Who Killed Jill Dando?

I was probably about 15 years old when Jill Dando was murdered. I was certainly familiar with her name, and i remember the murder - but i dont remember enough to have formed an opinion on anything.

This must be one of the worst true crime documentaries i've ever seen! Every aspect of every avenue was not explored. There was no detail about anything! Just nothing. All you got was surface level theories repeated to exhaustion.

I'm not sure if i was supposed to take sides by the end, but the whole thing was so vague i just thought 'obviously no one give a crap'. Except some gangster who says he 'knows' but cant possibly say...sure man, just take the paycheck.

Total waste of time.

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.

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.

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.

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.