Where do I start? The ridiculous stretching to make evidence fit the host's already made up mind? The zero research done to look for evidence that might point to anyone else? Claiming that looking at things given to you by someone extremely biased against one person is you digging for evidence? Never acknowledging that person has a vested interest in putting your interviewee in prison so her loved one wouldn't be considered the murderer? The list goes on. This show should be used in law schools everywhere as a case study in what NOT to do. Is Spencer a murderer? Yes. Of Bridgewater? I'm not so sure. I'd never heard of this case until I watched this show but if the evidence presented here is all they have, there's no way they can say he did it. Having someone as a neighbor doesn't mean you killed them. Knowing where a farm is doesn't mean you're going to kill someone in it. Having a coworker live down the street from you doesn't mean they will purger themselves to get you out of a murder charge. Having that coworker not remember whether or not you took lunch on a certain date 30+ yrs ago, doesn't negate your alibi. The host actually stating these as evidence against him would be laughable if it wasn't so scary. Don't say you're looking for the truth and never look in any other direction. What ever network aired this as well as the host should be embarrassed.
Review of Interview with a Murderer
Interview with a Murderer
(2016 TV Movie)
Don't be within 50 miles of a murder in England
25 February 2020