¿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'm Canadian and I have been to the United Kingdom once. For the most part it was a pleasant visit, apart from one immigration officer who seemed certain that I was about to work illegally in his beautiful country, which was strange because I was only there to visit as a tourist for a literal weekend. One thing that struck me is how similar the two countries are, Canada, United Kingdom, and yet how vastly different they are. There's the same fast food restaurants and people somewhat speak the same language, but the mentality is quite different and things that are famous internationally are not necessarily the things that people in those countries care about the most. The case of Jill Dando is a good example of this. The documentary makes a comparison between her and lady Diana. In Canada knows who Lady Di was, I doubt many people would have heard about Jill Dando and her case. The documentary does a good job of explaining the basic facts of the case, and you get the feeling that it was not created merely to be some sort of venue for sordid true crime, so as a way to try and bring the case to a resolution. I am struck by the fact that this is yet another case that was widely talked about in the media and because of that attention and focus, the true killer was allowed to get away with it.

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...

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.

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.