A Brutal Outcome

Makueeyapee Whitford attends a party, a pert hosted by a member of a rival tribe, after an apparent disagreement, Whitford leaves, he is followed by John Pierre Jr, and Whitford stabs and kills him.

It's a difficult one, the show's premise states that Amy criminal to be considered for parole, must show a level of acceptance and remorse for their crime, in this instance, zero of either.

How can you go into a supposed rival environment, and claim self defence? Surely if Whitford was aware of an age old rivalry, why would he go into such a place, let alone pull a knife out? It makes absolute no sense at all.

Another angry man, who's anger ultimately results in the death of someone, there has been a definite thread throughout this fifth series.

How on Earth could this man be trusted, when at no point does he even contemplate the fact that he's done something wrong?

7/10.

My review of season four applies exactly the same to season five, so I might as well repurpose it.

"I Am a Killer" is one of the few shows that I do reviews of, where I wish I didn't have to. (I know I don't "have" to - but via my own convoluted mind rules, I do). Mostly this is because it's been the same show, over and over again - though perhaps, for this fourth season, there is a bit of change. To demonstrate that similarity, I'll use the synopsis I wrote for the first season, back in 2021 again here.

Each episode has the same set up. We meet a Death Row inmate who takes us through their recollection of the crime. Not in every case, but in a lot of them, this is used to introduce us to some element of doubt about the case - not that they are guilty, but for example, their overall capacity for understanding the crime, or whether a murder was premeditated. The documentaries then introduce us to various other parties, either law enforcement, prosecutors, defence lawyers and/or family members - who tell their side of the story. The inmate is then interviewed for a second time, when he gets to react to some of the comments played for him. From there, it's generally left up to us as the audience to decide on whether execution would be justified in this case.

So, season four is mostly just more examples of this, but I do start to wonder if the number of inmates with justifiable doubts with their cases has started to run dry because in this season we meet at least two candidates who definitely did their murders and are (in my opinion) just lying about it for publicity or to aid an appeal. I won't say who they are, because I've not wanted to comment on the individual cases previously. The rest of the time it is the sadly all too common cycle of childhood abuse and drug use that leads to the incident.

The production team do a lot of good work to find and interview the right people involved in a case but the formula of the show is all too apparent. Begrudging completionism has dragged me though another series here - and it will drag me through the upcoming Sixth season too - but I'd like to be freed myself (ironically).