Radio Review

Robert Hanks
Sunday 21 April 1996 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

If there's anything more satisfying than a good murder trial, it's a really bad one. At any rate, that's presumably one strand of thought behind the plethora of television programmes dedicated to exposing miscarriages of justice (let's not be cynical and exclude the possibility that concern over a possible injustice comes into the equation).

Genuine concern can't have a great deal to do with Radio 4's series Beyond Reasonable Doubt, though: the six "possible miscarriages of justice" investigated in this series all happened too long ago for any wrongs to be righted. Last Friday's programme had even less excuse than usual, since the case of Oscar Slater wasn't a possible miscarriage of justice, but a bone-dry certainty.

Slater was convicted in 1909 of bludgeoning an elderly Glasgow lady to death, on the flimsiest evidence - a series of dubious identifications, made after his photograph had been published in the Glasgow papers. He had an alibi, and there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime; he was, however, a German Jew with convictions for living on immoral earnings. At the trial, the judge directed that no presumption of innocence could be made for "a man of his kind".

The unsatisfactory nature of the trial may explain why the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment: if the authorities really thought he was guilty, there weren't any extenuating circumstances. His conviction was eventually set aside and Slater freed, in 1928, after a long campaign by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

This was a ripping yarn, far more clear cut than any modern miscarriage of justice. It's hard to account for the muddled way it was presented, though. The programme fell into three parts, each working on a different level of realism. First, Robert Kee lent his considerable gravitas to a straightforward narration; within this framework were dramatised extracts from the trial - words that were actually spoken, but here acted with a cheesiness rarely heard on radio (sneering lawyers, hissing judges). Within those extracts were dramatic flashbacks to the crime and subsequent investigation - words that nobody ever spoke, again cheesily acted, and adding no kind of dramatic impact whatsoever.

For all its failing as drama, though, this is vastly entertaining - which is, in the end, the point. For all its solemnity, what we're getting in Beyond Reasonable Doubt is murder and injustice used to provide a fairly pure form of titillation.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in