¿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...

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.

I don't know if he murdered her or not but classifying him as eccentric or quirky is an insult to the woman who have survived and endured his assaults. These incidents that he had been arrested for and found guilty of were violent and to dismiss the importance of what the survivors have gone through by classifying him as a type of harmless male is a disturbing trend that Netflix clearly is okay with.

In 1983 he served 18 months of a 33 month sentence for a 1982 rape. That's only one incident of MANY.

His record is well publicized so claiming ignorance doesn't pass.

Change your culture towards women and you might have a better outcome with murder investigations.

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.

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.