West of Memphis

2012 "An examination of a failure of justice in Arkansas"
7.9| 2h30m| R| en
Details

The documentary tells the hitherto unknown story behind an extraordinary and desperate fight to bring the truth to light. Told and made by those who lived it, the filmmakers' unprecedented access to the inner workings of the defense allows the film to show the investigation, research, and appeals process in a way that has never been seen before; revealing shocking and disturbing new information about a case that still haunts the American South.

Director

Producted By

WingNut Films

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?
Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows
Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.
Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.
neil-arsenal Documentaries are a genre close to my heart. It is difficult for the makers not to show bias one way or the other. However, it must be kept to a minimum for the sake of credibility.The Executive Producer for this movie was...Damien Echols.How can this even begin to be classed as an unbiased account? Anything he says is treated as gospel. A casual viewer would believe him. Hey, this is a documentary, right? Wrong. It's propaganda.Echols lies. And it can easily be proved. His defence team also became desperate. Examples?1. ''I was scared of being stabbed in jail. I was continually raped.'' The only problem with this is that he states he was in solitary 24/7 365.2. ''My lawyers let me down as I had an alibi but they didn't call them to the stand.'' Again, another lie. His alibi (''I was on the phone with 3 different people'') has been shot down. Those people have not given the police the correct info. His lawyers didn't call these witnesses as they would've helped the prosecution. Echols then tried to change his alibi a few times. And was caught out every single time. Misskelly's alibi was also shot to pieces (wrestling ticket was for a different week and the place was closed that day). Baldwin didn't even bother with an alibi.3. Witnesses saw Echols leaving the area of the killings full of mud by a family in car. Again, you'll find this non existent in the 'documentaries'. I include 'Paradise Lost' in this list.4. Two girls took the stand and said Echols bragged about the murders in a park. He called the girls 'liars'. Later, he admitted he did say this. But he was only joking (purrlease).5. Misskelly confessed several times. Around half a dozen times. Not once after 10 (then 12 then 17 hours as Echol's sheep claim) hours. Mulitple times. Even months later. He called his own lawyer. That's right. Misskelly requested the chance to get it all off his chest. His lawyer begged him not to. Was that a forced confession? His early confessions revealed knowledge of the crime scene. Echols was also caught out on this. Search and you'll find it.6. Desperate acts by the defence team. First, trying to blame a mystery man nicknamed 'Bojangles'. Then, Paradise Lost 2 spent the entire movie throwing mud at Byers (one of the fathers of the victims). That failed. It was so obvious it wasn't Byers they are trying to blame Hobbs (another father). DNA is the shout from the Echols camp. Sadly (for them) it's a single hair on a shoelace. The kids regularly played at his home and secondary transfer would actually be quite probable. Even if it is his hair (which also can't be proved 100%).7. The kids were killed elsewhere. The lack of blood at the crime scene indicated that (so say Echols and the defence team). Well, they are blaming Hobbs. That means he stripped them, killed them and then must have took their bodies to the woods. Only problem with that is that the kid's clothes were staked into the water with a stick. So, Hobbs must've taken their clothes with him too. Or dressed them and undressed them in the woods post mortem. Utterly ridiculous. That's why the police are not interested in Hobbs.8. Echols claims he only suffered with depression as a teenager and had no problems with the law (on Piers Morgan's show). That is a huge lie. His medical records are on the internet at a website called 'Callaghan'. Many health professionals (not just one as Echols claims) have entered their findings. Most of which pre dates the crime. Not as Echols states...after the crime to get him off the death penalty. The reports are actually quite revealing. Arson. Animal cruelty (killing animals including dogs). Thinking he was god. Believing he was possessed by a spirit. Biting peers and drinking their blood. Wanting to sacrifice his unborn child to the devil. These were written by healthcare officials BEFORE his arrest. He was also pulled for public masturbation a few weeks before the murders.The movie is well made, but it has an agenda.If this is a documentary then so is Loose Change.Check the facts of the case at Callaghan and wm3thetruth. It's unbiased and is run by three people (Callaghan). Two of whom believe the three are innocent.Just check the facts. I've only scraped the surface in the comments above.
samb8 My first thought after viewing this documentary was how could three innocent youths be charged/convicted/sentenced to this crime based on the post trial evidence I'm viewing? It's really tragic if these three are innocent. But what if the guy who directed this film, the clear leader of the three, actually duped the justice system. He befriended two boys who are clearly less intelligent, and appear to be very manipulative. When he's being interviewed in prison, he expresses his interest in magic and his desire to be considered the best at this craft. He finds a young women in whom he bears his soul and they connect. Over time he gets some influential people in his corner. Serious doubts based on lack of evidence, specifically DNA, plus some focus now on Hobbs, the stepfather who's at the very least abusing his step children. The bodies of the boys are found in the water perhaps damaging the chance for some/any DNA recovery from the actual perp(s)sans the hair from Hobbs. But since Stevie lived with Hobbs it is possible a transfer occurred not related to the crime. Hobbs would be an easy target to manipulate, he's unable to answer some of questions with a logical answer even if it were a lie. Damien Echols is an odd character in my opinion, capable of manipulating the other two boys easily. Capable of creating the illusion of innocence with the people that got involved on his behalf. Did a guilty man actually get himself off death row by creating the illusion of misjustice? Quite a magic trick, among the best if he did.
bob the moo Reading the comments about this documentary I learnt that there had been other films on this subject as part of the decades of trying to overturn the original convictions; this was news to me but, in all honesty, the case itself was news to me as I had never heard of these murders or the wider story. Perhaps I am under a rock but I am not sure how well known this all is outside of the US. Anyways, the film opens in such a way that is a little hard to follow. The murders themselves are clearly presented but a lot of characters and history is delivered and at times I was not wholly sure when certain video clips were from and I felt that it put me off balance a little in terms of context of what was being said. This was a minor problem and gradually I got out of it as the bigger story was made clear.This moved forward well and the film patiently reveals one after another example of bad practice, straight-up deception or implication of misconduct all of which presents a terrible miscarriage of justice. It adds to this by exploring other paths and presenting new evidence in the film – statements, DNA etc, all of which seem to point very clearly to a man who was prone to erratic violence towards one of the boys who was killed. This is hard to watch because it seems so clear while these three sit behind bars. The film doesn't offer justice though – only freedom, and in a way this is both a hard end to the film but also a very apt one because it highlights yet another nonsense. I really didn't see much difference between the original coerced confession and the pleas of "guilty" which are obtained by dangling freedom in front of the three men; to me it sat very badly and it angered me to see the elected official saying this plea had saved the State money by preventing the three from suing. So, even in their freedom they are robbed of what they should have been entitled to – and this guy says it like it is a positive outcome.I didn't know anything about this story when I started the film but it did the job very well of giving me a complex background, getting me up to speed and then delivering a lot of information on the way to the conclusion. The conclusion is that justice wasn't done and continues not to be done even while those in charge talk about how this gives closure to the families etc. Really hard to watch the film without getting angry, and this is to the film's credit.
Sindre Kaspersen American screenwriter, producer and documentary filmmaker Amy J. Berg's second documentary feature which she co-wrote with screenwriter and film editor Billy McMillin and co-produced, premiered in the Documentary Premieres section at the 28th Sundance Film Festival in 2012, was screened in the Mavericks section at the 37st Toronto International Film Festival in 2012, was shot on location in USA and is an American production which was produced by producers Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Damien Echols and Lorri Davis. It tells the story about American 16-year-old Charles Jason Baldwin, American 17-year-old Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr and American 18-year-old Michael Wayne Echols who in June, 1993 in the city of West Memphis in the state of Arkansas in Crittenden county, USA was arrested for the triple homicide of three 8-year-old boys named Michael Moore, Steve Branch and Christopher Byers whose bodies were found by a former Juvenile officer named Steve Jones and a policeman named Mike Allen in a pond in the Robin Hood Hills.Distinctly and subtly directed by American filmmaker Amy J. Berg, this fourth documentary about the now well-known West Memphis Three which was preceded by American filmmakers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky's "Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" (1996), "Paradise Lost 2: Revelations" (2000) and "Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory" (2011), is narrated from multiple viewpoints, draws a more multidimensional portrayal of the place where two young men were sentenced to life imprisonment and one to death by the Arkansas Supreme Court in the year of 1994, focuses mostly on the story of Damien Echols and reexamines the case which has engaged filmmakers, actors, musicians, journalists, defense attorneys, activists and people from all over the world in a common action to get the three men who become preys of a satirical judicial system exonerated. While notable for its distinct and atmospheric milieu depictions and the sterling cinematography by French cinematographer Maryse Alberti and Irish cinematographer Ronan Killeen, this narrative-driven retelling of a criminal case which began two decades from today, which as the former documentaries proves how horrible things can turn out when people in power decides to play almighty and self-righteously impose their judgment on people they regard as inferior and which deprived the freedom of three American citizens and isolated them from the civilized society for eighteen years, introduces new interviews, theories and stories and contains a timely score by Australian musicians and composers Nick Cave and Warren Ellis.This investigative, educational and scrutinizing study of a 20th and 21st century tragedy which is set mostly in the American South and which through a wide range of conversations with people who has, still is and will always be connected to the case describes the significance of the media and politics in this matter and points pretty clearly as to who the real perpetrator might be, is impelled and reinforced by its fragmented narrative structure, subtle continuity and nuanced style of filmmaking. A lyrical, philosophical, humane and informative documentary feature which brings forth unheard voices, acknowledges the many people who stood by the three convicted boys who became the earliest and most accessible targets of hatred and condemnation until their arduous and disregarded call for justice prevailed and underlines how a pivotal union between a once aspiring magician and a woman who dedicated her life to a man on death row was born in the midst of this real life horror story which began on a day in May, 1993 when three boys went missing.