User reviews

However I do wish when the set is put together, they use a different clock.

The same white clock is in the Judges chamber as well as the barristers office. It's always at 14:10 and regardless of the length of conversation, it stays the same. Batteries may be of help.

Other than that it is an addictive show.

Love the premise and when the cases being investigated are relatively recent- i.e.20th century - it's fine, but the really old cases seem to offer so little evidence that it's hard to see that any progress can be made. The sentimental attachment some members of the public have to long-dead relatives they never knew can get irksome, as can the constant stating and restating of facts. But worst of all are the appalling "artist impression" drawings and hysterically bad reconstructions, in both of which absolutely no attention is paid to accuracy in costume.

Some of the perpetrators (or are they?) are famous, like Florence Maybrick. Some are long-forgotten, and obscure in their day.

Apart from the historical and detective fascination, the appeal of the programme is the cast. The barristers, Sasha Wass and Jeremy Dein, and David Radford the judge. They are ably assisted by the descendants of the alleged criminals who come from all regions and backgrounds. They are never less than interesting and sometimes it is a joy to get to know them.

It is very well shot, with a verite feel to investigations and interviews. People are filmed in the same space talking to each other - no "clever editing" (yawn). Experts consulted are the real thing, and nobody is selected for their looks. The sets are well-designed, too. (Yes, those aren't real offices or laboratories.)

Another reviewer wished for a bit more on the legal aspect. I'd like a little extra on the forensics.

I love Sasha's dress sense, but do Jeremy and David own only one suit each?

Quite boring and dry, the judge and female QC are particularly dry and conservative, the woman seems to have a thing about herself and overly concerned with clothes.