Being Canadian, I remember following this case. It was quite a shocker on the level of Bernardo/Homolka and Pickton Farm cases. Still, the documentary gave me a whole lot more to think about. The internet hunt for the killer angle is actually pretty fascinating. These people picked apart each video and each photo for the tiniest of clues, and they actually succeeded at identifying the suspect and tracking him down much earlier than the police did. It's all great and entertaining to watch. However, there is a reason why police choose not to engage with so-called "armchair detectives". Civilians being involved with a potential serial killer is trouble waiting to happen, evidence might get dismissed in court based on how it was obtained, jurisdiction and chain of command issues, you name it. They don't need vigilantes running amok and potentially messing up their case and hurting themselves.

The "nerds" claim that if they were taken seriously the murder could have been avoided. I doubt it. Knowing how easily people get away with animal abuse due to some loosey-goosey laws on the subject, the cops probably couldn't have done much beyond a ban on owning animals and some probationary crap for distribution of explicit materials online. There was no stopping the murder from happening. In fact, there is a big question, and it's touched upon in the documentary, whether the existence of the "internet nerds" and their persistent efforts to track the guy actually egged the killer on. He craved the audience and they gave it to him. He wanted a game of cat and mouse and they gave it to him. Unfortunately, you can't help but think that they were unwitting participants in this thing. While Baudi Moovan acknowledges this fact and obviously feels somewhat conflicted, I thought that John Green character was disturbingly nonchalant about it. I mean, the guy watched the murder video at least twenty times when it came out because he just couldn't stop. Just saying, it's a bit creepy.

[spoiler]And there is also the whole debate about the guy in Africa, and how the group's actions and witch hunt actually might have contributed to a very tragic event.[/spoiler]

Also, because I am an animal lover and cat owner, I was very worried about the disturbing content and subject matter of the show. So here's my two cents for anyone hesitant to watch this. The first episode is all about the cat videos, so prepare to be sad. They don't show the graphic content, but the show's participants describe the videos in some detail before breaking down at the most horrific parts. So if you don't engage your imagination, you can get through it. It's still very upsetting emotionally, but there is no gore or visuals to give you nightmares. I thought the documentary was worth the discomfort because it is very well done if you enjoy true crime.

Some details are really stretched far though. [spoiler]While I can accept the Basic Instinct connection as a loose inspiration for the murder, the poster, the Casablanca clue, the cigarette, and the leg crossing thing were all just hilariously overestimated. It makes for cool entertainment, but obviously not realistic. I think they did get Manny's origin correct though.[/spoiler] Use your own judgment and don't give in too much to the sensationalism.