Why present glaring inconsistencies?

Although Werner Herzog doesn't emphasize the dubious, he doesn't entirely hide those things either. For example, he shows us that after many years of not even standing, Kaspar Hauser learned to walk in only an hour or so ...Really??? For another example, he shows us that this boy that can't read or write can nevertheless sign his name in perfectly legible longhand ...Really???

Is Mr. Herzog trying to tell us something by presenting -without apparent comment- not only the sanitized positive Kaspar Hauser story, but also some of the story's glaring warts?