Murder at the station - BBC

[bogginsthedog]

Did anyone watch this re Roger Kearney? What an unsatisfying ending! I thought the investigator was very engaging, what was with those mysterious texts though??

I really enjoyed this but found myself really frustrated by the ending. a lot of build up to not much. the texts were very odd as was the random interview with the victims friend who appeared to be drunk

I saw it but fell asleep before the ending. Was he guilty? I felt he was.

Ridiculous programme. They could have done that story in one episode, not two. I liked the investigator but at no point did she appear to think a miscarriage of justice had taken place.

I didn't hear anything to suggest he was actually innocent. Even his daughter couldn't come up with much other than 'he wouldn't do such a horrible thing'.

I had such high hopes but this programme was deeply unsatisfying.

the random interview with the victims friend who appeared to be drunk

Yes with the creepy painting on the wall! Oh and "Pete the trees". It was quite spooky in places.

Yes! Pete the trees. A few red herrings maybe. I definitely think there was discrepancies. The police destroying the evidence is also strange . The lack of blood in the car where she was apparently stabbed multiple times is the main one for me. The blood analyst said the lack of blood could be because she was wearing layers of heavy clothing but the cc tv in tesco just before she was murdered showed her in a v neck top & raincoat type jacket. I think he murdered her but I don't think it happened it the car.

Really weird programme. Pete the Trees my arse! I don't think the investigator believed the "friend" either.

The text thing was strange. Surely they could've traced it though? It seemed quite an articulate text; someone quite educated must've written it. No text speak either.

What bugged me most was the ending, when the forensics woman was brought in, and it transpired that the original evidence had gone missing.

Surely, if you're opening an investigation into a case where forensic evidence is going to play a key part, the first thing you do is check that the original stuff is in place? before making us wait for two bloody weeks.

The rest of the findings were a bit desperate too; wheels that may or not have moved, blood that you might have expected but, actually, she was wearing heavy clothing..cars that may or may not have belonged to Roger, boyfriends which the victim may or may not have had.

And Roger got more and more dodgy sounding as the programme went on imho.

I loved this but I also found this extremely disappointing at the end.

I think he was guilty also, another one for carried out the murder elsewhere. I don't think he sounded too convincing on the phone either!

I think he'd convinced himself he hadn't done it.

Was his DNA anywhere in the car?
The wheels moving thing was clutching at straws. I didn't quite get that.

So annoyed with the conclusion as part one was quite fascinating.

I was a bit perplexed as to why Kearney denied any other affairs when he had already admitted to the police that he had at least one other relationship while with his long term partner. Like Louise Shorter said she had full access to his police interview tapes and she had warned him numerous times if he lied to her then she wouldn't continue with the case

It was quite strange that Hampshire constabulary had destroyed the original evidence but to then find out that further evidence had also gone missing from a freezer within the forensic science was shocking.

*within the forensic science service

I don't understand what info they wanted from the blood that hadn't already been done at the time.

And yes, it made no sense to investigate the handbrake or Pete the Trees before going to the forensics. It was edited for telly. I felt quite manipulated.

Yes part 2 was rather disappointing wasn't it! I wasn't totally convinced by Roger either... where he seemed to suggest to the investigator she could drop the case of she wanted to

Following the first part it would have been great to have been concluded.... and def could have fitted into 1 90min programme

And where was all the blood. Was it really as simple as her clothes absorbed it all? The car looked spotless compared to my shit tip

Was utterly gripped by the first episode and then bemused by the second... It had no conclusion!

Agree that my car looks worse than hers did. No way she was murdererd inside it, but I do think he did it... Just not where they said he did.

I agree that there was something odd about the lack of blood, even though the victim was supposed to have been wearing heavy clothing. However, as a pp pointed out, the victim seemed to be wearing a lightweight jumper/t shirt with a mac over, or lightweight coat, when captured earlier that evening in the supermarket. The car did look pretty spotless considering a victim was supposed to have been murdered there.

I only need to drop water on my car seats and it stains really badly.

I don't think she could have been murdered on that road. It was way too busy, and, even in the dark, it would have been far too risky to murder someone and bundle her into the boot of her car without someone seeing something. I think the suggestion that she was killed somewhere else, and the car moved back to that position seems more plausible.

Another thing that's odd, though...whenever I've watched crime docs in the past, the soil residues on tyres have always been thoroughly examined, as these are often a very accurate indicator of where the car had been. The investigator didn't mention any evidence on the tyres apart from blood. But there would have been traces of soil, and probably vegetation too. Why wasn't the car examined in more detail? Forensic science is pretty sophisticated these days.

I reckon Roger did it. I think he murdered the victim someplace else and drove the car back to the station road, hoping the car wouldn't be noticed (who takes note of cars parked near stations)?.

He got his wife to say he was with her, not realising that her evidence wouldn't count for anything. He wasn't cunning enough to carry on ohoning/texting the victim after her death. He forgot about affairs he had, even though he was already on police record saying that he had been seeing other women. Motive? The victim may have been threatening to expose his affair perhaps? Maybe he lost his temper in an argument?

I think he may have been surprised to find that he had been convicted even though there was a lack of solid evidence to link him to the crime. So he thought he'd try it on; he had nothing to lose.

Yes, the no phoning after she went missing was very odd. He didn't even sound that convinced himself that he was innocent.

Yes and it's interesting that that was a also criticism levelled at Adnan Syed during the serial podcast.

I think it boils down to the fact that if he didn't do it, then who did? People generally don't kill at random and he had a motive. He never sounded truly convincing in the programme, I think it's a case of him not wanting to admit to his family that he did this terrible thing.

I wasn't convinced of his innocence either and thought it was unsatisfactory.

I did watch something in a similar vein in the summer and it was just brilliant. It was an ex detective investigating the murder of a woman whose body was never found. It had all the twists and plot devices of a whodunnit.

The Investigator A British Crime Story for anyone who missed it.

Privatepike, i used to live near the station, and certainly 20 years ago the part of Duncan road that ran parallel to the track was badly lit and isolated (only street lights on one side of the road and some of them didn't work). I only walked home once that way in the dark and I found it so creepy I never walked that way on my own in the dark again. Not many people used the station in the evening. So for the investigator to say it was well lit and busy at about 9 in the evening may have been wrong.

I can't remember if you had to pay to park at the station, but it seems odd that a car would be left in Duncan road for days with a decomposing body that no-one noticed.

grey that's an interesting point about the station . The investigator presented the situation as though it happened recently. If the station WAS that different when the murder was committed, then that should have been factored in.

This is more like a drama than a serious documentary.

Btw how long was it before the body was found?

I really don't think Roger did do it.
Why would he pay to have the evidence re examined, when he was told it would probably have the murders DNA on it?

I think a policeofficer deliberately distroyed the evidence inorder to cover up for the person who did do it.

Also, I'm not surprised that the police lost evidence (I heard a story that allegedly many years ago the local football club manager was nicked for drink driving but the next day a senior officer "took over the case" and the officer who nicked him was told to forget about it).