There has been so much written about the Jonbenet murder case that it's hard to come up with anything new. So this is really a rehash of the facts and the investigation story, with interviews with a few people to give us commentary. But the problem with it is how biased it is. (That is, in its editorial line that the Ramseys did it and covered it up.) Michele Wood, a detective and one of the interviewees, is horrendously biased. She gives running commentary about how suspicious the Ramseys are and how they colluded in their police interviews, which are not borne out by the facts and Ramsey soundbites which accompany her interview snippets. But when her running commentary is carefully edited in with the facts, then everything suddenly has an eerie and ominous feel to it. I certainly would not want her investigating any murder around me. Everything she says is based on the assumption that the Ramseys did it, and is interpreted that way, to the extent that Patsy telling detectives that she did not kill her daughter is, in Michele Woods's mind, further proof for us all that she obviously did do it - I mean, look at her, she is denying it! exactly what a guilty person would do... Seriously. This woman is a detective? Another bit of clear bias is the handwriting sample. Cina Wong is the one handwriting specialist they interview for the show. She happens to be the only handwriting specialist who states that Patsy in all likelihood wrote the note. Most handwriting experts concluded that Patsy could have written it - i.e. they wouldn't rule her out - but Cina is very decisive on the matter. Why does this documentary only interview her and not even mention the other experts' opinions?Watch the Dr Phil or CBS shows if you want to watch an informative and intelligent review of facts on this case. Watch this one if you believe the Ramseys did it and do not want to entertain any real notion that you may be wrong.