The logline talking about "revisiting" the case is accurate. It's just a rehash of everything we already know put in script form.
This filmmaker sides with the foolish cops who NEVER considered that a crazy person did this horrible crime. They were out of their depth, & by the time they started acting like professionals, they had tunnel vision & all outside leads were nuisances they worked to discredit with gusto.
All this movie does is rehash & dramatize the bits of info already well known to the public since very early on. What it does NOT do is go back to the weeks before the murder.
FACTS NOT CONSIDERED: This family paraded their child proudly & naively all over the place, literally. She was in a parade with her name on the float just days before the murder (vaguely mentioned in the film). A couple days before that, the newspaper published that John's company had just made $1 billion in profits (never mentioned). She sang at a mall a couple days before Christmas (never mentioned). She was obviously seen on stage in pageants as well.
The movie gave about 4 minutes' screen time to the "intruder theory" - just like the cops.
Like the cops, this movie is too blind with bias to look at the obvious - a crazy person stalked them, found a way in, killed the girl & played head games with the family - because he was insane. He got away because of the most sloppy police work in history complicated by despicable political kowtowing.
There is still an "unidentified male's" DNA unaccounted for (not familial). Patsy was right...there's someone out there.
No matter who really did this, the movie/story should be a cautionary tale of how to protect your child from predators, not a botched procedural covering ground we've been over ad nauseam for 2 decades.
Hopefully someone will make THAT movie someday.
