Is O.J. Innocent? The Missing Evidence, Season 1

I am ok about their decision to not make allegations when the evidence they found couldn't prove it. But is it their right to make it in to a money making documentary? Seems unethical to put out a man's private writings that were, for an intensive purposes, stolen. They could have saved viewers the drama and wasted time of five episodes by simply interviewing other alibis. Look at the time sheet, every night he didn't get out til 10 to 11pm. We all have either worked in a restaurant or eaten in one. We all know that there would have been a hostess, a waiter, a dishwasher, a manager. In 10 minutes of viewing they could have found and interviewed many of them. It's dramatized for their purpose of making money, I fear.

Waste of time. The "investigators" are inept, They make a big deal about Nicole's watch which in one of the crime scene photographs shows 10:59. They assume the watch was broken during the attack and it has stopped at the time of death. They ask the detective about the watch and he shows them his crime scene notes which states that the watch was working and that the photograph was taken at 10:59 AM. The "investigators" are skeptical. They ask Nicole's sister about the watch who says she has the watch in a safe deposit box and when she received it the watch was broken. The inept investigators never ask to see the watch to see what time it has stopped at. I guess they'd rather just operate on the assumption that the police were inept.