IMDb-BEWERTUNG
6,3/10
2880
IHRE BEWERTUNG
In dieser Doku wird der schockierende Mord an der beliebten TV-Moderatorin Jill Dando im Jahr 1999 aufgerollt, der die Fachwelt noch immer vor ein Rätsel stellt.In dieser Doku wird der schockierende Mord an der beliebten TV-Moderatorin Jill Dando im Jahr 1999 aufgerollt, der die Fachwelt noch immer vor ein Rätsel stellt.In dieser Doku wird der schockierende Mord an der beliebten TV-Moderatorin Jill Dando im Jahr 1999 aufgerollt, der die Fachwelt noch immer vor ein Rätsel stellt.
Folgen durchsuchen
Empfohlene Bewertungen
I'm Canadian and I have been to the United Kingdom once. For the most part it was a pleasant visit, apart from one immigration officer who seemed certain that I was about to work illegally in his beautiful country, which was strange because I was only there to visit as a tourist for a literal weekend. One thing that struck me is how similar the two countries are, Canada, United Kingdom, and yet how vastly different they are. There's the same fast food restaurants and people somewhat speak the same language, but the mentality is quite different and things that are famous internationally are not necessarily the things that people in those countries care about the most. The case of Jill Dando is a good example of this. The documentary makes a comparison between her and lady Diana. In Canada knows who Lady Di was, I doubt many people would have heard about Jill Dando and her case. The documentary does a good job of explaining the basic facts of the case, and you get the feeling that it was not created merely to be some sort of venue for sordid true crime, so as a way to try and bring the case to a resolution. I am struck by the fact that this is yet another case that was widely talked about in the media and because of that attention and focus, the true killer was allowed to get away with it.
I'm not sure if the investigation itself was this bad, or the way the documentarians put together and edited this documentary makes the investigators look foolish. Were they trying to put together a lengthy series, but not having enough information, they put in every needless detail they could find? It's difficult to understand the timeline of when events happened or when certain individuals/groups became suspects or were eliminated. Then, in the middle of the second episode, we start going back into retrospective of who Jill Dando was and why she was loved. Didn't we already learn that at the beginning?
But then, when a newcomer looks into it things, there seems to be common sense used to discover connections. So is it a bad documentary, or actually a reflection on how poorly this investigation was done. They would provide details of evidence, and then make claims as to why somebody was a suspect, even though it doesn't correlate with the evidence . Nothing added up, but is it just bad footage, questioning, or editing?
Just felt frustrated watching it, not intrigued like I usually would be while watching a crime documentary...
But then, when a newcomer looks into it things, there seems to be common sense used to discover connections. So is it a bad documentary, or actually a reflection on how poorly this investigation was done. They would provide details of evidence, and then make claims as to why somebody was a suspect, even though it doesn't correlate with the evidence . Nothing added up, but is it just bad footage, questioning, or editing?
Just felt frustrated watching it, not intrigued like I usually would be while watching a crime documentary...
What a pointless documentary. Just a rehash of everything that was raked over at the time.
No new theories. No new leads or avenues of investigation.
Stretched out and fairly pointless. No reason to watch it at all to be honest. Not particularly well made either as it jumps around and meanders back & forth.
It was clearly a professional hit. That at least should have enabled the documentary makers to weed out the silly dross. No mention of police revisiting the case to give it a modern DNA techniques overhaul.
Next case for the doc-makers to crack - Who shot J. R.? That would be more entertaining certainly.
No new theories. No new leads or avenues of investigation.
Stretched out and fairly pointless. No reason to watch it at all to be honest. Not particularly well made either as it jumps around and meanders back & forth.
It was clearly a professional hit. That at least should have enabled the documentary makers to weed out the silly dross. No mention of police revisiting the case to give it a modern DNA techniques overhaul.
Next case for the doc-makers to crack - Who shot J. R.? That would be more entertaining certainly.
I don't know if he murdered her or not but classifying him as eccentric or quirky is an insult to the woman who have survived and endured his assaults. These incidents that he had been arrested for and found guilty of were violent and to dismiss the importance of what the survivors have gone through by classifying him as a type of harmless male is a disturbing trend that Netflix clearly is okay with.
In 1983 he served 18 months of a 33 month sentence for a 1982 rape. That's only one incident of MANY.
His record is well publicized so claiming ignorance doesn't pass.
Change your culture towards women and you might have a better outcome with murder investigations.
In 1983 he served 18 months of a 33 month sentence for a 1982 rape. That's only one incident of MANY.
His record is well publicized so claiming ignorance doesn't pass.
Change your culture towards women and you might have a better outcome with murder investigations.
Another documentary drawn out in Netflix's typical style these days. I agree with the prior comment about whether it was an average investigation or average documentary. I'm going to go with both.
This doco offered no depth in area nor canvassed possible hypotheses to any meaningful extent. It was merely a retrospective of the investigation and honestly, it isn't worth a watch unless you're on a plane or similar with three hours to kill.
When you recall these events and see there's a doco, you have hope maybe new leads might come if it. I cannot see that happening as a result of this documentary and thus for me it's another example of Netflix cashing in.
This doco offered no depth in area nor canvassed possible hypotheses to any meaningful extent. It was merely a retrospective of the investigation and honestly, it isn't worth a watch unless you're on a plane or similar with three hours to kill.
When you recall these events and see there's a doco, you have hope maybe new leads might come if it. I cannot see that happening as a result of this documentary and thus for me it's another example of Netflix cashing in.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How many seasons does Who Killed Jill Dando? have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Who Killed Jill Dando?
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit46 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
What is the Canadian French language plot outline for Der Mord an Jill Dando (2023)?
Antwort