L'Accusé: Meurtre et injustice dans une petite ville

I like this show but it annoys me to watch it as it is very easy to get confused or miss 3 seconds and be completely out the loop without having to rewind it, it is not simply because it is complex and in depth but the way the story is told is something else, not in any type of chronological order or seemingly any logical order, would have loved to have seen this real life story explained in a much clearer and generally more exciting way than what has been achieved here. Sorry.

These stories are very important and I'm glad I watched this series. However it can a bit confusing with all the different characters involved with these 2 separate incidents. The dramatic parts are lackluster as well but not so bad as to ruin the episodes. Perhaps a pen and paper to write down notes would help keep the stories and characters straight in your head as you watch. 6/10

I can only repeat what others have said already. This is such an important and intriguing story yet it's presented so poorly. I actually stopped and rewinded so many times because I couldn't follow. Which is sad because of its important message.

As you can surmise from the title, this show deals with a wrongful conviction. Actually, four wrongful convictions that all took place in the 1980s in the small town of Ada, Oklahoma. The story is gripping, maddening, and nearly unbelievable. Unfortunately, the story itself is hampered by an over-dramatic score and a few too many TruTV-esque re-enactments. It could use more organization and editing. Some episodes seemed to be leading somewhere but ended up largely retreading the same path with different characters. I still give it 9/10 because the story itself is worth hearing. Sadly, it's a story we've all grown too accostomed to.

Really interesting stories of two tragic murders.

Chops back and forth between the cases in an unnecessarily confusing way at points, and goes over and over and over the same details far too often. Could have been covered in half the duration.

I get that they want to make their point and case for the story, however the borderline Michael Moore rabbit punch crescendo in the finale is unnecessary. Ironic that they want to make a case that only a small proportion of the evidence made it to the trial, whilst wanting the viewer to make their decision based on their cherrypicked highlighted sentences of evidence.

Definitely glad I persevered, albeit I'll not revisit.