The DNA of Murder with Paul Holes (2019– ) User Reviews

...leaving you somewhat confused

[ricewithaspoon · 7/10 · 21 October 2019]

I am sure i'll keep watching, not sure yet if because of my crime, psychology or paul holes fetish. .. 2nd episode in now i am left hanging regarding the first case. i initially assumed the case will stretch over to other episodes? the second one however did not resolve nor even mention the last case? huge plus points for: being informative & not using dramatizations. it could be more scientific.

in the 2nd ep. when he went through the case with a mysterious dark haired lady ( who wasn't introduced & whose role i still couldn't figure out) it seems like they are talking to themselves and not bouncing off of each others thoughts.. strange communication dynamic... felt a little too acted.

Where's the results?

[lezleegorey · 6/10 · 29 October 2019]

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.

Where are the results

[bellabykac · 6/10 · 2 October 2020]

I admire his amazing work an experience, however where are the DNA results Paul? There is a great work on constructing the cases however the interest deflates when you find out that there is not conclusion from the DNA test. I Really hope to see a second series but with final DNA results, otherwise it should be re-named like unresolved DNA cases.

Paul Holes is superb at what he does!

[froggybird · 10/10 · 3 November 2019]

I will start by saying that the people who are upset that there are no results in these cases clearly watch too many fictional crime shows. It takes a lot of time for DNA testing, court orders, exhumation, etc. That's compounded when you are crossing state lines. I knew going into this that what Paul's goal would be is to give these investigators some new leads and guidance as to where to go. Paul is not there to solve these cases, he's there to provide guidance to the ones who will hopefully eventually solve it. If you can't appreciate that, don't watch this show.

Paul teams up with other well known CSIs and criminologists to look at cases with a fresh perspective. He finds details and evidence that others have overlooked. He has a very keen eye for these things, and he also has time and resources that others don't. I highly recommend this show to true crime enthusiasts, especially Murderinos. It's important that you understand the purpose of Paul's work on this show, and the reality of the timing of murder investigating and DNA testing, in order to appreciate it. Fans of fictional crime shows may not be able to appreciate it.

It's not great but it certainly isn't the worse

[jldivelbiss · 7/10 · 10 November 2019]

I enjoy watching this and seeing the fresh set of eyes on a cold case. I also understand that Paul isn't there to solve the case but to only give new insights into what may have happened. This is a huge help for small town police departments and it's a realistic show.

Of course I want to walk away knowing who did it, but imagine what those families and friends are feeling. I consider this a good show given the fact that they have limited evidence.

Great!!

[cyndibeauchamp · 10/10 · 13 October 2019]

Loved it! Very absorbing first episode. I couldn't take my eyes off of it.

2nd Season please!

[bewest-05403 · 10/10 · 27 June 2021]

What a relief for the families and law enforcement to have one more look at their loved ones case. Please do a second season or an update on the episodes. Paul Holes compassionate discussions with the families is unusual these days. I'm sure there are many more cases that need a second opinion! More dna discoveries! More Paul Holes and more of the great women investigators that helped him.

Was hoping for more resolve

[paulasmith-29658 · 2/10 · 22 October 2019]

Have seen 2 episodes and it has gone off my list. I love true crime and had high Hope for this series. First Mr Holes is excellent in presenting his case in very concise manner. And his other experts he brings in are very good. But there is to much repeating of same information. Also I have found on these 2 cold cases it seems the initial detective's seem to drop the ball on their investigation to begin with on some things. So there is no ending, and leaves so much up in the air. I feel the series would of been better if there was closure.

#HotforHoles

[pendles · 10/10 · 13 April 2020]

I love shows that take a new look at cold cases with fresh eyes and investigative techniques. Paul holes is as knowledgeable as he is compassionate and this show is compelling viewing

Useless show

[paulcheema · 3/10 · 22 December 2019]

I have worked in Forensic Science for over 15 years, and I can say that this series is nothing except a money grab from the curious members of victims of unsolved homicides. I don't think this gives them any closure. Instead, this seems to just aggravate their agony.

Since those people are on camera, they can't say any negative comments about, the so-called, investigation. This also sends a message that the law enforcement agencies, that ran the investigation, were who overlooked those evidences.

Such shows are ran after hundreds of disclosures from the parties involved. I find this show as just capitalizing on people's liking of crime scenes investigation and scandals.

Excellent

[samantha1571 · 10/10 · 24 November 2019]

I would definitely recommend. A most watch. I'm interested in true crime programmes and I watch a lot of different ones and I would say this is one of the top. I've recommended it to all my friends and my fiancée who also finds true crime interesting.

Where is the DNA ?

[norcalrich · 3/10 · 28 October 2019]

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.

Ok Show

[mrozowska-09925 · 5/10 · 4 January 2020]

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.

Good but could be Great

[musicnetwork-85033 · 5/10 · 18 October 2019]

**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)

Needs conclusion or updates

[msfjulie · 5/10 · 15 April 2020]

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.

Great but there's no update of whether it's solved

[trishnutrition · 5/10 · 2 January 2022]

His fresh eyes add to the investigations. This show is great but disappointing that there is no update on whether the crimes are solved. I'd like to see a follow-up, showing that his suggestion produced an actual resolution.

This show is not worth the time

[davejohnson-09237 · 1/10 · 18 April 2020]

No doubt Paul Holes is talented and articulate, and appears sincere, but there are NEVER any conclusions! As another poster remarked, everyone on camera has signed a consent form of some kind and may have been compensated accordingly. Also, the show needs to treat the Police with kid gloves, plus pay for all costs of the various departments in order to have some legitimacy to the show. Another commented that the show could have the effect of making the Police look bad. What none of these shows tell you is that many, if not all, investigations are run by budgetary considerations. Of course if the victim is high profile or politically, financially, or artistically connected to the power brokers of the jurisdiction, then budgets are less of an issue. How interesting would it be if some Detective said that the plug was pulled on an investigation because of the budgets! Or because of the status of the victims! So the show pays for DNA testing but NEVER has results. The real artistry of this show is creating the two episode as a come-back attraction, implying that there will be answers. There are never any conclusions or answers. I for one will not watch these programs if they are a serial. And I will not watch this show again. I enjoy "Cold Justice" because they are very open with what has happened, where they are going, and how they plan to get there. Also, if they are not successful, the viewer understands why and feels for the victims and relatives accordingly. All the same show requirements that "The DNA of Murder" has is the same in Cold Justice. People are paid, people agree to be taped/video taped etcetera. The Police are involved as well. But the "White Board" look at things and the open dialogue seems likely to me. And it is a team effort. Much more compelling. The "DNA of Murder" is basically a one man show.

This show is pointless! They don't solve any of the crimes....

[neillawrence-49026 · 1/10 · 28 August 2020]

I thought this show was going to be about past crimes where Paul Holes and his team would solve cold cases with DNA breakthroughs leading to convictions......it's nothing of the sort! All it is, is Paul Holes Questioning the victims families and going over the old evidence.....he adds nothing more to the case! The murder isn't solved, there isn't any resolutions. It's just a show talking about old Unsolved cases that remain unsolved today..... It's a pretty pointless show!

Terrible

[ttjorgy · 1/10 · 7 April 2023]

I really love these type of shows... Yolanda is just so annoying that I can't watch this show.. I'm fairly certain she used to be on Cold Justice where she was way outmatched but Kelly Siegler., DNA of a murder is bland, boring & has very very annoying cast members(Yolanda) I tried to watch a episode of 2 but couldn't watch this. I enjoy the true crime shows as much as anything I see on tv so it's not very often 1 character on a show can persuade me to not like the show.. but this is the show that I can not watch with the know it all lady.. I'm hoping this show will make a reboot with somebody else but here.. heck bring in Kelly from cold justice! That show has thrived without Yolanda.. I'll anxiously await a reboot of this show with new cast members !

Paul Holes

[HRoarkHRearden · 1/10 · 26 February 2022]

The only reason I decided to try this was because of Paul Holes and of how hot I think he is. I mean look at him and he's over 50. God.

But this show is lame. I love true crime but not with a host, I much prefer the narrating formula offered by shows like Snapped, Forensic Files, American Monster, etc. There's a few exceptions, when the host is not part of the investigation and only intervenes a few times to make some comments (New York Homicide, In Ice Cold Blood) for example. But this, this is insufferable, not interesting in the least. I got tired of it after just a few minutes into the very first episode.

I'd rather watch Paul Holes in a hallmark movie.