Streaming platforms are currently stocked with the best true crime documentary content that film and television have to offer.

Whether it’s scammers, cults, influencers or a totally bizarre adoption saga, there’s something for every kind of true crime junkie.

Watch With Us has added two new true crime docs that just came out this year, both on Netflix: A Deadly American Marriage, about the murder of a husband at the hands of his wife, and Fred & Rose West: A British Horror Story, about a serial-killing married couple.

Need more recommendations? Then check out the Best New Movies on Netflix, (HBO) Max, Hulu, Amazon Prime and More, the Best Movies on Amazon Prime Video Right Now, and the Best Rom-Com Movies on Netflix Right Now.

NEW YORK (AP) — When he first came to the United States after escaping civil war in Sierra Leone and spending almost a decade in a refugee camp, Dauda Sesay had no idea he could become a citizen. But he was told that if he followed the rules and stayed out of trouble, after some years he could apply. As a U.S. citizen, he would have protection.

It’s what made him decide to apply: the premise — and the promise — that when he became a naturalized American citizen, it would create a bond between him and his new home. He would have rights as well as responsibilities, like voting, that, as he was making a commitment to the country, the country was making one to him.

“When I raised my hand and took the oath of allegiance, I did believe that moment the promise that I belonged,” said Sesay, 48, who first arrived in Louisiana more than 15 years ago and now works as an advocate for refugees and their integration into American society.

But in recent months, as President Donald Trump reshapes immigration and the country’s relationship with immigrants, that belief has been shaken for Sesay and other naturalized citizens. There’s now fear that the push to drastically increase deportations and shift who can claim America as home, through things like trying to end birthright citizenship, is having a ripple effect.

What they thought was the bedrock protection of naturalization now feels more like quicksand.

What happens if they leave?

Some are worried that if they leave the country, they will have difficulties when trying to return, fearful because of accounts of naturalized citizens being questioned or detained by U.S. border agents. They wonder: Do they need to lock down their phones to protect their privacy? Others are hesitant about moving around within the country, after stories like that of a U.S. citizen accused of being here illegally and detained even after his mother produced his birth certificate.

Sesay said he doesn’t travel domestically anymore without his passport, despite having a REAL ID with its federally mandated, stringent identity requirements.

Immigration enforcement roundups, often conducted by masked, unidentifiable federal agents in places including Chicago and New York City, have at times included American citizens in their dragnets. One U.S. citizen who says he was detained by immigration agents twice has filed a federal lawsuit.

Adding to the worries, the Justice Department issued a memo this summer saying it would ramp up efforts to denaturalize immigrants who’ve committed crimes or are deemed to present a national security risk. At one point during the summer, Trump threatened the citizenship of Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist mayor-elect of New York City, who naturalized as a young adult.

The atmosphere makes some worried to speak about it publicly, for fear of drawing negative attention to themselves. Requests for comment through several community organizations and other connections found no takers willing to go on the record other than Sesay.

In New Mexico, state Sen. Cindy Nava says she’s familiar with the fear, having grown up undocumented before getting DACA — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program that protected people brought to the U.S. as children from being deported — and gaining citizenship through her marriage. But she hadn’t expected to see so much fear among naturalized citizens.

“I had never seen those folks be afraid … now the folks that I know that were not afraid before, now they are uncertain of what their status holds in terms of a safety net for them,” Nava said.

What citizenship has meant, and who was included, has expanded and contracted over the course of American history, said Stephen Kantrowitz, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He said while the word “citizen” is in the original Constitution, it is not defined.

“When the Constitution is written, nobody knows what citizenship means,” he said. “It’s a term of art, it comes out of the French revolutionary tradition. It sort of suggests an equality of the members of a political community, and it has some implications for the right to be a member of that political community. But it is … so undefined.”

American immigration and its obstacles

The first naturalization law passed in 1790 by the new country’s Congress said citizenship was for any “free white person” of good character. Those of African descent or nativity were added as a specific category to federal immigration law after the ravages of the Civil War in the 19th century, which was also when the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to establish birthright citizenship.

In the last years of the 19th century and into the 20th century, laws were put on the books limiting immigration and, by extension, naturalization. The Immigration Act of 1924 effectively barred people from Asia because they were ineligible for naturalization, being neither white nor Black. That didn’t change until 1952, when an immigration law removed racial restrictions on who could be naturalized. The 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act replaced the previous immigration system with one that portioned out visas equally among nations.

American history also includes times when those who had citizenship had it taken away, like after the 1923 Supreme Court ruling in U.S. vs. Bhagat Singh Thind. That ruling said that Indians couldn’t be naturalized because they did not qualify as white and led to several dozen denaturalizations. At other times, it was ignored, as in World War II, when Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps.

“Political power will sometimes simply decide that a group of people, or a person or a family isn’t entitled to citizenship,” Kantrowitz said.

In this moment, Sesay says, it feels like betrayal.

“The United States of America — that’s what I took that oath of allegiance, that’s what I make commitment to,” Sesay said. “Now, inside my home country, and I’m seeing a shift. … Honestly, that is not the America I believe in when I put my hand over my heart.”

___

This story has been corrected to reflect that Dauda Sesay is 48 years old, not 44.

DALLAS (AP) — Federal prosecutors in Texas have charged six more people with a new terrorism-related charge in the July shooting outside an immigration detention center near Dallas, and said six others are scheduled to enter guilty pleas in the case.

The latest indictment in the case, issued Friday, expands on previous charges and relies on President Trump’s recent declaration that deems the decentralized movement known as antifa a domestic terrorist organization. Trump blames antifa for political violence.

The case stems from the July 4 shooting outside the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, southwest of Dallas, that injured a police officer. The charges also include rioting, attempted murder and weapons and explosives charges.

Prosecutors said the group threw fireworks at the facility, vandalized vehicles and then shot at responding police and correctional officers, striking an Alvarado officer in the neck. He was later released from a hospital.

The shooting took place as President Trump’ s administration ramped up deportations.

Patrick McClain, a lawyer for defendant Zachary Evetts, said he has seen no evidence to support the government’s view of the case. He said his client would again plead not guilty at the Dec. 3 arraignment on the new charges.

“Mr. Evetts has never been a member of anything like a ‘North Texas Antifa Cell,’ and from the evidence provided to us by the government so far, there is no evidence that such an organization ever existed,” McClain said Saturday.

Short for “anti-fascists,” antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left-leaning militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The longest U.S. government shutdown in history is officially over, but the fallout will continue to hit two groups particularly hard for months to come: federally funded defense lawyers and the people they represent.

Thousands of court-appointed lawyers, known as Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys, along with paralegals, investigators, expert witnesses and interpreters, haven’t been paid since June after federal funding for the Defender Services program fell $130 million short of what the judiciary requested and ran out July 3. They had been told they would receive deferred payment once Congress passed a new budget, but as the government shutdown dragged on, many couldn’t move forward with trials or take on new clients.

Nationally, CJA lawyers handle about 40% of cases where the defendant cannot afford an attorney. As many cases have ground to a halt, defendants’ lives have been put on hold as they wait for their day in court. Meanwhile, the federal government has continued to arrest and charge people.

“The system’s about to break,” Michael Chernis, a CJA panel attorney in southern California, said during the shutdown. He hasn’t taken new cases since August and has had to take out a loan to make payroll for his law firm.

Unpaid defense team members in several states said they had to dip into personal retirement savings or turn to gig work, such as driving for Uber, to support their families.

Panel attorneys should begin receiving payment as early as next week. Judge Robert Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said in a Thursday memo that the resolution Congress passed to fund the government through Jan. 30 provided an extra $114 million for the Defender Services program “to address the backlog of panel attorney payments.”

But the crisis isn’t over — Conrad has said a spending bill pending for the 2026 fiscal year is still $196 million short and will likely run out of money to pay CJA panel attorneys in June.

Cases paused and dismissed in US federal courts

The problem is particularly severe in the Central District of California, the largest and one of the most complex federal trial courts in the U.S. Out of the approximately 100 such lawyers for the district, about 80 have stopped taking on new cases.

Chernis has a client who lives in Sacramento, but neither Chernis nor a court-appointed investigator have been able to cover the cost of travel to meet with him to discuss the case. The expert they need for the trial will also not agree to travel to Los Angeles to work on the case without payment, Chernis said.

In New Mexico, one judge halted a death penalty case, which are costly and labor-intensive to prepare, and at least 40 lawyers have resolved to not take on new cases even after the shutdown ended if the overall funding shortfall is not resolved.

California’s Central District Chief Judge Dolly Gee wrote in an Oct. 30 letter to California Sen. Adam Schiff that the situation had become “dire.”

“These attorneys have sought delays in cases when they cannot find investigators and experts who are willing to work without pay, which has added to the court’s backlog of cases, and left defendants languishing in already overcrowded local prison,” Gee said. “Without additional funding, we will soon be unable to appoint counsel for all defendants who are constitutionally entitled to representation.”

She said judges may have to face the prospect of having to dismiss cases for defendants who can’t retain a lawyer.

Just hours before the government shutdown ended, Judge John A. Mendez in the Eastern District of California did, tossing out a criminal case against a man indicted on a charge of distribution of methamphetamine.

“The right to effective assistance of counsel is a bedrock principle of this country and is indisputably necessary for the operation of a fair criminal justice system,” Mendez wrote.

Defendants’ constitutional rights potentially violated

Everyone in the U.S. has the right to due process — including the right to legal counsel and a fair and speedy trial, guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Critics of the Trump administration have tried to make the case that it is chipping away at the right. Immigrant advocacy groups have made the allegation in multiple lawsuits. Most notably, they cite the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who was living in Maryland when he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador and imprisoned without communication.

President Donald Trump has been circumspect about his duties to uphold due process rights laid out in the Constitution, saying in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” in May that he does not know whether U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike deserve that guarantee.

Cases are still in limbo

The funding upheaval has delayed Christian Cerna-Camacho’s trial by at least three months. His lawyer said in court filings that one investigator, who has spent hours pouring through body camera recordings, news reports and social media content, was unable to do any more work until he is paid.

Cerna-Camacho was arrested in June and is accused of punching a federal officer during a June 7 protest against Trump’s immigration policies in the city of Paramount outside of Los Angeles. He is out on bond but cannot find a construction job while he wears an ankle monitor because it poses a safety risk at the site, his attorney Scott Tenley wrote in a recent court filing.

David Kaloynides, a CJA panel attorney in Los Angeles, couldn’t even communicate with some of his clients during the shutdown because they only spoke Spanish, and interpreters were not being paid. His caseload is full to the point where he’s scheduling trials in 2027, while many clients wait in jail, he said.

“We don’t do this appointed work because of the money, we do it because we’re dedicated,” Kaloynides said. “But we also can’t do it for free.”

“Lightweight Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Brown (Green grass turns Brown when it begins to ROT!), betrayed the entire Republican Party when she turned Left, performed poorly on the pathetic View, and became the RINO that we all know she always was,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday.

Trump said he severed ties with Greene on Friday, withdrawing his endorsement of the GOP firebrand and longtime ally in a series of social media posts and reposts in which he accused her of pulling away only after he convinced her not to run for Georgia’s Senate seat.

Greene — who the president also described as “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Green,” Saturday morning — has repeatedly bucked the party line in recent months. She’s lambasted the administration’s handling of the investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, criticized Trump’s focus on foreign affairs over domestic policy, lashed out at his tariffs and in July accused Israel of committing a “genocide” amid its war against Hamas in Gaza.

Democrats have cheered on the breakup between the two onetime allies, looking to further drive a wedge between the president and his base. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) — who has had several public brawls with Greene — said on Friday that this is a moment where Greene should “phone a friend,” adding that “I’m here for you girl… I told you not to trust him… all he cares about is HIMself.”

“The GWORLS are fighting!” she added.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) posted a meme in response to one of Greene’s posts, with her face superimposed on the body of X-Men superhero Wolverine, gazing mournfully at a picture of her and Trump sharing a close embrace.
Greene was at one time one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, with the president regularly praising her and promoting her political career. But this weekend’s blowup was preceded by months of simmering tension between the two, with the biggest divergence coming over Epstein.

Greene was one of just four Republicans to sign onto a discharge petition to force a House vote on the full release of the files related to the late financier, who died by suicide in a New York prison in 2019.

And she’s called on the White House to be more transparent.

Trump has instead accused Democrats of drumming up drama over the files and fabricating a connection between him and Epstein. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing associated with Epstein, his onetime friend, and long said that the pair had a falling out many years before Epstein’s death.

“The Democrats are doing everything in their withering power to push the Epstein Hoax again, despite the DOJ releasing 50,000 pages of documents, in order to deflect from all of their bad policies and losses, especially the SHUTDOWN EMBARRASSMENT, where their party is in total disarray, and has no idea what to do,” he wrote on Friday. “Some Weak Republicans have fallen into their clutches because they are soft and foolish.”

Greene was unrepentant in a post on X on Saturday, and said the president’s tirade wouldn’t stop her from advocating for Epstein’s victims.

“I never thought that fighting to release the Epstein files, defending women who were victims of rape, and fighting to expose the web of rich powerful elites would have caused this, but here we are,” she wrote.

In a separate post, she said she forgave Trump, and “will pray for him to return to his original MAGA promises.”

Greene later wrote that she was “now being contacted by private security firms with warnings for my safety as a hot bed of threats against me are being fueled and egged on by the most powerful man in the world.”

Greene has long been a foil for Democrats, who have regularly lambasted her since her election in 2020 as a pro-Trump MAGA loyalist. But over the last several months they’ve repeatedly sought to elevate her criticism of the president. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Friday night that Greene is “crushing” Trump, adding a go-to line from the president, “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) reposted Greene’s text exchange Saturday morning, writing on X, “If Trump is working so hard to keep the Epstein files from coming out, how bad are they?”

Trump reposted five posts referencing Greene’s break on Friday evening, including one that said Greene “chose” her side when she “joined Democrats,” adding that she “wants to better your political future in 2028 instead of helping President Trump fix this country which is why we voted for him again. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

The corporation said it was an “error of judgement” to splice two sections of his speech together, and the programme will “not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms”.

“We have to do it, they’ve even admitted that they cheated,” the US president told reporters overnight on Saturday.

“Not that they couldn’t have not done that. They cheated. They changed the words coming out of my mouth.”

However, the lawsuit will not be easy, according to three experts who have spoken to Sky News.

“Filing a lawsuit is easy,” said Mark Stevens, media law solicitor at Howard Kennedy, to Sky presenter Samantha Washington.

“Winning one is, in this case, like trying to lasso a tornado: technically possible, but you’re going to need more than a cowboy hat.”

So why would this case be so hard to win?

Where did the damage occur?

The Panorama episode was not aired in the US, which may make Mr Trump’s case harder.

“For a libel claim to succeed, harm must occur where the case is brought,” said Mr Stevens.

“It’s hard to argue [for] that reputational damage in a jurisdiction where the content wasn’t aired.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The president will also have to show that his reputation suffered actual harm.

“But his reputation was pretty damaged on this issue before,” said Mr Stevens.

“There have been judicial findings, congressional hearings, global media coverage around 6 January. Laying that responsibility for any further harm at the door of the BBC seems pretty tenuous.”

Was the mistake malicious?

In order to sue someone for libel in the US, you have to prove they did it on purpose – or with ‘malicious intent’.

That might be hard to prove, according to Alan Rusbridger, editor of Prospect magazine and former editor-in-chief of the Guardian.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

“I just don’t think that he can do that,” he said.

Since 1964, US public officials have had to prove that what was said against them was made with “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth”.

“The reason for that, when the Supreme Court passed this in 1964, is the chilling effect on journalism,” said Mr Rusbridger.

“If a journalist makes a mistake, [and] this clearly was a mistake, if that ends up with their employers having to pay $1bn, $2bn, $3bn, that would be a dreadful chill on journalism.

“Unless Trump can prove that whoever this was who was editing this film did it with malice, the case is open and shut.”

Read more US news:
‘Earthquake in Team MAGA’ as Trump ally turns enemy
Prison staff fired after leaking Maxwell’s emails, says lawyer

Is he suing for too much money?

Mr Trump says he’s going to sue for between $1bn and $5bn, figures former BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman described as “very fanciful”.

“That, I think, is very fanciful because he will have to show that he has suffered billions of dollars worth of reputational damage.

“We know that this was back in 2020 when the speech was made. He went on to be successful in business and, of course, to be re-elected as US president.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

However, Mr Coleman did suggest the BBC should try to “bring this to an end as speedily as possible”.

“Litigation is always a commercial decision and it’s a reputational decision,” he said.

“The legal processes towards a court case are long and arduous and this is going to blow up in the news pretty regularly between now and then.”

Other news organisations facing litigation by Mr Trump have settled out of court for “sums like $15m, $16m”, according to Mr Coleman.

Samir Zitouni, 48, known as Sam, was working on board the London North Eastern Railway (LNER) train from Doncaster to London when the attack began in Cambridgeshire on Saturday 1 November.

LNER said Mr Zitouni, who has worked for the firm for more than 20 years, was credited with helping to save multiple lives.

Mr Zitouni had been in a critical condition, having suffered multiple injuries in the incident, but was discharged on Saturday.

His family said: “We are so grateful for the outpouring of support from the public, and very touched by all the kind words about Sam’s brave actions on the night of the attack.

“While we are really happy to have him home, he still has a significant recovery ahead and we would now like to be left in privacy to care for him as a family.”

Earlier this month, LNER said he has been a “valued member” of staff for over 20 years, working on board as a customer experience host.

Storm Claudia latest: Major incident declared due to severe flooding; British woman killed in Albufeira

Donald Trump confirms he will sue the BBC over Panorama edit – despite broadcaster’s apology

The cheapest holiday months are coming – experts give their recommendations | Money blog

David Horne, managing director at LNER, said: “In a moment of crisis, Sam did not hesitate as he stepped forward to protect those around him.

“His actions were incredibly brave, and we are so proud of him, and of all our colleagues who acted with such courage that evening. Our thoughts and prayers remain with Sam and his family. We will continue to support them and wish him a full and speedy recovery.”

The attack is understood to have started shortly after the train left Peterborough, with passengers pulling the emergency alarms on the LNER service.

Train driver Andrew Johnson, who served in the Royal Navy for 17 years, contacted a signaller and requested an unscheduled stop at Huntingdon station.

11 people were treated in hospital after the mass stabbing – nine were initially reported as having life-threatening injuries.

Anthony Williams, 32, was remanded into custody at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court on November 3, charged with 10 counts of attempted murder over the incident.

He will appear at Cambridge Crown Court on 1 December.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Is it a lighthearted “case of the week” format with lovable characters that will surprise and delight you?

Whichever version you prefer, you can find it on Amazon Prime Video this month.

In November 2025, the Watch With Us team recommends watching The Night Manager, which just dropped a teaser for its upcoming, long-awaited second season. We also highlight the beloved crime procedural Bones. 

Need more recommendations? Then check out the Best New Shows on Netflix, Max, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video and More, the Best Movies on Amazon Prime Video Right Now, the Best British Crime Shows on Right Now and the Must-Watch Reality Shows on Prime Video.