Circumstantial Evidence

The delightful and elegant Rona Anderson, pops up as the wife who is seeking a divorce from a husband, who she barely sees, but with a new man in her life, a respected doctor, played by Patrick Holt, life for her seems to be back on track again. However, her estranged husband, unfortunately gets murdered! The problem I had with this film, is that the characters never engage interest, nor are they believable, as they all come across as one dimensional. Feelings and emotions are never stirred as the actors seem to go through the motions. Patrick Holt seems to have a range of expressions that go from A to B, and his body language stays the same whatever the scene! He delivers his lines with effortless charm but without any conviction. He seems to drift from one scene to another as if on auto pilot! Rona Anderson's subterfuge of being a tabloid gossip reporter, as a way of tracking down the killer beggars belief, as her very middle class manners and demeanour wouldn't fool anyone! The film itself, which runs just over the hour, never allows the director to 'flesh out' the characters, and indeed the successful capture of the killer in the last ten minutes, seems to border on the ridiculous, since it lacks total credibility! This film is an exercise in middle class manners and will not get the pulses racing.

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.

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.

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.

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.