¿Quién mató a Jill Dando?

This documentary was very disappointing. Firstly, it could've been 2 episodes or even just 1 long one. They spent so much time discussing things not related to the actual case and the way they kept circulating back on the story rather than continuing to move forward was excruciating. Everyone interviewed was so dull and crusty (except the defence lawyer) so again made the story very dry and move even slower. By the time I could tell there was going to be no resolution to the story it was too late and I was too far in. I hate to say it but this was very dull to watch. Even with no real resolution I'm not left wanting more.

I was probably about 15 years old when Jill Dando was murdered. I was certainly familiar with her name, and i remember the murder - but i dont remember enough to have formed an opinion on anything.

This must be one of the worst true crime documentaries i've ever seen! Every aspect of every avenue was not explored. There was no detail about anything! Just nothing. All you got was surface level theories repeated to exhaustion.

I'm not sure if i was supposed to take sides by the end, but the whole thing was so vague i just thought 'obviously no one give a crap'. Except some gangster who says he 'knows' but cant possibly say...sure man, just take the paycheck.

Total waste of time.

I'm not sure if the investigation itself was this bad, or the way the documentarians put together and edited this documentary makes the investigators look foolish. Were they trying to put together a lengthy series, but not having enough information, they put in every needless detail they could find? It's difficult to understand the timeline of when events happened or when certain individuals/groups became suspects or were eliminated. Then, in the middle of the second episode, we start going back into retrospective of who Jill Dando was and why she was loved. Didn't we already learn that at the beginning?

But then, when a newcomer looks into it things, there seems to be common sense used to discover connections. So is it a bad documentary, or actually a reflection on how poorly this investigation was done. They would provide details of evidence, and then make claims as to why somebody was a suspect, even though it doesn't correlate with the evidence . Nothing added up, but is it just bad footage, questioning, or editing?

Just felt frustrated watching it, not intrigued like I usually would be while watching a crime documentary...

What a pointless documentary. Just a rehash of everything that was raked over at the time.

No new theories. No new leads or avenues of investigation.

Stretched out and fairly pointless. No reason to watch it at all to be honest. Not particularly well made either as it jumps around and meanders back & forth.

It was clearly a professional hit. That at least should have enabled the documentary makers to weed out the silly dross. No mention of police revisiting the case to give it a modern DNA techniques overhaul.

Next case for the doc-makers to crack - Who shot J. R.? That would be more entertaining certainly.

How many more of these two or three part murder/mystery unsolved documentaries are there going to be, when all they do is inform everything already known with no conclusion at the end (it finishes with two possible scenarios of who murdered Jill).

There is a no doubt it is well produced with interviews from colleagues, friends and family, but is ploddy at best. The 2019 1-hour BBC Documentary is superior, concise and more watchable.

As with the Suzy Lamplugh unsolved disappearance (who coincidentally disappeared from roughly the same area) the Metropolitan Police named their killer with mostly circumstantial evidence, and have wasted time and resources, while not exploring other avenues. The Barry George suspect story is so well know in the UK I'm surprised the producers devoted so much time to it.

The documentary confirms it is yet another unsolved murder embarrassment for the London Met, 24 years old.