I think that the fake photo of a bite mark taken off from internet is what made question the whole thing. The main accuser is now saying that she was so love bombed by Hammer she couldn't even recognize her own shoulder and the fact that the bite mark was apparently that of a little girl's teeth. I kid you not.
I don't want to cast judgement on the woman per se, but what exactly was the production of this documentary thinking? Couldn't they even verify a single photo? She claims she has tons of other photos proving hammer's abuse on her. Where are they? Why didn't the documentary show those, since she has so many?
They claim they want to help women recognize early signs of abuse, but what I actually see is the producers and others finding themselves in an embarrassing situation while a police investigation is still pending. They will remove the photo from the documentary, as they should.
But the reason why they could not check the validity of a supposed photographic proof of abuse before letting the documentary air will perhaps remain a mystery. But this was enough for to me to question everything else they presented in it.
I don't want to cast judgement on the woman per se, but what exactly was the production of this documentary thinking? Couldn't they even verify a single photo? She claims she has tons of other photos proving hammer's abuse on her. Where are they? Why didn't the documentary show those, since she has so many?
They claim they want to help women recognize early signs of abuse, but what I actually see is the producers and others finding themselves in an embarrassing situation while a police investigation is still pending. They will remove the photo from the documentary, as they should.
But the reason why they could not check the validity of a supposed photographic proof of abuse before letting the documentary air will perhaps remain a mystery. But this was enough for to me to question everything else they presented in it.