The upside of this documentary is the fact that the journalists did a great job of presenting what Danny Casolaro wrote and thought about what was going on in the case he was investigating, as well as making some discoveries of their own. They also interviewed a lot of witnesses at key events in the investigation, people who Danny collaborated with directly and their descendants. If you want to get into the mind of what this journalist was going through, this is a great documentary to watch.
The downside of this documentary is that it is too partial, only showing the story through the vision of people who shared Danny's version of the events. This documentary could have tried to do what The Vietnam War by Ken Burns documentary did, and that is to reach out to people who supported the official story and then let the viewer decide which version of events is true.
Personally, I believe the fault of the documentary lies in drawing conclusions without proper evidence, evidence that should have refute any other version of events.
A lot of information is based on the legitimacy of the speaker, but it has been proven many times that witness statements can be faulty, an aspect that was made popular by the movie Twelve Angry Men.
What about the letter? The documentary doesn't even talk about it and tacitly remarks that it was genuine. Why would a person write it and then be killed?
In conclusion, we should believe a person to be innocent until proven guilty and not the opposite even when we are talking about people in powerful positions. The documentary's job should have been that of informing the viewer and not inciting him and fueling his paranoia. Every thesis should have enough evidence to be able to confirm that said version was the only possible one.
The downside of this documentary is that it is too partial, only showing the story through the vision of people who shared Danny's version of the events. This documentary could have tried to do what The Vietnam War by Ken Burns documentary did, and that is to reach out to people who supported the official story and then let the viewer decide which version of events is true.
Personally, I believe the fault of the documentary lies in drawing conclusions without proper evidence, evidence that should have refute any other version of events.
A lot of information is based on the legitimacy of the speaker, but it has been proven many times that witness statements can be faulty, an aspect that was made popular by the movie Twelve Angry Men.
What about the letter? The documentary doesn't even talk about it and tacitly remarks that it was genuine. Why would a person write it and then be killed?
In conclusion, we should believe a person to be innocent until proven guilty and not the opposite even when we are talking about people in powerful positions. The documentary's job should have been that of informing the viewer and not inciting him and fueling his paranoia. Every thesis should have enough evidence to be able to confirm that said version was the only possible one.