudice in the Judicial System.A Detailed and Zealous Investigation, the Film also Points a Finger at a Suspect, one of the Boys Stepfathers and goes to some Length to Dissect His Personality and Leans Toward His Possible Guilt. There are by now, other Documentaries on the Case and a Hollywood Drama Based on a Non-Fiction Book, "Devil's Knot"(2013). This Documentary does, among other things, makes it Clear that the Judicial System, at Least in Arkansas, is Fatally Flawed and Indirectly Adds Weight to Death Penalty Abolitionists. More Extensive Accounts are on the Internet for Anyone to find more details on this Sensational Story, the Documentaries, and the Individuals Involved on All Sides of this Case. Just Search...The West Memphis Three and the Results will be Enormous.This is just a Capsuled Review of this Film and is Short compared to the Gargantuan Amount of Information that is Available. For more, like the Names of the People Involved and the Minutia of the Case, Look Beyond this Review. But be Advised, there are No Easy Answers and be Prepared for an Avalanche of Conflicting and Confusing Facts, Rumors, Innuendos, and Evidence.This Documentary is Good a Place to Start or End any Inquiry.

I generally am a pretty liberal guy and do root or the underdog and downtrodden more than the average person. This film almost sucked me in to believing their slanted view of the innocence of the West Memphis Three. Almost. As I watched the film, I began to have more and more doubts of their innocence as the film progressed. I found the attitudes and body language of the WM3 to show their guilt during the original trial in 1993-94. I mean if you were tried under false pretenses, wouldn't you be a little upset and vengeful, especially after being let out 18 years later? I also found Lorri Davis rather odd and in love with Damien, which is basically what drove her to get them out of jail. Her on screen appearance was bizarre and disturbing. This film doesn't provide a broad scope of evidence and instead provides only what it needs to get it's point across. It's a fact that 4 out of the six parents still believe that the WM3 are guilty. If you really want a clear picture of what happened, check out this site.http://thewm3revelations.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/a-question-of-dna/ They stretch they make as naming Terry Hobbs as guilty is just that. Quite a stretch. Yes Terry seems like a rough guy and probably guilty of being a weirdo but the confessions of Misskelley are in now way coerced or being led by the police at any point.Basically of bunch of people got together and let out 3 murdering sociopaths. Watch the documentary, and do your research and I would imagine anyone with common sense would agree. Very interesting and worth the time to watch but ultimately a biased slanted film.

Reading the comments about this documentary I learnt that there had been other films on this subject as part of the decades of trying to overturn the original convictions; this was news to me but, in all honesty, the case itself was news to me as I had never heard of these murders or the wider story. Perhaps I am under a rock but I am not sure how well known this all is outside of the US. Anyways, the film opens in such a way that is a little hard to follow. The murders themselves are clearly presented but a lot of characters and history is delivered and at times I was not wholly sure when certain video clips were from and I felt that it put me off balance a little in terms of context of what was being said. This was a minor problem and gradually I got out of it as the bigger story was made clear.This moved forward well and the film patiently reveals one after another example of bad practice, straight-up deception or implication of misconduct all of which presents a terrible miscarriage of justice. It adds to this by exploring other paths and presenting new evidence in the film – statements, DNA etc, all of which seem to point very clearly to a man who was prone to erratic violence towards one of the boys who was killed. This is hard to watch because it seems so clear while these three sit behind bars. The film doesn't offer justice though – only freedom, and in a way this is both a hard end to the film but also a very apt one because it highlights yet another nonsense. I really didn't see much difference between the original coerced confession and the pleas of "guilty" which are obtained by dangling freedom in front of the three men; to me it sat very badly and it angered me to see the elected official saying this plea had saved the State money by preventing the three from suing. So, even in their freedom they are robbed of what they should have been entitled to – and this guy says it like it is a positive outcome.I didn't know anything about this story when I started the film but it did the job very well of giving me a complex background, getting me up to speed and then delivering a lot of information on the way to the conclusion. The conclusion is that justice wasn't done and continues not to be done even while those in charge talk about how this gives closure to the families etc. Really hard to watch the film without getting angry, and this is to the film's credit.

In 1993 three young boys are found in a ditch, bound and mutilated. The local police, desperate for a conviction, make a connection between the marks on the dead children's bodies and Satanic rituals. Before long suspicion falls on three local teenagers, and in particular, Damien Echols, who with his died black hair, stands out from the rest of the community. At the 1993 trial, evidence of Echols interest with Satanic symbols surfaces, which, along with a confession from Jessie Misskelley, is enough to convict all three, and in Damien's case, bring a death sentence.Over the following 15 years, doubt over the convictions grows, and fanned by several celebrities taking up the cause (Eddie Vedder, Jonny Depp among them), eventually force the Arkansas state to re-look at the case.This documentary, produced by Peter Jackson, and directed by Amy Berg, is more than just a skillful re-telling of the story, from the original trial through to the eventual final judgement. Far from just reporting the defence campaign, the film-makers get involved in the campaign, helping organise DNA analysis, and setting-up a strong case against another member of the family for the killings.The film gradually dismantles the original prosecution case, pointing out the lack of the teenagers DNA evidence at the crime scene, explaining that far from sexual mutilation, the dead children's injuries were actually post mortem, from snapper turtles, living in the creek. In the final third of the film, having done a convincing job of un-picking the evidence, the film makers pull out a final card. Using new DNA techniques, they test the single strand of hair found in the shoelaces used to tie up one of the victims. It's found to belong to one of the dead children's step father's, Terry Hobbs. The film then focuses on Hobbs, using interviews with his estranged wife and family to accuse him of being a child sex abuser, one with a violent temper, and jealous of the attention his step-son was receiving from his partner.Eventually, in 2012, the District Attorney strikes a deal, that grants the convicted teenagers freedom, in return for their guilty plea, thereby avoiding a costly re-trial and compensation. It's an un-satisfactory legal outcome, but one that Misskelley, Echols and Baldwin understandably elect to take-up, and finally secure their freedom after 15 years of incarceration.This is undoubtedly a very skillful documentary, which after a slow start, grows into a riveting story, with twists in the evidence and the legal process with up to the end. But it's a one sided affair, and the film-makers direct involvement with the campaign, muddies the waters, and asks the viewer to take their side.While probable that there was mis-carriage of justice, or at the very least, that the convictions were "unsafe and unsatisfactory", the film and the case leave significant ambiguity behind. Some of the parents of the dead children still firmly believe that the real killers were indeed the ones that were found guilty back in 1993, and Terry Hobb's is left with the finger of suspicion hanging over him, never to be proved or dis-proved for the rest of his life.