Not sure why I stuck with this all the way through. The first episode shows the guy has no proof, no real case - AT ALL! You have to wonder if he's just convinced the film crew to tilt toward his personal windmill? Is he throwing away his income? Are the investigators stringing him along? Obviously he had a troubled relationship with his parents but to sue them just because they weren't "normal" (somewhat of an understatement)? I'm surprised he got as much cooperation as he did - he comes across as somewhat of a crank. Turns out his long-held (30+ years?) beliefs about his parents reactions were wrong (they did contact the police consistently, according to the newly-found police report); They didn't have the police report after all. Probably more exculpatory evidence I've forgotten. But - shouldn't rate an entire series unless you're seen it all, right? So I write this after just finishing the 4th episode.
This could have been done in a 2-hour movie, so much is rehashed in each segment: His fathers volatility, His mothers passivity; The parents collective behavior, etc. Each segment adds a bit more detail to each character and the various theories. You'll notice they paid scant attention to the obvious 'other' main suspects - the guy with a record Jennifer babysat for or the boyfriend. Seems like your stereotypical small-town incompetent police investigation - Was it true the police never visited this guy nor investigated more than a phone call?? Did they ever even interview the brother? He says he was in college, but was that proven? No mention of contacting the original officers was mentioned - were none yet alive or willing to reminisce?
It was only into the last segment where actual new info was followed up on. But - consulting a (supposed) handwriting expert? I don't believe this is even close to a science.
In the end it appears he unjustly held his parents responsible for 30-some years. It's yet another reason I wouldn't be so eager to convict if I was ever put on a jury. There's a reason for the 'reasonable doubt' part of our justice system. Some people just don't act reasonably under stress. Doesn't make them guilty.
This could have been done in a 2-hour movie, so much is rehashed in each segment: His fathers volatility, His mothers passivity; The parents collective behavior, etc. Each segment adds a bit more detail to each character and the various theories. You'll notice they paid scant attention to the obvious 'other' main suspects - the guy with a record Jennifer babysat for or the boyfriend. Seems like your stereotypical small-town incompetent police investigation - Was it true the police never visited this guy nor investigated more than a phone call?? Did they ever even interview the brother? He says he was in college, but was that proven? No mention of contacting the original officers was mentioned - were none yet alive or willing to reminisce?
It was only into the last segment where actual new info was followed up on. But - consulting a (supposed) handwriting expert? I don't believe this is even close to a science.
In the end it appears he unjustly held his parents responsible for 30-some years. It's yet another reason I wouldn't be so eager to convict if I was ever put on a jury. There's a reason for the 'reasonable doubt' part of our justice system. Some people just don't act reasonably under stress. Doesn't make them guilty.