I watched this the other night. I thought at first he had to be innocent, as otherwise why bother making the programme?
It seemed unlikely he was innocent really, but I was left with a number of questions:
- He was paying £200-£300 into his account at a time, suspiciously close the time that a similar amount was taken out of the old lady's account.
Was this paid into his current account? The £30,000 (which disappeared) was in a savings account - was he transferring that money (the £200s) from the current account to the savings account? It didn't seem like the savings account was an account you could pay money into from a cashpoint.
He said he got that money from a night job, where he was paid cash. He said he could prove this, but then they said he couldn't. This was one of the sticking points, for me. How many jobs could you earn £200 a night for?
Then he was frequenting a gay bar. I wondered if he was actually working as an escort and really did earn the money but didn't want to admit it. But then he was buying drinks on his own card at the bar - unlikely for an escort to do that, surely.
But the main sticking point for me happened at the beginning of the programme. He said a woman had come into the bank, showed him her passport and said he was owed money from his dad's inheritance. Nobody mentioned a Will. If there was an inheritance, why did the woman approach him at work? He said he didn't know who she was - his dad was married so surely his wife or family member would've been the executor, not a stranger. And executors don't turn up at your workplace!
I wanted him to be innocent. I wanted there to be a colleague who had it in for him, or a friend who was double-crossing him. I was BITTERLY disappointed at the lack of twist and couldn't see the point of the programme!