For me, it's similar in that:

1. The film-makers jumped on the innocence bandwagon and edited the footage accordingly.

2. Small-town biases and ignorance are made out to be the reason the accused were targeted, instead of the fact that it was actually likely they were guilty.

3. Basically, being considered socially undesirable is exculpatory, because people who are on the margins of society never commit crimes and when something happens it's never them but they are blamed.

4. People are eager to claim that young, dumb kids simply confess because they feel pressured to, rather than even considering they might actually be hiding something awful and lying.

5. The one singled out as the most mentally challenged kid was only identified as a potential witness when interviewed, but ended up confessing within a couple of hours, so therefore his (multiple) confessions are invalid, because he is just too dumb and stupidity is exculpatory in all cases.

6. People ignore evidence of escalating violence in the case of the main perpetrator, dismiss it for no apparent reason, or say weird stuff like 'It's normal to kill and burn a dog/threaten to kill people/attack people/have an interest in Satanism.'

7. People are willing to overlook the ever-changing stories of the accused parties, the fact that their alibis were false and eventually non-existent.

8. People think that it was impossible for these 3 to murder 3 little kids, but totally possible for a single perpetrator to do it.

9. A lot of the people around the accused are also not particularly upstanding members of society but they are all fair game for accusations because it really doesn't work both ways.

10. Law enforcement and prosecutors are the most dreadful people to exist.

11. No similar crime occurs again in that area once the accused have been found guilty and locked up but this is just a coincidence, it was obviously just a one-off for the real killer/s.