Qui a tué l'enfant chérie de la BBC?

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 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.

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 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.