Exhibit A

If you are familiar with Loudenberg's other Netflix show The Confession Tapes, you know that there is going to be some bias toward the accused (sorry to burst your bubble but ALL documentaries are biased). However, there is no satifactory conclusion in these episodes because the point is to make viewers think about the real grey area in sciences that are generally considered reliable. If all we ever see is CSI and the like we will just assume that the investigators are always in the right and that is simply not the case. Loudenberg is trying to raise awareness about the questionable use of science to get convictions and I think she nails it in a way that keeps you interested.

Almost as good as The Confession Tapes. You will want to plea bargain even if innocent if charged with a crime after watching this

I watched the first two episodes. The first episode starts out in what looks like a backyard in Florida, then jumps to Texas, with absolutely no coherent connection.It seemed like both episodes presented opposing opinions regarding different types of crimes. Then, each episode just stops. No sort of conclusion, resolution, opinion, whatever you want to call it.There are completely mixed messages for both cases where each side accuses the other of pseudo science. I seriously thought episode two would pick up where episode one left off, but completely unrelated.

It's an interesting series, entertaining and easy to watch. But just as many crime documentaries on Netflix (looking at you "Making a Murderer"), it clearly has a defense advocacy narative and often ignores fairly important details of the cases it uses as evidence of the misuse of forensic science.

For example, in the "Cadaver Dogs" episodes key aspects of the prosecution's case are left out and the series wrongfully implies the defendant was found guilty based on the cadaver dog alone. This is a blatant mischaracterization of the case against D'Andre Lane. The victim's mother, D'Andre's ex, claimed he had been in trouble with the law but that it was never for violent crimes. This is wrong, but the show never challenges this claim, giving the viewer the false impression it is true.

D'Andre had gang affiliations and was sentenced to four years probation for assault with intent to commit armed robbery. And he had been arrested numerous times after on drugs and firearms charges, even spending over 3 years in prison for one charge. He had 7 kids with 7 different women, and cheated on most of them. His current girlfriend heard him hitting his daughter the night before for wetting the bed and said the girl's cries were intense and then went silent. Two witnesses saw the defendant driving the car at the time the car was allegedly hijacked. One actually spoke to the defendant while he was in the car and made a statement saying the little girl wasn't in the vehicle with the defendant. Another witness saw the defendant park the car in the alley it was found a few blocks from the alleged crime scene and saw the defendant get out of the car and walk away alone. The alley where the car was found was a block away from the girl's mother's house where the defendant went right after the alleged hijacking and the mother was the one that had to call police.

This is an entertaining series that does give some idea of the pitfalls of forensic science and how it can be misused or misinterpreted. However, the series does not give a fair representation of the cases against the defendants and gives the impression the prosecutions' cases were far weaker than they really were.

When I found this on Netflix I thought it was going to be a series that debunks forensic science to then show the person found guilty of the crime has their conviction finally overturned. That is not what this is all about. It's loosely based around different types of forensic science however, there doesn't seem to be a real point to it. They don't delve into the science nor the crime committed. There are far better shows out there than this one.