At Witt's End the Hunt for a Killer

I sympathize with the families, but wish this documentary had been done in a better manner, so that it could achieve some justice for the victims. I find it frustrating that these documentaries get into these people's lives yet fail to provide true means towards justice.

A lot of redundancy in what information is being discussed or set forth. Apparent, distracting direction, I think the production teams should have rethought their choices on going forth with with the team they had in place.

I will credit the law enforcement officers and agencies with being very thorough and doing their best to solve this case. I find their actions to be very commendable, in fact, the footage covering their efforts is the only documentation worth watching in this series.

One thing I found irritating, was that Charlene Shirk seemed to always subtly turn it back to be about her and not the victims. I don't find her to be a very credible journalist. She'd be best just to stay out of the documentary field, except, she seems to want make herself front and center, and enjoys the schadenfreude.

The Hulu docuseries At Witt's End attempts to delve into the tragic and unsolved murder of 19-year-old Melissa Witt, but instead ends up as a muddled, misdirected narrative that does more harm than good. The most glaring issue begins with the title itself-At Witt's End. This title is not only dismissive but also incredibly disrespectful to Melissa Witt and her memory. It reduces the gravity of her brutal murder to a play on words, as if her life and death are nothing more than a clever pun to attract viewers.

From the outset, it's clear that the docuseries struggles to find its focus. Instead of centering the narrative around Melissa Witt, her life, and the profound impact of her loss on her family and community, the series frustratingly shifts its gaze toward Charles Ray Vines, a known serial killer. The time spent on Vines feels forced, unnecessary, and quite frankly, beyond stupid. While the investigation into Melissa's murder should be the main thread, the docuseries instead meanders through Vines' background in a way that seems more exploitative than informative.

This misdirection does a disservice to the victim at the heart of the story. Melissa Witt was a young woman with hopes, dreams, and a future that was stolen from her. Yet, her presence in the docuseries feels overshadowed by the sensationalism surrounding Vines. The decision to focus so heavily on him not only dilutes the impact of Melissa's story but also diverts attention from the ongoing search for justice in her case.

Moreover, the series fails to adequately explore Melissa Witt's life, personality, and the emotional toll her death has taken on those who loved her. The lack of depth and respect in how her story is told is deeply disappointing. The docuseries could have been a powerful tribute to Melissa Witt, shedding light on her case and bringing much-needed attention to the investigation. Instead, it squanders this opportunity by prioritizing shock value over substance.

In conclusion, At Witt's End falls far short of what it could and should have been. The disrespectful title, combined with a misguided focus on Charles Ray Vines, turns what could have been a compelling exploration of Melissa Witt's life and unsolved murder into a frustratingly shallow and misdirected narrative. Melissa Witt deserved better, and so did the viewers.

Nothing gets solved in this aside from New finally being able to find a bottle of acetaminophen for the headache I developed from having to listen to the ANNOYING SCORE that is constantly playing behind every single word that is spoken in this "docuseries." Ridley Scott really dropped the ball on this one. I really got my hopes up when I began watching this and saw 'Ridley Scott' in the opening credits. From here forward I'll be avoiding the work of this so-called seasoned veteran. Don't waste your time watching what could have easily been summed up in less than 15 minutes. A complete and total waste of time.

Do you like to see how a sausage is made? This true crime series might be for you. Do you want to be introduced to a crime, watch the leads develop and see the solution? Move along, this is going to bore the living skull out of you.

What seems to have happened is that Ridley Scott may have brought a cinematic quality to a procedural crime show that is incredibly heavy on procedure. This is a show that might become popular with law enforcement officers and wannabes who enjoy seeing the actual day to day activities that go into a cold crime investigation. You hear the same cops talking endlessly about the same subjects in that very vague legal speak that covers all bases and goes nowhere, for the most part.

This series is for these people. Not for casual true crime fans.

Also, the abrupt ending to the series, with DNA tests still pending, suggest that money on the production may have run out or that maybe the filmmakers decided to move onto other projects, but it definitely leaves the viewer with a feeling of having wasted 4 hours of their lives on this exercise in police interviewing. Cause that's basically what you get. Hours of cops talking about the same things, over and over.

But the production itself looks much better than your average show. The first episode, particularly, where they get a chance to recreate the crime as it happened, is dynamic and exciting.

The series title is a perfect giveaway and metaphor. "At Witt's End" perfect, exciting, engaging. "The Hunt for a Killer" incredibly boring, pedestrian, and overly long.

The first episode was compelling but the next three got increasingly less so with each one.

The journalist who was a main commentator felt very self congratulatory, it bothered me that she seemed to repeatedly imply that she was the reason that various things were found, like because of her compassion and empathy she was responsible for getting this case some traction when nobody else around them was doing anything about it. That very well might be the case, but it just rubbed me the wrong way that here she was talking about this horrible story about what happened to this young girl and she seemed to prioritize the telling of a story in a way that made her the unspoken hero. It was distracting and I felt that it took away from the credibility of the story she was telling.

There was a lot of procedural stuff going on which can be interesting but in this case felt tedious and superfluous.

I don't know if it's just me, but I have a hard time with true crime documentaries that provide zero definitive answers. It just makes the whole thing feel somewhat anticlimactic, like OK so here's a story of another missing girl that never got found, stories like that are a dime a dozen so it's hard to invest all that energy, time and emotion into a story with no resolution. That's not to say that her story was not a story worth telling, but when it comes to true crime documentaries a huge part of the fascination with the genre is not just the investigation, but the way in which investigators followed clues to a resolution. When there is no resolution I feel affected by the documentarian's personal bias, we ultimately get fed a story which can be Terri picked in a way to fit whatever narrative the documentarian is pushing, like in this case one gets the impression that the suspect is most likely the killer, when in reality there are many other alternate theories none of them more credible than the other so in documentaries like these I feel somewhat misled. It's when there is a resolution that we are able to be shown the facts that led them to its inevitable conclusion.