Reasonable Doubt

I do enjoy this show but I recently watched an episode where they staged an event and then had a sketch artist sketch the person. They used three volunteers. It appears that they did the sketches immediately after the event. In normal crime situations they don't get the sketch the assailant immediately after the crime. The three people did a really good job but who wouldn't after five minutes, wait a day or two and see how they do. Updates on people they decide to help would be nice as well.

I've watched this show from the beginning and it's actually one of my favorites on ID. I've read thru the reviews and I can't believe how many negative ones there are! Chris and Fatima make it a point to tell people they are independent and thus may or may not agree with the courts findings. I don't see how that's giving false hope. I do think Chris goes in with an opinion of guilt or innocence already made, but that's a failing of a lot of police investigators. We hear the term "follow the evidence" a lot in these types of shows, which Chris & Fatima do, but they've already seen everything pertaining to the case and it's human nature to draw a conclusion from what you know. If ID wants it to be really impartial, then Chris & Fatima should go in blind as much as possible. But, we're talking about an hour show & that's unrealistic for them to start an investigation from scratch. I think the show is engaging, and draws people in about the case & the guilt/innocence of the accused. I like both Chris & Fatima and think they're perfect for the show. They balance each other out in their approach to investigating and drawing conclusions. They rarely back anyone's innocence and usually end up pretty much saying the person should be in prison for the crime they're accused of. I'd love to see some sort of follow up show about the cases they do decide to "get behind" of though as I've never read anything about if they've ever really helped anyone. At its most basic level, it is a show for entertainment purposes, but should deciding someone's guilt be used for entertainment? I don't know. I do know it's a fast paced, engaging show with 2 very professional, compassionate hosts that will make almost anyone question our judicial system.

I will say this is a decent show despite the fact that you learn that most of these people are guilty of the crime that they've been already found guilty of. Although, I did learn just how often these families truly feel their loved ones are innocent despite hard evidence that says otherwise. It's sad honestly.

You should do a show about Patricia Rorrer, there is surely reasonable doubt about her conviction! It was a horrible crime, and the people of Lehigh Valley wanted someone held accountable. So someone from out of the area became their target. Not saying she did not do it, but the police investigation was shameful, and the evidence for a conviction is not there.

i love this show; however, i have found a few observations that could make a difference in a few cases. for instance the former teacher who was convicted of murdering her husband, she passed a polygraph with no deception. the medication may have been a factor in her not responding to her attorney turning the charges on her son, plus she may have thought that she could not object to that line of questioning. it would also stand to reason that more research should have been done on the creatine in conjunction to the husband's health...just saying.