Review of A Killer Story rating ****
The premise of this three‑part HBO Max documentary series revolves around a married couple’s mission to free a woman they believe was wrongfully convicted. That alone is enough to pique my interest. When it comes to true crime, wrongful‑conviction stories draw me in the most.
The crime at the center of A Killer Story is the double homicide of Mike Sisco and Karen Harkness, shot in their bed in the early morning hours. The prime suspect was Sisco’s ex‑wife, Dana Chandler, who was tried and convicted in 2012. The husband‑and‑wife team convinced of her innocence — and determined to prove it — were Eileen and Keen Umbehr.
The entire case against Chandler was circumstantial. There was no physical evidence tying her to the crime. She lived roughly 550 miles away in the Denver, Colorado area, while the murders occurred in Topeka, Kansas. Police focused on her largely because of her documented hostility toward her ex‑husband. Even her own children testified against her. A few elements tilted the case toward the prosecution: Chandler’s barrage of calls and messages to Sisco, a disputed claim that Sisco told her he planned to marry Karen, inconsistencies in Chandler’s account of her whereabouts, and a receipt for two five‑gallon gas containers she failed to disclose.
It wasn’t a strong case, especially considering that the murder weapon and ammunition were uncommon and there was no evidence Chandler ever possessed such a firearm. Ultimately, her conviction was overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct involving the mischaracterization of a phone call between Dana and Mike. A second trial ended in a hung jury.
The prosecutors elected to try Chandler a third time. This is where the documentary — and the case — take a sharp turn. I won’t spoil the development revealed in episode three, but it fundamentally changed my view of Chandler’s guilt.
One glaring omission in the documentary is the gas‑can theory. At no point in any of the three episodes do the filmmakers attempt to explain the significance of the two five‑gallon containers. If this was addressed in any of the trials, it isn’t shown. That’s a major oversight. The prosecution argued that Chandler used the cans so she wouldn’t have to stop for fuel during the 1,100‑mile round trip between Denver and Topeka. The problem is simple: the math doesn’t work. Even with a full tank and both gas cans, she wouldn’t have had enough fuel to complete the round trip. And the filmmakers never offer Chandler’s own explanation for the cans — which may have related to the mountain trip she claimed to have taken that day. This feels like documentary filmmaking 101: if a key piece of evidence is central to the prosecution’s theory, you need to address it.
Despite the weaknesses in the state’s case — and my general belief that wrongful convictions are far more common than most people realize — two things have me leaning toward Chandler’s guilt. First, the drastic decision she made during the third trial. Second, her character. When your own children testify against you, and the picture they paint is deeply unfavorable, it becomes difficult to root for you.
Catch this on HBO Max.