At Witt's End the Hunt for a Killer

I watch dozens of crime docs and I can easily say this was the biggest waste of time I have ever endured. FOUR PARTS that could easily be summed up in 10 minutes. Someone gets killed, they don't know who, they still don't know who.

Complete garbage, don't waste your time. I can't understand in this day and age how trash like this gets made. Who paid for this ?? Who produced this?? Who thought this was a good idea? Have you never seen TV before? Have you never seen a crime doc? Even writing a review about the waste of time this was seems like the show is wasting even more of my time. My hope is it will save others their time and they can watch something that is better.

ABSOLUTELY AWFUL PIECE OF TRASH.

I do not understand why there are so many moments/minutes of no one talking. This has soooo much filler in it. So unnecessary just make it a standard 2 hr movie format. 4 hrs was way over what was needed to tell this story.

Of course Iam not knocking anything about this writing because it's a true story.

The score doesn't always fit the story either. Overall this could have been made better .

I would have preferred this as a dateline episode to be honest. They probably would have done a better job.

Almost all of the first 5 minutes of each episode are filler just to start with.

My heart goes out to the families in this case . The police clearly blew it on this case and the cold case crew is currently doing there best.

I sympathize with the families, but wish this documentary had been done in a better manner, so that it could achieve some justice for the victims. I find it frustrating that these documentaries get into these people's lives yet fail to provide true means towards justice.

A lot of redundancy in what information is being discussed or set forth. Apparent, distracting direction, I think the production teams should have rethought their choices on going forth with with the team they had in place.

I will credit the law enforcement officers and agencies with being very thorough and doing their best to solve this case. I find their actions to be very commendable, in fact, the footage covering their efforts is the only documentation worth watching in this series.

One thing I found irritating, was that Charlene Shirk seemed to always subtly turn it back to be about her and not the victims. I don't find her to be a very credible journalist. She'd be best just to stay out of the documentary field, except, she seems to want make herself front and center, and enjoys the schadenfreude.

The first episode was compelling but the next three got increasingly less so with each one.

The journalist who was a main commentator felt very self congratulatory, it bothered me that she seemed to repeatedly imply that she was the reason that various things were found, like because of her compassion and empathy she was responsible for getting this case some traction when nobody else around them was doing anything about it. That very well might be the case, but it just rubbed me the wrong way that here she was talking about this horrible story about what happened to this young girl and she seemed to prioritize the telling of a story in a way that made her the unspoken hero. It was distracting and I felt that it took away from the credibility of the story she was telling.

There was a lot of procedural stuff going on which can be interesting but in this case felt tedious and superfluous.

I don't know if it's just me, but I have a hard time with true crime documentaries that provide zero definitive answers. It just makes the whole thing feel somewhat anticlimactic, like OK so here's a story of another missing girl that never got found, stories like that are a dime a dozen so it's hard to invest all that energy, time and emotion into a story with no resolution. That's not to say that her story was not a story worth telling, but when it comes to true crime documentaries a huge part of the fascination with the genre is not just the investigation, but the way in which investigators followed clues to a resolution. When there is no resolution I feel affected by the documentarian's personal bias, we ultimately get fed a story which can be Terri picked in a way to fit whatever narrative the documentarian is pushing, like in this case one gets the impression that the suspect is most likely the killer, when in reality there are many other alternate theories none of them more credible than the other so in documentaries like these I feel somewhat misled. It's when there is a resolution that we are able to be shown the facts that led them to its inevitable conclusion.

Apparently most of the reviewers hated this to the point they wanted their four hours back.

But, I beg to differ. I actually thought this was really interesting. It is a rare true crime documentary that appears to follow the investigation in "real time" -- or "as it happens". And so, there is a lot of stuff that some people think is boring, but I found strangely fascinating.

I come from a law enforcement family... but I need not have that pedigree to say that crime solving is not SVU or CSI. It is a lot of dead ends and rabbit holes and making mistakes. And not solving anything.

I am so used to the normal retrospective kind of documentary series that it took me a while to figure out this series: that we were following the investigators alongside them.... as I said, in real time. And to be honest, maybe I'm nuts and imagining what I figured out.