Well Linda Fairstein may have been dropped by her publisher but she's a best selling author, and she's 72. Lederer is almost 70.........there's arguments to be made on the other side rather than what the doc (which I thought was well .....not great) and the Netflix film (which I thought was very good somewhat improbably so) showed.
I think you can make a good case - and the Wall Street Journal just did this in Fairstein's rebuttal article actually - that at least some of the other charges should not have been vacated (though I think they should have been, the injustice that occurred trumps that argument) .......we'll never have a discussion about that, but that's the culture we live in.
Sad story all around but strangely uplifting too (like Emmett Till) in real life in a way and surprisingly in the Duvernay film.
That Burns clip is an example of where the doc goes wrong and is lesser than the Duvernay film imo - "orange haired real estate developer" - what is that sh it? Is that supposed to be funny? Is that engaging your audience in a serious way at all? Nah, and I've liked his previous docs but in this one he lays out a complicated case in the most banal ways - and he does it really fast too......AND he has the balls to say Duvernay's film got the facts "right"........yeah thanks for that Ken.
Duvernay is smart enough as to show that part of the story in a more coherent, less dishonest way. He wasn't President, he was a rich (white) guy with an ill-reasoned opinion and NYC was divided enough because the case was divisive enough - particularly after Tawana Brawley - to listen to that opinion and support it. She's very aware of how the city was pushed and pulled apart - white, black, Latino...........Ken Burns doesn't really have much here except outrage, which is fine, but his film is too short, too one note for anybody to learn anything from - his Art is Artless here.