¿Quién mató a Jill Dando?

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...

Jill Dando was everywhere in 1990s Britain. She was charming, likeable and her death was beyond shocking.

This documentary does well to keep Jill in the story, splicing clips of her throughout the three parts. Oddly, Jill comes across the most alive person. Everyone else seems so flat. It makes for a frustrating documentary. Information is sparse, and no hard questions are being asked, especially of the police, regarding the slow pace of investigation and some big mis-steps (cctv from local buses, for one, which even the tabloid hacks figured out). Sranger still is the appearance of a random old blagger who says he knows things. Sure.

Ultimately, it makes for a well-made but empty series.

This is a wonderful documentary on such a very sad case. I remember hearing about it but not know much about it at the time. However, there were so many holes left in the documentary that really left the viewer wondering what had happened. Especially with regards to the lifestyle of the accused, it never seem to go into more depth and tell us about what happened or even tried to explain his mental state and why he acted the way that he did. Hopefully this will kick start the police to open the investigation again, but after all this time, is it likely that we're gonna find the true answer? Worth a watch if you like true crime.

Another documentary drawn out in Netflix's typical style these days. I agree with the prior comment about whether it was an average investigation or average documentary. I'm going to go with both.

This doco offered no depth in area nor canvassed possible hypotheses to any meaningful extent. It was merely a retrospective of the investigation and honestly, it isn't worth a watch unless you're on a plane or similar with three hours to kill.

When you recall these events and see there's a doco, you have hope maybe new leads might come if it. I cannot see that happening as a result of this documentary and thus for me it's another example of Netflix cashing in.

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.