User Reviews

Generally riveting follow up of the case where three quite possibly innocent young men sit in prison for murdering three children.

Certainly, at least given what the two documentaries show, there is way beyond 'reasonable doubt' that they're responsible. But what was a moderate flaw in the first film becomes worse here; In the same way the prosecution disturbingly made the evidence fit their theory, throwing out, ignoring, or belittling what didn't fit, the film-makers seem to play some of the same game in reverse.

Crucial questions about alibis are never answered, and this sequel spends too much energy trying to pin guilt on Mark Byers, step-father of one of the murdered boys.

Is there some spooky circumstantial evidence that he may have been involved? Absolutely. But proof? The man even voluntarily takes a lie detector test, and passes with flying colors, which the film- makers then dismiss since the man is on various prescription mood altering drugs. But do we ever hear an expert say those drugs might affect the test? No.

More disturbing, the film seems to imply he's guilty because he looks and acts weird, and says confusing and contradictory things, the very sort of 'guilt by odd behavior' association both films attack in relation to the three boys found guilty. The fact that Byers (supposedly) has a brain tumor, and what effect that might have on his outward behavior is never explored at all. And watching this character at such length starts to get dull after a while, as his rants go on and on.

None-the-less, this is still a very interesting film, the most moving sections being those spent with the three now young men in jail for a crime they likely didn't commit. All have grown up a great deal in the 4 years since the last film, and are sad and articulate reminders of how horrifying it can be that people never given the benefit of a fair trial are allowed to sit and rot in prison. And the amazing lack of despair or bitterness they show is a testament to human resilience.

Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, Jr., and Jason Baldwin were convicted in 1994 for the murder of three boys in West Memphis, Arkansas. It's 1999 and Damien has his final appeal in front of Judge David Burnett. The popularity of the original documentary has inspired support group, Free the West Memphis Three. Cameras are no longer allowed in the court. Of the victims' family, only John Mark Byers is cooperating with the filmmakers and he has a lot to say. He also has had a lot of legal problems. His wife died in 1996. He takes a lie detector test in front of the camera. The defense team seems to be concentrating on bite marks on the boys.

Byers is a big part of this follow-up. He's a very odd character and the movie is trying to make him suspicious. It's a lot of innuendos. Without being able to film the court proceedings, this is left without its main narrative. It becomes obviously one-sided. The support group adds very little to overwhelming need of this sequel. It needs to solve the murders or get the West Memphis Three out. This achieves neither. This could have been a shorter film to update the situation.

The first film was so successful at causing doubt that a lot of restrictions were placed on this second film. Now only one parent of the murdered boys is willing to take part, no footage is allowed to be recorded in court, and the attorneys of two of the accused will not be interviewed. As such, this film has to struggle to find more things to detail, and also has less scope than the original. This film is mostly about saying that it could have been somebody else. They find reported teeth marks on one of bodies, which some experts argue aren't teeth marks and some say that they are. All this means is that how can we trust "experts" when they argue with each other. A lot of focus is placed on John Mark Byers. Here is a man that comes off as mentally unstable, has a violent and drug filled past, lies (or is at least very confused) about aspects of his life. How can you tell three different stories about how you lost your teeth? I mean really different stories. It's aggravating that somebody with such a poor grasp on reality cannot even consider the boys' innocence (I've read that now he does). His wife dies due to undetermined causes and still he is less of a subject than the three boys. Again, this film isn't about who did it, only that it may not have been these boys, and there is no real evidence to suggest that it was. I'm glad these guys are now out of jail, and hope Berlinger and others will continue their investigations to find the real killers, even if that just means finding proof that it was these boys.

Paradise Lost 2: Revelations picks up just a few years after the original documentary, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills. During that documentary, we were informed massively about the murders and mutilation of three second graders on May 5, 1993 in West Memphis, Arkansas. The three convicted seemed to be judged by a shady, flawed confession by one of the men and their personal appearances and interests.

This is not only a sequel to a fantastic documentary, but it's a documentary that sheds light on something very, very frightening; a biased judicial system that reacts on present emotions, unclear evidence (when there hardly is any), and the personalities of the accused. It seemed that the three men were judged more on their likes and interests more than the actual murder. The three men are Damien Echols, now 24, Jessie Misskelley Jr., now 23, and Jason Baldwin, now 21.

The focus seems less on them and more on the smaller characters incorporated in the large story and the backlash and uproar the original HBO film caused. In the beginning of the documentary, we are acquainted with a local support group made up of people from all over the United States who saw the original Paradise Lost documentary, were outraged, and started their own support club. Three brave adults even came up with the idea to start a website in support of the nicknamed "West Memphis Three" (a surprising thing since internet was still pretty new and vague at the time).

The three people behind the website are shown at numerous points in the film accepting collect calls from prison from Damien Echols and holding a live, somewhat informal chat through their website. Damien is on speakerphone, people in the chat room ask him questions, and another writes down Damien's spontaneous responses as quickly as possible.

John Mark Byers, the stepfather to Christopher Byers, one of the three boys mutilated in the woods, is brought to the foreground here. He has got to be one of the most unsettling, eerie, and vicious documentary characters I've ever seen. He speaks in the southern twang you can't ignore, and his six foot eight presence equipped with his strong, muscular build is astonishing. Although he appears to be an upset father about the death of his son, he copes with his anger in a mean-spirited, hateful way. In one scene he goes as far as setting up fake graves for Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley Jr. and proceeds to douse the graves with lighter fluid before striking a match and incinerating it all.

Byers is suspected in being involved in the murders of the three kids, and is victim to much gossip. On one of the boys, I believe Stevie Branch, but I could be wrong, there appears to be a bite mark. The prosecution insists it's a belt buckle imprint, but it impeccably resembles a purposeful bite mark. Oddly enough a few years after the original film's completion, Byers' wife, Melissa, died of "undetermined" circumstances.

Again, despite noted limitations present in the film, directors Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky seem to have an unprecedented amount of access to everything case related. Sadly, because of the notoriety of the original Paradise Lost, the film has a few more limitations than the first one did. There are some instances where the film goes to a black title card saying Berlinger and Sinofsky were not allowed to film in the designated area at the designated time. Still, the video we do see is provocative, astounding, and shows us more than one may believe.

Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills was a strong, turning point in documentary filmmaking because of its unbiased nature and its attitude to "show it all." Paradise Lost 2: Revelations is an impressive and well made documentary as well and it has the power to sway our opinions of the case itself and/or drastically change them. All I can say at this point is that hopefully we find a paradise, and it's not as hokey and as gray at the one that has been endured for far too long by these boys.

Starring: Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr., and Jason Baldwin. Directed by: Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky.

Okay. Mark Byers is a wing-nut. So what. Documentary #1: Documents a witch hunt. No question. I'm totally on board. New trial - let's go. Documentary #2: Perpetrates a witch hunt. Drips with unintentional irony. That people can be put away for life and lethal injection based on no physical evidence or common sense even is chilling. That a documentary (and the convicted themselves) can then come along and blithely point fingers, also with no evidence, is no less chilling. And who ARE these Internet activist people? Do they have jobs or what? They are as asinine and loopy as Byers. The filmmakers should have just left it at film #1 and been done with it. But the awards and following went to their heads and they decided to crusade. Ugh.

Paradise Lost 2 is a brilliant suspenseful documentary with an unbelievable conclusion. The audience is invited to play in the guess work of who is actually telling the truth. The film makers let the evidence unfold in front of the viewer allowing them to draw what seems to be the inevitable conclusion and then throw a complete curve ball when the results of the polygraph test come back. An engrossing and astounding look at the American justice system.

One has to have seen Paradise Lost to appreciate this follow up. This is not about a movie, but the lives of three obviously innocent youths. I was interested in seeing what the "new evidence" consisted of, but was some what disappointed. The movie never really delved into that in detail, or at least to my satisfaction. The judge who sat in the original trial, and over saw the appeal, was obviously from a single trunk family tree. I over see a forensic lab and even I could see the obvious bite marks; flat belt buckles don't wrap around into a recessed eye sockets. And the primary investigator must have gotten his training through mail order; he would be a joke if it wasn't for the seriousness of the situation. Mark Byers is a stereotypical Arkansas inbreed hillbilly who, in my opinion, was directly involved with his son's murder. The polygraph was a farce at best since a convincing liar, which he is, can beat one anytime. How many versions of losing his teeth did he give? And the revelations of him selling drugs and contributing to the delinquency of a minor say a lot about his character. He claims to be a bible toting Christian believer, but his language and cursing say different. I get angry every time I think of the injustice meted out to the WM3. But then as a prime example of what comes out of Arkansas is the former president, Clinton, who lied, had sex with an intern in the Oval Office, almost was impeached and God only knows what else. I urge all to contribute $$$$, as I did, to the WM3's defense fund.

Paradise lost 2 is the follow up film to the first documentary about the Robin Hood Murders. This film shows us how the convicted boys have been coping since they have been in prison and how the murdered boys parents have dealt with the past few years. This film also focuses on more evidance that these boys are not guilty and how there is growing speculation on one of the murdered boys father that he is responsible for the 3 boys deaths. Yet again the film gets far to graphic , why do we have to see pictures of the castrated murdered boy? We do have an imagination HBO, and we can use it. The father who is under suspision comes across as a horrible man who looks as if he is a mixture of a drug addict,a bible basher and inter breading but having said that most of the people we see from Arkansas look and come across as being like that. I do feel this film is heavily biased towards the convicted boys but i also feel they should never have been convicted in the first place. 8 out of 10.

After the storm kicked up by the first film, film-makers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky returned to West Memphis four years later. Whereas the first film seemed to simply document the case in as much detail as possible and allowed you to make your own mind up, with Revelations, they seem to have their own agenda. New 'evidence' has been discovered, and perhaps the real killer still walks the streets, and it's clear who Berlinger and Sinofsky believes it to be. That crazy bastard John Mark Byers, who took so much pleasure in giving Biblical rants to camera, hardly covers himself in glory, and he's back here to build fake graves for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley at the crime scene, only to set them on fire amidst his demented monologues.

It's sad that Berlinger and Sinofsky decided to take such a manipulative approach to the sequel, as although Byers is clearly an unhinged and simple-minded hick, there is no evidence against him killing the three boys (Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, and his stepson Christopher Byers) aside from the fact that he comes across as scary and strange. The first film was an intense study of mob mentality and the dangers of pre- judgement by appearance, and how the West Memphis Three managed to get themselves convicted simply for being black-wearing outcasts. So Revelations comes across is hypocritical.

When new evidence is presented, suggesting teeth marks on the head of one of the victims, tests prove that none of the WM3's teeth match. When Byers is confronted, he reveals that he had his teeth removed but keeps changing his story as to when this took place. He is repeatedly confronted by a support group that help fund and promote the case against the WM3, but they come across as equally strange as Byers, following Echols like groupies as if he was some kind of prophet, and they berate Byers into handing in his dental records voluntarily to prove himself innocent. Byers refuses, stating that there is no case against him, and this is shown in the film as if an admittance of guilt. The film-makers never take any time to explain the reasoning behind Byers' behaviour, clearly convinced of his guilt.

In the end, it's a case of there being too little here to warrant a two hour-plus movie. The new evidence is flimsy to say the least, and as revealed in West of Memphis (2012), is probably completely wrong. Yet when the film gets back down to cold facts, it becomes as riveting as the first film, unveiling a justice system that seems unwilling to open the doors to the possibility that they simply got it wrong. It's just a shame that too much time is spent on a personal witch-hunt, and even when Byers passes a voluntary lie-detector test, the film suggests that Byers was on so much prescription medication that the results of this cannot really stand up, yet fails to ask to conductor of the test of his views regarding this. It's certainly a confused film, and one that works best when it stays on topic and documents the facts rather than revelling in propagandistic speculation.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

There are a couple of ignorant comments that I wanted to address from other posters here. Firstly, The individual who stated that the filmmakers spent the most time on screen was totally wrong, as the filmmakers NEVER appeared on camera. I think this person was referring to the group that was dedicated to freeing the "West Memphis Three." These were just more characters in the story, not the filmmakers. Also, another person pointed out that the polygraph test as if it were indisputable proof that the step-father had not done this crime. I don't agree. 1.He was taking alot of drugs, not to mention he was obviously mentally challenged. 2. right before he took the test, he was obviously lying about a great deal of things (he said he never had trouble with the law, he said he did not know how his wife died, and in the very next sentence referred to the "murder" of his wife, etc.)3. he had spent a great deal of time convincing everyone and himself that he had not done it, that he may just have believed it. Now, He may or may not have been responsible, I am not going to try and convince anyone, but at least pay attention when making your decisions. It just doesn't make sense to me that those boys did this when you look at the evidence. The first film did a better job of presenting the case than this one, but part two is a great continuation of the case. It would have been pointless to cover too much old ground. So if you are able to find part one anywhere, or it comes on HBO again, watch it if you have not.

Anyone who watched the original documentary Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills probably has serious misgivings about the guilt of the West Memphis Three. It appeared that the police and judicial system grabbed onto the easiest suspects and ignored the parent of one of the boys. Using Satanic ritual to stir up the local yokels, the grabbed three convictions with insufficient evidence.

There is no doubt in this followup that Mark Byers is certifiable and a stone criminal, and most likely the true murderer.

The efforts at appeal were fascinating, but the film does not give the whole story as the appeal for Echols was denied in 1999, but Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley's Rule 37 hearings (begun in the fall of 2008) will continue in Jonesboro, AR on August 10, 2009 and last for two full weeks. In addition, last month, the Arkansas Supreme Court ordered the Craighead County Circuit Court and Judge David Burnett to "correct supplemented record on appeal," requiring the lower court to include a sworn affidavit by a prominent Arkansas attorney that alleges extraordinary juror misconduct in Damien Echols's original trial.

This story is not over.

Documentarians Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky return to Arkansas to follow up their film "Paradise Lost," and create a sequel that is better than the original. The directors focus on the efforts of a group called Free the West Memphis 3, and the appeals process of Damien Echols, the "ringleader" of the satanic murders of three eight year olds years before. The film also spends time with Mark Byers, a central figure in the first film, who is still crusading to keep the trio in prison. The WM3 group do not come off well at the beginning, they're a little flighty and starstruck. Mark Byers, who the film makers hinted may be a suspect in the murders, returns. His wife, one of the victim's mothers, has died under mysterious circumstances, and Byers continues his ranting and raving for the cameras. Damien has changed, as well. No longer the primping goth from the first film, a death sentence and prison rape will probably do that to you, Echols has matured and is determined to get out of prison. Also here is the only remaining defense attorney, who brings in a profiler who finds a bite mark on an autopsy photo that everyone else missed.

Berlinger and Sinofsky focus the film around this new evidence, and play out a lie detector test Byers is taking, for all it is worth. Unlike the first film, this one is lean and focused, and still shocking, thanks to some very bloody crime scene photos. The profiler brought in is constantly grinning, not believing the trio were convicted on such flimsy evidence, especially a coerced confession by one of the boys that gets just about everything wrong. The only fault I could find was the amount of time spent with Byers, as unpleasant a man as you will ever see. Between his adopted child's and wife's death, those around him elevate his status to a criminal mastermind when in fact he seems to put a lot of effort into placing one foot in front of the other. His ritual funeral for the killers and his graveside monologues are all long, creepy, and weird. Also, thanks to the new popularity with true crime and forensics shows on The Discovery Channel, HBO, and the networks, the viewer needs the film makers to get into the details of the crime- where all the suspects were that day, forensics evidence, time lines, alibis, DNA, etc. Followed by sequels, and other surprising turns of events.

The Paradise Lost Trilogy is a great documentary series about three boys who are convicted of murder. All three films seem to be underrated but it's the second film that is the most underrated of them all. Paradise 2 is kind of like watching a train wreck happening and you can't look away. The filmmakers do a great job of showing how a persons bizarre actions and words along with rumors, insinuations and circumstantial evidence can make a person look completely guilty of something when in reality they are innocent. Really makes a person stop and think about how the three boys were convicted by a flawed criminal system.

It's strange to come to write about Paradise Lost 2: Revelations having watch some (though not all) of the third and final entry from 2011, part 3 Purgatory (which was made the same year the West Memphis 3 - Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr., and Jason Baldwin - were finally released from prison due to an unusual 'plea' deal). I say this because by the time one watches that film, shot some 12/13 years after the second entry which was shot four years after the original Paradise Lost (93/94 in Arkansas), a key character (and I use the word Character I should say with a capital C) with John Mark Byers has changed. Hindsight is always 20/20 as the saying goes, but it is still captivating and kind of horrifying to see how Byers, and not necessarily the three (at the time) convicted killers, becomes the main character here.

I have to wonder if the filmmakers went into the project knowing exactly what they would do; part of the impetus was to go back to the area in Arkansas as Echols in 1998/99 was facing a very urgent appeal process in court (with the original judge in the case, I'd say unfortunately), and also by this time the effect of the first Paradise Lost doc was such that the film itself was available as evidence for the defense. Ironically though because of the notoriety, the filmmakers Berlinger and Sinofsky weren't allowed in the courtroom, and the parents of the victims (seen in part 1) declined to be interviewed... except for Byers' stepfather, and his mother by this point had died. What did she die from? Well, that's kind of a funny story...

Although the filmmakers here have access to the West Memphis 3 (Echols seems to get the most time since it's his appeals process as the focus), as well as one of the defense lawyers and a special investigator who can spot things that should have been clear to the cops at the time of the killings, and there is the group that formed to help free men and how they set up the website and (as a running thing in the movie) having an online chat for people on the site with Echols, the lack of being in the courtroom and certain subjects makes things a little more limited.

It's through no fault of their own, but the filmmakers probably had to scramble to find some way to make the film more compelling. Needless to say, Mr. Mark Byers ended up, through his own sense of either mania or ego, said 'I'm here!' The running thing with Byers is that certain people around him - neighbors, especially those who, for example, claim (rightfully so) that he and his formerly-living wife stole things from their homes, or just people in town - don't trust him.

More to the point, Byers is looked at as an outside-probably-yeah suspect as the actual murderer of the kids (the step-father of one, and the kid had a history of abuse that wasn't really put forward until this doc). No real attempts are made by the authorities to go after him, which seems about right given how steadfast the chief (retired) officer is with the results of the case), but all the same Byers, who does things like YELL into the camera in full close-up for his enemies and doubters to go to hell and so on and keeps getting into confrontations with the Free West Memphis people (who aren't looking for any confrontation and want to ask simple questions), isn't having it.

So how about a polygraph test? This latter part makes for the most compelling and darkly twisted (for me) part of the documentary. Arguably there's a moment, in an informal conversation with the tester before the actual polygraph, where Byers admits to murdering his wife (Freudian slip one might say, but it's a 'whoa whoa WHOA' moment), and he says to the tester that he's on a mixture of pills to fight his 'brain tumor' (does he have it for real, who knows). But this makes for a chilling centerpiece to what is otherwise a kind of warped piece of theater for Byers. He is someone who PLAYS to the camera, whether he knows it or not; he mostly does know it, you can tell, in a way where it's kind of either bad acting, or a level of just 'he does believe this, but what's in his head?' He becomes one of the most striking personas I've seen in a modern documentary, and whether you think he's a killer or not, as he WAS a criminal (at the end of the film the text says he's arrested and put to jail for some time for drug dealing to a narc) and it makes for an ambiguous treatment.

The focus on the case itself is sharp and interesting too,, the new evidence all the more troubling, albeit at times there's a reliance a bit much on footage from the past movie. But it's sad just how much of a miscarriage of justice went on, through perception of young people, Wiccans and the "Occult" (which the expert on camera refutes and it's easy to see from the pictures too), and throughout people like Echols make for the opposite side of someone like Byers: a lucid, calm, but seemingly decent person who has been put into a position where it really is LIFE or DEATH. The viewing experience may be slightly colored by what comes in part 3, or just what happened in the real world to the West Memphis 3, but it doesn't diminish the impact of this documentary with this real force of nature in the ultimate hulking-talkative-WTF redneck John Mark Byers. If nothing else, see it for him.

The years between the wm3 and the murders of which they had been convicted, are revealing boys reaching manhood in the confines of prison.

With a focus on a possible new link to the murders along with campaigners who have responded to the first of the trilogy, this takes on a new focus within the interest of the truth

I saw this movie just over a week ago and after watching it I didn't sleep. I HAD to find out more so I visited the website for more, obviously biased, information. I can't believe that three young men can be locked up for murder (2 for life and one on death row) for this crime. Anyway, about the film. I found the crime photos pretty disgusting but I thought they were presented well, no full screen close up shots but you could see all you wanted to none the less while also being able to avert your eyes a little. I haven't viewed the first film by HBO so I can't compare the two but this one seems to present more, new evidence. I think the bite marks are the most promising pieces of evidence. If it wasn't one of the men in jail who bit the boy(s), who did? Was there a fourth person or was there a different killer(s) altogether? I have no doubt in my mind that the powers that be have to get x-rays of Mark Byers teeth before he had them surgically removed in 1997 and compare them with the bite marks.

Sorry, I keep wandering into the case and off the topic of the film. Watch this film! Prepare to be upset. Prepare to be outraged. Watch it with an open mind and I think you'll fail to find words to describe how a legal abomination such as this can happen in this day and age. I don't expect a 3rd film but I am following the case very closely for sure.

The first doco was so surreal with the disturbing crime, the era, and all the people involved who seemed like characters in a film, like characters from Trailer Park Boys or something. This second doco carries that further, almost like a character piece for John Buyers, his solo film. Unfortunately we don't have the privilege to go behind the scenes in court this time so it's not as informative or impactful. The questions still haven't been satisfyingly answered. What I want to see is some sort of digital re-enactment layout that gives a map-type overview of the movements of each person on the day of the crime and what exactly each side claims to have happened, because it's still confusing as hell.

After finding the first one absolutely riviting and cause for thought and discussion, we looked foward to Paradise Lost 2 with some anticipation. It was too long for the little new information it contained. It spent way too much time on John Byers with no payoff. Only after reading the wm3.com website, we learned that he and his wife had quite a history of crime, drugs and abuse; this should have been brought much more in the movie instead of his irritable rantings. The end of the movie should have tied up the loose ends better so you could come away with a good understanding of where things stood. I thought the "support group" looked more like groupies for Echols which was pretty wierd. They weren't much more coherent and logical than Byers in many ways. I don't think the bite marks ruled out the boys at all; only that they didn't bite!@

But not for the right reasons.

The snickering, smug arrogance of the filmmakers, who seem to have more screen time than anyone actually involved in the case, made me see this documentary as just a vanity project. I couldnt even buy the patronizing solicitude they showed towards one defendant (undoubtedly because he is the most photogenic of the three convicted of the crime).

There is a definite travesty of justice here, but getting to the truth seems to have become secondary to the childish delight with which the filmmakers show how much smarter they are than anyone else.

Their hearts may indeed be in the right place, and they truly want to see justice served, but this kind of flagrant self-aggrandizment does not do justice to anyone.

The film offers no real evidence as to the identity of the "real" killer, beyond the filmmakers' own speculation and innuendo - which is precisely what convicted the three boys they are trying to "save" in the first place.

in response to first comment, the filmmakers do not ever appear in this documentary, unless you are considering the stills on the extra section on the DVD.

Jessie Miskelley's original lawyer and the support group for the West Memphis 3 do appear, along with the stepfather of one of the murder victims, Mark Byers, quite a lot, showing both sides of this case.

Physical evidence and the lack of is discussed, as well as a forensic expert brought in to back up this information with scientific proof.

perhaps a referral to www.wm3.org is in order for anyone who is confused about this case.

Paradise Lost 2: Revelations (1999)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

Sequel to PARADISE LOST: THE CHILD MURDERS AT ROBIN HOOD HILLS takes a look at what has happened in the years since the film aired on HBO. We get interviews with the three convicted of the crime, some of their family members and a couple people working on the case but the majority of the people from the original film declined to be interviewed this time around. The exception is Mark Byers, the stepson of one of the victims who has been labeled by many to have been the real killer. The documentary really focuses on him, the mysterious death of his wife and everything that has happened since the trial. There's no question that the majority of the 130-minute running time is dedicated to Byers and the film really plays out as a mystery as more and more doubt is placed on him. As those familiar with the first film will remember, there was bits and pieces of clues that shined a spotlight on him but this film goes even further with many throwing out accusations that he killed the kids as well as his wife. As with the first film, Byers comes across as someone who isn't all there and his visual appearance makes you think he would be a killer but then the film catches you because the West Memphis Three were convicted because of their looks so by the viewer then putting down Byers because of his looks really isn't any better. Another strong point in this film is that a specialist is brought in to try and clear the three teens because he found what appears to be a bite mark on one of the victims and it's said that none of the three teens match up. PARADISE LOST 2 isn't quite as powerful as the first film simply because so many of those involved refused to be interviewed. This takes away some of the heart of the first film and the sadness. As a mystery film this here is great because you keep wondering who the killers are and then when you think you've gotten it figured out something changes and makes you realize that you're no closer than you thought. Of course, the film's finale has Byers sitting down for a lie detector test and I won't reveal the results here.

I was wondering along with probably many others, why Mark Byers was the only parent hanging around. Where were the other parents of these helpless boys. I truly believe what you give out you received back. So lets hope that whoever really killed those little boys, gets what they deserve. I look at the boys in jail and think that if they really didn't do this, then why aren't they screaming at the camera of their innocence. I wouldn't be able to sit there and not cry and plead for the truth to come out. The boys lawyers have enough proof for the case to be re-opened, but nothing seems to be done. Why haven't they got the x-rays of Mark Byers teeth. Why haven't they looked into the beating he received that cost him his teeth. So many unanswered questions. Maybe they need to get a well known psychic to look into this tragedy.