Many of the complaints raised in the other reviews are valid - the skipping back and forth in time/evidence; the overexposure of the narrator, etc. However, after the 3rd episode it's evident the narrator isn't (completely) convinced of the innocence of the subject (named Weger) - unusual in these types of documentaries.
We see the usual tribalism - the accused's family, most apparently still supportive, and those still convinced of Wegers guilt. Most impervious to new (as well as old) facts.
Could Weger be convicted today? Probably not, not without DNA or more concrete evidence. The reviews of his various alibis and the troublesome evidence of his various sexual "adventures"* makes me resist the 'innocent' claim.
*Why didn't he narrator explore more the episode where he witnessed his sisters rape? And before you swallow Wegers lie about rescuing a raped girl - better listen to the 3rd episode! Finally, is it nature or nurture that causes his son to become a sexual predator?
We see the usual tribalism - the accused's family, most apparently still supportive, and those still convinced of Wegers guilt. Most impervious to new (as well as old) facts.
Could Weger be convicted today? Probably not, not without DNA or more concrete evidence. The reviews of his various alibis and the troublesome evidence of his various sexual "adventures"* makes me resist the 'innocent' claim.
*Why didn't he narrator explore more the episode where he witnessed his sisters rape? And before you swallow Wegers lie about rescuing a raped girl - better listen to the 3rd episode! Finally, is it nature or nurture that causes his son to become a sexual predator?