The Truth About Jim

The only evidence presented in this "documentary" is pure hearsay with Ms Barter trying to hype up the suspense with over the top narration to lead the viewer where she wants to take them.

This does far more harm than good. Mobs act on feelings and emotions; law enforcement does not.. Feelings are what lead people to shoot up pizza parlor because they think it has a hidden basement where crimes are being committed. Feelings lie.

I'll grant that J Mordecai was probably a horrible person. But to wonder what an FHA instructor who teaches agriculture is doing with a hunting knife and guns is akin to wondering what what a baker is doing with some egg beaters and a rolling pin... It ain't unusual.

I really wonder what the true motivations are for this documentary.

This was pure speculation! All the way through, with no firm conclusion. While he may have been an awful man and I am sorry for what they all went through, you are accusing a man of murder ! When you have no proof and he cannot defend himself. Don't waste your time watching its long winded and meaningless.

The interviews all seem prompted, I did have sympathy and empathy for the women, but as stated it was all speculation.

There doesn't seem to be any firm presented evidence, for anything. I was very disappointed in this documentary. I wish I read the reviews before I wasted my time watching it.

"Somebody's grandpa was a serial killer....." Sigh, not necessarily tho, right? Cause a serial killer isn't automatically a father - and it's assumptions and leaps like that that pepper this series with, let's say reckless allegations that most of, are pure speculation - now PLEASE understand that I'm not defending the subject of the documentary, nor disbelieving the accusers (in the cases that it's first hand recounting) but let's just say that had the filmmakers not been immediate family AND the accused being deceased, this type of film couldnt or wouldn't exist - so to me, the fact that one or more of these are purely conjecture - it causes me to see the whole through this lens of speculation - for that I think I have to give it a 3, if for no other reason than, IN FACT, it is NOT the TRUTH about Jim.

One of the worst HBO documentaries ever made.

Mostly conjecture and staged interviews where subjects are more or less fed lines and leading witnesses. The narrative constantly deviates from serial killing into family drama and how men are bad and nobody believed rumours in the 1970s, a time when hearsay dominated life. Evidence shcmevidence it seems the filmmaker is saying.

The entire first episode could be condensed into a 3 minute intro but the filmmaker is too invested in her own namesake and San Francisco trauma to stop.

Just because you can shoot a documentary doesn't make it compelling or necessary.

Far below HBO documentary standards.

This documentary had no business being stretched into four episodes, and perhaps due to its extended nature it seems to never quite get to the point. It seems primarily to be a vanity piece for its main subject, Sierra, but fails to explore the nuance behind what is driving her "investigation." Jim was clearly a bad man, but watching the women in his life speculate about things he may or may not have done now that he is long dead feels regressive rather than empowering. It lingers on long drawn out scenes of mothers and daughters reminiscing on Jim's impact on their lives, though it didn't feel to me as the viewer like it was particularly healing for them to do so, even as the documentary attempts to manufacture a storyline of familial healing.

This documentary had ample opportunity to take an academic look at cycles of abuse among generations, the role of women as family healers & documentarians, or even could have explored the making the project itself as a coping mechanism for its subjects, but instead it takes a one dimensional view of Sierra and her family.