Did the narration bother anyone else?

[deleted]

It did raise the question (and I'd never heard of this case before) of why this man would confess now unless he was being paid.

Without the confession, the filmmaker would have been left without much of a documentary. The filmmaker mentions that Panama demanded to be paid for each interview, but says nothing of Rusto's payments (if any were made to him).

His family seemed to be doing okay and were willing to participate, and he was living in such squalor that I also suspected that he would say anything they wanted for payment.

The narration also seemed to try very hard to set up the "He's innocent! - No wait! He's guilty and lied to me!" angle based solely on narration. They never show what compelling reason the filmmaker had to believe Rusto in the first place, and then dramatized the two confessions.

Still, I thought it was an interesting film.

What I really disliked was the fact that he dumped Rusto on the family's porch in some effort to force a confrontation.

I thought he was Michael Moore for a sec

well the confession was really repeating what Resto told a cop in 1983, so it's not like he "pushed" Resto - and Resto seemed finally able to come clean and confess that his story of the gloves & plaster-of-paris was true.