Review of Murder, Mystery and My Family

One of the most compelling arguments against capital punishment is the irreversibility of it, if exonerating evidence shows up after sentence is passed; this show IMHO misses a key component which would make revisiting past death sentence cases truly compelling, and worthwhile - the invaluable element of hindsight. At the time of trial and sentencing, the future is still unknown. But over time, in addition to new evidence (on the basis of which a case can of course be re-opened), certain actions and behaviours by still-living persons sometimes reveal patterns and hidden motives which would have changed the outcome of the trial IF they had been possible to perceive, prior to such patterns having emerged. Hence, surely, the whole point of this show! For example: In the first episode, the outcome of the original conviction was not reversed because no new evidence was provided, even though no motive was presented for Charlotte's alleged crime (other than a spurious accusation by unkind neighbours of sexual relations with a lodger which she vehemently denied and which wasn't proven), she had no record or history of murderous behaviours or intent, and there was no assertion that her husband was unpleasant or violent towards her or their children - in fact she had an 'anti-motive' of being mother to the murdered man's 5 children, who, if she was not convicted for murdering him, faced abject poverty and the workhouse in the wake of his sudden death. But her 'best friend' Lucy, on whose testimony the bulk of the damning evidence against Charlotte rests, had lost her husband prematurely 4 years previously...so, surely the first line of research should be, how did the rest of Lucy's life play out post-trial and execution of her 'best friend' Charlotte? Did she re-marry and if so, when and how did that husband die? Did other people in her life die unexpectedly and prematurely? Keeping in mind that a serial killer tends not to need a motive to kill, other than the thrill, and subsequent pleasure of getting away with murder. Obviously, it need not have been Lucy, but hindsight provides the invaluable capacity to re-examine everyone closely associated with the victim as well as his (possibly also victimised) wife, to detect a pattern somewhere. Insufficient detective work may be excusable almost 100 years ago, but surely not in the 21st century, and in the context of a TV show dedicated to re-examining old cases! Certain is, someone murdered this man, but very possibly his wife was subsequently wrongfully murdered by his country; I wanted to watch historical detective research unfolding which would at very least shed new light on WHO might have dunnit besides the person protesting that they hadn't, but condemned and put to death for it anyway, but I was sorely disappointed...as was, surely, the emotionally wounded family of both the deceased.