Wrongly Accused is a documentary series which premiered on British television (ITV) in 2023.
It is about the quality of the judicial system in the UK. Or perhaps I should say it is about the lack of quality in the judicial system in the UK.
The purpose of this series is to explore a number of cases where an individual was wrongly accused of murder.
In some cases, the individual was not only wrongly accused of murder. It got worse.
The individual was tried in a court of law and was found guilty. Now this was a case of wrongful conviction and wrongful incarceration.
Here is some basic information about this series:
** Director: David Howard
** The main presenter: Louise Shorter
** The secondary presenter: Tim Tate
** How many cases are explored: five
** How many episodes are there: ten
** Run time: 10 x 46 minutes = 460 minutes
Five cases are covered in this series.
Each case is covered with two episodes.
At first, we see how the wrong individual is accused.
Later, we see how the real perpetrator is found.
Finally, the individual who was wrongly accused is allowed to go free.
Here are the names of the five individuals who were wrongly accused:
# 1. Barri White
# 2. Christopher Jefferies
# 3. Timothy Evans
# 4. Colin Stagg
# 5. Stefan Kiszko
How could these cases go wrong? Who was to blame for these cases of perverted justice? The police investigators and the prosecutors are responsible for what happened to these individuals.
The police officers wanted to solve the case as quickly as possible. They found a suspect and once they had the suspect in custody, they convinced themselves that they had the right man.
Any evidence that seemed to prove the guilt of the suspect was believed, even if it was not credible.
Any evidence that seemed to prove the innocence of the suspect was disregarded, even if it was credible.
The police did not look for other suspects, because they already had their man.
The police did not look for evidence which might show that they had the wrong man, because they did not want their case to fall apart.
The police managed to convince the prosecutor that they had the right man and that they had enough evidence to support an accusation.
In some cases, they even managed to convince a judge and a jury that the individual was guilty, even though he was innocent.
When the real perpetrator was found, the wrong accusation had to be dropped.
How was the real perpetrator found?
How was the innocence of the individual discovered?
It was often by accident.
In some cases, it only happened because one or two persons believed the individual was innocent and refused to accept a wrong accusation.
Experts are often invited to give testimony in court. Experts often play an important role during a trial. Testimony of an expert is often an important factor when members of a jury have to make up their minds; when they have to decide how to vote in the case: guilty or not guilty?
When we are watching these cases, we learn that not every expert deserves to be described as an expert.
Some of the experts who are invited to testify do not know enough about the topic at hand.
Their conclusion is sometimes based on assumptions and not on scientific knowledge.
An expert who is not qualified may lead the prosecutor and the members of the jury to believe an individual is guilty, even though this is not the case.
A lazy or unprepared defence lawyer who is not ready to fight for his or her client may, in some cases, be the reason why an innocent person is eventually found guilty.
When we are watching these cases, we have the benefit of hindsight. We know the individual who is accused is innocent. We know the real perpetrator is another person who has not yet been identified.
But what was the situation like when the case began? Was it obvious that the police and the prosecutor were wrong when the case began?
In these five cases, the answer is yes. The police did not have serious or solid evidence to focus on the individual who was accused.
The police had a hunch. They relied on gossip and rumour. There was something about the individual which they did not like, so they decided that this individual must be guilty of murder.
Police officers developed tunnel vision as soon as each case began. This is the reason why the investigation went wrong from the very beginning.
What do reviewers say about this series?
On IMDb it has a rating of 68 percent, which corresponds to a rating of 3.4 stars on Amazon.
In my opinion, this rating is too low. On the other hand, I cannot go all the way to the top, because there are some flaws. Let me explain:
# 1. Repetitions
Each episode starts with the same introduction. Louise Shorter is driving in her car while she is explaining the purpose of the program.
We need to hear this once or twice. But we do not need to hear this long introduction ten times!
# 2. The tipping point
Louis Shorter says she wants to determine what she calls “the tipping point.” This is the moment when the investigation went wrong.
But this moment is easy to determine. It is at the beginning of each case. The tipping point is not one month after the beginning of the investigation. The tipping point is always at the beginning of the case.
There is no need to search so much for the tipping point. It is obvious when this happens.
# 3. Meeting an expert
We see Louise Shorter driving in her car while she is talking to us:
** “I am on the way to meet with NN…”
** “I think it will be very interesting to talk to NN about … because …”
This happens in every episode. We do not need to see her driving in her car so many times. We do not need to hear the same sentences so many times.
I wonder why the director allowed her to do the same thing so many times.
I wonder why the director did not tell her that variation is the spice of life.
# 4. Asking questions
When Louise Shorter is talking to an expert, she tends to draw the conclusion for him or her. She does not allow the expert to draw the conclusion. She will say:
“Isn’t true that ….?”
All that is left to the expert is to say: “Yes.”
# 5. Formulaic
The series is based on a formula. The same set-up is used for every episode. The same type of questions. The same type of sentences. The same words over and over.
I wonder why the director allowed Louise Shorter to use the same words again and again.
I wonder why the director did not tell her that variation is the spice of life.
The five cases presented here are well-chosen. The injustice is obvious. The quality of the investigations is so low that it is hard to believe that this actually happened.
How could professional police officers and prosecutors allow themselves to operate in such an unprofessional manner as they did in these cases?
Whenever an individual has committed a crime, the judicial system says this individual must be held responsible for the crime.
The individual cannot just say “I am sorry” and hope to go free. The individual must pay a fine or, in some cases, serve time in prison.
What happens to police officers and to prosecutors when it is discovered that they have accused an innocent person and, in some cases, even sent an innocent person to prison?
Are they punished in any way?
Are they fired from the job?
Do they have to pay a fine or go to prison?
The answer is nothing happens to them.
Sometimes, they do not even say they are sorry. Often, they will insist that they did the right thing at the time.
Often, they will insist that it was impossible to know that they had accused an innocent person, even though the evidence shows that the injustice was obvious at the time – and not long after the fact.
The five cases presented here happened many years ago. When the murder was committed, there were no computer systems and no DNA testing available, which might have pointed the investigation towards the real perpetrator from the beginning.
But having a modern computer system is no guarantee that justice will be done.
The false accusations against hundreds of sub-postmasters in the UK were based on a computer system known as Horizon developed by Fujitsu and used by the British Post Office.
The sub-postmasters claimed they were innocent. They claimed they did not steal any money from the Post Office. But the computer system said that they did.
Prosecutors and judges were prepared to believe the computer system, even though this system was flawed. Prosecutors and judges were prepared to ignore any other evidence which would indicate that the sub-postmasters were innocent.
Wrongly Accused is an interesting series. The cases covered are well-chosen. But as you can see, there are some flaws which cannot be ignored.
I have to remove one star because of these flaws. This series deserves a rating of four stars (80 percent).
REFERENCES
No Smoke:
The Shocking Truth about British Justice
By Sandra Lean
(2008)
Miscarriages of Justice:
Famous London Cases
By John Eddleston
(2009)
Guilty Until Proven Innocent:
The Crisis in Our Justice System
By Jon Robins
(2018)
The Great Post Office Scandal:
The Fight to Expose a Multi-Million Pound IT Disaster Which Put Innocent People in Jail
By Nick Wallis
(2021 = Hardcover)
(2022 = Paperback)
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment