Opiniones de usuarios

The question at hand in the film Paradise Lost is not as much did these three teenagers commit this heinous act, but rather was there enough evidence to convict them for the murders. The answer, presented by material in the film, is an unflinching no. There was only speculation and rumor to convict the three.

The film's strengths are that it doesn't preach, at least not in an overly wrought narrative, and it contains intimate moments with the accused and their families as well as the families of the victims. Being a victim of a violent crime to something of this degree I understand the pain and confusion of the victim's families. What is hard to understand is the bloodlust and need for revenge and retribution that immediately takes hold of them. The victims' families are the most terrifying aspect of this film. At one point the mother of the Byrnes child says in a hateful and spiteful tone "I hate them... I hate them and the mother's that bore them."

Is there anything wrong with being hellishly angry with someone who has butchered your child? No, quite natural really. But the point of this film is that judgment was passed on these kids long before the trial even started. I imagine the Bible belt is a very scary place to be raised in... I'll have to ask Brad Pitt what he thinks about it some time.

On the issue of the prosecution. They had next to nothing. A very questionable confession from a terrified kid, Jessie, with a 72 IQ, hearsay from a couple of kids who claim they heard Damien bragging about the murder but have no proof, a knife found behind Damien's house which doesn't match the wounds on the bodies, and the assertion that because Damien read about Wicca, he must be a Satanist.

To look at the three kids is also an interesting aspect of the film. Jessie, a very small and slow kid seems a bit lost in the world. His IQ is low but he has no previous records of any type of behavior that would associate him with murder. Jason speaks in short breathless words and seems also to suffer from a low IQ. Damien is the key to everything in this film though. The defense made the key mistake of letting Damien take the stand for two reasons. The first reason is that Damien appears to have ADD and after the first 10 minutes of questioning he sort of fades away and answers in bland yes and no's. The second reason, and the most important, is that Damien is obviously extremely bright. Normally this wouldn't seem to be a problem but judging from every single person the filmmakers put on camera, smart people are hard to come by in that area of the world. Damien scared them.

All of this adds up to the fact that there was not enough evidence to put these kids away and there were other, more sinister and shocking, suspects that needed to be pursued. The war rages on for the West Memphis Three and it is indeed frightening to think that they did it, and terrifying to think they didn't.

Powerful and thought provoking look at American justice, and how we treat those who are outsiders or 'different'.

When three very young boys are found brutally murdered, and mutilated the town of West Memphis demands retribution and closure, and so, after some fruitless weeks of police work, the suspects become three teen-age boys, who listened to heavy metal, and the oldest of whom dressed (somewhat) Goth and was interested in Wicca. A strong indictment of how, at least some of the time in our justice system 'guilty until proved innocent' is the rule.

That said, the film makes some serious miss-steps by not being clearer about some of the evidence it brings up, but never explores. For example, we're told early on by the filmmakers that all 3 boys had alibis for the night of the killing, yet we never hear about it again. Are their defense lawyers THAT bad, or were the alibis not solid? Two said they were home with their families, yet the families never mention being with them that night. Similarly, we are never told why the police picked up the first of the boys, a borderline mentally retarded kid, who clearly didn't know what was going on, for questioning. The implication was that the cops wanted an easy pliable target, but the issue is never explored either by the defense, or by the film-makers. In a 150 minute movie, there's no need for those kind of loose ends, leaving us to question whether we've seen a fair reporting of what went on, or if there really was more evidence against the kids than we're shown.

Still a powerful and important examination of how we often rush to judgment, socially and legally. Recent history has shown this is far from an isolated case - people are sent to prison, even death row on flimsy or incomplete evidence, and by playing on a juries fears far more often then we would all like to believe.

This film left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Not that it was gruesome -- it is, but I've done research involving reading coroner reports, so gruesome I can cope with. It was the unanswered questions and the unasked questions.

It seems so utterly implausible that a jury could have convicted any of the suspects that I wonder what the filmmakers did not show us. Specifically, I wonder about the fiber evidence, which was the only real physical evidence at all.

I could only rate this documentary a 7 out of 10 because of the unasked questions and the evidence we were not shown. I would like to have come away from watching Paradise Lost with a clearer understanding of what those jurors heard and saw that led them to their verdicts. Mind you, I don't think those boys did it -- I think that even fiber evidence could have been too flimsy to convict them. But I wish I had been left convinced.

I'll admit that I've never been too crazy about documentaries. For one thing, I think that they are generally biased and you are only seeing what the film-makers want you to see. Now, I watched Paradise Lost for several reasons. One, I've always been intrigued by peoples' ignorance and I'm still amazed at how quick they are to point a finger at something they know nothing about. Several years ago, I remember this story being all over the news, and the way it was presented then, it was very easy to believe that these three outcasts were the killers. I've been through West Memphis numerous times since the killings and I still get the chills everytime I pass by the Blue Beacon truckwash.

I sat down to this three hour film with a pretty open mind. While the film doesn't really answer any questions, it does bring a lot to mind and never takes sides on whether the boys did or didn't do it. That's what I admire about the film-makers. They managed to stay almost completely neutral, no matter what their feelings or opinions may have been on who the actual murderer(s) were.

Watching this movie is scary. I've polluted my mind over the years with just about every junk-horror movie that I could find and nothing has given me that icy feeling quite like this has. I've seen it three times now and it never loses its impact.

For those who don't know, here's the story: In West Memphis, three young children are found mutilated in a patch of woods just off the interstate. For no real reason whatsoever, three nonconformist teens are brought to trial, one of which has an I.Q. that is somewhere in the 70s. When he gives a very phony sounding confession, the trials begin with absolutely no other evidence to prove that the boys are guilty. Throughout the film, we meet each of the deceased boys parents, the defendents, and the defendents' families. Most angry of all are the parents of the Byers boy who was murdered. Now, before I get started on the step-father Mark Byers, I really want to say that I can totally empathize with the guy and his rage is completely understandable. However, what I really can't get past is the guy's bizarre behavior and the impression that he left me with. The guy takes up a lot of screen time. I know that the guy is a jeweler by trade and acting may not be his thing, but this is a DOCUMENTARY and while watching him, on more than several occasions I got a little confused. Yeah, the guy has some mental problems, he's on numerous medications, he's suffering from a brain tumor and he's going through some major grieving. But why does he act like he's been watching TOO much WWF? His lines are straight out of a BAD movie and if this is how the guy really is, I'm staying the hell out of this guy's way. Throughout the film there are several subtle (or not so subtle) indications that he may be a suspect. The fact that he gave one of the film-makers a bloody knife as a Christmas present more than proves that the guy is a little off his rocker. He even admitted to having beat the child the day that he was murdered.

Remember, there is absolutely NO physical evidence to pin on the accused and the only thing that got them there was a false confession given by a legally retarded teenager who had been interrogated for hours. Oh, and did I mention that his story KEPT changing? Listening to Jesse Misskelly, the time that the boys were murdered takes place all over the clock. Once, he states that the boys were murdered in the A.M. hours, then during broad daylight, then at night. I don't get it. It didn't matter to the jury. Two of the boys still got life sentences and the other (Damien Eckols) got the death sentence. His crime is that he had a fondness for wearing black, had a bad haircut, and a slight interest in Wicca...Not a whole lot different from myself. Anyway, there is also mention of another mysterious person who made an appearance in a Bojangles restaurant restroom, covered in blood. Oh yeah, that is another issue that is barely mentioned, and then dropped.

After seeing this movie, I was still terribly confused and my questions were still unanswered, but I guess that is the sign of a good documentary. I'm really glad that the film-makers stuck with the facts and never let their opions get in the way of making the film. The sequel is also very good, but still leaves nothing answered. Now, it's been several years since the first time I watched this but the boys are still in prison, still trying to get out. I reccomend this film to anyone who has ever been criticized for their appearance. It'll make you realize just how lucky you are, while questioning the justice system at the same time.

I always believed that a case needed only reasonable doubt to find people innocent. Apparently I was very wrong. I am in no way claiming my support for the three found guilty, but I for one could never convict them based on this evidence. The film shows just how unstable people can be when faced with those that don't conform. I was amazed by how much I disliked the parents of the murdered boys. They ramble and scream about killing these three, already convinced of their guilt. They seem more unstable and threatening to me, and not just because their children have been murdered. No real physical evidence is brought up against the boys, whom should probably start training professional killers on how not to leave evidence at a murder site. I know for a fact that a lot of details were left out of this documentary, and the celebrity worship that has followed the accused since is a bit too much. However this film is terrifying. It shows that just because of the way you look, and what people say about you, can take away your entire life. Make sure to check out all the evidence for yourself.

A horrific triple child murder leads to an indictment and trial of three nonconformist boys based on questionable evidence.

This film really paints a strong picture of the stereotypical backwoods Southerner. Were people picked for this purpose, or is this an accurate depiction of West Memphis? The religious views are very interesting, especially what people think devil worshipers do (and the fact they believe in literal devil worshipers).

You have to love the fake doctor who testifies that black t-shirts and black fingernails are signs of devil worship. Having grown up in the 1990s and being one of those who wore black, I know exactly what it is like to be a target of that level of ignorance.

This really brings the idea of "Christian forgiveness" to the forefront. Rather than forgive or turn the other cheek, these folks talk of revenge murder and defecating on graves. And they pass around rumors of "testicles in jars".

Were the West Memphis Three guilty? I have no idea. Probably not. But either way, this says so much about a community.

In 1993 West Memphis, Arkansas, three young boys Christopher Byers, Michael Moore and Stevie Branch are kidnapped and brutally murdered. Three teen outsiders Jessie Misskelley Jr., Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin are soon taken in as suspects in a supposed satanic sadosexual murder ritual. Despite questionable evidence and questionable police tactics, the three are convicted with Damien getting death by lethal injection.

Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky are functional documentarians. The film looks more like a TV news report from the 80s. It's gritty and raw. More than anything, it is the subject matter that is the most compelling. It's a fascinating case with exciting trial revelations and obvious injustice that is better than most fiction written in Hollywood.

my family wouldn't let me know much about the case because i was young when it happened....this movie let me know about everything they wouldn't tell me at the time...of course I'm older now and know ...but if it weren't for the movie at the time i would have been in the dark...i wouldn't have known what the killers looked like or anything....i haven't seen the second part yet, but i hope they never let him out like i hear he is trying to do....my memaw says he is trying to appeal....i hope they turn it down...steve was the same age as my brother....now i will never get to know him as well as i should have and he and my brother could have been close friends....

If you have ever doubted that there are some serious injustices in the political system, you must see this film. This is a documentary about three teenagers who are accused of being murderers simply because they aren't conformists. They are accused of murdering three innocent children, despite there being no evidence, no witness testimonies, and not a single shred of a motive, reason, or cause. The three teenagers who are convicted are Jessie Misskelly, Jr. who is a mentally impaired young man, Jason Baldwin, who is a thin, shy, and slightly underweight kid, and Damien Wayne Echols, who is into metal music, wears black, and is part of the Wiccian religion. There are the three children who are murdered, Christopher Byers, Steve Branch, and Michael Moore. The opening sequences depict the findings of the bodies in the woods. Christopher Byers looked to have been beaten to death after his genitals were mutilated. Steve Branch and Michael Moore were suffocated. There is not a single drop of blood at the murder scene despite the fact that Christopher would have bled profusely if his genitals were cut off, and yet everyone seems to be extremely convinced, for some reason, that the murder of Christopher occurred in the woods. It's possible that Michael and Steven were drowned nearby, but there doesn't appear to be any sign of a struggle. The parents of these innocent victims seem hellbent on insuring that Jessie, Jason, and Damien did it, despite there being nothing to even suggest. There are rumors of them being seen planning the murders, but those don't have any real backing. Meanwhile people make up stories about Satan worshiping and that the murder of these three boys involved some sort of sacrificial ceremony. You have got to be kidding! Why on earth would people believe this stuff!!! The town of West Memphis Arkansas is blinded by their religious faith that they aren't seeing things in a reasonable and more realistic light. This film contains footage of absolutely everything. Once you see it, you can decide for yourself if they did it or not, but I don't see any connection. Sorry.

A powerful and disturbing documentary that follows the three accused youths through the court process like no other doco I've seen. The questions and weight of the mystery involved with what actually happened is kinda mind blowing and keeps you guessing who's innocent and who's guilty. Filmed in the 90's it really captures the era before the wave of technological devices flooded our world. Personally, I'd hate to think the teens are guilty, or someone is still out there free to continue these horrendous acts, but who really knows the truth.

I thought they were all actors at first. The 1 mom of the dead child was laughing and giggling on camera. Then the stepdad Byers he reminded me of the bushwhackers from WWF. And they stated the 1 suspect had a mental handicap, but he read that card without an issue and talked about banging girlfriend constantly. Idk I don't get it, is Arkansas really like the wrong turn movies? Or was this just 1 of those towns that give people that hillbilly stereotype?

I watched this show and I am in disbelief that people actually believe these boys are innocent. It is a good show that showed to me how guilty these boys are and to be honest Damien Echols is a sick person that thinks if he sits and says (hey they needed someone to pin it on because we stood out)he will get the sympathy of people and as I can see it is working. This is something I would never wish on anybody and if it did happen to a family member of the people saying they are innocent nothing would sway the guilty verdict. Have some sympathy for the children not the monsters that got what they deserve. This show was good to show me how monsters come in many shapes and forms and I believe the sentencing was right. Remember the children Michael Moore, Steven Branch and Christopher Byers May they be Resting in Peace.

I've seen both documentaries about the Robin Hood Hills murders. I witnessed them first hand because I live in the city where those three little boys lost their lives. Only three people know what really happened on that fateful day: the victims.

Over the course of the past ten years, those self proclaimed innocent yet still in jail murderers have gained a lot as far as the lime light is concerned. What people fail to realize is that families were robbed of their children because of those three cowards. Miskelley

Echols and Baldwin permanently robbed the Byers, Branch and Moore families of watching their children grow up.

The film is basically a look into the lives of the detectives, families and police officers that were assigned the awful duty of finding out who committed the crimes. I believe that part of the film was done beautifully. One of the best parts of the movie was one of the little boy's fathers blasting pumpkins with a shotgun and claiming they were the heads of the ones in jail.

I Soapbar, Have seen the scariest, creepiest, and most controversial films ever, and still couldn't sleep the night after seeing this. Three boy's are brought in based on a flimsy confession by a boy with a mental disability, and although the boy changed his story, and there was hardly any evidence against the other two boys, they are still put to trial for captial murder. Intense, very intense. Frequently you change your mind about whose side your on, and what you think should happen, remind yourself, IT'S REAL, the footage is real, and the story is real. Those with weak stomachs beware, there is footage at the beginning of the dead second graders, bloodless, cut up bodies on the banks. This film should be remembered, it is truly a work of art.

Three blood-thirsty child murders have been sent free, thanks to this one-sided propaganda piece. The whole notion that these three were the victims of small-town prejudices is nonsense. These three were not convicted because they wore black, listened to Metallica, or read Stephen King novels. That is patently absurd and is a huge insult to people in small towns. Consider the following things that this documentary conveniently omits:

1) Jesse Misskelley did not have just one confession, in which he admitted to murdering those boys. He had a total of FIVE confessions!! Including a confession where his lawyer was present and advised him not to.

2) Damien was not simply a misunderstood outcast. He was certifiably mentally ill and had been in multiple psych wards prior to this incident. He was into animal torture, setting fires, drinking human blood and had talked about his desire to kill his parents. He was prone to hallucinations and often had extremely violent thoughts. One psych ward had labeled him as a psychotic and took precautions so that he wouldn't injure other patients. Incidents at the trial where qualified psychiatric professionals testified to his mental state were omitted from this farce of a documentary.

Please, I urge other readers to do further research into this matter. WM3truth.com is a good source to get started.