Innocent Victims

The actual events of this crime film are very well documented, and the actors, (Rick Schroeder, Rue McLenahan, Hal Holbrook,) are entirely believable in their characters. The miscarriage of justice that transpired,here, is only more horrifying when you realize that other "rush-to-judgment" convictions are still occurring. The fact that the final scenes and updates do not complete the story, leaves one unsatisfied, and wondering why more has not been pursued.Current forensic and technological advances, (as well as legal and courtroom proscriptions) might never have caused this case to advance as it did.This cold case should definitely be re-examined in light of today's knowledge.

At first I thought this was yet another boring movie about a trial. The first part of the movie seemed very unrealistic, and I almost switched off my television. Despite the unrealistic nature of the story the acting was actually very good...and after a while I began to like this movie. It was actually more original than other courthouse movies. But what really amazed me was that the movie has actually been based on a true story! Now, I don't want to offend any person, but if what happens in this movie is really possible in the US, I can't have much faith in its justice system.

"Innocent Victims" is riveting in its dramatization of a real-life murder mystery that, through the years, has only deepened. In 1985, a young mother, whose last name was Eastburn, and two of her three young daughters were brutally attacked and killed by person or persons unknown. The murders occurred in the young woman's home near Fort Bragg, North Carolina. A twenty-something soldier, named Tim Hennis was charged. The plot carries us from the point in time when the victims were found by a neighbor, all the way through the court trial of Hennis, and even further, when the case takes a bizarre twist.

The book on which the script is based does convey an unmistakable point of view. And that point of view may, or may not, be justifiable. Some of the court evidence and testimony may, or may not, be relevant. The only certainty about this case is its ambivalence, amplified by razor-sharp and profuse detail that comprise the film's three-hour runtime.

This is a TV-movie, and it shows. Plot breaks occur where TV commercials were inserted. Background music sounds canned and nondescript, suitable as elevator music. But the acting is generally credible. Tom Irwin gives a convincing performance as the senior lawyer for Hennis. John P. Connolly also adds credibility as a good-old-boy private investigator. The main problem here is the casting of baby-faced Rick Schroder as a too-youthful lawyer, who requires reading glasses. Cinematography is conventional and unobtrusive.

Most real-life murder cases are solved fairly easily. This one is altogether different. "Innocent Victims" is mesmerizing as a 1990s interpretation of a decade-old crime. Yet, the film carries even more dramatic weight because of its unforeseen irony.

In 2010, fourteen years after this film was shown, and 25 years after the crime, the case was re-opened. The new outcome is one that confounds and re-twists previous resolutions. The Eastburn murder case of 1985 seemingly is ongoing, unending.

Depending on how the current phase plays out, the 1985 crime may eventually rival The Black Dahlia murder case in ambiguity and lack of resolution. For viewers with an interest in true crime, "Innocent Victims" is a good place to begin a study of this most fascinating case.

"Innocent Victims" is the story of what happens what the police decide on a suspect and set out to nail that particular suspect, becoming blind to any evidence that would raise doubt. For those who don't believe this can happen in the U.S., guess again - we just saw it in the Duke University case. Did the same thing happen in this case? It's up to you.

The young man here, Tim Hennis, is well played by a blond John Corbett as a man questioned and finally arrested for brutal murder of a woman and her two small children. He insists on his innocence, and his parents go to great lengths, including selling their home, and his father retiring early and getting only a partial pension, to help him prove it. When he is convicted and lands on Death Row, efforts are redoubled by his attorneys to get him a new trial and to find the real killer. This was a sensational case that resulted in a book and this TV movie.

One thing pointed up here is that the defendant agreed to be questioned by the police and submit to DNA testing without an attorney present. I think from seeing the film, people realize that it doesn't matter whether or not you are innocent of the crime, you should never, ever talk to the police without a lawyer, no matter what they tell you. They told this guy he wasn't a suspect and just wanted to talk to him. My sister works for the public defender. She says, don't fall for it. I know many people assume that if you bring a lawyer, you have nothing to hide, but that isn't true. A lawyer is there to protect your rights.

Hal Holbrook and Rue McClanahan are excellent as Tim's devoted parents, and Rick Shroeder does a terrific job as one of the lawyers trying to prove that Tim is not guilty. All of the acting is good. It's difficult for me to see lawyers depicted in such a positive light - I had a lawyer for something who did nothing and collected a fortune from me. Someone posted that they have a hard time believing this could happen in America; I have a hard time believing lawyers like this exist.

There is a fascinating update on this case if you go to google.com and put "Tim Hennis" "update" in the search box. The link was too long, and IMDb would not allow it.

Whenever I see a "based on a true story", I know that liberties will be taken with the facts, to fit the agenda of the film maker. For instance, "Voices from the grave" was a good movie, but if you've ever seen the documentary it was based on, the disclaimer should read." loosely based on actual events".

It's hard to believe a polygraph was never suggested here. And the fact that no one was ever convicted for the crime, usually means they had the right suspect to begin with. Just remember when you're watching a "true court drama", most of the time, you won't get all the facts. Chances are, this guy WAS guilty.