Reasonable Doubt

Honestly: I really love this show. I am intrigued when watching and intrigued about their final verdict. It has a slow pace, but I really like the build up. This is one of my favorite crime shows, it really sheds light on certain cases. I am hoping many more will follow: the whole show is really unique.

I've watched a lot of these episodes and I've always had mixed feelings about who they choose to believe and who they choose not to believe. But after watching the episode about David Thorn, I'm very confident in saying that Christopher Anderson is racist. This is very controversial for me to say, but if you watch the show, and pay attention to his mannerisms and expressions to any evidence that would exonerate David, you will see that Chris's mind was made up from the beginning. I've never seen so much evidence get met with, "yeah buts," and blatant disregard until this episode. I've seen plenty of cases that Chris and Fatima chose to pursue with significantly less evidence than what David's case had to prove that there needs to be another look. Interestingly enough, go check the races of those cases they chose to pursue! Plus the way Chris and Fatima treated David's friend and wife was just appalling!! I'll never watch this show again. If they named the show, "Reasonable Doubt for minorities," than there would be no issue.

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.

As an ID 'addict', I may be biased but 'Reasonable Doubt' is one of ID's better shows. Both Melissa and Chris are very professional, courteous, and seem totally unbiased. I'm curious to know how the producers are choosing these cases. As it seems the show is relying on communication from family and friends of convicted murderers, who obviously believe in their loved ones' innocence. However, everyone is capable of killing someone! No exceptions! Despite alleged errors in an investigation or a trial, people need to understand and accept that there is no human incapable of killing. Melissa and Chris show all sides of these cases and I don't understand how anyone can disagree with their findings. Good production!

Let's hope for Year 2020 Fatima Silva sounds ALOT less scripted. She's either trying to hard or she's reading from a Teleprompter because it sounds so not sincere. Otherwise the show is great.