A bit over dramatic.
In terms of investigative reporting the documentarians ask non-open ended questions (but not leading questions).
Where there was information that had already been of no interest and disproved, the documentarians run with it and make it appear as a viable lead, untilllll they show why it was disproved.
I would have preferred them sticking to facts of the case and not wild speculation, a lot of "what if's" and "could it have been possible". Falls just short of conspiracy theories in that they do say when their "leads" had been already disproved.
It is interesting to have the "non experts" weigh in on the stories, fresh perspectives
In terms of investigative reporting the documentarians ask non-open ended questions (but not leading questions).
Where there was information that had already been of no interest and disproved, the documentarians run with it and make it appear as a viable lead, untilllll they show why it was disproved.
I would have preferred them sticking to facts of the case and not wild speculation, a lot of "what if's" and "could it have been possible". Falls just short of conspiracy theories in that they do say when their "leads" had been already disproved.
It is interesting to have the "non experts" weigh in on the stories, fresh perspectives
Tell Your Friends