Shocking, powerful, bizarre. This remarkable documentary by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky which chronicles the murders and subsequent trials of three 8 year old boys may leave you buzzing for days pondering what may or may not have happened.
The film takes place in the small Southern town of West Memphis Arkansas. There's an abundance of churches, the townspeople speak with thick southern drawls, and routinely answer questions with a brisk 'yessir'. The town is rocked one day in early May of 1993 when the slain naked bodies of three 2nd grade boys are found in a wooded area known as Robin Hood Woods. No one knows who did it, but an 18 year old outsider, Damien Echols, who has a penchant for wearing and dying his hair black as well listening to heavy metal music is brought in for questioning. It is not until a month later that a friend of Echols, Jessie Miskelly Jr. is also questioned which leads to a confession that Echols and another, Jason Baldwin, carried out the murders while Miskelly himself helped subdue one of the victims who tried to escape.
The three teens are quickly arrested and the townspeople, especially the parents of the victims, are convinced of the three teens' guilt. Nevermind that the lone confessor has a low IQ and may have been forced into confession or that there is a complete lack of physical evidence. Justice will now be served, either by the court system or if need be, by they, the parents themselves.
The prevailing sentiment here seems to be that, yes, the three teens have been falsely accused, and that the real killer may be the stepfather of one of the victims, one John Mark Byers. Byers is shown repeatedly throughout the film either quoting from the bible, chastising the devil,or hellbent on justice. But when he gives the filmmakers of the film a knife as a gift, a shadow of suspicion is cast over him, particularly since there is evidence of blood on it.
I however have to say that the three suspects may not be so entirely innocent. The first thing of course is Jessie's confession. Now I know Jessie has an IQ of 72, and the record of his police interrogation is incomplete, but that IS his voice on that tape confessing that he was there and saw Damien and Jason attacking the boys. His lawyer wants to argue that all this was coerced, that Jessie was led throughout this entire confession. But I don't know that. Jessie never gets on the stand to testify. All I see from him during the whole trial is his head down in apparent shame, the way a dog does when it knows its done something terribly wrong.
Add to this that one of the police interrogators, Bryn Ridge, testifies that Jessie indicated he had attended Satanic ritualistic meetings with Echols and Baldwin where animals were sacrificed. I don't see any cross examination refuting that, and that's some pretty damaging evidence going on prior to the killings.
Jesssie is subsequently found guilty and sentenced to life plus 40 years. He offers no real response to the guilty verdict and is whisked away in a police car. A mother of one of the victims vows to mail him a skirt for his new home in prison, and angrily hopes he gets what's coming to him.
A month later, Echols and Baldwin are tried for their part in the murders. Although Jessie is offered a reduced sentence if he testifies against the boys, he refuses to do so, apparently unwilling to lie in court in front of his stepmother. The prosecution doesn't have a whole lot to go on, but it seems that Miskelly's guilty verdict in itself is enough evidence against both.
There are few things during this segment that points to the guilt of these two. When Jason Baldwin is asked what he would say to the families of the victims who thinks he did this, Baldwin stares at the floor in a loss for words, finally saying "I don't know". An innocent kid might have said he felt bad...but had nothing to do with it.
Then there is the damaging testimony from a Michael Roy Carson who indicates Baldwin confessed the crime in detail to him while they were in the juvenile detention center. Carson says that Baldwin told him he "cut the boys penis off, sucked the blood, and put the balls in his mouth". Shocking and believable testimony. The cross examination from Baldwin's attorney is weak. Later we see a meeting with these lawyers discussing how they could discredit Carson's testimony, but it seems confusing and vague and never comes to light in court anyway.
During his closing statement, the lawyer for Baldwin, Paul Ford argues that there's no physical evidence linking Baldwin to the crime, and that guilt by association is a horrible thing. He seems to be conceding that Echols actually did it, but Baldwin wasn't there. It's a weak argument. Everyone knows that Miskelly pointed to all three being there, and that Baldwin and Echols were always locked at the hip. Even still, there's no physical evidence linking Echols to the scene either.
And what about that John Mark Byers anyway. While he's the type of guy I wouldn't want to be sitting next to in a bar after he's had a couple glasses of whiskey, he can't be that DUMB to have handed over the actual murder to anyone. Particularly to the filmmakers documenting the whole story in the first place.
I think that the boys did it, but never really had a grasp of what they were getting themselves into. It's a stunning portrait of a small town America caught up in a tragic situation not knowing how to react except upon instinct.
The film takes place in the small Southern town of West Memphis Arkansas. There's an abundance of churches, the townspeople speak with thick southern drawls, and routinely answer questions with a brisk 'yessir'. The town is rocked one day in early May of 1993 when the slain naked bodies of three 2nd grade boys are found in a wooded area known as Robin Hood Woods. No one knows who did it, but an 18 year old outsider, Damien Echols, who has a penchant for wearing and dying his hair black as well listening to heavy metal music is brought in for questioning. It is not until a month later that a friend of Echols, Jessie Miskelly Jr. is also questioned which leads to a confession that Echols and another, Jason Baldwin, carried out the murders while Miskelly himself helped subdue one of the victims who tried to escape.
The three teens are quickly arrested and the townspeople, especially the parents of the victims, are convinced of the three teens' guilt. Nevermind that the lone confessor has a low IQ and may have been forced into confession or that there is a complete lack of physical evidence. Justice will now be served, either by the court system or if need be, by they, the parents themselves.
The prevailing sentiment here seems to be that, yes, the three teens have been falsely accused, and that the real killer may be the stepfather of one of the victims, one John Mark Byers. Byers is shown repeatedly throughout the film either quoting from the bible, chastising the devil,or hellbent on justice. But when he gives the filmmakers of the film a knife as a gift, a shadow of suspicion is cast over him, particularly since there is evidence of blood on it.
I however have to say that the three suspects may not be so entirely innocent. The first thing of course is Jessie's confession. Now I know Jessie has an IQ of 72, and the record of his police interrogation is incomplete, but that IS his voice on that tape confessing that he was there and saw Damien and Jason attacking the boys. His lawyer wants to argue that all this was coerced, that Jessie was led throughout this entire confession. But I don't know that. Jessie never gets on the stand to testify. All I see from him during the whole trial is his head down in apparent shame, the way a dog does when it knows its done something terribly wrong.
Add to this that one of the police interrogators, Bryn Ridge, testifies that Jessie indicated he had attended Satanic ritualistic meetings with Echols and Baldwin where animals were sacrificed. I don't see any cross examination refuting that, and that's some pretty damaging evidence going on prior to the killings.
Jesssie is subsequently found guilty and sentenced to life plus 40 years. He offers no real response to the guilty verdict and is whisked away in a police car. A mother of one of the victims vows to mail him a skirt for his new home in prison, and angrily hopes he gets what's coming to him.
A month later, Echols and Baldwin are tried for their part in the murders. Although Jessie is offered a reduced sentence if he testifies against the boys, he refuses to do so, apparently unwilling to lie in court in front of his stepmother. The prosecution doesn't have a whole lot to go on, but it seems that Miskelly's guilty verdict in itself is enough evidence against both.
There are few things during this segment that points to the guilt of these two. When Jason Baldwin is asked what he would say to the families of the victims who thinks he did this, Baldwin stares at the floor in a loss for words, finally saying "I don't know". An innocent kid might have said he felt bad...but had nothing to do with it.
Then there is the damaging testimony from a Michael Roy Carson who indicates Baldwin confessed the crime in detail to him while they were in the juvenile detention center. Carson says that Baldwin told him he "cut the boys penis off, sucked the blood, and put the balls in his mouth". Shocking and believable testimony. The cross examination from Baldwin's attorney is weak. Later we see a meeting with these lawyers discussing how they could discredit Carson's testimony, but it seems confusing and vague and never comes to light in court anyway.
During his closing statement, the lawyer for Baldwin, Paul Ford argues that there's no physical evidence linking Baldwin to the crime, and that guilt by association is a horrible thing. He seems to be conceding that Echols actually did it, but Baldwin wasn't there. It's a weak argument. Everyone knows that Miskelly pointed to all three being there, and that Baldwin and Echols were always locked at the hip. Even still, there's no physical evidence linking Echols to the scene either.
And what about that John Mark Byers anyway. While he's the type of guy I wouldn't want to be sitting next to in a bar after he's had a couple glasses of whiskey, he can't be that DUMB to have handed over the actual murder to anyone. Particularly to the filmmakers documenting the whole story in the first place.
I think that the boys did it, but never really had a grasp of what they were getting themselves into. It's a stunning portrait of a small town America caught up in a tragic situation not knowing how to react except upon instinct.