INNOCENT (itv)
What a waste of time that turned out to be. For three days they pumped us with clues that showed virtually the whole village could have done it, leaving cliff hangers each night. However, with all the red herrings and blind alleys they sent us down, there was never a hint as to why the killer killed - until we were told at the end of day four.
Pace, (The Police and Criminal Evidence act 1984 codes of practice), was not noticeably adhered to. The lead detective, whilst interviewing was shown to be intimidating and threatening. There did not appear to be any legal representation for those being interviewed.
We were shown a 2 way mirror in operation during interviews, which would not currently be used as video of interviews could be seen by other officers, not that we knew who was supposed to be watching anyway.
Evidence of DNA found on the victim's clothes wasn't disvovered until 5 years after the crime. Allegedly because the police didn't need to look into the case further once a person had been arrested, tried and sentenced - based upon what evidence we have no idea.
People appeared to be being interviewed at the police station (including overnight) with family members unaware of where the interviewee was and why.
There were more holes in the programme than you'd find in a pair of fishnet stockings.
To my mind it was a waste to make 4 hours of television to show what they did. It would have been better making a one hour programme, changing the concept a little, securing the facts and getting rid of the peripheral dross.
I hope future offerings are more worthwhile than INNOCENT.
Pace, (The Police and Criminal Evidence act 1984 codes of practice), was not noticeably adhered to. The lead detective, whilst interviewing was shown to be intimidating and threatening. There did not appear to be any legal representation for those being interviewed.
We were shown a 2 way mirror in operation during interviews, which would not currently be used as video of interviews could be seen by other officers, not that we knew who was supposed to be watching anyway.
Evidence of DNA found on the victim's clothes wasn't disvovered until 5 years after the crime. Allegedly because the police didn't need to look into the case further once a person had been arrested, tried and sentenced - based upon what evidence we have no idea.
People appeared to be being interviewed at the police station (including overnight) with family members unaware of where the interviewee was and why.
There were more holes in the programme than you'd find in a pair of fishnet stockings.
To my mind it was a waste to make 4 hours of television to show what they did. It would have been better making a one hour programme, changing the concept a little, securing the facts and getting rid of the peripheral dross.
I hope future offerings are more worthwhile than INNOCENT.
