Circumstantial Evidence

The problem with this film is that you can guess what is going to happen within the first 10 minutes.So there is little suspense or even drama.With the exception of the blackmailer everyone goes through the motions in a very perfunctory manner.

Once again the fallacy of circumstantial evidence is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The action is swift and elegant, the conversation is brilliant and pertinent all the weary, the acting is moderately excellent, while Rona Anderson makes the day. There are two separate murder cases being treated here, one serving just as an introduction and presenting the issue of the debatability of circumstantial evidence by one woman of the jury fainting during the court proceedings who has to be carried out, delaying the process for several days. The other case is a particularly odious man who tries to blackmail his wife and others hy playing dirty, refusing his wife a divorce since two years and stealing her money and her gun for self defence, which he latter is killed by, no one knows how, but the wife's lover, a doctor, is blamed for it and faces trial for murder on the grounds of circumstantial evidence. He happens to be the son of the judge, who finds no other alternative than to resign from his job. It's an interesting intrigue, and the cashier at the hotel of the murder plays an important part, knowing nothing and understanding nothing but acting promptly when the time comes. It is a small thriller but even the smallest jewels can be of great value.

A short, sharp fable of blackmail and murder characteristic of director Daniel Birt, painting a vivid picture of London in the summer of 1952 and largely carried by the elegant Rona Anderson; detailing how difficult it was in those days to wriggle out of a marriage gone sour.

Circumstantial Evidence opens with a court case presided by Judge Carteret where the chief evidence against the accused is circumstantial. It could send her to the gallows.

Now the events of the trial mirrors that of the judge's son. Michael Carteret (Patrick Holt) is a doctor who has been seeing a married woman Linda Harrison (Rona Anderson.)

Her husband Steve re-enters her life and attempts blackmail. He has obtained some love letters and could make life difficult for him with the general medical council.

Later on, Michael and Steve get involved in a scuffle at the lodgings Steve is staying at. Another man who goes in alerts the police of Steve's death.

It is circumstantial evidence but Steve is the main suspect. Linda tries to clear his name.

This could had been a neat B thriller but it was obvious who the killer was if it was not Michael.

There was certainly a lack of a thorough police investigation but mainly because the writer wanted to draw parallels with the court case.

Some of the acting lacked emotion and range.

One of several modestly budgeted co-features from ACT Films, founded by the union, the Association of Cinematograph Technicians. 'Caught in the Web of Circumstantial Evidence' in the melodramatic words of the promotional material. There's a welcome register of British character players of the time, including the smooth villainy of John Arnatt and the likes of the avuncular Peter Swanwick. Rona Anderson is, as usual, lovely and charming as the resourceful heroine. (Incidentally, the idea that someone of her background and demeanour would not be credible posing as a tabloid reporter is absurd). Effectively directed, the film's main weakness is in its utter predictability after the first twenty minutes or so, though in fairness, the basic plot must have been used on several occasions since.