Netflix subscribers are no strangers to gripping true crime documentaries, but one title in particular is being described as the ‘most disturbing.’
Many people are calling it one of the most unsettling documentaries they have ever watched, with audiences flooding social media to describe just how deeply disturbed they felt after seeing it.
The streaming platform has built a reputation for releasing hard-hitting documentaries that explore shocking crimes, controversial court cases, and the darker side of human behavior.
These productions often go beyond simply recounting events, instead examining the psychological, ethical, and societal questions tied to each case.
However, one recent documentary has stood out for the intense reaction it has provoked.
Rather than focusing solely on violence or sensationalism, the film tackles issues surrounding consent, disability, race, and power, topics that have left many viewers emotionally shaken.
One viewer wrote online: “I’ve watched A LOT of documentaries but this was truly some of the sickest s*** I’ve ever seen.”
Another added: “It ended up being one of the most disturbing and uncomfortable documentaries I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen a lot.”
A third person shared: “It made me sick to my stomach.”
Meanwhile, another Netflix user commented: “It might be one of the most unsettling documentaries I’ve ever watched on Netflix.”
The documentary at the center of these reactions is a 2023 release executive-produced by Louis Theroux and directed by filmmaker Nick August-Perna.
A case that sparked national debate
At the heart of the documentary is the highly controversial story of Anna Stubblefield, a former Rutgers University philosophy professor, and Derrick Johnson, a non-verbal man living with cerebral palsy.
The case became the subject of national attention due to the difficult and divisive questions it raised, per Netflix.
According to the documentary, Stubblefield first met Derrick Johnson in 2009 through his brother, John Johnson, who had been a student in one of her university classes.
At the time, Stubblefield offered to help Derrick improve his communication abilities through a method known as facilitated communication.
This practice involves a facilitator physically assisting a person with disabilities while they type on a keyboard or point to letters and symbols.
Stubblefield came from a background deeply connected to disability education. Reports noted that both of her parents held doctoral degrees in special education and had spent years working with disabled individuals.
She appeared committed to helping Derrick communicate more independently and engage more fully with the world around him.
Over time, however, the relationship between Stubblefield and Derrick became increasingly controversial. Stubblefield later claimed that the pair had fallen in love and entered into a consensual s**ual relationship, despite the fact that she was married at the time.
Derrick’s family strongly disputed those claims.
His mother, Daisy Johnson, insisted that her son did not possess the capacity to consent to either s**ual activity or an emotional relationship because of his condition. The disagreement over Derrick’s ability to communicate and make decisions became one of the central issues in the case.
The documentary explores these conflicting perspectives in detail, presenting interviews with family members, experts, and Stubblefield herself. Director Nick August-Perna explained that achieving balance in telling the story was crucial.
“More than anything, I knew I had to get the balance and the integrity of the storylines just right, to reveal things at just the right times,” he said.
The controversy surrounding facilitated communication
A major focus of the documentary is the controversial practice of facilitated communication, sometimes referred to as FC, assisted typing, or supported typing. The method has been widely criticized and rejected by many scientific and medical organizations.
According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, there is no scientific evidence supporting facilitated communication as a reliable form of independent expression.
Critics argue that messages produced through the technique often originate from the facilitator rather than the disabled individual.
The film examines whether Derrick’s communications were genuinely his own or whether Stubblefield had unconsciously (or intentionally) influenced them.
Louis Theroux, who served as executive producer, addressed the complicated nature of the issue while discussing the documentary.
“It sat on the fault lines of so many big social questions, around race, s**uality, and, yes, disability,” he explained.
Theroux also reflected on facilitated communication itself, saying: “Facilitated communication is definitely, in my view, a flawed methodology, though I believe it can work for some people in some cases.”
The documentary includes commentary from specialists and advocates with differing perspectives on the method. Some believe facilitated communication can offer opportunities for people with severe disabilities, while others argue it creates dangerous situations where vulnerable individuals may lose their autonomy.
The debate becomes even more emotionally charged because the case involves questions about race and privilege. Critics of Stubblefield argued that her position as a white academic may have influenced how others perceived her actions and intentions.
Reviews of the documentary have noted that the film does not provide easy answers. Instead, it presents a layered and morally complicated story that forces viewers to wrestle with uncomfortable questions.
The Guardian described the documentary as “a disturbing tale” that explores not only disability and consent but also “white privilege and White female victimhood.”
The court case and its aftermath
The legal proceedings surrounding Anna Stubblefield became one of the most closely watched aspects of the story.
In 2015, Stubblefield was convicted on two counts of first-degree aggravated s**ual assault and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
However, the case later took another dramatic turn when her conviction was overturned in 2017. The appeal court ruled that evidence related to facilitated communication had been improperly excluded during the original trial.
Following the overturned conviction, Stubblefield accepted a plea agreement for a lesser charge of third-degree aggravated criminal s**ual contact. She was sentenced to time already served and released from prison.
Despite taking the plea deal, Stubblefield continued to maintain her innocence. In the documentary, she states: “I’m not guilty of a crime.”
The film also explores what happened after her release. According to reports, Stubblefield struggled to rebuild her life and later took on part-time work after losing employment opportunities tied to public backlash surrounding the case.
Meanwhile, the documentary concludes by returning focus to Derrick Johnson and his life with his family in New Jersey. Louis Theroux explained that ending the story with Derrick was an intentional decision.
“It was important to remind viewers of who the central character in the film is,” he said.
Why viewers can’t stop talking about the ‘most disturbing’ true crime documentary
Part of what makes the documentary so difficult for many viewers is that it avoids presenting the story in simple black-and-white terms. Instead of offering a straightforward villain-and-victim narrative, the film forces audiences to confront morally ambiguous territory.
The documentary raises difficult questions about vulnerability, communication, exploitation, and institutional power. It also shines a light on how society views disabled individuals and who gets to decide whether someone can express consent.
Some viewers have praised the film for handling these sensitive issues thoughtfully, while others have criticized it for being emotionally exhausting and deeply uncomfortable to watch.
Even critics who admired the documentary admitted it could be difficult viewing. One review called it ‘vital’ while acknowledging that it is also ‘a hard watch.’
What’s undeniable is the emotional impact the documentary has had on audiences. Social media discussions continue to grow, with many viewers saying the film stayed with them long after the credits rolled.
Rather than relying on graphic imagery or shocking twists, the documentary unsettles audiences through its ethical complexity and the haunting questions it leaves unanswered.
Tell Them You Love Me is currently available to stream on Netflix in the United States, while viewers in the United Kingdom can watch it through Sky.
Netflix Under Pressure To Remove ‘Most Controversial Show’ With Trigger Warnings Before Every Episode
People Are Saying ‘Deeply Disturbing’ New Movie Is Even More Messed Up Than Saltburn
The post Netflix Viewers Sickened By ‘Most Disturbing’ True Crime Doc They’ve Ever Seen appeared first on It’s Gone Viral.
Tags: #Netflix #Viewers #Sickened #Disturbing #True #Crime #Doc #Theyve
