I don't see him as taking sides in the debate between Wiebe/Mitchell so much as refuting the way in which the events were portrayed, which, as pointed out elsewhere here, is a very valid statement.

Scott's opinions were clearly (and more intelligently) posted in his actual blog posts - what you quoted above is just him falling for trollbait, really. The previous comment (#40) basically calls him petty for pointing out that the film was heavily edited to show a story, not to provide a literal documentation of what happened. This just had the side effect of causing much of that particular community to shun other filmmakers interested in the subject, which effectively shut out unrelated works such as one Jason had planned, hence the professional vitriol.

I will say that the man prides himself on his documentaries (which are quite well made, with very careful documentation and respect for the subjects), and I can see how a work such as KoK might bristle him, especially with some (apparent) confusion on the part of some of his readers.

This wasn't so much a review as a commentary on what's wrong (in one man's eyes) with the work; I can't see where the bias is unjustified in that regard. If he said something like "Billy is my man, there's no way blah blah..." I could see the validity here.

All that being said, I enjoyed KoK for its story. Maybe it should have just waited for the movie script to be picked up, and run with the whole "inspired by true events" line that most movies use, but then some people take competitions like these way more seriously than I.