the Investigator. carol Packham murder. Itv.(21 Posts)
Anyone been watching this?
Ive just seen the first two episodes on catchup, third one on this evening I think.
Do people think she's dead?
Feel so sorry for the poor daughter. If anyone on here posted saying that stuff has happened to them which happened to that girl the troll hunters would have a field day. Father moving a lover in, mother disappearing, father faking his own death and then going to jail!
Yes, very obvious after the last episode that she's been murdered. Wonder if the police will think about charging the gf now.
I've watched the who thing and feel like it was just a waste of time as a watch. Other than Patricia admitting the obvious you are just back where you started.
I'm think that now she can be sure her Mum is dead (well that Patricia was pretending to be her Mum) she is not tortured at the thought that her Mum was alive and choosing to not have a relationship with her.
I really hope that is some closure.
Horrific all around tbh
Yeah, I guess she has some form of closure but just as a viewer it felt frustrating as you're not emmotianally involed and felt it was being broadcast to show a case unfolding. He is a manipulative arsehole who even if he did tell the truth you would never know to believe it. But I also didn't like the repetitive nature of the story telling and the narrative seemed quite layman. It was build as the British Making a Murder but it wasn't (even though that had an equally unanswered outcome).
Thanks for the clarifications RosieSW. Heartbreaking for Sam. Cannot believe that Patricia was never charged with anything in relation to this case. Hope that justice will be done soon.
Can I ask a really stupid question? Causley was serving time for the murder of Carol, wasn't he (apols if this is not the case).
Now I gather that it's extremely unusual for someone to be convicted of murder if there's no body, so on what basis was he convicted? What evidence did the jury have? (sorry if I've missed something really obvious).
I don't think it's extremely unusual. There have been a few cases I can recall in recent history(last 5 years or so) that have done the same. Some later find the body, others don't.
I'm guessing it's based on his abusive nature, his fraud (that triggered it), his partner using her name etc
Ok, it's possible to be convicted of murder without a body. But I would expect a programme such as this to at least offer some analysis as to how, precisely, Causley ended up convicted of murder in the first place. Particularly if there was no body to offer up evidence.
I felt a tad dissatisfied at the outcome, and not just because the daughter didn't get to find out what happened to her mum.
Too many questions left unanswered or facts glossed over.
rosie thanks. Brilliant explanation.
Mm...i enjoyed the prog immensely but I think the "drama" elements were played up rather than the "documentary" aspects. So more a drama than a documentary! Which is a shame, imho.
Rosie SW... bit late into this conversation and not sure if this will reach you. I was doing some research on MWT and came across this chat and your comments with which I agree entirely. Fair dues he helped to expose Saville, but he was not, as he likes to purport to be, the instigator of any investigation and I would argue rode on the crest of a wave started by others.
Anyway that aside I'm glad to hear Sam and her son have had some form of closure thanks to the program. I wonder though how quick they would have been to ask MWT for assistance if they knew his police background, total lack of experience as a detective and his arrest and trial for blackmail, for which admittedly he was found not guilty. Not to mention the various claims of differing experience he has made on CV's, TV shows, interviews, articles etc etc.
I felt MWT wanted the Investigator show to portray him as some kind of super-sleuth, and as you quite rightly point out nearly all the evidence was already heard at trial and or in the public domain.... he discovered no new hard factual evidence to implicate Patricia in the death of Carol. As a man who portrays himself as an expert and criminologist I was also surprised he didn't mention the fact that often women who are deeply in love with evil men can never see or accept that side of them.
His pig burning was flawed as it was not done under the same conditions on a garden fire open to the elements as alleged by Russell. Also I would challenge the validity of the handwriting expert on such a small reference sample and her opinion was probably influenced by the facts she was given by MWT. However that said I wouldn't disagree that it was Patricia who probably signed the document.
MWT made a big play about the fact Russell had agreed to speak to him if he (the producers) got him a solicitor. I'm surprised a savvy criminologist/ detective like Mark didn't fully research/understand the sociopath/manipulative background of a man like Russell and consider that having lost an appeal he now saw an opportunity to get free representation... not to mention the attention men like him desire?
Also MWT never considered that Russell might be stringing him along from the get go.
When MWT interviewed the Solicitor on the boat he must have known he had already been tried and convicted of the insurance fraud concerning Russell therefore was lying from the start.... so why not challenge him there and then.
So why my concern... After my initial probation I was a Detective in the Met for just over 30 years and worked on many murder squads as an investigator and then CSI in my latter years. it worries me that as a result of this show members of the public are now making contact with MWT about similar cases where love ones have gone missing or no one has been arrested for their murder. He purports to be an investigative journalist and believes people have a right to know about wrong doers liars etc etc.... well in turn I believe the public have a right to know about people who purport to be things they are not.... like him there are thousands who have a Masters in Criminology but it doesn't make them experts in the field and a few months or year as a temporary or trainee Detective does not make you a child protection expert. In fact if he purported to be either in a court of law the Judge would not allow his evidence as he would not be considered an expert by any stretch of the imagination.
I sometimes wonder if people like MWT actually care more about their own self exposure than helping the public... interesting how many times he says as a result of my new evidence Dorset are re investigating the case.... I read it as they were reviewing the case which after the TV show they had no choice but to do to avoid public back lash for failing to do nothing further.
Would be good to speak in confidence Rosie SW but not sure how that can be done as not very savvy with these kinds of sites.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.