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.

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.

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.

' 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.