Interview with a Murderer

I nearly turned this off half way through I couldn't handle the level of bias in this film. Doesn't go into the other options at all and blows up stupid comments like they're hard proof. If they wanted to turn this into solving a murder then where are the interviews and backstory about the people that actually confessed to the murder? Why don't we get the whole picture? Why don't they ask Bert why his story changed or if he took any actions simply because he was scared at being investigated? It's all he said she said but the aim of this documentary isn't to present facts it's to start up another manhunt without proof because it makes good ratings. Do I think Bert is a stand up guy? Probably not. But I hate seeing an old man persecuted by others without solid evidence based on this rubbish documentary.

On September 19, 1978 Carl Bridgewater (13 years of age) was shot dead at Yew Tree Farm on the A449 in Staffordshire. Delivering a newspaper it is believed he disturbed burglars and was shot and killed. Four men would be found guilty of his killing on 9 November 1979, but in 1997 their convictions were quashed due to an unfair trial and suspect evidence. One name has continually cropped up whenever the Bridgewater case comes to light, that of Bert Spencer - a man who was convicted of a similar murder the same year.

With the blessing of Spencer, professor David Wilson examines Spencer and the available evidence to hand of the Bridgewater case. It's an utterly fascinating film, where we get to peek inside a famous British murder case, but more chillingly we observe the feelings and thoughts of a convicted murderer - who may have been the murderer of Carl?

It's not for me, as an amateur reviewer, to pass judgement or bias, this is a film that needs to be seen by anyone interested in the law - and those who adore the advancement of criminology. It offers no definitive answers, and the can of worms it opens actually makes the fence sitting decidedly splinter like. But as it's believed that the case is going to be looked at again, it's ultimately with Carl's surviving family that hopefully the truth will out.

A super production. 9/10

Ever wondered why law courts and police don't like criminologists? Watch this and you will see.

Prof. David Wilson asked closed questions, leading questions, passes random statements off as questions and uses these responses to now jump to rapid conclusions and assume the worst. Prof. Wilson could never get away with this in a courtroom or a police investigation, so, he gets funding to make a doco out of it. Now I'm not rooting for any party, but this is just plain bad.

He takes that random rants (testimony) of a women who is the mother of another convicted killer, implies that she is some sort of eye witness, then attempts to use this as primary evidence to catch his killer. Of course it all falls down and the annoying prof has to call the questioning quits. He then resorts to another strategy, towards the end he taunts the interviewee with emotional threats of retribution and how he will call on the cavalry to convict his man. When the interviewee does not bite the prof. has to leave the room to hide his own emotions.

Throughout the doco it is evident that the prof. cherry picks his evidence and testimonies, while it is blatantly obvious to the trained eye that he has not even reviewed the courts evidence which he should know like the back of his hand.

Now we all want to catch the killer, but this is unbelievably bad.

As other reviewers have pointed out, this documentary is very biased against Bert Spencer. David Wilson hangs on every word uttered by the mother of one of the Bridgewater Four, as well as Spencer's ex-wife, both of whom obviously have an agenda. There are errors in terms of evidence which are passed off as fact. Towards the end it seems as if David Wilson resorts to trying to goad Bert Spencer into showing some response that will confirm his suspicions that he's a psycho. It's almost satisfying that this completely fails. The only positive is that the programme made me more interested in the case and wanting to explore further.

Where do I start? The ridiculous stretching to make evidence fit the host's already made up mind? The zero research done to look for evidence that might point to anyone else? Claiming that looking at things given to you by someone extremely biased against one person is you digging for evidence? Never acknowledging that person has a vested interest in putting your interviewee in prison so her loved one wouldn't be considered the murderer? The list goes on. This show should be used in law schools everywhere as a case study in what NOT to do. Is Spencer a murderer? Yes. Of Bridgewater? I'm not so sure. I'd never heard of this case until I watched this show but if the evidence presented here is all they have, there's no way they can say he did it. Having someone as a neighbor doesn't mean you killed them. Knowing where a farm is doesn't mean you're going to kill someone in it. Having a coworker live down the street from you doesn't mean they will purger themselves to get you out of a murder charge. Having that coworker not remember whether or not you took lunch on a certain date 30+ yrs ago, doesn't negate your alibi. The host actually stating these as evidence against him would be laughable if it wasn't so scary. Don't say you're looking for the truth and never look in any other direction. What ever network aired this as well as the host should be embarrassed.