Circumstantial Evidence

Very distinguished judge Frederick Leister is instructing the jury in a murder case built purely on circumstantial evidence: an estranged wife is having an affair and intends to marry her lover as soon as she gets a divorce. The husband has turned up with incriminating letters, and now is dead. Clearly, Leister all but commands the jury, she is guilty.

We then switch to his son, Doctor Patrick Holt, who is carrying on, in a perfectly proper way, a love affair with Rona Anderson, who is suing estranged husband, smarmy John Arnatt for divorce. Arnatt turns up, steals money from her handbag, finds some letters and threatens her with exposure. Well, it's absolutely clear what's going to happen when she sends Holt to meet Arnatt. Arnatt demands a lot of money, talks about the Medical Board striking him off, and so forth. Holt knocks him down -- showing great discretion; I would have tossed him through a window. Arnatt is found dead, and the police arrest Holt, preparatory to charging him in an obvious murder. Inspector Ballard Berkeley even comments on the parallels between the two cases, and how Holt is not long for the world. Whereupon Miss Anderson goes sleuthing.

It's unusual to see a British film in which the police are so lazy and wrong, when it takes Miss Anderson only ten minutes of screen time to crack the case. It's certainly not the first movie to make the point that circumstantial evidence is bad evidence -- although actually, it's a lot more reliable than eye witnesses. The performances are good, and the denouement is almost comical. There are some nice small roles for Ben Williams and Ian Fleming. But the entire movie is so obvious in the first ten minutes that the ease with which the actual murderer is identified is a bit insulting.

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.

' No, I am afraid she will get her pretty little neck stretched ' is one of the most repugnant statements about hanging a woman if found guilty of murder I have heard on film. I wanted to stop watching, but after this statement during a trial, and the conclusion that Capital Punishment was inevitable my interest grew. The evidence against her was based on circumstantial evidence, and most of the people at the trial including the judge believed such evidence was enough. I wondered how many people had been hung when they were innocent, and when the Judge's son falls foul of the law and the law believes even before a trial that he is guilty based again on similar circumstantial evidence I realised this film was none too subtle about such evidence convicting a man or woman in the early 1950's to death. A brave film for doing this. Rona Anderson, a fine actor, is the man's wife to be and she starts to uncover the true facts. I just wonder how many people went away from this film asking themselves questions about the law of the time, and being a less than an hour B film it moves along at a pace that they would not be bored by. The acting in general was good, and the filming simple showing viewers quite openly that the judicial system was faulty to say the least, and the attitudes concerning Capital Punishment casually brutal. The line of dialogue that I have quoted shows this clearly, with little hope for change in sight in court rooms. It took over a decade more for the abolishment of hanging in the UK.

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" (1952) stars Rona Anderson, Patrick Holt, Frederick Leister, Ronald Adam, John Arnatt, June Ashley, Lisa Lee, and others, and is basically about an incident - actually two - that supply the reason for the title of the film. Holt's father (Leister) is a judge who is presently presiding over a case that rests almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence. Meanwhile, his son (Holt) is involved with a woman whose husband seems to have disappeared well over two years ago - possible desertion, possibly something else. Holt and she wish to be married. Suddenly her husband comes back, finds a way to blackmail both Holt and his wife for a goodly sum. Holt goes to see the husband (John Arnatt). Holt has a conversation that ends up with him hitting Arnatt. Scene ends. Next scene people are looking for Holt because Arnatt has been found shot to death. The gun...of course...it belongs to Holt. Holt's accused and needs to find out what's going on. Even his father, the judge, based on the circumstantial evidence feels he's guilty. The only person who doesn't is Rona Anderson.

I really liked this very straightforward and short (61 minute) crime drama. One could guess from afar who might have done it, but it sure didn't quite look right with the slight evidence. Good fun for the little time. Worth the search. Anderson's a good actress. Holt was a mainstay in the British movie and television realm for decades. Arnatt plays a nasty with oily swagger and flair.