User reviews

The concept of this series is good and the cases are definitely interesting, however the "experts" are completely unnecessary.

The concept of focusing on lesser known older cold cases that are finally solved is great. I've watched several episodes about cases I had never seen before or knew anything about.

What doesn't work are the plethora of " experts" giving a synopsis every episode. These "experts" are unnecessary when there is also a narrator. The worst offender is the forensic expert, Christine Hannah, who talks with a breathy affect as if someone punched her in the throat. I literally want to gauge my ears out every time she's on screen. The other "experts" seem to recite commentary as middle schoolers giving an oral book report, they're a bit to excited about murder.

Hopefully there will be more seasons, just without these unnecessary cast members that ruin the serious nature of the show.

It's a great show, but perhaps subtitles for Christine Hannah might make her lines more understandable. She speaks as though she doesn't have enough air to finish her words or sentences. This makes it difficult to understand her. This is not a criticism of her, but perhaps she needs help to allow the viewers to get what she's trying to communicate. I often have to rewind to find out what she is saying.

Otherwise, the show is intriguing, well-delivered, thoughtful (especially to the families of the victims), and.pertinent to this day and age. There are lessons in this series for everyone. It is not a sensational series, yet it is informative.

I literally want to end my life listening to all these so called experts on this show. They are aweful. And why do you need 4 or 5 of them. It takes away from the story. It's horrible. They talk like they are dumb not any expert. The forensic lady sounds like she's gasping for air after each word. It jumps from one person to the next, give one sentence. It's horrible. Please change all these people on the show and get better co host that sound smart. You only need 2 not 5. The cases are quite interesting. I've not heard alot of these. But it bounces around from one so called expert to the next and they don't sound like they are an expert in anything. This must be a Canadian show. Just by some accents but it's poorly set up.

So-called expert Christine Hannah ruins the show. If she is an "expert" you can add being a boring expert at reading on camera, never looking at it, and even misarticulating a few words here and there. The producers of this series had a good concept but i don't know why they didn't pull this commentator. A crash test dummy has more personality and character after it impacts the test wall than this person. I thing single-handedly she tanked the show and there are no more seasons.

Also, after returning from every commercial break, they recap events for two to three minutes, which just fills time needlessly and makes it even more ploddingly boring.

Almost Unsolved is Almost Unwatchable thanks to the absurd appointment of Christine Hannah as one of the talking head experts. Her breathy narration makes for an uncomfortable viewer experience. It's like she cannot manage a simple breathing technique whilst speaking. I can't fathom it out. If she has a 'condition' then I'm sorry to sound unkind but it is painful and awkward to watch and does not make for easy engagement. How was this not picked up in the early stages even before filming? Some great cases, even though many were recapped ad nauseum after every break. What a shame to ruin such a good premise with so many engaging professionals.

Christine Hannah's voice and halting way of speaking make the show nearly unwatchable. It's virtually impossible to take her seriously when she sounds like she's reading aloud, trying desperately to follow along in her textbook. The show would be so much better with another expert who can handle "public" speaking. The other commentators seem to have had much more training in this area and speak with much more confidence. Did anyone HEAR her talk before they filmed? Did they do any test shoots? Honestly, they could just edit out her portions with no stand in or substitution, and it would be just as easy to follow.

How in the world was Christine Hannah selected to have a speaking role on this show? Simply horrible! Sounds like she has a mouthful of marbles. Combine that with zero personality behind what she says and I cringe when she speaks! Surely there were other choices. I have seen her on a few other shows and didn't understand it then. There are many other narrators on the show that speak beautiful and do not hurt the overall flow this otherwise good show.

If she is paid for this narration whatever she receives is too much. I am sure there are iewers that could do a better job and appear for free, in case the budget is the issue!

So far so good. Just stop with the psychic garbage. We're in the 21st Century FFS. We don't live in the bronze age any more. Psychic's have been proven to be false. Time and time again.

Please...I've heard the term psychic detective in two videos so far. And I'm only on the fourth show.

There is no such thing. No psychic has solved a crime - ever. I will give it one more video and that's it. I will not watch a show that's based on so called psychics. This field has been debunked so many times. Stop with the fake BS.

The stories are good. Nice to see some different stories. So many unsolved cases out there that keep getting repeated by different production companies.

Overall the show is good but is ruined in my opinion by the way the female "experts" talk the so called defense lawyer talks like a middle schooler reading a book report everytime she opens her mouth and the medical lady talks like her windpipe has been crushed and she's perpetually out of breath. The stories are good and interesting but are ruined whenever these 2 appear on screen, I have to mute it thus missing parts of the show and not being able to enjoy it the way I should. Seriously they ruin an otherwise good show. All they have to do is get rid of those two and replace them with normal sounding "experts" and it would be a good, interesting show.

The show is actually pretty good for a New true crime series. But it's PAINFUL to watch/listen to Christine Hannah. Please get a new expert to fill that spot if you create a new a season. Her contribution is dull, lifeless, and exhaustingly boring. The viewer is jolted out of the story and investigative procedure whenever her commentary comes in. Getting rid of her segments without a replacement would be better than having her in each episode. I hate to be so harsh but I have quit watching this show after about 1/2 of an episode each attempt (I tried watching 3 times) because it's so difficult to watch. And as a true crime junkie... there isn't much I wouldn't watch.

Great content in this incredible story. Acting was good and the show had a nice flow to it that made me always wondering. What's next!

I believe the director did a great job and the focus on important parts not to lose my interest. I would have to say if there is a season two I will be watching it . Not your ordinary true crime show it's better. So I would say it's a 10 out of 10.

If I had to say anything else about the the victims in the storey were met with total respect because when your dealing with death it is always a sensitive subject.

Production looked professional, the reenactment was top notch.

This show would be good if not for the incessant interruptions by the "experts". Why is it necessary to have them when you have a narrator? Furthermore, Christine Hannah is horrible. She always sounds out of breath and has a cringy way of speaking. I can't stand it. I actually mute when she's speaking. She is so irritating I took the time to find out who she was to bring this to someone's attention via a review. Lo and behold I see I am not the only one who finds her delivery similar to nails on a chalkboard. Did no one watch this show before releasing it? How did no one notice this about her??????

Who in their right mind hired these two??

One reminds me of the weepy voice killers voice, she just squeaks!

The other one takes forever to finish her sentences.

Its so distracting it's impossible to continue to watch

Some of the stories are interesting but I finally had to give up and move on.

In this day and age couldn't anyone view the edits and see how awful those two were.

The recaps are uncalled for and just drag things all All and all its a hard pass

Who in their right mind hired these two??

One reminds me of the weepy voice killers voice, she just squeaks!

The other one takes forever to finish her sentences.

Its so distracting it's impossible to continue to watch

Some of the stories are interesting but I finally had to give up and move on.

In this day and age couldn't anyone view the edits and see how awful those two were.

The recaps are uncalled for and just drag things all All and all its a hard pass.

Good stories.. true crime lovers may not be familiar with some of them which helps because I feel like I've seen them all at this point. However, the seemingly Canadian "experts" and journalists are completely unnecessary and off putting. There's a narrator, no need for 5 other people to narrate. One young female expert has so much pep in her voice as she talks about murder. The worst is the forensic expert. Her breathy voice is cringy and distracting. I hope she's okay. She sounds like someone is forcing her to read from a script after punching her in the chest. I'll continue to watch only because I'm interested in the stories.

I literally created an account just to comment here. I love true crime and am used to commentators on these types of shows. BUT. The "experts" they have on "Finally Caught" are clearly reading cue cards, and badly written cue cards at that. No one naturally speaks this way. A lot of hate has been piled on the female commentators here, but trust me - they are ALL cringe-y. The stories are interesting and tragic, and I love a good "finally solved" cold case show. The producers need to listen to the reviews and interview the people who actually worked on the cases, not the high school drama club.

Excellent source material ruined by intrusive music drowning out a very poor choice of experts.

Repeatedly repackaged, this blaring slog is extremely disrespectful of it's source material.

Almost Solved, Finally Caught, Imperfect Murder, whatever it is called next it could be an teaching tool to media students how completely undermine a compelling case.

This series is bizarre example of low-budget over-production that does not trust it's source material to drive the narrative but instead chooses seemingly irrelevant talking heads to make barely audible generalisations to limp reconstructions.

I love the true crime stories & have watched 100's. I stumbled upon Almost Unsolved on the True Crime Network. I even set it up to record all episodes. That's where I had the displeasure of listening to Christine H. Totally worthless and That Voice! HORRIBLE. Please get her a cosmetic Make over & elocution lessons. All the commentators need to be REPLACED!!! They are stiff, boring, lack any form of engagement and nearly RUIN the show. SEND them HELP!!!! The cases are interesting and make you want to know the details and how they get to the end with the mystery solved. I think it's fascinating how police techniques have evolved over the years and now cold cases could possibly be solved.

As so many have commented why so many experts when you have a narrator? I also think Christine Hannah should not be allowed to go to work when she has been using Fentanyl. If she is an important part of the show, maybe duct tape her mouth and use sub-titles, to give a theme of someone in the cast is also being saved by the show. It could be a whole thing, she is an expert who is also a victim, but a special victim because we are trying to prevent her impending demise.

Also if she has a drug or alcohol problem maybe all the experts should have a live intervention. That would be a gripping show.

For all the reviewers commenting on Christine Hannah's voice (and some in a very unkind manner), I suspect she has a condition called spasmodic dysphonia, which a certain member of the Kennedy family also suffers from. It causes the muscles of the larynx to spasm involuntarily, resulting in one's voice breaking, sounding breathy, speech sounding strained or forced, etc. It is a neurological disorder and the exact cause is unknown. Treatments vary.

Anyway, maybe this will help people understand this is not something under one's control, or just a case of being "dramatic" or any of the other criticisms I've seen people accuse of Ms. Hannah in these reviews. It would be nice if people would try to educate themselves before jumping to conclusions and just plain being mean.

As a number of other reviewers have noted, Christine Hannah's voice is very hard to listen to. She sounds a lot like a Saturday Night Live character that used to be played by Victoria Jackson.

Now, some people seem to be blaming Hannah, as if it's a deliberate affectation. I'm certainly not. I don't know if she has a medical condition or a voice impediment or something else. I once had a friend with a similar voice impediment that he called a "lisp", that was certainly not his deliberate choice.

However, there's no denying that it's distracting for viewers. What I think they should do is keep Hannah in the series, but have a good voice actress overdub her lines.

As others have shared, the voice of the female "expert" is ruining this show for me. I came here just to see if I'm the only one and clearly I'm not. It makes me uncomfortable just watching and listening to it and I'm not sure I will be able to finish this series unless I feel like fast forwarding every time (unlikely). I'm shocked that this was overlooked by producers, but hope that they read these reviews and make the recommended changes next time as the idea is otherwise a great one. I love a good crime series and the idea of solving cold cases is good if they get rid of the "experts" and stick to the storyline.

The production value is awful. It looked like they just piecemealed this series together. Add HORRIBLE commentators and you're left with just a really, really bad show! It sounds like there's something wrong with their voices. I also think I detected Canadian accents but they (for some reason) are trying to hide it. The lady, Christine H. Is the worst! And, I just couldn't stand to look at the guy with the Santa Clause beard. The show has way too many "experts" who are so irritating that it's hard to even focus on what they're saying! I'm a big fan of true crime shows and podcasts and this is one of the worse I've ever seen.

I like the narrator who does the voiceover narration; he's fine, and enough for the show. What on earth were the producers thinking that they felt they had to bring in 5 more supposed experts to also narrate? Too much, and it rains the show.

As for Christine Hannah, I'm sorry that she seems to have a speech impediment that causes her to put a pause between consonants and vowels ("call" comes out c_all). I believe that differently able people should not be discriminated against, but it makes no sense for someone with a speech impediment to be a narrator. Surely, there is something she could do that doesn't involve public speaking or speaking on TV. It makes me want to change the channel every time she starts speaking. And the other so-called experts have absolutely nothing to do with these cases. I like hearing from the actual detectives, lawyers, and journalists who actually have some legit connection to the case, but it's so annoying to hear from an expert who has no relation to the case. Based on the other reviews, one would hope the producers would take note and make the necessary changes to actually make the show more enjoyable to watch and less grating like nails on a chalkboard.

I came on here to figure out why the forensic specialist on the show sounds breathless and like her breath is being forced out. I haven't found any answers, but I agree with several other posters. Her manner of speaking distracts from the information she is conveying. It's an interesting show, but hard to listen to.

I like the details that they reveal and the show's overall format. However, some of the reinactments are clearly low budget. The episode featuring Thomas Mitchell has some terrible props. Judith Flagg is carrying a bundle with a horrible quality wig sticking out the top and it's meant to be her 8-month-old son.

I echo the same as those whom.have reviewed already. The woman with the windless, irritating speech issues is NOT suited for tv narrarating nor is her personalit suited. Same goes with other irrelevant experts. None have anything specific to offer. They all read a story. And it got cut together. Absurdity. The voice forced me to stop watching. Makes my own throat hurt when she fails.to inhale and run outnof breath.this is forcing me to write more but there is nothing to say. What could have been good cases with updated conclusions, instead is an absolute waste of time. Terribly executed. Leaves one frustrated and bored.