More than two decades after Aileen Wuornos was executed in Florida, her story is being revisited through an unusual combination of documentary filmmaking, live acting and artificial intelligence.

Investigation Discovery’s three-part docuseries “Unmasking a Monster: Aileen Wuornos” premiered on September 30, 2026, bringing renewed attention to one of the most widely known criminal cases in American history. The series examines Wuornos’ life, the investigation that led to her arrest, her legal proceedings and her years on death row.

But this time, the filmmakers are using technology to recreate the appearance of people connected to the case — including Wuornos herself.

AN ACTRESS PERFORMS — AI CHANGES HER APPEARANCE
British actress Morag Peacock portrays Wuornos in the dramatized portions of the documentary.

Rather than relying solely on conventional makeup and prosthetics, the production team created a three-dimensional digital model of Wuornos using archival photographs and video. That model was then used as a digital “mask” over Peacock’s performance.

The technology was designed to preserve Peacock’s movements, expressions and acting while digitally altering her appearance to more closely resemble Wuornos as she looked during the period being portrayed.

The production team said the approach was particularly useful because relatively little usable archival footage of Wuornos exists.

Stephen Dost, executive producer and vice president of content at Arrow Media, told The Hollywood Reporter that the technology was not intended to replace an actor. Instead, the filmmakers viewed AI as a visual tool that could transform an existing human performance.

That distinction became central to the production.

Peacock was responsible for studying Wuornos’ mannerisms, facial expressions, movements and speech patterns. The technology was then applied during post-production.

According to the production team, the AI itself was not expected to “act.” The performance still came from Peacock.

WHY WUORNOS?
For Dost and the filmmakers, Wuornos presented a particular opportunity.

The team wanted to explore whether digital replication could help audiences see a historical figure as she actually appeared at the time of the events being discussed.

Wuornos’ face, Dost argued, carried important visual information about her life and experiences. That made her case different from simply using AI as a technological demonstration.

The production also sought to combine the recreated performances with archival material, interviews and documented evidence rather than presenting the digital recreations as newly discovered footage.

Arrow Media said the series was built around verified transcripts, police records, documented evidence and firsthand testimony.

THE FILMMAKERS SAY THE SCENES WERE GROUNDED IN DOCUMENTED MATERIAL
One of the major questions surrounding AI-assisted documentary filmmaking is where the line should be drawn between reconstruction and invention.

The producers of “Unmasking a Monster” say they established rules for the use of the technology.

According to Dost, the production spent about three years developing its approach. The team sought consent from living participants whose likenesses would be digitally recreated, as well as from the actors portraying them.

The production also avoided digitally recreating certain people when consent could not be obtained.

Among those not digitally recreated were individuals such as Tyria Moore, Wuornos’ former girlfriend, who did not participate in the documentary, and Mike Joyner, an undercover officer who had previously been interviewed but had died.

The producers said the goal was to prevent AI from being used to create an apparently authentic version of a person who had not agreed to participate.

The production also says that dialogue and actions in the recreated sequences were drawn from existing records rather than invented simply to make the documentary more dramatic.

That includes transcripts, police records and memories provided by interview subjects.

MORAG PEACOCK INITIALLY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT AI
For Peacock, agreeing to participate was not an automatic decision.

She had little previous experience with artificial intelligence and initially had concerns about what the technology would actually do to her performance.

After discussing the process with her agent and the production team, Peacock said she became more comfortable with the concept because the technology was being used to modify her appearance rather than replace her with an entirely artificial performer.

She also continued to recognize aspects of her own performance in the finished footage.

Her role therefore remained fundamentally different from an AI-generated character created without a human performer.

Peacock spent considerable time studying Wuornos, including old video material, in an effort to reproduce her mannerisms and behavior as accurately as possible.

THE TECHNOLOGY DID NOT MAKE THE PRODUCTION FASTER
One assumption about AI-assisted filmmaking is that it automatically reduces production time.

The filmmakers behind “Unmasking a Monster” say the opposite happened.

Dost said using the technology properly required considerably more work rather than functioning as a shortcut.

The process involved creating the digital model, recording the actors’ performances, processing the footage and carefully integrating the digital likenesses with the original performances.

Arrow Media described the production as one of the first documentary projects to use this kind of digital replication and VFX approach to recreate real people within a true-crime documentary.

OTHER PEOPLE FROM THE CASE WERE ALSO DIGITALLY RECREATED
Wuornos is not the only person represented through the technology.

The production used similar techniques for actors portraying other real people connected to the investigation, including Wuornos’ childhood friend Dawn Botkins, defense attorney Steven Glazer and investigators Brian Jarvis and David Taylor.

The goal was to make the reenactments visually consistent with the historical period being portrayed.

At the same time, the production distinguishes between digitally reconstructed sequences and genuine archival material.

That distinction is important because viewers could otherwise interpret a digitally recreated scene as actual historical footage.

The producers have therefore emphasized transparency about where visual effects were used.

A NEW LOOK AT A CASE THAT HAS BEEN TOLD MANY TIMES
Wuornos’ story has already been the subject of numerous documentaries, television productions and films.

Her life was famously portrayed by Charlize Theron in the 2003 film “Monster,” a performance that earned Theron the Academy Award for Best Actress.

Other productions have also revisited Wuornos and her crimes, including previous Investigation Discovery programming.

“Unmasking a Monster” takes a different approach by combining conventional documentary interviews with reenactments enhanced through digital replication.

The series includes perspectives from investigators who worked on the case, people who knew Wuornos and her former attorney, alongside archival material.

The filmmakers say this structure is intended to allow viewers to examine the case through the recollections and records of people who were directly connected to it.

WHO WAS AILEEN WUORNOS?
Wuornos was arrested in Florida in January 1991 after an investigation into a series of killings of men along Florida highways.

She ultimately admitted involvement in seven killings and was convicted in connection with six of them.

In 1992, she was convicted in the death of Richard Mallory and later entered no-contest pleas involving five additional cases. She received six death sentences.

Wuornos spent roughly a decade on death row before being executed by lethal injection at Florida State Prison on October 9, 2002, at age 46.

During her legal proceedings, Wuornos claimed that she had been sexually assaulted or threatened by some of the men she encountered and argued that at least some of the killings occurred in self-defense.

Those claims became an important part of the debate surrounding her case, while prosecutors and investigators presented evidence supporting the convictions.

The new documentary revisits those competing elements rather than treating the case solely as a conventional crime reenactment.

THE AI DEBATE MAY BE AS IMPORTANT AS THE CASE ITSELF
The documentary arrives at a time when the entertainment industry is still debating how artificial intelligence should be used with performers and real people.

Unlike a conventional fictional production, a true-crime documentary deals with people who actually existed and events that affected real families.

That creates additional questions: How should a deceased person’s likeness be recreated? When should a living person’s consent be required? How clearly should audiences be told when an image is digitally reconstructed? And how much creative freedom should filmmakers have when recreating events that cannot be filmed directly?

The producers of “Unmasking a Monster” say those concerns were considered throughout the production.

Dost has also drawn a distinction between this project and AI systems designed to replace human actors. In this documentary, the production relied on Peacock and other performers to provide the actual performances before digital effects were applied.

Jason Sarlanis, president of Investigation Discovery, similarly described the technology as a way of enhancing documentary storytelling rather than eliminating the human element.

WHERE TO WATCH “UNMASKING A MONSTER”
The three-part series premiered on Investigation Discovery on September 30, 2026, airing across a three-hour block from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET/PT.

It is also available to stream through HBO Max, with the series consisting of three episodes. Hulu currently lists one season containing three episodes as well.

The three episodes are titled:

“Face to Face With the Monster”
“I’m a Good Girl”
“The World Will Learn”
Together, they trace the investigation, Wuornos’ capture and the legal proceedings surrounding her case.

THE LATEST DEVELOPMENT
As of October 2, 2026, there is no new criminal proceeding involving Wuornos herself; she died in 2002 following her execution.

The current attention surrounding her case comes from the release of “Unmasking a Monster,” particularly the documentary’s use of AI-assisted digital replication.

The technology has become one of the central talking points surrounding the series. The filmmakers maintain that the recreated scenes are grounded in documented evidence and that consent was obtained where living participants or their likenesses were involved.

At the same time, the project has opened a broader discussion about how far documentary filmmakers should go when using AI to recreate real people and historical events.

In that sense, “Unmasking a Monster” is not simply another retelling of the Aileen Wuornos case. It is also an experiment in how true-crime documentaries may look as digital reconstruction technology becomes more sophisticated.

SOURCES
Arrow Media — official production information