Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills (1996) User Reviews

A Modern Tragedy

[snakejenkins · 9/10 · 12 July 2002]

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.

Important and powerful documentary

[runamokprods · 8/10 · 23 June 2012]

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.

The Power of Suggestion

[Michael Fargo · 9/10 · 8 September 2011]

Throughout the course of this documentary (and the one that was compiled afterwards) we watch interviews where individuals are led to give a particular answer, either by another person, by an attorney during a trial, in conversations with media representatives or simply addressing the filmmakers' camera. Answers are always ones, the subject believes, what the listener wants to hear. It's true of the grief and rage expressed by the victims' families as well as the indignation and fear by friends and family members of those accused. No one seems authentic; everything appears calculated.

And that very phenomenon winds up convicting 3 young men of murder and in one instance to death row. We're not told what led investigators to interview a young man who winds up confessing—unconvincingly—to the crime and implicating two of his friends. But once investigators focus on these three young men, very few facts (some flimsy fiber evidence and a knife found in a pond in proximity to one of the accused which isn't even tied to the killings) stand in the way of their conviction.

While the cameras are rolling before the convictions, we can see that the accused stand very little chance of being acquitted. We don't see the jury nor are they interviewed, but there is so much hysteria within the community of West Memphis about the case, that we assume the jury is ready to convict even before they're seated. While there is no glaring misrepresentation by the defense attorneys, their efforts to combat the stigma of the horrible nature of the crime and the oddness of the accused are all in vain.

I became uncomfortable with the focus placed on one of the family members of the victims, John Mark Byers. His neediness to be the center of attention may only be a combination of his grief, his mental limitations and a life where he most likely was marginalized and his son's death gives him a stage to perform on. And that's very much what happens with the accused. The community condemns them in the same way the filmmaker's allow us to condemn John Mark Byers, who has enough in his background to raise a thousand red flags. And we're left to wonder why the authorities never pursue him. My first thought is that the filmmaker's aren't letting us see all of his story. At one point (in the second installment of the documentary), Byers blurts out that his wife was murdered, when in fact the coroner has ruled the cause of death "undetermined." But his "slip of the tongue" may only be that he's convinced his wife's death was due to the aftereffects of his child's murder, and he holds the 3 accused as if they not only are responsible for his son's death but also for his wife's through her grief (she apparently had a long history of drug abuse).

Nevertheless, the film holds you. I watched parts I & II back to back. And while I was left wanting answers to very simple questions (what was the time between when the boys were missing and when their bodies were found, who located the bodies, were there any footprints, did they drown?…on and on), I did witness how people can be manipulated while at the same time feeling manipulated by these very powerful films.

Great Documentary

[billybrown41 · 3 April 2002]

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.

Haunting

[Thaleia · 10/10 · 2 September 2000]

Absolutely haunting. This chilling account of murder and the search for justice will leave you open-mouthed and shocked for the tale is not a pretty one. Three eight year old boys are brutally slain (and there is graphic footage so this is not for the faint of heart), but the focus of the story is upon the three teenagers of this Arkansas town who are put on trial for the killings. And as the film unfolds you begin to wonder if the boys are truly guilty of this heinous crime or are being persecuted for being different in a town that locks different away. In the end, you are your own jury in determining the guilt of these black-wearing, Metallica-listening boys who didn't quite fit in. If you can stomach the upsetting scenes and the entire idea (which I admit put me off for a long time) you will find the film completely consuming. Unable to tear your eyes from the screen, the story and the boys who lived it will stay with you forever. Simply incredible.

Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills (1996)

[SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain · 10/10 · 13 December 2011]

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.

1st of 3 Paradise almost films - but users know you must then watch a stunning FOURTH!!

[gabriellekatz · 10/10 · 17 December 2020]

After you watch these three Paradise Lost films, YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF to find a follow-up film called "West of Memphis" that you will simply not believe. I put off watching these films because I wanted them to have as much closure as possible - and I remember when these crimes happened - although they barely made the national news back then. What a wild, WILD ride. Unbelievable in so many ways. It was only after finishing the Third "Paradise Lost" docu that I found "West of Memphis" and it is equally jaw-dropping.

THE most shocking and frustrating murder case you've never heard of.

[kennyleearmstrong-87453 · 10/10 · 22 September 2020]

Just watch it. Nothing I can say would do this documentary justice. Please watch the 2020 documentary "The Forgotten West Memphis Three", for the most recent developments. I fear this case may never be solved.

Small town America acting upon instinct

[crazymike62 · 10/10 · 7 April 2007]

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.

These boys are guilty

[disaia-1 · 10/10 · 13 January 2013]

As far as the film goes, it is well made and keeps you interested.

**SPOILER** I watched this movie thinking that three innocent boys were found guilty of murder and was interested in finding out how that happened. By the end of the movie I was convinced these boys actually DID commit these crimes. First of all there was a confession, even though one or two details were not clear. Second, one of the boys admitted it to a fellow jail mate. Third, at the end of the movie, when they are found guilty, there is no emotion from them. As if they knew it was going to be a guilty verdict. Not the reaction of an innocent person, who would show some emotion. Asked one of the boys, "what will you do if you are found innocent?" and he said "found innocent???" as if that thought didn't cross his mind, as he had confessed to the crime and he in fact WAS GUILTY.

It's also despicable how they try to blame the father of one of the murdered children. They believe one man could overpower and control three eight year olds, rather than three teenagers doing it? If there is a flaw in our justice system, it's not that they were found guilty, but that they were set free.

Raises good questions, leaves others unasked.

[Chrissie · 7/10 · 11 May 1999]

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.

more compelling than most Hollywood fiction

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 18 November 2015]

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.

i am steve branch's cousin and i watched this right after it all happened and it provided a lot of information my family would not tell me...

[cassiebranch · 7/10 · 7 June 2005]

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....

I wanted the rest of the story

[bandw · 5/10 · 22 November 2012]

In the spring of 1993 three pre-teen boys were murdered near West Memphis, Arkansas. This documentary focuses on the three young boys who were accused and tried for the murders.

I had a lot of trouble with this film. One of the things that makes it unusual is that the filmmakers were given incredible access to most all the people involved, from the accused, to the legal teams, to family and friends, even to the judge. We are even given behind-the-scenes looks at defense strategy sessions. All of the participants agreed to be filmed. This special access is all well and good, but it is well known that people behave differently when they know they are being filmed and I question how much of an impact the filming actually had on the trial. Are we seeing people's real reactions, or are we seeing performances--the whole affair has the feeling of being scripted. This question of performance for the camera is particularly relevant for Damien Echols, the accused that the film concentrates on. In one scene we see him preening before a mirror. The step-father of one of the murdered children actually turned over a knife to the film crew that was ultimately submitted as evidence! It is not good when those reporting on a story become part of the story.

The film is slanted toward making a case for the fact that the accused boys were wrongly convicted. I don't know how long the trials (one boy was tried separately) went on, but what we are given cannot be but a small percentage of what was presented to the jury. So many things were not covered that I began to feel that the biases of the filmmakers were dominating the proceedings. From what is presented I would not have been able to find the boys guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I felt that I was not given enough information to make a definitive decision.

So many questions were unanswered. It seemed clear that the murders took place in a location other than where the bodies were found. How far was that location from a road from where it would have been convenient to carry the bodies. What was the relationship among the three accused? It was stated that one of them had an IQ of 72; could that guy have been a good friend to the other two seemingly intelligent guys? Was he a good enough friend to be trusted to remain silent? Were alibis checked out? Was the evidence connecting the accused boys to the crime really as tenuous as shown? And so on.

Out of respect for the dead shouldn't we have been told at least something about the victims? The only role they played was to have their horrible deaths exploited by the sensational trial, the media, and by the filmmakers. Instead of a reasoned narrative to provide initial background the audience is first hit with shocking footage of the crime scene where lay the three naked young bodies. I immediately began to wonder if the filmmakers were more interested in shocking us than in objective story telling. Later we are shown a close-up photo of the castration perpetrated on one of the victims--was that necessary?

I thought the Metallica soundtrack set the wrong tone, totally at odds with the gravity of the events being covered.

Seriously, Do Yourself a Favor and Watch this film.

[LLAAA4837 · 17 September 2007]

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.

Very odd people

[heaze · 8/10 · 5 November 2019]

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?

The Chosen

[estelle58 · 10/10 · 12 June 2021]

I saw this on my Amazon feed for years before I decided to finally watch it. Once I did, I became fascinated with the case. It became so obvious that these teenagers were railroaded and used as scapegoats by the police force, and judicial system of West Memphis, Arkansas. The system manipulated reality in order to make 3 poor teenage boys look like satanic monsters who brutally murdered three 8year old boys.

When HBO decided to do a documentary on this case after they read about the arrest of the teenagers who were supposedly satanists that for ritualistic purposes murdered these boys, they thought it would make for an intriguing storyline. However, after being allowed into the trial of the teenagers, (for filming), they realized things were not what they seemed....not by a long shot.

The documentary caught the eye of many, (including celebrities), who knew that an extreme injustice had been done to the teenagers. Many started to fight for the now dubbed "West Memphis Three". The first doc shows the trial, the subsequent docs go into the some of the fight for justice by celebrities, and others.

In the grand scheme, there was a purpose. Damien was chosen, he just had a really rough road getting there.

Grim But Entertaining

[JoelChamp85 · 10/10 · 4 August 2021]

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.

Unbelievable perspective and access

[ApocalypseLater · 10/10 · 25 May 2006]

I am amazed at the level of access the HBO filmmakers were granted in pursuing this documentary and its sequel. It is an extraordinary film, though some of the crime scene footage is not for the squeamish.

I grew up in Memphis and was 13 when this grizzly triple homicide hit the news. My only perspective at the time was from the TV news and local paper, the Commercial Appeal. The media failed miserably to report the other side of this story. I was led to believe that these 3 teenagers were devil worshipers who ritualistically slaughtered 3 8-year-olds. In retrospect, that assertion was simply absurd. The people of Jonesboro became angry and confused and just wanted to lash out at someone. They were hungry for justice, even if it came at the price of prosecuting the innocent. Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin were the victims of misdirected revenge, convicted primarily on the hearsay of people who had long ostracized them for how they dressed. Rumor became hard evidence.

After seeing this film, I am truly ashamed of the behavior of the police, the prosecution and the media. Three children were brutally murdered in 1993, and three more children were murdered by a system out for closure at any cost. I thought we'd left the Salem Witch Trials behind us.

God Bless the Children!

[lystiah · 10/10 · 26 May 2006]

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.

Scary, Even for me.

[Soapbar · 10/10 · 14 January 1999]

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.

From someone who lived through this

[sacrificialclam · 6/10 · 11 March 2004]

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.

gives "Law & Order" a run for its money

[postmanwhoalwaysringstwice · 10/10 · 12 December 2006]

Documentarians Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky who uncovered the unbelievable and disturbing with their 1992 release "Brother's Keeper", and who would go on to helm the metal-head therapy session that was the riveting "Metallica: Some Kind of Monster" gathered two and a half hours of unsettling and disconcerting evidence of the holes in the U.S. justice system with "Paradise Lost: the Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills". The film conveys the events that followed a gruesome triple murder of second grade boys just outside a small Arkansas town.

This case led to the quick rounding up of three teenage male suspects: a highly diffident and low-functioning seventeen-year-old, a quiet pimple-faced sixteen-year-old, and a highly intelligent black haired Wiccan of eighteen. Berlinger and Sinofsky's film presents a very balanced story with equal time given to the grieving families and the prosecuting attorneys as well as the suspects and their families and the defense attorneys. The peek we are given inside the justice system as shown through actual footage from the courtroom, and from meetings within the respective legal chambers offer the audience an unusually involved role in the proceedings. This is powerful and unnerving film-making!

A Case About Outsiders

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 15 October 2015]

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.

This was the worst documentary ever!!

[antidisestablishmentarioism · 1/10 · 16 February 2013]

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.