This documentary is wrong in almost every way. It is an example of how to NOT make a documentary. There are almost no facts in this documentary - just speculation. None of the key point make sense.
1) The series is too long with too much filler. Because of so much filler, the few potential facts presented get lost in the clutter. It is hard not to think this was done on purpose.
2) The majority of the observations are speculation without any factual basis. That would be fine if this was a hypothetical case about unknown persons but the speculation is often directed at real people named in the documentary.
3) There is a section about the potential of Kenley going off on his own for some other adventure and friends and family talk about this. Yet there is nothing presented as evidence that he did this or why he would do it without contacting his sister or mother that he loved. Or why he just left his dorm room intact.
4) There is a section about potential sightings of Kenley after he disappeared but none of them are credible. An uncle who walks by his nephew, who is reported missing, but doesn't immediately recognize him. A man who was randomly standing in line and said Kenley started talking to him and asking if the man knew Kenley's cousin. For some reason Kenley is hiding his disappearance and just decides to ask a random stranger about his cousin? A woman who just happens to be related by marriage, sees a picture of Kenley and remembers him as the man who came to her door in a different province months before canvassing for Greenpeace. A woman who also trusts her psychic abilities as much as her actual observation.
5) There is a large section that focuses on three fellow university students (Todd, Tom and Kirsten) who knew Kenley. This is the longest and most foolish part of the documentary. They knew Kenley for only 3 weeks or less - THIRTY years ago. The fact that they make mistakes now in this documentary is often implied as potential guilt.
6) There is conjecture in the documentary that some students might have hurt Kenley and then returned to his room to remove items to make it seem Kenley had gone. This is accompanied by a dramatic recreation of hands placing some of Kenley's things in the backpack and removing it. Yet there is no evidence this happened.
The only reason we even question the backback is that Kirsten says she saw the backpack there when they went to room one night to check on Kenley. However Kirsten is a terrible witness. She doesn't remember what year all this took place. She doesn't remember having gone to the police station to drop off Kenley's hat which he had left at her parent's house. Yet the film maker just accepts her observation that the backpack was there when she visited. Even when the two students who Kirsten says were with her, don't remember that visit.
7) Oddly one important conjecture is not discussed. The only known things missing from Kenley's room were a facecloth, towels (plural) and shaving kit. What does that mean? Sounds like he was planning on going somewhere overnight. Combined with the fact he only took $20 from his bank's ATM and might have been seen heading for the bus station then it seems logical he might have been going some place overnight. This is never pursed.
8) Tom especially is portrayed negative in this story. Yet since he has a diary of his actions then he is likely the least suspicious. The film makers try to make him look suspicious on numerous occasions when he is not clear on items in his diary. Anyone who has kept a journal, knows much of Tom's observations are natural. We can have written summaries of things we did but have no memory of doing those things.
9) The worst example of a skewed documentary relates to one point attacking Tom and his diary. In one segment they ask him when did he and Kirsten first start wondering where Kenly might be. Tom finds the section, read the date and the relevant text of the journal. He is asked to do this three times which he does. The narrator points out very clearly that even though Tom was given three chances to point out that he also cleaned out his car that day, he never mentioned it. Clearly wanting the viewer to think something is wrong by his omission.
This is pathetic. Tom was asked a very specific question and answers it each time. He doesn't read out the section about cleaning the car as he was never asked that. If you freeze the frame you will see that the diary is displayed in the background, You can see that he did many things that day such as meeting an attractive girl and taking his camera into the shop for repairs as well as cleaning his car.. He didn't mention those other things either. He read the section that answered the questions he was being asked. If the filmmakers wanted to ask about the cleaning of the car then they could have asked him. But of course they didn't because it wasn't important. They knew that if cleaning the car out was to hide evidence, then why would Tom have written it in his diary in the first place?
10) The private investigator is fairly useless in the documentary. The worse example is when he seems to have found some new witnesses and evidence. Yet as we see these first interviews happening, the statements of the two sisters and the brother do not match each other. There is no continuity in their stories. Yet even with this conflicting information he still goes to the family and to the police to tell them a story that the witnesses don't agree on. Also it is clear to the viewers of the documentary that none of these witnesses, especially the brother Randy, are reliable witnesses.
11) They leave out another line of conjecture by not following up on the potential of Randy's guilt. He remembers the disappearance from 30 years ago in conversation with his sister. He gives conflicting witness statements. He appears to have had substance abuse issues. He has knowledge of the family members and the family property, where it is possible the body is hide. A far more possible candidate than the first year university student they pin it on at the end.
12) The end segment about Erin and a potential murder, is the outcome the series wants you to accept. Certainly the sister says that she thinks that is the outcome. That being the case then that makes the first three episodes redundant. All the misleading and superficial discussion about the students, possible witnesses, Kenley taking off on his own, etc becomes moot if the documentary wants you to believe he was locally murdered.
The above are just the most obvious flaws in the documentary. It is so easy to question so many points that are just left hanging. Some examples:
A. Kenley is seen going in the direction of a confectionary store that also is a bus station but there is no evidence he was going for a bus.
B. No real discussion about Kenley possibly going somewhere like swimming considering his towels were missing. There are many lakes and rivers around Wolfville to swim in. They are miles of shorelines albeit with dangerously high tides.
C. They question why Kenley was walking along the dykes outside of Wolfville? This is something that townsfolk and students have been doing for years.
D. They actually wonder if someone else took money out of the ATM without any indication of how someone else got access to his debit card and password. Nor was there any discussion of someone checking the ATM camera to see if it was anyone other than Kinley.
E. One weak witness said she went to a Greenpeace office to see if Kenley might have worked or volunteered for them. They couldn't say but there is no reference to police following up on that.
F. Comments about how "convenient" it was that Tom entered the gym and didn't see where Kenley was heading. Tom said he was going to the gym and when he got there, he went in. Duh!
G. No clarification over the discrepancies about the potential and the reality of the chicken pit. It is implied it could be a potential place to hide a body yet we are told it is not a pit but a large flat area.
H. No clarification why the "remote" ravine had very clearly used trails through it.
I. No question about why someone would dump a body on his family's property, ravine or not, right in the town of Wolfville. There are so many roads up on South Mountain that there are many places where a body could be hidden.
I'm not sure who thought this series was a good idea. It is amateurish in so many ways. If it was just amateurish then that would be fine. But it is also manipulative in various parts and in the wrong way. There is an absolutely cringeworthy segment where various people read different lines of a Jack London quote. Sadly even the sister and mother read some lines. It's bad since the people saying the lines were interviewed in different locations and at different times. Meaning this was planned out. Yet it was unnecessary since it is part of the documentary about Kenley maybe getting wanderlust. One of the segments that are redundant and filler by the end of the documentary when they want us to accept Kenley was murdered locally.
I'm sorry Kenley has gone missing and presumed dead. Sadly this documentary has assured that anyone with any connection to the story, regardless of how peripheral, will likely never agree to speak to the subject every again. Talk about burning your bridges.
15 out of 23 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends