I felt like after 3 hours of filming, I should have had a better understanding of the facts surrounding the crime. Namely, were there other avenues of entry into the apartment? If not, there were only two people it could possibly be, right? The front door appears to have been locked. But even more tellingly, the terrace door was also locked from inside the apartment. So who did that and when? It had to be after the servant's murder. Was the terrace usually locked? If so, how did a stranger unlock it to take the victim up there? If not, why was it locked after the murder (and why wouldn't the parents have immediately noticed that it was locked when it usually wasn't and pointed this out to police)? If it was the family's lock, why didn't they provide the police the key instead of them having to break the lock? If it wasn't theirs, this clearly points to premeditation (the perp would have to know they were going to need a lock and to bring it with them!). Since the murder weapon appears to have been in the apartment (the golf club), it seems unlikely it was a premeditated murder.
I never heard the parents or their supporters offer any theories on how the actual perp would have gotten in and out, and doing so without being seen. (The fact that they didn't HEAR the murders was less compelling to me. One blow to the head and then a slit throat wouldn't necessarily make a lot of noise.)
In the absence of any way for an unknown party to be in the apartment, it seems the parents (or at least one of them) must have been the perpetrators. However, given that the parents have been released, I'm assuming it is a failure of the documentary to give an alternative narrative. If there were no possible way for a third party to be involved, surely the case would not be so controversial. Therefore, I think the documentary must not be giving the full story.
