Ever wondered why law courts and police don't like criminologists? Watch this and you will see.
Prof. David Wilson asked closed questions, leading questions, passes random statements off as questions and uses these responses to now jump to rapid conclusions and assume the worst. Prof. Wilson could never get away with this in a courtroom or a police investigation, so, he gets funding to make a doco out of it. Now I'm not rooting for any party, but this is just plain bad.
He takes that random rants (testimony) of a women who is the mother of another convicted killer, implies that she is some sort of eye witness, then attempts to use this as primary evidence to catch his killer. Of course it all falls down and the annoying prof has to call the questioning quits. He then resorts to another strategy, towards the end he taunts the interviewee with emotional threats of retribution and how he will call on the cavalry to convict his man. When the interviewee does not bite the prof. has to leave the room to hide his own emotions.
Throughout the doco it is evident that the prof. cherry picks his evidence and testimonies, while it is blatantly obvious to the trained eye that he has not even reviewed the courts evidence which he should know like the back of his hand.
Now we all want to catch the killer, but this is unbelievably bad.