What about the teeth though? You just left us hanging.

This video shows many activities that I lived with, in my last home. Some experiences were more violent and others were more interactive.
Unfortunately in this video, the producer has very little experience in dealing with paranormal activity or the ability to draw out even more interaction. As an example, not once did he consider to address the children who died in the house or the orbs in numerous frames. Sleeping on the couch, facing away from the direction of all the activities taking place. These are just a few items that stand out.
That being said, I don't believe this was a fake. He definitely didn't have the knowledge to conduct a professional investigation, but that doesn't mean that his experiences are invalid.
In my case, both previous owners died in the same master bedroom, of the home. When the renovation of the entire house began, which took several years to complete; and every time the activity increased. I wish I had videotaped more of my experiences. I am sure that the same people would be claiming it was fake, it wasn't. The one thing that brings back memories is the fact that they love to get attention through any electrical items. Lights, ceiling fans, etc.. I learned to communicate and get questions answered between a K2 meter and a ceiling fan and its lights. The fan was 3 speed and dimming lights. That light love to turn on in the middle of the night and the lights would go from low to high continually, and change the speed of the fan. I do have video of that and I mention it due to the lost video that was recovered in this video. That dining room chandelier lights reacted the same way, it drove me crazy at 2-3am right outside my door!
Once you have experienced it yourself, it changes you for ever and you will never ever care what others think!
Best Regards & keep an open mind

As enjoyable as the first one, almost. Of course you're going to lose a bit of the suspense factor on a second run, but it's still a lot of fun to watch. These films have been outed as a hoax, which isn't all that surprising. But it almost makes them more fascinating. What gives a realistic edge to them is the mundane details included - the metal detector not working at first, the random edits of him being 'frustrated' with roadblocks he encounters. His reactions to certain activities in the house, going completely still for long moments, as one would when extremely frightened. I've read about the history of this hoax and the guy who made these films, and some people are angry about it, understandably, as he's marketing these as true documentaries rather than just a fun paranormal film. But he's made a lot of money on them because he knows how to make them feel real. He may not be an honest man, but I think he's probably rather brilliant.

I'd give this 3 stars if he had marketed this correctly. This is a movie, a production. He also needs to write a better script. After watching the first one, I only paid for the second one because I understood it was a story and no reality to it what so ever. If you are ready for a bad paranormal movie, then go ahead and purchase.
I am someone who doesn't mind spending a buck or two on a b rated haunted or paranormal movie. I'd have given this 4 stars for a b rated type movie if he hadn't done a few things in this one. But those reasons are past my spoiler alert.
Since my review is being hidden, I am lowering my stars for that factor

Spoiler alert: If you watched the first one then it won't be a spoiler.
When a person acts freaked out and has what seems to be bad things happening, then switch and claim it was all a positive experience.
The map was just beyond stupid as were the teeth. don't act like a person can dig in a yard without permission or then steal the item that is on the property.

don't make up stories about serial killers. Serial killers are well known. So it makes the story more unbelievable. Study just a little bit more and use simpler story lines.

I enjoyed the first film, so I decided to spend the $3 to rent the second, which has a higher rating on Amazon.

I like that he started the film by calling out those who tried to debunk the first film. It seems he took feedback from reviews and decided to include a disclaimer on this film, permitting him to change or omit names for privacy. I like that detail. Even though we know (believe, want to believe) that all these found footage films are fake, I like the inclusion of disclaimers or summarized back stories ("unknown events... until this footage was discovered").

He starts the documentary off stating he wasn't sure if he had enough information for another full documentary. I noticed then that over the next 30 minutes there was a lot of extraneous shots that really seemed to serve no other purpose than to lengthen the film. Admittedly, it does build suspense and add drama to the discovery and uncovering of certain plot points/information.

His editing skills improved with this film. I love getting to see multiple angles at once in these movies. It gives it a more realistic feel because it isn't just a bunch of best takes spliced together.

I actually really liked the main character. Whether it was an act or not, he seems like a real person. He's a little snippy with his wife, a bit shady, a tad unlikable, but he seems like a genuine human being trying to make a documentary. I also enjoyed how he continually addressed the haters and skeptics of the first film. It added authenticity, I thought.

One gripe I do have with the entire film is this: he has cameras set up everywhere. Yet he doesn't show us the footage of things happening on camera. This is the only thing that creates some doubt. Why have all those cameras and not use the footage? I'm assuming its edited this way to build suspense for the final night which, of course, has the most activity.

Regardless of whether it's real or fake, I found this movie very entertaining. It was well filmed, edited, and presented. I'd recommend to any fan of the genre.

He is a likeable guy, BUT
1. Why didn't he interview Nancy? On camera, phone or via Skype?
2. The teeth, hello illegal = tampering with evidence. And, the teeth looked huge, so fake.
3.Shadows of the chairs didn't move when falling down. Fell exactly the same in both scenes.
4. Record player kept starting at the same exact place of song. Haha!
5. Where was wife? Hmm.
6. All bad actors
7. No interviews with anyone !
8. Digging without permission
SURE!
9. He didn't respond when everything was happening, he just stood and stared. Nothing! Haha again!
I could add more but , watch to laugh only!
Not a doc a comedy!

This series is good for people that like a scary story without characters dying or being killed on camera much like a found footage clip. I will watch them because the environment or background settings are antique sometimes deteriorating sort of a still life art picture but includes more. I don't know if the actual haunting is legitimate but events similar have happened before first you have to know the concept of a ghost it's simple but the explanation can vary and that makes some skeptical. A common theory compares it to a boogey man type spirit, sometimes it will be demonic but science often offers facts to turn the paranormal activity into not being possible. So a ghost isn't exactly a monster but more as a air wave transmission which occurred in the past but it gets to be a looped message till the pattern can be fixed or corrected. So a person thats murdered and nobody figured out the exact method they were killed so a part of the victim is stuck. In the Victorian and Gothic era families who were poor couldn't be buried in cemetaries so funeral homes buried bodies under the house in basement for low income it was routine. What's odd about the story of Ruth Blackwell is the criminal accusations did not fit the criteria of the ghostly appearance in the first film it was more like a vivid white silhouette of a mausoleum statue. This subtle clue could indicate another theory that Ruth was wrongly accused so her death was a persecution or a witch hunt ordeal. That would be why the camera recorded the obvious and loud hauntings in the house.

I give this guy kudos for entertainment, but this story is completely fabricated.

I've traveled throughout the United States and overseas to investigate purported hauntings, both residential and commercial. With a film crew. Believe me, if this residence was known as a site of a mass murder, it would have been on our radar screen. Every paranormal group worth their salt would know about this.

Every point other reviewers comment on to indicate this story and "documentary" is correct.
But the "Dead Giveaway" to me, was when "John" said that the owner planned to sell his house. If the owner knew of this "story" of a mass murder in his house and didn't disclose that fact up front, it could potentially be a real deal breaker with legal consequences if the buyer finds out, unless he advertises as for sale "AS IS". Some states require the owner to disclose if the properety was the site of a murdew within a certain time frame (usually 3 years), other states have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Sometimes the requirement falls on the real estate agent or broker to disclose, and sometimes it's up to the potential buyer to ask the question in order to get knowledge.

Despite these dicey real estate laws for the owner to disclose if a murder took place - the issue of a "haunting" is a whole other issue. If there is a "rumor" that the house is haunted by heresay, that is one thing. If it is publically claimed as "haunted" - this documentary would be the smoking gun in the eyes of the law.

The owner would never allow this footage to be released. It's one thing if you own a historical Inn, and you advertise it as "haunted" to draw public attention and sales. In that case, yes, you invite paranormal groups to "investigate", and make it public.

However, this is a private home in a residential neighborhood. If this house was established as "haunted", the neighborhood house values would drop substantially, and lawsuits would ensue. Think about the house in Amityville, and all the unwanted attention it attracted due to the fllm - and it didn't even matter if the story was true or not. The fact that it was publicaly perceived as "haunted" because of the film sealed it's fate forever.

The other "Dead Giveaway" is that it is illegal to start digging holes on someone's property without their consent, especially considerinng that the guy found a heavy, metal Safe buried on the owner's land! And the film-maker discloses he did not consent with the owner. Moreover, the guy takes this safe home (stolen property) and discovers human teeth! Now, this film-maker not only documented his theft of the Safe, but it can legally be concluded he disrupted a crime scene. He didn't report his findings to the authorities, or to the owner. All this guy said was that he "needed to call his lawyer". ---> No lawyer would advise their client to release this footage as it is evidence of stolen property and the human teeth remains could be all a court would need to get a warrant for this guy's arrest and assess if he was part of a cover-up for a crime scene.

If you are an authentic paranormal investigator of purported "haunted" properties - whether intended to be private or publicized - you would know it's in everybody's best intest to sign a bunch of legal documents that protects you, and protects the owner.