Circumstantial Evidence

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.

The problem with this film is that you can guess what is going to happen within the first 10 minutes.So there is little suspense or even drama.With the exception of the blackmailer everyone goes through the motions in a very perfunctory manner.

"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.

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.

' 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.