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.
Review of Reasonable Doubt
