The article gets it right even though it's not a great article. The question isn't weather or not we should feel sympathy for Durst. Your emotional response is your business, but you have to realize exactly what you are watching. Try to view the documentary from the eyes of someone who really believes Durst is innocent. From this view it looks something like witch hunt.

Notice that the justification for anything in the doc is; whatever happened, happened to a murderer. But your conclusion is itself based on the documentary.

Even if we assume the the producers went into it with no bias (not likely). We know from the doc itself that everyone involved believes that Durst is guilty towards the end. How do you think this effects the cutting of the doc? Is it possible that the narrative becomes the exposing of a murderer rather then an interview with the strange millionaire who was a person of interest in three murders? Or the search for the truth? or whatever..

What we are quick to call justice is only the satisfaction of some emotion embossed by the documentary.

Durst can't put up a defense. He can't point out flaws or stretched truths or outright lies. We only see what Gilecki thinks is important for us to see. We take away mostly what Gilecki encourages us to take away.

I think that we need to have an understanding of how susceptible we are to manipulation.

When I saw the envelope I imagine I had the same feeling as everyone else. "Well that settles it". But having had time to digest it all. I don't trust myself to be unbiased and to be able to put myself above the narrative. I certainly don't trust the filmakers to do that since they have additional incentives not to. So I'm left entertained by the narrative, but unconvinced. But I know most people are not. And that's where the danger lies. There is a reason criminals get to put on a defense rather than having the prosecution make their case, and the jury vote.