runamokprods 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.

SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain 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.

enero-1 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.

guyb 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!@