Ow! My balls!
Dude, you're one of the gullible. You're lead to believe you are taken through an unbiased -- or at least equal-opportunity review and counterreview -- of what constitutes evidence and not evidence. None of that is of concern to a documentary. A documentary has no obligation to include facts or details that may run counter to their point of view. A documentary has no rules about what constitutes hearsay, what constitutes admissible evidence versus inadmissible. A documentary has no obligation to allow for counter-examination.
What is of concern to a documentary on Netflix is viewership. Entertainment.
When that becomes the standard of law, and when the populace believes what they see on TV replaces the checks and balances of a court of law, then we have all failed to the tyranny of Facebook like buttons as a form of defining justice. (Or as
Time magazine put it...)
And no, I haven't seen it. No interest in seeing it, either. I don't have 10 hours of my life to donate to Netflix and some director's world view on some guy in Wisconsin.