Conviction: Murder at the Station (2016– ) User Reviews

Better than the reviews would make you believe.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 14 July 2024]

Louise Shorter of the charity 'Inside Justice' is called to look into the conviction of Roger Kearney, who was convicted of murdering Paula Poolton, a woman he was said to have had some form of relationship with.

I get why there are negative reviews, and in some ways it is a really frustrating watch, however, the case itself is very ambiguous, with lots of holes, just like this two part documentary.

The ending is a little abrupt, but that isn't the fault of Louise, the producers or The BBC, that's surely the fault of The Police for disposing of valuable evidence, that aspect makes zero sense.

It's interesting, it exposes some baffling mistakes by The Police, hard to imagine.

Louise was good on camera, quite natural, and fortunately they didn't do those reconstructed scenes that are now so common.

To this day, Kearney remains in prison, and several questions remain unanswered.

Not all stories have a start, middle and conclusion, not do all documentaries.

7/10.

Episode 1of 2??? Where are other episodes

[mprendo · 1/10 · 12 January 2020]

This two part documentary ended like there should have been 2 more episodes. It left us in limbo over missing evidence, a search for more evidence to conduct further testing into Y chromosomes. No summary of evidence, decision whether or not an appeal would be held or even an update as to what the convict thought. Very disappointed

Unfinished

[d_welland · 4/10 · 29 October 2023]

It stops at 2 episodes with no conclusion. What were the test results, were they able to free him or did all the evidence prove guilt? I'm now googling the answers to try and find out what happened next. The 2 episodes take you on a journey, get you engaged in the case, but then nothing. During it new techniques are discussed that weren't available at the time but that's it. Were there supposed to be more, did the answers mean that the case couldn't be studied any more. I finished it with so many unanswered questions about the case that I would have been better off having not watched it at all.

Dead end

[ayeshacc · 2/10 · 23 November 2023]

You will waste your time, get invested into a story that ends abruptly. Sort of like being led up the garden path to a dead end.

Also, I feel the main the lady with the untidy hair - the one running the charity - seemed completely out of her depth. It was a job for a qualified lawyer - not some random person poking her nose, asking questions that had been decided by professionals. It just came across as very silly.

Plus, it dragged on unnecessarily, despite being two episodes. I just forwarded it to get to the end, only to be disappointed at being offered no summary conclusion.

Sadly, a really sloppy, unsolved mystery.

Is not an end the end ?

[mike_olley · 5/10 · 14 December 2023]

Maybe I'm getting to be too demanding in expecting a beginning, middle and end. We certainly get a beginning and a bit of a middle, but no end...!!!

That's so disappointing, I found the two episodes so enthralling. The main character is a gem. But frankly as it stands it's not worth watching, because it's missing an episode, an ending. So disappointing....

The building of the narrative introduces us to a strong, dynamic character working at the centre of a fast paced charity. Surrounding herself with professionals from a variety of interesting and very serious work. The pace picks up as the story develops - then pop, the ballon bursts and it's all over. I really feel like sending a stern letter to someone for building up by senses and then letting me down.

This is not entertainment 😞

Gripping but sadly unfinished

[cooknaris · 1/10 · 2 November 2023]

You are better off just Googling this case. It is only 2 episodes which are gripping, but end very anti-climatically. Episode 2 ends when it is found that police have destroyed some evidence which could have potentially been tested for evidence of who the killer was using new techniques which were not available in 2008, however as the evidence had been destroyed, this could not be done. So what now? Is that the end of the investigation? There needs to be an episode 3 which wraps it all up; I.e if the investigation is over, that should have been made clear and frankly the whole series is pointless. If the investigation is ongoing, why post the series now instead of waiting for a definitive outcome? Feels like 2 hours of my evening wasted and I'm now Googling the case for answers which I could have done in the first place!

Interesting concept, but wrong case. Goes nowhere. Why, Netflix?

[avqndcfm · 5/10 · 3 July 2024]

Follows 'Inside Justice', a charity that examines convictions that may have been unsafe in order to seek a retrial. The charity are investigating the murder of Paula Poolton, and the conviction of Roger Kearney for the crime. No physical evidence, and a suggestion there might have been a third party in a relationship with the victim.

This is an interesting concept for a documentary style programme, following Louise as she unpicks the case and how the police gathered evidence to seek a conviction.

However, this sadly is the wrong case- you watch for two hour-long episodes just to find out that all the police evidence has gone missing and they can't do anything more to investigate.

Why did the BBC commission a documentary on this case in particular, and why did Netflix pick it up? Approach the team to film them again, but with a case that actually goes somewhere, and reaches a conclusion.

Not a complete waste of time, but ends with something of a damp squib.