The Thin Blue Line loses its focus

It seems that most viewers responses on The Thin Blue Line were that the director was very clear on his beleif that Randall Adams was innocent and his documentary was made with the synopsis of proving that. However, one could also conclude that the director was not nearly as focused on his subjects, whether guilty or not, as he was towards using these stylistic modes of representation. Not that the director didn't beleive that Randall Adams was innocent, but the movie is so focused on having a "hip" look that his presentation becomes more visual than factual. Are people watching this documentary because of a man wrongly accused of murder or because it has this fantastic way of showing montages and recreations of events? It's probably about half and half, but when dealing with a documentary, a director is suppose to layout the facts as plainly as possible while focusing directly on whom or what they are representing in order for the viewer to draw their own conclusions on what they believe. Another thing to consider is that the items that were portrayed in the montages were all items that had nothing to do with the real trial, but were rather used in the film. The same goes for the reanactments of the events because they have no authenticity as well. The director includes these elements in the film in order to be deceiving, but to also present a film that is visually attractive. Is the viewer to accept the montages and reanactments as factual, or is director just putting his own spin on what really happened?