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.