Review of Paradise Lost 2: Revelations (2000) by Simon D — 11 Feb 2012

Unfortunately, this time we are not allowed into the courtroom so we don't really learn why Echols was denied a retrial, we also don't know why the other two were not featured at all in this film and why they were not appealing, or were they.

Is it just the case that Damien Echols became such a celebrity from the first film that the film-makers only wanted to focus on him. It certainly seemed that the group of campaigners were only interested in Echols in a strange sort of obsessive way.

I am a little dubious about it all, I can't help thinking that everyone involved in this film except the police and the jury were too interested in becoming famous, and not interested enough about righting wrongs.

The lawer seemed to prove that all three were innocent due to the fact that the bite marks didn't match so why wasn't that enought to get them out, and surely finding Byers dental records before he had his teeth removed might have been a good idea.

We are clearly not being given the full story here, it seems to be a completely biased view with a weak attempt to make it look objective.