The DNA of Murder with Paul Holes

I searched for reviews wondering if I'm the only one hugely disappointed by watching two episodes with no conclusion or reference to one forthcoming. It references DNA but there have been no DNA tests done or results of DNA discussed or promised. I'm halfway through the 3rd episode now and am turning it off.

I expected the second season to give results from the first season's Dna evidence or at least some sort of update. The second season so far is an improvement from the first. I didn't like the scenes acted out in the first season. Let's see how this one goes.

**Edit since first reviewed. So now that the second episode has aired, it's about a totally separate case, but the first episode's case was never conclusively closed. Nothing was ever mentioned about the DNA results from further testing. It makes no sense. Who gave this a green light? Stars going down to 5. Second episode ends the same way. No conclusion or DNA results. Very odd way to present a show.

For now can only give it 6 stars. The analysis used by Mr. Paul Holes & his associates is informative and well-structured. If each case were wrapped up within one episode, then it would be better. I write this with the caveat that since it's only the first episode, it certainly has the potential to be one of, if not the best crime show specifically related to the use of DNA-analysis to solve crimes.

Currently it seems the show is going to stretch each case out longer than necessary.(multiple episodes for a single case, or series of cases with the same perpetrator) The second sit-downs with victim's family members should be saved for the case's conclusion. Will definitely watch at least one more episode once it airs, before forming a final review and updating this written one.

Pros: -Excellent step by step analysis from seasoned and articulate investigators. -Explores if other similar cases occurred in other places before dogmatically pursuing a single lead.

Cons: -Seemingly unnecessary repetition at times. (some conveyed information could be wrapped up much quicker) -A slight sense of attempting to dramatize the show instead of keeping it 100% scientific, real-life and straight forward. (involving talks with family members past the initial interviews)

Let me start off by saying that I've watched every episode in this series thus far. It's called The DNA of Murder, I think it would help if they led with a DNA analysis while telling the story. The story telling and narrating is awesome. The host does a great job and has excellent skills in my opinion. However at the end of the episode you are left with wanting more. There is no follow up to the episode that you watched and you are left with more questions than answers. It would be great if they ran whatever evidence they found so that at the episode it could be revealed.

The title should be called "Reenactment of Murder". The entire show is just about the story of what might of happened, but there's no discussion of how they used DNA to find the killer or how they found out who did the crime via DNA. They should be discussing how they took the DNA and used familial DNA to find the killer like they did the Golden State Killer, but instead the show is nothing about that. They end the show making you wonder what was the conclusion - will it be shown in the next show -the answer is no, just more of the same open ended crime scenes with no resolution.