samb8 My first thought after viewing this documentary was how could three innocent youths be charged/convicted/sentenced to this crime based on the post trial evidence I'm viewing? It's really tragic if these three are innocent. But what if the guy who directed this film, the clear leader of the three, actually duped the justice system. He befriended two boys who are clearly less intelligent, and appear to be very manipulative. When he's being interviewed in prison, he expresses his interest in magic and his desire to be considered the best at this craft. He finds a young women in whom he bears his soul and they connect. Over time he gets some influential people in his corner. Serious doubts based on lack of evidence, specifically DNA, plus some focus now on Hobbs, the stepfather who's at the very least abusing his step children. The bodies of the boys are found in the water perhaps damaging the chance for some/any DNA recovery from the actual perp(s)sans the hair from Hobbs. But since Stevie lived with Hobbs it is possible a transfer occurred not related to the crime. Hobbs would be an easy target to manipulate, he's unable to answer some of questions with a logical answer even if it were a lie. Damien Echols is an odd character in my opinion, capable of manipulating the other two boys easily. Capable of creating the illusion of innocence with the people that got involved on his behalf. Did a guilty man actually get himself off death row by creating the illusion of misjustice? Quite a magic trick, among the best if he did.

henxan I accidentally happened upon this documentary, and I have to say, I am not very fond of documentaries because - if good - they really mess me up. This was one of them, the prime example.One thing has to be said right at the start of my review: I do not know if these men (young men/boys at the time of the crime) are guilty. And that is the entire point of me writing this review - because nobody else have pointed it out explicitly. This movie is about someone being found guilty NOT beyond reasonable doubt, and that is the main pillar of our western judicial system.The reason this film resonates so strongly with me, is that at the same time this crime was committed in the US, a child molestation case exploded in Norway (where I am from). The case was littered with media personalities advocating for hard justice, with inflated charges and extremely bad police-work. If it were not for these similarities with the West Memphis Three case, I may have dismissed this documentary as an art director "gone wild." It is beyond all doubt, that innocent people will be held accountable for crimes which they have not committed - easily deduced from off-the- head statistics. But the strength of our western judicial system, is that one can only be sentenced guilty, when it is beyond every reasonable doubt. In this documentary we are presented with a case in which reasonable doubt is sacrificed on the altar of public opinion and preconceived notions. As I said earlier in this review, I do not know if these three men were guilty of the crimes to which they were sentenced - but I do recognize a perversion of justice and a sentence made on weak evidence. Amid all the turmoil which the accused are put through, this documentary still manages to portray the pain and anguish the victims families have to go through, and present it in a dignified manner.For me, this was a documentary true to its genre, because it was no winners, only losers, and as a viewer you feel like one.

mjcmike1 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.

MattJJW 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.