Murder Trial (BBC Scotland / BBC Two)
Discussion
The first part of this was shown on BBC Two last night. It's a riveting documentary about the recent trial of a man accused of the murder of a mother and her young son.
A few things complicate matters, though: the alleged crimes happened in 1976, no bodies were ever found, and a lot of witnesses are no longer with us.
Because the trial took place in Scotland, cameras were allowed in the court. No spoilers, but the accused man's wife didn't seem very happy when she appeared as a witness!
A few things complicate matters, though: the alleged crimes happened in 1976, no bodies were ever found, and a lot of witnesses are no longer with us.
Because the trial took place in Scotland, cameras were allowed in the court. No spoilers, but the accused man's wife didn't seem very happy when she appeared as a witness!
The real mystery is why it took 45 years to bring this to court, all this evidence
against MacDowell was available in the late 1970s.
While hindsight is 20/20 the quest to find the bodies denied justice for Renee and Andrew and the
time MacDowell should have spent in jail was spent living his best years in normality and comfort.
Shameful display of ineptitude by the useless Northern Constabulary/Police Scotland.
against MacDowell was available in the late 1970s.
While hindsight is 20/20 the quest to find the bodies denied justice for Renee and Andrew and the
time MacDowell should have spent in jail was spent living his best years in normality and comfort.
Shameful display of ineptitude by the useless Northern Constabulary/Police Scotland.
tight fart said:
I thought this was shown a couple of years ago, is this a repeat?
There was a Murder Trial series broadcast a few years ago. It was the first time that a UK murder trial had been filmed, I think?This latest one (called Murder Trial: The Disappearance of Renee and Andrew MacRae) is new. You can tell it was made recently, because the advocates are referred to as KC rather than QC.
PinkTornado said:
Watched this last night and found it absolutely fascinating- and we genuinely didn't know the outcome, which added to the viewing experience.
The guy's wife clearly knows more than she is letting on- apparently she is now refusing to cooperate with any further enquiries.
Perhaps a charge of attempting to prevent the course of justice might jog her memory...The guy's wife clearly knows more than she is letting on- apparently she is now refusing to cooperate with any further enquiries.
Hilariously unflattering photo of the wife in this article-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/scotland/article-...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/scotland/article-...
I found it really interesting. The wife of the accused did have some serious attitude when answering questions though I know the voice had been altered.
I appreciate I might be stirring up trouble but has a post disappeared from here since this afternoon? It was one I almost replied to at the time.
I appreciate I might be stirring up trouble but has a post disappeared from here since this afternoon? It was one I almost replied to at the time.
Nethybridge said:
The real mystery is why it took 45 years to bring this to court, all this evidence
against MacDowell was available in the late 1970s.
Having now seen the second part and the verdict, I agree with this. Despite the lack of any significant new evidence, it seemed that the Crown just wanted to put MacDowell on trial before he died (which indeed he did do a few months after being convicted).against MacDowell was available in the late 1970s.
Obviously the programme had to condense a lengthy trial into two hours. However, from what was shown, it's hard to believe that the prosecution managed to persuade the jury that MacDowell was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. That the jury deliberations only lasted three hours was fairly incredible, too.
No deathbed confession from MacDowell regarding the location of the bodies, though. Perhaps all will be revealed when his wife dies? I suspect that she knows a lot more than she has admitted to thus far.
C69 said:
Obviously the programme had to condense a lengthy trial into two hours. However, from what was shown, it's hard to believe that the prosecution managed to persuade the jury that MacDowell was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. That the jury deliberations only lasted three hours was fairly incredible, too.
That’s the key point though; the weight of the circumstantial evidence would have been extremely compelling over the two week trial, which clearly led a jury to convict with minimal deliberations (and juries are not predisposed to convicting, especially when there is the not proven verdict available).I sat through a similar “no body” trial, with the same prosecutor (Alex Prentice), and the sheer weight of the circumstantial evidence was immense. His analogy (I’m surprised he didn’t use it in this program as he likes to use it) was that each piece of circumstantial evidence was like a thin (weak) strand, but when you wind them all together they form a very strong cable on which to hang a conviction.
tim0409 said:
That’s the key point though; the weight of the circumstantial evidence would have been extremely compelling over the two week trial, which clearly led a jury to convict with minimal deliberations (and juries are not predisposed to convicting, especially when there is the not proven verdict available).
I sat through a similar “no body” trial, with the same prosecutor (Alex Prentice), and the sheer weight of the circumstantial evidence was immense. His analogy (I’m surprised he didn’t use it in this program as he likes to use it) was that each piece of circumstantial evidence was like a thin (weak) strand, but when you wind them all together they form a very strong cable on which to hang a conviction.
That's a great analogy.I sat through a similar “no body” trial, with the same prosecutor (Alex Prentice), and the sheer weight of the circumstantial evidence was immense. His analogy (I’m surprised he didn’t use it in this program as he likes to use it) was that each piece of circumstantial evidence was like a thin (weak) strand, but when you wind them all together they form a very strong cable on which to hang a conviction.
To clarify, my comment was criticising the programme's editing rather than the jury's decision.
Fascinating viewing indeed.
I didn’t see the whole thing so maybe I missed it, has anyone got a quick summary of why it wasn’t dealt with years ago? In the absence of a good explanation (and I know the accused doesn’t need to demonstrate their innocence!), the Volvo floor evidence was compelling IMO.
I didn’t see the whole thing so maybe I missed it, has anyone got a quick summary of why it wasn’t dealt with years ago? In the absence of a good explanation (and I know the accused doesn’t need to demonstrate their innocence!), the Volvo floor evidence was compelling IMO.
C69 said:
tim0409 said:
That’s the key point though; the weight of the circumstantial evidence would have been extremely compelling over the two week trial, which clearly led a jury to convict with minimal deliberations (and juries are not predisposed to convicting, especially when there is the not proven verdict available).
I sat through a similar “no body” trial, with the same prosecutor (Alex Prentice), and the sheer weight of the circumstantial evidence was immense. His analogy (I’m surprised he didn’t use it in this program as he likes to use it) was that each piece of circumstantial evidence was like a thin (weak) strand, but when you wind them all together they form a very strong cable on which to hang a conviction.
That's a great analogy.I sat through a similar “no body” trial, with the same prosecutor (Alex Prentice), and the sheer weight of the circumstantial evidence was immense. His analogy (I’m surprised he didn’t use it in this program as he likes to use it) was that each piece of circumstantial evidence was like a thin (weak) strand, but when you wind them all together they form a very strong cable on which to hang a conviction.
To clarify, my comment was criticising the programme's editing rather than the jury's decision.
oobster said:
I watched both parts via iPlayer last night, not quite as interesting as the previous trial but I think it was quite telling how quickly the jury came back from their deliberations. A shame it took 40+ years for 'Kit' to go on trial.
Obviously the jury see a lot more than fits into a 2 hour programme, but I wouldn’t have come to that verdict A good watch but I agree with the oobster it wasn't quite as gripping as prior cases.
Said much the same thing to my other half after we watched it - she tells me there is a podcast out there that makes the case better, think it must be this one: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/murder-in-th...
Their relationship was clearly much more complicated right up to her death than was presented in the 2 hour programme, and it seems to me Kit may have shot himself in the foot by denying this before the DNA evidence was presented.
FredericRobinson said:
oobster said:
I watched both parts via iPlayer last night, not quite as interesting as the previous trial but I think it was quite telling how quickly the jury came back from their deliberations. A shame it took 40+ years for 'Kit' to go on trial.
Obviously the jury see a lot more than fits into a 2 hour programme, but I wouldn’t have come to that verdict Their relationship was clearly much more complicated right up to her death than was presented in the 2 hour programme, and it seems to me Kit may have shot himself in the foot by denying this before the DNA evidence was presented.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff