Reperto A

I was expecting a show exploring the pros and cons of forensic criminal investigation and evidence gathering, what I got was a show about people whining about it. Very little science, frankly it was dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and simply boring.

The show in interesting and easy to watch, but it makes little to no effort in clarifing that the problems presented are not within the science itself, but people manipulating and miss undestanding results. Every episody shows problems with prosecutors, jury and judges not been able to understand basic scientific methodology and using tests for the wrong purposes. To be honest, just the video evidence episody shows a case of bad science, the other ones are bad judicial system.

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

The concept behind this mini series is interesting, but the case studies lack depth and background. The science was well explained and gave both sides of the story, however the stories didn't feel complete. Either the focus needed to be on the science and how it can be used to in case trials or the focus needed to be on the supposed wrongful convictions.