Review: 'Killing Fields'

It might be a TV trope, but it's also a reality for most police homicide detectives. No matter how successful they are or the number of cases they solved during their careers, there's always one case that sticks with them. It's that murder they can't solve, that family that is unable to find peace because the crime against their loved one remains a mystery. Everyone is haunted by the memories of work left unfinished and there's always that hope that somehow the case will eventually be solved.

Producers Tom Fontana and Barry Levinson use that regret as the centerpiece of the new Discovery true-crime series KILLING FIELDS. The six-episode series follows Louisiana detective Rodie Sanchez, as he comes out of retirement to try one last time to solve the murder mystery he still thinks about every day. "I’m retired, but in my mind and in my heart, I’m not," he tells his former boss Major Ronnie Hebert.

The case Sanchez can't forget is the 1997 murder of 34-year-old Eugenie Boisfontaine. Her mutilated and decomposing body was found in a ditch in Iberville Parish and despite years of work, no suspect was ever charged, much less convicted. Sanchez convinces his old boss to let him come out of retirement to follow the leads one last time and use new technology to hopefully narrow down the list of suspects. Hebert agrees and teams Sanchez up TRUE DETECTIVE-style with Aubrey St. Angelo, the son of a police officer Sanchez worked with years ago.

Sanchez is the perfect detective for a show like this. His moody and world-weary Louisiana-dipped personality reflects the weight of his career and his occasional failures. The show doesn't have a narrator, so Sanchez's running commentary becomes the underpining arc for the series. One of the twists in the telling of the investigation is that based on the first two episodes, it seems clear that Sanchez might have missed a couple of things the first time around. Maybe it was the lack of modern forensics or the fact he was a much more inexperienced detective. But as Sanchez and St. Angelo revisit the crime scene and the evidence, there seem to be some new facts coming to light.

There are several differences between KILLING FIELDS and MAKING A MURDERER and they will likely determine whether or not you end up enjoying the series. Unlike some other true-crime shows, KILLING FIELDS begins with no primary suspect and no real sense that one might be definitively identified. The show is being advertised as being "live," which really just means that
production began in August and continues today without knowing how the investigation would be resolved.

Your response to the show also probably will depend on what you think about the interaction between Sanchez and St. Angelo. They're not-so-gentle bickering over the direction of the investigation sometimes dips very close to the conversations heard in a really bad TV scripted procedural show. While the scenes don't distract me from the retelling of the investigation, I can't argue with viewers who might find it sometimes trite and predictable.

But at least so far, I've found KILLING FIELDS to be a worthy successor to MAKING A MURDERER and THE JINX. It's clear Discovery doesn't quite have the format nailed down yet, but even at its clunkiest, KILLING FIELDS is the next great true-crime TV show.