Exhibit A (I) (2019) User Reviews

Clear Defense Advocacy Bias

[Cheeseburger1 · 5/10 · 30 June 2019]

It's an interesting series, entertaining and easy to watch. But just as many crime documentaries on Netflix (looking at you "Making a Murderer"), it clearly has a defense advocacy narative and often ignores fairly important details of the cases it uses as evidence of the misuse of forensic science.

For example, in the "Cadaver Dogs" episodes key aspects of the prosecution's case are left out and the series wrongfully implies the defendant was found guilty based on the cadaver dog alone. This is a blatant mischaracterization of the case against D'Andre Lane. The victim's mother, D'Andre's ex, claimed he had been in trouble with the law but that it was never for violent crimes. This is wrong, but the show never challenges this claim, giving the viewer the false impression it is true.

D'Andre had gang affiliations and was sentenced to four years probation for assault with intent to commit armed robbery. And he had been arrested numerous times after on drugs and firearms charges, even spending over 3 years in prison for one charge. He had 7 kids with 7 different women, and cheated on most of them. His current girlfriend heard him hitting his daughter the night before for wetting the bed and said the girl's cries were intense and then went silent. Two witnesses saw the defendant driving the car at the time the car was allegedly hijacked. One actually spoke to the defendant while he was in the car and made a statement saying the little girl wasn't in the vehicle with the defendant. Another witness saw the defendant park the car in the alley it was found a few blocks from the alleged crime scene and saw the defendant get out of the car and walk away alone. The alley where the car was found was a block away from the girl's mother's house where the defendant went right after the alleged hijacking and the mother was the one that had to call police.

This is an entertaining series that does give some idea of the pitfalls of forensic science and how it can be misused or misinterpreted. However, the series does not give a fair representation of the cases against the defendants and gives the impression the prosecutions' cases were far weaker than they really were.

Misleading

[rememberdave · 5/10 · 1 July 2019]

This show is about different local court systems that allow untrained experts to test and make conclusions on pieces of evidence. This is NOT about debunking currently used scientific methods, or that scientific methods are generally used incorrectly by trained experts. The first episode begins by making a generality that video evidence can be misleading. But then it shows us a case where the video was not in question but the expert who reviewed the video was in question. The expert was an ex-cop, and had complete flaws in his logic. So the evidence does not fail, just the people that are used to interpret the evidence have failed. The system has failed these people. Each episode does not come to conclusion either, nor does it answer any conflicting statements made by people on both sides of the case. The blood spatter?? So did any tests show that the other drops were not blood or was this just the opinion of the defense attorney?? Another person in this episode said the other spots were not tested to determine if they were blood. So were they tested??

Not aligned with expectations

[jeduardovilela · 6/10 · 30 June 2019]

The show in interesting and easy to watch, but it makes little to no effort in clarifing that the problems presented are not within the science itself, but people manipulating and miss undestanding results. Every episody shows problems with prosecutors, jury and judges not been able to understand basic scientific methodology and using tests for the wrong purposes. To be honest, just the video evidence episody shows a case of bad science, the other ones are bad judicial system.

Incomplete

[hewlett61 · 2/10 · 30 June 2019]

I watched the first two episodes. The first episode starts out in what looks like a backyard in Florida, then jumps to Texas, with absolutely no coherent connection.It seemed like both episodes presented opposing opinions regarding different types of crimes. Then, each episode just stops. No sort of conclusion, resolution, opinion, whatever you want to call it.There are completely mixed messages for both cases where each side accuses the other of pseudo science. I seriously thought episode two would pick up where episode one left off, but completely unrelated.

Other reviewers missed the point

[Danie12 · 8/10 · 21 July 2019]

If you are familiar with Loudenberg's other Netflix show The Confession Tapes, you know that there is going to be some bias toward the accused (sorry to burst your bubble but ALL documentaries are biased). However, there is no satifactory conclusion in these episodes because the point is to make viewers think about the real grey area in sciences that are generally considered reliable. If all we ever see is CSI and the like we will just assume that the investigators are always in the right and that is simply not the case. Loudenberg is trying to raise awareness about the questionable use of science to get convictions and I think she nails it in a way that keeps you interested.

Not as advertised

[Cmaj71625 · 2/10 · 29 June 2019]

I was expecting a show exploring the pros and cons of forensic criminal investigation and evidence gathering, what I got was a show about people whining about it. Very little science, frankly it was dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and simply boring.

Junk vs Evidentiary Science

[helenahandbasket-93734 · 8/10 · 28 January 2022]

A few notes worth making:

1) our criminal Justice system is so far out of whack, it's a wonder anyone without substantial means to hire incredibly experienced defense attorneys receives a fair trial.

When someone isn't up for a death penalty case, they're stuck with someone who may have never defended anyone in front of a jury, much less someone being tried for murder. The system screws those with limited income to luck of the draw and no amount of pleading, begging, or crying will get an inexperienced lawyer removed from the case. Only in cases where the death penalty is being employed does the county's budget allow for a more strenuous defense, then it is eligible for federal funding.

2) there's far too many junk science 'experts' floating around this world- from blood spatter to photograph/video, to canines, to dna, etc., this notion that working in a particular field lends you to be an expert is ridiculous. There's loopholes to everything these so-called experts claim as definitive evidence, and their lack of willingness to admit to such only bolsters my claim.

A liquid spatter can have many explanations, and just as with fingerprints, everyone's blood is quite different; ask any supposed spatter expert the difference between anti-coagulated blood and blood and I doubt they'd know the difference. AC blood is more likely to be 'thinner' and thusly travel further, leave an entirely different spray pattern, form longer run trails down a surface, etc., but these pros will say 'oh, it was substantially more blood than that of other scenes because there's far more evidence to the naked eye!', but that's not even close to the truth. Some people have a much higher INR naturally, some tends to run 'thicker', and some are on medication that can drastically change the composition and alter what an 'expert' would determine to be factual.

There's a reason that so many states are now beginning to outlaw these types of expert testimony, and they're finally seeing the fallacy of it all. You could theoretically have an expert who truly is an expert, but these people tend to be more honest and willingly admit that it's their own interpretation and subject to assumptions. Science is NEVER settled, and what was once though to the the end-all-be-all in evidence has now been completely wrong and seriously flawed.

Another issue I wish they'd focus on is the issue with overzealous prosecution by DAs and LEOs who become so ensconced on a particular subject, only to convict said person based on nothing but flimsy circumstantial evidence, to discover later that the wrong person had been imprisoned, and in some cases, executed. Juries can be incredibly naïve- I've served on 2 county, 1 federal, and 1 federal grand jury, and I can say that in my experience, even though it's merely anecdotal, that most jurors tend to play for the prosecution more than the defense. There's an underlying bias (particularly as their age increases) to believe that an innocent person doesn't get to that point, an innocent doesn't ask for an attorney from the outset (which is so inconceivably moronic), there's no such thing as a false confession, and law enforcement doesn't go after the wrong people. Time and again you'll get to deliberations and are stunned at the split in opinions. Given that many of older generations still cling to an outdated opinion and will see much of this pseudoscience as factually accurate, and you begin to understand how innocent people find themselves incarcerated.

If you want a closeup view of what's fundamentally flawed in our legal system, watch this series and keep an open mind. Like the guy who's a self-appointed expert in video evidence- his tells are obvious and there's not much I'd believe of his testimony- or the people with canines who are super-convinced their dog is the best dog at finding decomposition? When your dog can't differentiate different smells, received no certification from an independent body sufficiently experienced in that particular area, your dog is no better than my lab who is about as intelligent a Hunter as you'd find. She can find prey (such as ducks) from 500 yards, following nothing but scent, but I'd never dream of trying to certify her as a cadaver dog because she's too easily fooled by other scents when not followed by the shotgun blast.

Please help to convince every single state legislature and federal government that these are not sciences, and suggesting as much is just as wrong as convicting an innocent person.

What is the point of this

[moranmikey-594-149206 · 1/10 · 30 June 2019]

When I found this on Netflix I thought it was going to be a series that debunks forensic science to then show the person found guilty of the crime has their conviction finally overturned. That is not what this is all about. It's loosely based around different types of forensic science however, there doesn't seem to be a real point to it. They don't delve into the science nor the crime committed. There are far better shows out there than this one.

Lacks depth

[Calicodreamin · 4/10 · 18 March 2020]

The concept behind this mini series is interesting, but the case studies lack depth and background. The science was well explained and gave both sides of the story, however the stories didn't feel complete. Either the focus needed to be on the science and how it can be used to in case trials or the focus needed to be on the supposed wrongful convictions.

Thought provoking and entertaining

[herterb · 10/10 · 4 July 2019]

Almost as good as The Confession Tapes. You will want to plea bargain even if innocent if charged with a crime after watching this

No resolve!!

[mushylovin · 5/10 · 27 July 2019]

This may have been a decent documentary if they didn't leave us hanging at the end of each episode. They end very abruptly with no follow up. Would be nice to know what the statuses of these cases are. Meh

I'm a Girl Scout, goddamn it!

[agwilliams-79590 · 10/10 · 26 March 2022]

Idk why it took me so long to watch this on Netflix. I suppose I'd gotten a bit burnt out on exploiting true crime as entertainment and figured this was just another show describing somebody's gory tragedy for no other reason than to allow the rest of us the satisfaction of saying 'that could never happen to me'. Yes, it can.

However, I found this show to be different. There's alot of eye opening information about forensic science and evidence that the majority of the public aren't aware of but should know as we're the ones convicting people. Those convictions are life altering, and could be for numerous people. Our justice system is crooked and has been crooked. We've known that and I don't see that changing, so maybe it's just left up to us to stop convicting people on junk science made up 'evidence'. They're banking on us being ignorant. Let's do better. Saying you're an expert doesn't make you an expert.

The lady in episode 3 really got me right in the heart. She lost her daughter but was dropping lines like 'they can't take me to court and paint me as a bad, bad person. I bake!' Or 'I'm a Girl Scout, goddamn it!'. She was great and I could really feel and relate to the anger she feels bc of the injustices that came after so tragically losing her little girl. Think of suffering the worst possible tragedy you can imagine and then either you or someone you love who you know is innocent goes down for it. She's angry and probably will be forever. I deeply empathize with her. I'm angry for her too.

Slanted much?

[kmyra8 · 1/10 · 2 July 2019]

I like the idea of the series, but the slanted and bias attack on police work in general is unfair and unjust. Not enough information was provided on each case or the suspects involved to allow an objective and fair analysis for the audience. Was excited for this series, only to be disappointed by a one-sided and manipulated production of exploiting " junk science". Sad Netflix , very sad.

Missed Opportunity.

[Mauseum · 3/10 · 20 November 2019]

A show about how differing forms of evidence has been used to convict or exonerate people is a good premise that crime enthusiasts would be into. The problem being that it doesn't actually do that. It focusses on the innocent bias and completely lacks any two-sided investigations. The first three episodes (especially the cadaver dogs) are really poorly presented. It's just presumed that these people are innocent and that evidence has been manipulated to gain a conviction. People who are into these shows can clearly see the bias and agenda and we can see the holes rifled throughout. Literally, one episode is called 'Blood Splatter' - the correct use and spelling is Blood Spatter lol! It just serves as precursor that the viewer knows this is going to be poorly researched and presented. The final episode is the best and could have been a movie length version that would have been really interesting; so hopefully a proper investigative documentary will be presented one day.

Disingenuous

[sstrayer-67900 · 2/10 · 14 August 2019]

Me and my husband thought we found a good new show to watch. In the case of the " cadaver dogs " my husband asked why the sent of a corpse being detected on the child car seat couldn't have happened while the " kidnapper " killed the child. We've only seen 2 episodes and will likely not watch more. It's an interesting premise, but not done well. These shows seen to slant toward the suspects being false accused and being found guilty with one small piece of evidence. We're a bit brighter than this, Netflix

Really Confusing

[fsualumdiff · 5/10 · 6 July 2019]

You know something is going to be wrong when the makers of this misspell an entire episode title. The episode, Blood Spatter, is spelt, 'Splatter.' It's a common misuse with the general public but surprisingly wasn't caught with by the film team trying to look credible presenting facts.

This lack of attention to detail rears it's head again in the episode with the missing child. On the 911 tape, she says her niece has been kidnapped. But then in her interview she says it's her daughter. A discrepancy the documentary never addresses. Instead it's all very one-sided and leaves you thinking there has to be more to these cases because the evidence or lack thereof that the documentary presents would hardly bring these cases to trial less result in guilty verdicts.

The editing is really annoying too with very confusing shots of b-roll of a person sitting at a slightly different angle, hearing his voice, and then cutting to the shot with his voice. It also does the, 'linger on the subject after they talk for dramatic effect' shot way too much.

Worst Documentary Ever

[ajbatac · 1/10 · 1 July 2019]

This show is worst than Game of Throne Season 8. This documentary starts out with hope and will leave you hanging high and dry. There no point in watching and wasting your time on this, not even a tiny bit of satisfaction.

Dull docudrama -- nothing more

[NewDivide1701 · 2/10 · 3 July 2019]

I was initially expecting it to be like another Exhibit A with Graham Greene, as in an exploration into forensic science. But being based on how forensic experts, detectives and the legal foul up in the conviction of an innocent person is an interesting take.

But even then it's about two thirds of an incredibly dull docudrama that literally goes nowhere very fast.

With the amount of time they spent on each episode, you might get 10 minutes of useable material -- IF YOU'RE LUCKY!!

And the best part, the cases involved never concludes. They say the investigators screwed up, here's where they screwed up, BORING, BORING documentary, and we never know what happens in the end.

A complete and utter disappointment, I'll just stick with the original Exhibit A with Graham Greene and Forensic Files with the latter also on Netflix.

Failed itself miserably

[mrsdavidwillis · 1/10 · 2 July 2019]

Feels like one long defense attorney attempt to undermine forensics as a whole. It's very manipulative from the unnecessary "character witnesses" to the allusion that evidence was generated as opposed to unintentionally misinterpreted.

We all know that "proof" can be subjective and that is why it takes a trial with a jury to get a conviction. I feel like this show attempted to vilify hard working law enforcement and debunk known scientific techniques but since they were unable to prove all of these cases were overturned it falls short of its own premise.

Mockery?

[teagarden-47466 · 1/10 · 30 June 2019]

Especially the first episode I felt like watching another "lonely island " episode. Next ones are slightly better... 😳

More like Junk Netflix than junk science

[mdcollinsbarracuda · 1/10 · 29 January 2023]

This series shows how biased telling slants a story in the most severe way. This is not about junk science at all. The 1st 2 episodes are about attorneys and detectives twisting data to fit their perception - there's nothing wrong with the science; in fact the true evaluation scientifically is what freed the elder widow. In Cadaver Dogs, the episode's producers omitted the corroborating facts that support the idea that D'Andre killed Bianca and then covered it up. They keep saying ' because the dog barked' as if that is the sole reason he was convicted. But minimal research reveals it was a team of cadaver dogs who picked that car out of hundreds on a huge lot, and then found the car-seat that had been intentionally placed several yards away from the car. 3 dogs, not 1. As someone who is not only a dog lover but who knows and respects military and police dogs and how intense and focused their training is, this episode thoroughly aggravates me. They're trying to say cadaver dogs are junk science based on this twisted presentation that, for some reason, hopes to paint DeAndre as the innocent victim. I just have no idea where Netflix was going with this series. All of the facts point to DeAndre having accidentally murdered Bianca - and had the audacity to put her dead body in her car seat, with her eyes wide open, and have her cousin kiss her goodbye before leaving to school. That is a man who deserves to be in prison. I'm just floored at the obviousness of the deception in this particular episode. I'm not gonna watch any more of this junk Netflix. In fact I think I'm completely done with anything produced by Netflix.