User reviews

The reason i didn't give this a 10 is that I don't really like the way it is arranged. The timeline is confusing and keeps bringing you forward and back many times. I would have preferred a more linear narration. The soundtracks are a little bit offbeat, and it's such a mess because I think that visually a good job has been done, and the sound accompaniment should be fundamental to give authenticity and power to a work of this kind.

This show fulfills a fundamental role, which is to bring to the attention of the general public a version of the facts that is not the institutional one.

Sometimes institutions make mistakes, and sometimes, rather than admitting their mistake, they continue to act wrongfully. This is a pattern that has been repeated many times in history and which could correspond to this tale.

The thing i appreciated most about this miniseries is that it does not try to convince you of Massimo Bossetti's innocence, but simply gives you all the possible elements to doubt the institutions. Doubting institutions is essential to avoid being dominated by them.

The kidnapping and murder of 13 year old girl Yara Gambirasio could turn out to be one of the most important cases in international criminal history. As one of the pioneers of DNA evidence, Peter Gill has said - 'DNA should never be used alone to convict a criminal, but with a combination of other evidence.'

Never before has a better case been made than in this tragic case, where a very likely probability is that there is currently an innocent man languishing in an Italian for a crime he may well not have committed.

Despite almost shooting itself in the foot, by presenting the facts of the case with two non linear time lines, this documentary never the less presents a balanced view of a case that Italy was so desperate to have an answer for, an innocent man may well have gone to prison for the crime.

The more likely scenario is that a serial killer is still on the loose in Italy who may have been responsible for more than one murder.

The victim, who quite rightly is often at the forefront of this story, was a bright dance student from a normal middle class Italian family. Yara disappeared on a cold winters evening while walking back from the local sports hall to her house, a walk which only would have taken 10-15 minutes.

From the word go several vital mistakes were made in the case. A proper search was not carried out of key premises, nor key potential witnesses including the janitor of the gym until some time later. The victim herself wasn't found for three months, in an area that was already searched several times, suggesting it was highly probable she was placed there at a later date.

A DNA profile was completed from a sample found on the victims body but the way in which was constructed appears to be flawed and convoluted, it was also evidence which later denied to the defence, and an order was given that would effectively destroy the last remaining samples. Other potential scenarios and perpetrators were not followed up, and the entire prosecution was flawed and evidence was manufactured to favour their case.

You really need to see this series for yourself and draw your own conclusions, but I have a feeling history will not be kind to those in this case who have put a local brick layer in prison.

But please, enough with the non-linear narratives.

Talented thirteen year old teenager Yara Gambiraso disappears from her home in a small Italian village. Yara is tragically found dead a few days later, and DNA links local man Massimo.

It's a very well made, balanced and thought provoking series, it makes you Talented thirteen year old teenager Yara Gambiraso disappears from her home in a small Italian village. Yara is tragically found dead a few days later, and DNA links local man Massimo Bossetti.

It's a very well made, balanced and thought provoking series, it makes you question all sorts of points and supposed evidence?

Is an innocent man languishing in a prison, or was some sort of science withheld, and a dodgy conviction brought in to condemn an innocent man? I can't answer that, but one thing is very clear, the trial was a farce all sorts of points and supposed evidence?

Is an innocent man languishing in a prison, or was some sort of science withheld, and a dodgy conviction brought in to condemn an innocent man? I can't answer that, but one thing is very clear, the trial was a farce.

If I had one criticism, it's this, at one point it talks about the glamorisation of those left behind, the victim forgotten, I felt there was an element of that here. At times it does jump about a little, the final two episodes are a lot easier to follow than the first two.

8/10.

The continuous back and forth between multiple time lines is extremely confusing and irritating. At one point in the 3rd episode I just didn't know what part of the sequence of events was I even seeing anymore.

If you want to go back and forth, then just keep it to 2 timelines OR better just go in a sequential order.

The editor has made a mess of things completely destroying the documentary.

Also wassup with the subtitles and audio translation? Every scene starts off with the original Italian audio and then the English audio cuts in, the screen at the same time shows the original Italian text (name of the person talking on screen), and the subtitles then randomly shows the person's name in between what is being said.

I still completed the series because I really wanted to find out what happened. But my god, the production of this thing is a complete mess.

STOP inserting the original audio language in translated versions.

STOP inserting the original language words on-screen in translated versions.

STOP with the multiple timelines if you don't know what you are doing. You are NOT Nolan.

This documentary cought my attention, it is heartbreaking as any similar case would be and I was really interested in finding out what happened but on the half of second episode I had to stop watching because of disturbed timeline. Constant back and forth between various years is making me nervous and I can't follow any more what is happening when. Don't understand the reason behind this but I see it often in documentaries lately especially true crimes. It's purpose is I suppose to make dynamics which is fine but should be made moderately. This just confuses, iritates and makes documentary impossible to follow.

This show is TERRIBLE to watch. Not because of the story. The story is sad. The production is terrible. It goes back and forth in time. Why??? It's pointless. Tell the story chronologically. Why not?

Plus, either do it all in ENGLISH or don't do it!! Do a version for Italy if you want to hear Italian. It's terrible to hear both English and Italian at the same time. Very hard to listen to.

They flash who the people are for one tenth of a nanosecond in Italian. Put it in ENGLISH. That is who the customers are in THE USA.

The news reporters are in Italian. Why?? Just do it all in one language. This really takes away from the documentary.

Frankly speaking, a good reason to cancel the Netflix subscription.

The documentary exclusively supports the defendant's point of view and ends by claiming that the prosecutor is under investigation for fraud.

The reality is that criminal prosecution in Italy is mandatory when there is a complaint (and the defendant's attorney filed a complaint) but the action ended with the prosecutor's acquittal of all charges.

The evidence brought by the public prosecution in this case is indisputable. The genetic profiles of person of interest 1 and 2 were ascertained well before the people to whom they belong were identified. What is extraordinary in this case is that the genetic profiling of almost 20,000 volunteers made it possible to determine the existence of an illegitimate child, the result of an extramarital relationship of which no one was aware, except the mother of the accused and his natural father, who died 12 years earlier. This illegitimate child was found guilty of killing Yara Gambirasio.

Netflix documentary falsely claims the evidence of the defendant's van, circling 16 times around the gym, was fabricated. The reality is that a video released by investigators showed images shot by 5 different cameras. Only one provided images of such quality as to allow certain identification of the defendant's van. The images shot by the other four cameras only show a van "compatible" with the defendant's one. However, in the entire province of Bergamo (1,060 square kilometers in area and 1,115 million inhabitants) there were only three vans compatible with that of the defendant. The probability that other vehicles, compatible to the defendant's one, were circulating around the Yara gym, on the same day at the same time, thus reducing the identifications from 16 to "only" 5, was considered by the jury to be low and, ultimately, irrelevant. Bossetti's van was indeed circling around the gym when Yara disappeared, as for the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Much emphasis is placed on the trainer's genetic material found on Yara's jacket or on cell phone traces. The jury found these elements irrelevant. Yara and the coach met regularly at the gym. The genetic material may have been deposited on the vest days, or even weeks, before Yara disappeared.

The cell phones do not prove at all that the defendant was at home at the time of Yara's disappearance. No one confirmed his alibi, not even his family, and the defendant has no explanation as to why his van was circling around Yara's gym at the time of her disappearance.

Massimo Bossetti is rotting in jail and deservedly so.

This documentary should just be called "A one sided case for the defence of an obviously guilty man". Because that's what it is. I didn't pick up on it until the end of the third episode just how formulaic it was. It's like this: 1) bring up a point that makes Bossetti look clearly guilty or just plain bad. (Which he is. And which he is.) 2) have the defence lawyer and other advocates explain it away. Oh it's nothing. Could happen to anyone. 3) quote the prosecution to make them look incompetent. 4) quote the defence again to explain what a farce it all was and how biased the media is. 5) we, the viewer, are supposed to be shocked and outraged at Italy's legal system, and are meant to somehow feel sorry for the utter psycho Bossetti and his wife.

One of these 5-step cycles lasts about 8 mins. So repeat it for about 25 different points. Most of which make him look very guilty, but we are meant to feel sorry for him because of the media storm. Or something. The documentary makers even try to muddy the waters and divert blame to completely innocent people just because some touch dna (not blood!) of a woman was found on the dead girl's jacket sleeve. (Umm hello. Bossetti's dna was found on her underwear. I think this counts for more.)

Netflix has done it again. You think people would have learnt after being sucked in by Making A Murderer. This one is just as deceptive. But it seems to be working with people who cannot think critically about what they're watching.

To whom is familiar with the case, this show is an absolute joke. It is so biased that it becomes immediately evident that the only purpose behind is to draw media attention, and instill doubts where there is literally none left. The director decided to focus only on the elements that were not strong in the proceeding, totally ignoring the DNA testing proof which undoubtedly pointed in one direction: 100% guilty. The enormous work done in order to identify the subject lasted years, it was very complex and brought to discover things that were unknown even to the perpetrator. There is no way that all of this was fabricated to blame an innocent person, because years of work led to him, not just a suggestion. Even circumtancial evidences are compelling here, but DNA traces on the body say it all. It is painful that the parents of the victim must go through this unfair and unnecessary biased review of the facts.

The timeline of the story is utterly confusing and unnecessarily messy, besides the fact that DNA is the most irrefutable evidence that can be presented in a court of law. In addition, there is other evidence, such as the car passing so many times in front of the last place where Yara was seen. I completely agree that it is necessary to have hard evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and in many famous cases where the accused has been found guilty I think it is necessary to go deeper into the investigation and find even more evidence. But in this case, c'mon, it is extremely obvious that Massimo is guilty.