Paradise Lost 2: Revelations (2000)

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.

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.

Spoilers herein.This is a depressing piece.It is ostensibly an expose of the injustices committed by the Arkansas legal system because of stereotyping the satanists convicted. Such a thing may have happened, but one will never be able to tell from this video.That's because the video project itself is an exercise in stereotyping those ignorant southern hillbillies. The intent of the producers is clear: they want to entertain, to entice, to engage, to outrage.I wish I could believe in ethical journalism, especially in the US, where the whole experiment in democracy depends on an educated public, informed by a free press. But what we have here is a drive to present a story. Just a story.

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.