The Last Defense (2018) User Reviews

It was quite good

[michaelrthomson · 8/10 · 15 June 2018]

Not being American I'm unfamiliar with the opening story being told by this show, but the way in which the story has been told was enough to make me break out Google and do a little research.

As is all too often the case with these sorts of 'wrongful outcome' criminal investigation shows it seems to skew very much in favour of the defence side of things, that in and of itself is fine so long as there is some objectivity coming up.

It appears there are three episodes dedicated to this story, the next one being around the trail, and the last one titled 'the woman' must be about the woman at the centre of the case herself. I'm optimistic that each will give a more full account of the events leading up to, including and after the murder/s.

Its pretty well put together with good production. The use of historical footage is again pretty typical for this sort of show, but I'm hoping those who are 'investigating' will be more evident as will their methodology.

There is certainly enough so far to garner interest and further watching.

A Show That May Give Darlie Routier The Chance To Appeal Her Conviction. Riveting!

[AudioFileZ · 8/10 · 30 June 2018]

Darlie Routier's murder conviction is, over twenty years later, out of the public consciousness. Supposedly the Routier case was solved and, sadly, there has been ever more shocking crimes. Still, at the time, it was a double child murder shot heard around the world. It seems most folks thought Darlie was guilty, she got the death sentence, case closed.

The Last Defense re-opens the events and trial that put Darlie Routier on death row. It's surprising that several forensic experts, far surpassing any layman's knowledge of the crime, believe Darlie was wrongly convicted. Now, two decades on, this show is going to make you rethink what you thought you knew. To do so this can't be amateur assemblage of over zealous prosecutors and talking heads. It isn't. The Last Defense makes a compelling case expertly presented that there was a huge police/legal system rush to judgement and a well orchestrated character assassination of Darlie Routier carried out in the courtroom with the help of a salivating press.

The tragedy of the brutal murder of two small children is not to be forgotten in all of this. This is the kind of case everyone wants the guilty party to removed from society with swift and severe justice served. The question is was the actual killer convicted? Judging by so much of what is brought to light here there is more than just a little doubt. First, it seems Darlie had no reason or predilection to commit any crime, certainly one that involved her children. Second, Darlie seems more guilty of a child-like mentality than either mental illness or insidious criminal smarts. Bottom line, she likely couldn't have staged the crime scene the prosecutors are saying she manufactured. It's clear she doesn't have the intent or skill as one imagines even a simple crime she might stage would be the easiest case to crack, probably ever. The girl had no intent, no motive, and couldn't have pulled the crime off without direct and concrete evidence seems obvious. In reality all the supposed scientific evidence presented to the jury in a super conservative Texas town (a town almost guaranteed Darlie was going to be convicted) is pseudo science plain and simple. Add to this the strange fact Routier's celebrated ,and well-paid, defense attorney decided to not bring in his own rebuttal experts, even after he'd paid them to find holes in the prosecution's science, absolutely stupefies.

The show brings up a fact: this was a quite unfair trial and outcome based on the the unproven science and questionable facts. A total conviction by character assassination within a climate of bias which this created. One must hope people given the death sentence are convicted not by bias and only by irrefutable evidence leaving no reasonable doubt. Isn't this the way the U.S. criminal justice system is suppose to to work? If The Last Defense does nothing else it plainly shows how a conviction, and death sentence, can be hijacked. If Darlie was guilty, which seems highly doubtful, it's clear she wasn't convicted based on guilt of the crime itself. Disclaimer: I'm writing this after seeing three episodes of The Last Defense and will add to this review if anything further revealed actually links Darlie to the commission of the murders. I recommend seeing this series as it is professionally produced and raises serious questions regarding the death penalty. This is a well above average crime documentary.

Great example of a trial

[dshell102 · 6/10 · 17 July 2018]

While this is a great example of a trial, it does nothing to refute the evidence in my mind and just shows how weak the defense was. The way it's presented is similar to trial - evidence against her followed by rebuttal. It shows my clearly why they lost the trial.

Evidence is pointed out of glass over the footprints. A lack of grief. Coincidences of money. The response is "maybe this, maybe that" and it's hours and hours of evidence, not just one or two things. The defense wasn't strong. No actual contradicting evidence. Nothing disproved. It's a sad situation, it's especially sad if she's innocent, but wow! Everything from her mental state to how she lived to evidence at the scene to the vast difference in knife wounds. I'm looking for signs of innocence, but how they sat down with the nurses isn't evidence of innocence, just how the prosecution prepped. A great deal of evidence of guilt, though. Claims of "no motive" and "her character was the centerpiece"....I don't find them to be very honest. Money is a motive. Lots of evidence had me leaning toward guilt long before her character was brouht up. It's all for show, I get it, but to those of us who think it's awful deception.

So yes, this is what a trial is like. And so far I haven't found anything that indicates innocence.

Masterful Storytelling

[paigenicole27 · 10/10 · 27 July 2018]

I am a true crime fanatic, fascinated by the entirety of the process from the offense to the investigation to (especially) the trial. An avid watcher of most true crime shows and investigative reporting (including Dateline, 48 Hours, etc.) I've found that really good productions are rare. So many are vapid, trite, repetitive, unimaginative, and cliched. THE LAST DEFENSE regards crimes I have seen and read about many, many times in different media forms. However, the perspective, narrative, and new + old information is so masterfully conveyed that these over-told stories seem fresh and refreshing; it is just like hearing of these crimes for the first time as told by the most consummate of story tellers. ABC has provided true quality programming here.

Well-Done and Interesting So Far

[yyrproductions · 9/10 · 14 June 2018]

Loved the first episode. Went in not knowing the premise at all - thought it would be like one of the many basic cable murder shows where it's all wrapped up in an hour. Didn't take long to notice the superior production values, and halfway through I realized they weren't going to resolve it in one episode - it skewed obviously more toward the defense side and you're wondering how they convicted her for only inconsistent statements and no footprints in the mulch? The prosecution must have more evidence, Can't wait for the next one.

Don't watch too many series dramas on Netflix, etc. Last thing I saw like this was Manhunt: Unabomber which was great, but a docudrama. This relies on archival footage and sit-down interviews but holds your attention because it seems they have access to everything and most of the key people agreed to talk. I expect there may be trial footage in the next one?

Excellent show

[matthijsalexander · 8/10 · 11 July 2018]

Me and my GF have been watching this. Me Dutch, she Thai. We were in a constant roller-coaster of doubt: She did it, she didn't, she did it, she didn't.

Up till now (4 episodes in), with all the evidence presented we are still not sure.

What is clear, the American system has too many disadvantages, too many people end up behind bars because 'their peers' may or may not have made a mistake. Media influences outcomes too much in some instances.

Absolutely an interesting show, on all counts.

Well Worth Watching

[ellenirishellen-62962 · 10/10 · 4 July 2018]

Had to watch after friend put me on to this show.Reality,the kind of reality show I will watch.Saw the case of Darlie Router portrayed,a mother convicted and sentenced to die for supposedly killing her kids.Did not realize the events happened two decades ago,until pointed out here.Viola Davis does a terrific job in producing the cases,and having the actual participants is essential to help understand all that happened so many years ago.Will continue to watch,this is quality television.

Incredibly biased and inaccurate

[ethertapping · 3/10 · 1 January 2020]

The Darlie Routier segment is heavily skewed in her favour, including making many false and misleading claims throughout.

Trash tv

[natepritchard78 · 1/10 · 22 September 2021]

The Julius Jones episode kills all credibility it may have had otherwise. Its a shame for all the other cases but thats on Viola Davis. Her fault for trying to make him sound innocent.

One sided

[Somanimayur · 1/10 · 6 March 2019]

The show is clearly telling a story from only the prospective of one side. It shows how Darlie tells the story rather than what both sides think or represent. It looked like as if they were there to tell why Darlie is not guilty and is being a victim of a made-up story by the cops. The show tried really hard in making sure that the viewers took Darlie's side in this case. Very disappointing!

Biased and misleading....pro-defense, anti-death penalty agenda

[joycarnahan-17180 · 2/10 · 18 July 2018]

Any viewer who truly wants to evaluate the evidence and substantial challenges raised on appeal by Routier and Jones, they should read the state and federal court appeals online.... Everybody enjoys watching a variety of interesting tv shows...and this program IS entertaining. However, in addition to the Defendant, there the jurors, victims and their families, lawyers and judges, law enforcement, the presentation and quality of evidence, and the appellate courts that review this process.... ALL must be considered. In the real world of criminal trials (not Hollywood's version), the players don't get to cherry pick the facts and evidence.

The more interesting debate in the Jones case is whether a 19 year old should be on death row?? As far as the verdict and the case against Jones....guilty. Period. His issues on appeal were fully raised and soundly rejected.

As for Routier....she was convicted on the blood evidence and the absence of any evidence (DNA or other) that another person was there to do this crime. Her changing stories cannot possibly explain the crime scene evidence and the 911 call. This show practically ignored those issues entirely. The unfortunate "silly string" incident is a red herring but was shamefully overplayed by the DA and damaging to the defense. That's just my two cents but, at least it is based on reviewing facts and evidence from the appellate briefs, not just putting a "maybe innocent??" spin on two cases for a transparent anti-death penalty agenda.

Routier

[solidabs · 1/10 · 26 October 2022]

Well the prosecutions evidence was completely credible. Now the defenses rebuttals were quite, well let's just say bad to nonsense. Nothing irks me more than a botched police investigation and Crooked prosecution as in the West Memphis Three tradegy. The stabbing by the prosecution witness was way more reasonable then the defenses garbage reenactment. Oh the whole sock issue the defense acts incredulous lol. 75 yards is not far at all. I can throw a football 75 yards. It would take less than a minute and half at a slow jog to go 75 yards and back. You have that idiot Cruz woman saying the prosecution is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. I think its the other way around sweety. That is not far at all. Reference the knife that cut the screen. The defense only answers is cross contamination must have occurred. Which they didn't even attempt to prove. Then that idiot Davis Psychologist says he's never seen anyone hurt themselves that bad faking a crime. That is total nonsense. Complete nonsense. The wound on the arm should've been more on the outside of the forearm. It was where it was, cause she could stab herself easier. Also her wound on the neck was superficial compared to her kids. Problem is she almost screwed up. This mysterious stranger mustve been a genius. Lol Then these idiots want to rag on the Nurses for telling the truth of what they witnessed. The only thing Routier has going for her is the fact that it's hard to believe a Mother would do that to her Children. But her appellate attorney and experts are bought off goofs.