It's fascinating to read reviews of a documentary and start to wonder if you watched the same series as other people?
I was enthralled by the very first opening shots and credits - the bleak but beautiful landscape and the gothic celtic cross, which turns out to be placed at the spot where Sophie was murdered.
It wasn't slow - it set the pace of the place in winter. Cosmopolitan? It was explained that the place has many tourists in the summer. Sophie had a second home there, and she was french; she wasn't the only foreign visitor.
I found myself pitching from one opinion to another all the time - and I loved the fact that this documentary makes you see just why it is so hard to convict Bailey.
I think that he did it, and it is great how Sheridan held back with the information of how Bailey had beaten his partner, Jules, so badly that she needed facial reconstruction, until after we had started to doubt the circumstantial evidence against him.
But what about the blood under Sophie's nails?
I BELIEVE that Bailey is guilty - but there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt.
I loved Sheridan's narration. Every single documentary has a personal slant one way or another, because some scriptwriter/film-maker chooses how to present the facts in a way that is their personal choice. They make descisions based on the way they view the story, and Sheridan is very open about his interests.
All in all, I've been thinking about the case ever since watching the documentary.
Surely that's what any documentary should make you do?
I was enthralled by the very first opening shots and credits - the bleak but beautiful landscape and the gothic celtic cross, which turns out to be placed at the spot where Sophie was murdered.
It wasn't slow - it set the pace of the place in winter. Cosmopolitan? It was explained that the place has many tourists in the summer. Sophie had a second home there, and she was french; she wasn't the only foreign visitor.
I found myself pitching from one opinion to another all the time - and I loved the fact that this documentary makes you see just why it is so hard to convict Bailey.
I think that he did it, and it is great how Sheridan held back with the information of how Bailey had beaten his partner, Jules, so badly that she needed facial reconstruction, until after we had started to doubt the circumstantial evidence against him.
But what about the blood under Sophie's nails?
I BELIEVE that Bailey is guilty - but there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt.
I loved Sheridan's narration. Every single documentary has a personal slant one way or another, because some scriptwriter/film-maker chooses how to present the facts in a way that is their personal choice. They make descisions based on the way they view the story, and Sheridan is very open about his interests.
All in all, I've been thinking about the case ever since watching the documentary.
Surely that's what any documentary should make you do?