Innocent Victims

Yes, the movie is long, but it leaves nothing out. This poor family went through torture, it's worth the time to watch it. If you really think about a trial like this it would take many years, so how could they possibly end this movie in just an hour and a half. It's very realistic. This man's parents sold their home and practically their life to prove his innocents. I don't want to give anything away. Just either rent the movie or buy it, and get some popcorn, some soda and sit back and relax and enjoy this movie. Evidently is very hard to get another trial once you're on death row. Between his parents and the lawyers they never gave up.

This was the last of the great miniseries. And I had the privilege of watching it with the author. A little stressful, but on the money as far as telling the story of that horrendous crime -- and how the local police department got their sites set on one person and used only the evidence that could back up what they wanted. This has happened over and over again in our justice system, and it is the reason why the death penalty should not be in effect. Too often, the ones on death row are those who either don't have the money for a good lawyer (Hennis' parents took out a second mortgage on their home to pay for his) or are in the tunnel vision of the local police department.

"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.

So in the end ,years down the road his DNA matched the semen found in the victim and now he awaits his execution👍👍He was guilty after all and watching this after his conviction you can see how unfortunately he had everyone fooled but at least now he is paying for what he did to that poor woman and those two little girls.

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.