The DNA of Murder with Paul Holes

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.

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.

**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)

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.

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.