Five year old Julie Harris goes missing, and is later found stuffed in a sewer pipe. She has been sexually assaulted and strangled. The officer who finds her vomits. Other than her mother Anita's new partner the main suspect is Michael Dunn, a young misfit who lives alone and is regarded with suspicion. A doll belonging to Julie is found at his flat, as is the washing line with which she was supposedly strangled. The police are confident that he will be found guilty. However, the case begins to unravel when it is discovered that the doll was not Julie's after all and that the washing line was planted in Dunn's flat by an over-zealous policeman. Fresh evidence surfaces in the form of a blue sherry bottle, believed to have been used in the attack. Is this sufficient to bring retribution, and is Dunn really guilty? Written by
don @ minifie-1
The problem with this episode, if not the series, is that the police have decided who is guilty and stop looking for potential subjects. As the story of the murdered girl unfolds there is the possibility her mother's live in boy friend did it; there is a slightly older brother who disliked his sister and seemingly resented her; and there is the mother who knows there is evidence that could make the abusive live in look quite guilty but she is not forthcoming regarding it. And then there is a jury trial that finds the suspect guilty on nothing but circumstantial evidence. The real mystery for me is how this series lasted as long as it did. Maybe it's a British thing but this show is not in the same class as Midsommer Murders or A Touch of Frost. I say pass.
6 of 13 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?