The opening to this second episode was that dramatic that I half expected the famous duff duff drum beat from Eastenders to start playing any second.  My jaw nearly dropped to the floor as we were informed how in 2008 a woman was convicted of murdering her own daughter by the testimony of her seven year old son.  This second installment was interesting, intriguing and Piers yet again was impressively impartial throughout.  Even though the first programme had a stronger emotional impact on me, this second one nevertheless was definitely a worthwhile watch.

Prosecutor : “Can you tell me what a lie is”?

AJ : “It’s not the truth”.

Prosecutor : “Can you tell me what the truth is”?

AJ : “It’s not a lie”.

This courtroom dialogue above weighed heavy on the heart because AJ is the seven year old boy who testified against his mother in court back in 2008.  This first case that Piers looked at took place in Florida and involved Amanda Lewis being convicted of drowning her young daughter Adrianna Hutto.  Amanda to this day we were told still protests her innocence of this crime.  Again like last week, the case was presented to us via a good mix of archive footage (such as courtroom footage, police questioning) together with present day interviews.

What needs to be applauded here is how Piers challenged almost everything he was told.  He challenged Amanda over certain aspects of the case.  For example, why did Adrianna’s bedroom have a strong odour of urine to it he quizzed her? Why would AJ make up such a story? Likewise though he strongly pressed the people who firmly believe Amanda is guilty of this crime. He pressed Chief Prosecutor Larry Basford and Holmes County Sheriff Dennis Lee about the validity of AJ’s testimony.  Piers put it to them that there were inaccuracies in some of statements that AJ had said.

The second murder case Piers looked at was that of Jimmy Joste.  In Texas 2006 former beauty queen Rhonda Glover was convicted of his murder, her lover at the time. Dramatic tension was then amplified by us being informed how women are three times more likely as men to kill someone they love.  As with the first case both sides were presented to us.  We heard Rhonda profess that she had acted in self defence, contrasting with people from law enforcement who saw her as a cold calculated murderer.

What I liked about this documentary was that there was a moving poignancy to it like there was in the first episode.  Stylistically, there is almost something slightly poetic about seeing a bright sunny clear day in the present tense, against then being told about the grave subject of murder in the past tense.  Poignancy was also conveyed through words and the most moving thing I heard in this programme came from Jimmy Joste’s former business partner Danny Davis towards the end.  Regarding how he now felt towards Rhonda, Danny told Piers,

“I’ll say hello to her, I’ll sit down and have lunch with her, you know I’m not going to hate her.  You forgive a lot when you get older, you don’t have time for hate anymore”.

I guess it was not just what Danny said but also how he said it in such a wistful way that moved me so much.

I have said up to this point how I liked the impartially of Piers Morgan in this programme.  He never tried to shove his own personal opinions about the cases and ‘killer women’ he interviewed down our throats for instance.  The cases were presented us and we were left to make up our own minds about them. What differed though here with these two cases from the Erin Caffey case that we saw in episode one, was that both of the women spoke about their innocence of being convicted of murder.  Therefore, I know I am about to somewhat contradict myself but I thus wanted to hear how Piers felt about them at the end.   I think maybe the programme was a bit too much too impartial if you get my point? I would have just liked a subtle summing-up by Piers or a brief conclusion upon how he felt towards them, i.e what was his hunch about them being guilty or not? With a slightly less neutral Piers then the documentary would have had more purpose in my view.

Another small criticism I have is to ask why both episodes were done in America about American ‘killer women, does Britain not have such women(I’m sure we do)? I am pretty certain this decision was to do with there being no archive court footage in the UK, tighter British gun laws and Britain being a much smaller place thus meaning there were less cases to choose from.  Were cases solely in America examined because some deem crimes over there to be more sensationalistic compared to ones here in Britain?

In the main though I believe this second episode was a good follow up to an utterly compelling first part the week before.  I think this show is the best thing Piers Morgan has done on television in a very long time.  If there are more episodes of this to come in the future then I will no doubt watch them. INTERESTING, INTRIGUING AND IMPARTIAL……yes you read that correctly, am I talking about Mr Piers Morgan! 3/5.