Circumstantial Evidence

"Circumstantial Evidence" (1952) stars Rona Anderson, Patrick Holt, Frederick Leister, Ronald Adam, John Arnatt, June Ashley, Lisa Lee, and others, and is basically about an incident - actually two - that supply the reason for the title of the film. Holt's father (Leister) is a judge who is presently presiding over a case that rests almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence. Meanwhile, his son (Holt) is involved with a woman whose husband seems to have disappeared well over two years ago - possible desertion, possibly something else. Holt and she wish to be married. Suddenly her husband comes back, finds a way to blackmail both Holt and his wife for a goodly sum. Holt goes to see the husband (John Arnatt). Holt has a conversation that ends up with him hitting Arnatt. Scene ends. Next scene people are looking for Holt because Arnatt has been found shot to death. The gun...of course...it belongs to Holt. Holt's accused and needs to find out what's going on. Even his father, the judge, based on the circumstantial evidence feels he's guilty. The only person who doesn't is Rona Anderson.

I really liked this very straightforward and short (61 minute) crime drama. One could guess from afar who might have done it, but it sure didn't quite look right with the slight evidence. Good fun for the little time. Worth the search. Anderson's a good actress. Holt was a mainstay in the British movie and television realm for decades. Arnatt plays a nasty with oily swagger and flair.

Circumstantial Evidence opens with a court case presided by Judge Carteret where the chief evidence against the accused is circumstantial. It could send her to the gallows.

Now the events of the trial mirrors that of the judge's son. Michael Carteret (Patrick Holt) is a doctor who has been seeing a married woman Linda Harrison (Rona Anderson.)

Her husband Steve re-enters her life and attempts blackmail. He has obtained some love letters and could make life difficult for him with the general medical council.

Later on, Michael and Steve get involved in a scuffle at the lodgings Steve is staying at. Another man who goes in alerts the police of Steve's death.

It is circumstantial evidence but Steve is the main suspect. Linda tries to clear his name.

This could had been a neat B thriller but it was obvious who the killer was if it was not Michael.

There was certainly a lack of a thorough police investigation but mainly because the writer wanted to draw parallels with the court case.

Some of the acting lacked emotion and range.

' No, I am afraid she will get her pretty little neck stretched ' is one of the most repugnant statements about hanging a woman if found guilty of murder I have heard on film. I wanted to stop watching, but after this statement during a trial, and the conclusion that Capital Punishment was inevitable my interest grew. The evidence against her was based on circumstantial evidence, and most of the people at the trial including the judge believed such evidence was enough. I wondered how many people had been hung when they were innocent, and when the Judge's son falls foul of the law and the law believes even before a trial that he is guilty based again on similar circumstantial evidence I realised this film was none too subtle about such evidence convicting a man or woman in the early 1950's to death. A brave film for doing this. Rona Anderson, a fine actor, is the man's wife to be and she starts to uncover the true facts. I just wonder how many people went away from this film asking themselves questions about the law of the time, and being a less than an hour B film it moves along at a pace that they would not be bored by. The acting in general was good, and the filming simple showing viewers quite openly that the judicial system was faulty to say the least, and the attitudes concerning Capital Punishment casually brutal. The line of dialogue that I have quoted shows this clearly, with little hope for change in sight in court rooms. It took over a decade more for the abolishment of hanging in the UK.

The delightful and elegant Rona Anderson, pops up as the wife who is seeking a divorce from a husband, who she barely sees, but with a new man in her life, a respected doctor, played by Patrick Holt, life for her seems to be back on track again. However, her estranged husband, unfortunately gets murdered! The problem I had with this film, is that the characters never engage interest, nor are they believable, as they all come across as one dimensional. Feelings and emotions are never stirred as the actors seem to go through the motions. Patrick Holt seems to have a range of expressions that go from A to B, and his body language stays the same whatever the scene! He delivers his lines with effortless charm but without any conviction. He seems to drift from one scene to another as if on auto pilot! Rona Anderson's subterfuge of being a tabloid gossip reporter, as a way of tracking down the killer beggars belief, as her very middle class manners and demeanour wouldn't fool anyone! The film itself, which runs just over the hour, never allows the director to 'flesh out' the characters, and indeed the successful capture of the killer in the last ten minutes, seems to border on the ridiculous, since it lacks total credibility! This film is an exercise in middle class manners and will not get the pulses racing.

A short, sharp fable of blackmail and murder characteristic of director Daniel Birt, painting a vivid picture of London in the summer of 1952 and largely carried by the elegant Rona Anderson; detailing how difficult it was in those days to wriggle out of a marriage gone sour.