Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills

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.

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.

Despite all the praise this documentary has received, I did not find it very moving at all. Granted, it was a horrible crime, and the footage of the three young victims' bodies was shocking and almost unwatchable. But most of this film serves only to expose the extreme incompetence of everyone involved in the case. With regard to the wrongly(?) accused boys -- never have I seen three innocent people put up such a weak, pathetic fight for their innocence. Most of the time, they stare doe-eyed and slack-jawed in front of the camera, seemingly uninterested in their own fates. Sure, these boys were only 16-17 years old and very scared, but they seem to have no intuition for survival whatsoever in this life-or-death situation. Any realistic grasp of the situation eludes these boys completely -- they behave almost as if they're playing a part in a movie. It is quite possible, and perhaps even probable, that they are indeed innocent, but they themselves do not seem to care, and so dear viewer, why should you? The overwhelming impression I get from these boys is that they lead very boring lives in a very stagnant town, and they know that this whole case is the most exciting thing that will ever happen to them. They seem interested not in the issue of their guilt or innocence, but rather in the surreal quality of their quasi-celebrity (in the end, Damien waxes romantic over the notion that his name will become famous in West Memphis as a synonym for "bogeyman", scaring generations of children to come). They are genuinely pleased with all of the attention they're receiving -- not that they have much to say, but they're just happy that someone is asking.

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.

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.