PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

paigenicole27 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.

joycarnahan-17180 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.

AudioFileZ 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.

michaelrthomson 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.