Brilliant actors - I love Keely Hawes - but the second episode was so rushed. One second they were cross examining the witnesses and the next, the father and uncle had been found guilty. Obviously this was a hooray moment but what evidence did they get them on? Can we assume that the forensic evidence was irrefutable? Or that the phone calls that "Keely" painstakingly trawled through, made the mother's statement against the father a pack of lies? The evidence that they said was hear-say finally stood up in court? More attention to detail please, ITV
Review of Honour
