What's frustrating about this film...

...is it has experts and journalists talking about how media attention on a trial can distort perceptions, how people can mix up fact and drama, how jurors can be influenced by what they read before or during a trial...yet they offer no solution as to how to approach trials in any better way. Should news programs not report on any criminal events until a verdict has been reached, perhaps years later? I can't think of a way in which that would work.

One expert in the film states that when someone knows they are being filmed, they will act in a different way. Yet...it could be said that any time we are out in public, or viewed in any way, we will act differently, anyway. So there's no real way around that, unless people are going to testify in an empty room, via a video hookup...and even then they'd be aware that jurors and the courtroom (ie, the public) is going to see it, so they will be self-conscious about that, and perhaps edit themselves.

Another expert says that as soon as we see a public figure we begin to fit them into a certain (maybe pre-conceived) scenario that makes sense to us and our past experiences...that we start folding them into some sort of character we can grasp. And that characterization may differ from the truth. But, we do that with every person we encounter walking down the street, anyway...we look for clues and make assumptions based on our lives and our views.

The film never arrives at any real conclusion. Or solution. It's kind of interesting, but has no answers.
.