The Real Unforgotten Netflix - SPOILERS

[HorseandHeron]

Has anyone else watched this two part documentary about the murder of Carol Morgan in Leighton Buzzard in the 1980s? I can't find a thread on it and there are so many questions I have which the documentary doesn't begin to touch on.

Were the now adult children interviewed to find out if he left the cinema at any time?
Why was Margaret not also charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, as she clearly knew what had happened, even if it could not be proved she was party to it?
But how did Margaret get away with being found not guilty, if the evidence against him rested on the conversation in the pub which she clearly initiated by bringing her tutee along to meet Allen, and the taped chat at the police station which showed she definitely knew what had happened.

I watched it, I was surprised he was found guilty as it was so circumstantial. I was not surprised about Margaret as there didn’t appear to be much evidence to be sure she did it.

what I don’t understand is if he did why wasn’t he covered in blood or no DNA considering the bloody crime scene. I know there was some talk of a hit man though I guess but then wouldn’t that be against the witness statement who claimed he saw him.

I am watching this now. So many holes in it all. I too am confused about no one asking the children about the cinema. All very strange!

They did say all the evidence from the original scene was destroyed, and that the lead detective on the original case was convinced of the alibi so only looked for this unknown man and his car. His DNA would have been at the scene if he was innocent, as he was the one who found her.

What interested me, which they really didn't explore, is how to build a case these days, solely on circumstantial evidence, when juries expect DNA and strong forensic evidence. The circumstantial evidence they referred to, but didn't then appear to rely on, was

• the existence of a machete or axe in the shop, according to customers, which then disappeared. Why on earth would there be one? Who thought they had seen one?
• Margaret coming over and staying the night in his bed, after his wife was murdered and a neighbour overheairng him say 'It won't be long now' to her.
• The evidence of her ex-pupil, which is central but incriminates them both, as M was the one who brought her to the pub, with the intention of speaking to him about her dodgy boyfriend. Why would M do that if she were not involved? Why else bring her pupil to meet her lover in a pub?
• The vast number of lies they both told which were provable - her seeing him on the boating holiday; him having a previous record and severe violence towards his own children. Most of all, the lie about the insurance payout for the shop.

It felt like the documentary makers lost interest half way through and just stopped digging into the story.