Did anyone see The Killing of Dr. Brenda Page last night

Culture
1

The TV programme about it of course. It was a 2 parter and much of it was filmed in the Scottish courtroom when the trial of her former husband took place.

I am being careful here in case someone has not watched it but is intending to on one of the ways these things can be done nowadays.

So I will limit myself to saying that I listened to all the evidence and came to a different conclusion to the verdict. So if anyone has a different view and wants to discuss it, we can do it here after everyone who doesn’t want to know, will have been forwarned. :wink:

My own interest was piqued by the fact that the murder took place in 1978 but only came to trial last year.

1 Like
2

What channel David?

3

BBC2.

I’ve blurred the link to a review of the first episode, though I can’t see any spoilers in it. Looks interesting.

https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/murder-trial-killing-dr-brenda-page-review-2869648

1 Like
4

They’ve repeated the 2 episodes over 4 days I think. I was surprised at the amount of different camera angles allowed in the court, although obviously Scottish law and permissions are different to English.

Some of the witnesses were from the original investigation, including police and forensic people. Everybody was allowed to have their faces kept off camera and some even their voices were disguised or replaced. But there were obviously current witnesses too.

I found the whole thing fascinating, not least the different treatment of 45 year old crime scenes.

Anyway I’ll say no more until others have seen it who want to. :smiley:

1 Like
5

OK, long enough, so now the spoiler alert.

I thought the jury came to the wrong decision, the evidence was not conclusive. The only forensic evidence was a bloodstained sheet which included the sperm of the accused. This was used to prove he had been at the scene. But it didn’t, because the procedures of 1978 regarding isolation of evidence and prevention of cross contamination simply didn’t comply with modern standards. It was admitted in court that that sheet had been brought by the divorced wife from the previous family home. It was also admitted that even washing of the sheet would not have removed all traces of the sperm on it. The blood stains may have had nothing to do with those ones which could have been much older.

The forensic examiner of the time was brought back from retirement and revealed that he wasn’t wearing gloves all the time and, furthermore could have transferred so-called evidence to the accused’s car as it was him who collected it and drove it to the lab for testing. :astonished:

The only other evidence was from a female witness who said that she had had a phone conversation with the police at the time in which she says she said that the accused phoned her before the murder and made physical threats against his former wife. But this conversation, with the police, which was written down by them, contained nothing of the alleged threat. When asked why this was the witness put it down to ‘police ineptitude’. Asked why she had not mentioned it to anyone else until 45 years later she could have no explanation.

I expected an aquittal, or at least a ‘not proven’, but no, the jury came back with a unanimous (I think) verdict of guilty. :astonished:

So an 80 something old man was led away to spend a minimum of 30 years behind bars on the flimsiest of evidence. I found it so sad.

6

I think there was also a witness who had told Harrisson how to dismantle the sort of window via which Harrisson was supposed to have gained entry to the victim’s flat. And the jury would also have taken account of the accused’s demeanour.

Murder cases - perhaps because there is no victim’s evidence - sometimes seem to result in convictions on weaker evidence than other serious cases, so I’m not surprised you were left with such an impression.

7

No, it was majority verdict. Which in itself speaks volumes.

If I were in the room, I would be asking why it took 45 years to bring the case. Itself spells flimsy. And then pretty well everything brought up by the prosecution was easily discounted by the defence. However I saw much in the defendent that makes me think he was capable, so I would have gone ‘not proven’ rather than not guilty…

And what this significance of the nephew about to cry at every turn being made the star of the show? I was waiting for one his family to shove a dummy in his mouth :slightly_smiling_face:

8

I don’t remember that witness, which is strange because it would seem to be the most damning evidence of all, but even accepting that it is hardly proof enough to condemn a man, the word of one person alone. And was that evidence given at the time of the murder, or the time of the trial?

As far as a defacto lower level of proof required simply because no victim is available is a theory I haven’t seen put before. If anything, the seriousness of the act would seem to encourage more leniency unless, as you say, the demeanor of the accused in court is, concsiously or otherwise, taken into account. In this case Harrisons demeanor might be down to his expectancy of aquittal due to the lack of proof. I must admit though that he seemed unfazed by the verdict, but that shouldn’t be taken into account as being after the event. I was surprised though that no appeal was mentioned so must assume that one was not made so perhaps he accepted his fate through guilt.

@Adam1 . Yes, the 45 year gap is extraordinary, you would have thought that the evidence known at the time of the offence, especially the forensic scientist’s of the day, would have been sufficient. Instead, the revealing of the shortcomings of his evidence at the trial in the light of modern custom and practice should have ruled out the later trial altogether.

I don’t say that ‘not proven’ should have been the result in my opinion, but admit that that was what I was half expecting, but certainly not the guilty one.

One more thing concerns me. We did not see the whole of the trial, or at least perhaps not in the correct sequence. I was very surprised by the numerous camera angles employed and also the fact that the summings up of the 2 lawyers was interspersed instead of one after the other in entierety.

I have never attended a trial, (apart from my own speeding ones in the days before proper evidence was available) and would have liked to but the opportunity never arose. I was once called for jury service and, unlike many people who look on it as a disruptive nuisance, would have looked forward to it eagerly. However, I never got in the box, they obviously call many more than they need and a large number of us were sent home as being not needed. My Dad once was on a jury in a murder case but I can’t remember now if they found the prisoner guilty or not. I never questioned him and I wonder now if his reluctance to talk about it meant that they had returned a guilty verdict, in the the days of capital punishment.

9

I’m sorry if I gave that impression because (as you kindly didn’t say) it’s nonsensical! The same standard of proof applies in all criminal cases: beyond reasonable doubt.

The standard judicial direction for this as set out in the Jury Manual is “….a doubt, arising from the evidence, based on reason, not on sympathy or prejudice, or on some fanciful doubt or theoretical speculation. It’s the sort of doubt that would make you pause or hesitate before taking an important decision in the practical conduct of your own lives. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is less than certainty, but it’s more than a suspicion of guilt, and more than a probability of guilt. This doesn’t mean that every fact has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. What it means is that, looking at the evidence as a whole, you’ve to be satisfied of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

What I was labouring to say is that a murder trial is unlike any other, because you cannot hear the evidence of the victim, and much of a trial deals with the testing of what defence has been offered. In the Harrisson case, not only was there no victim’s evidence, but the accused simply said it wasn’t him (I don’t know if he offered an alibi) and left it to the prosecution to prove it. The meat of the trial would have been the challenges to the forensic evidence and arguments about its correct interpretation.

As for the window frame element, I can find it mentioned only in one source, so I may well have let myself be led astray!

What happened to Dr Brenda Page's ex-husband Christopher Harrisson and where is he now? How killer evaded justice for 45 years after murdering his geneticist partner | Daily Mail Online.

10

Yes they do as the lawyers are able to weed out ones who might not suit - ie they do not want them too intelligent…

I too never been called, but wish I had. I had it all planned out following instruction from a legal friend of mine: turn up for the fist call in jeans, trainers and a copy of the Mirror rolled up under your arm and act a bit thick. Then when you are accepted, turn up for the trial in a pinstripe suit with an FT under your arm, and throughout the trial gently shake your head during cross examinations at the same time making a note - this they do not like :rofl:

Back to the TV - I am sure there was not a witness affirming he gave instructions on how to disassemble a window. It would have helped the prosecution if there had been. All they had on their side was a letter and hearsay that she was frightened.

1 Like
11

Ah, I see where you got the, to me, missing ‘evidence’ from now, and btw it does back up my suspicion that we weren’t shown everything, or at least in the correct order, in the tv film of the trial.

The flakes of paint should have been discounted completely in the trial because the defence proved, by the very words of the original forensic scientist, that these could have been transferred to the car by him. He admitted to a lack of glove isolation at the time and also that he had driven the accused’s car afterwards. It is thus highlly believable that he transferred them himself by his lack of modern methods.

The sperm was not denied by the defence but the lawyer defending was able to prove that it could have been there a long time, even through several washes. This was agreed by the modern forensic scientist who gave evidence in the trial. If that sheet was brought to her appartment from her former marital home, something that was not denied by the prosecution, that would explain its presence along wth the blood caused by the murder.

As far as somebody saying that he had explained how to dismantle a window being used as evidence in a subsequent murder is farcical. If my wife happened to be electrocuted in the house and it came to light later that my techie friend down the road had once told me how to re-wire a plug, I would not expect to be tried for murder on the basis of it. Perhaps I’d better be careful what advice I seek in future. :thinking:

It is not just the delay of 45 years that makes me think, but the fact that evidence which would normally have been trusted at the time, was not thought to be damning, even though sloppy forensics was the norm in the day.

Lastly I come back to the so-called police ‘ineptitude’ regarding the writing down of the phone call from a female witness (who had her identity, like some but not all, of the others) disguised. It is amazing, and literally unbelievable, that they would write down the whole of the conversation apart from the bit which alleged previous thought and threat by the accused. How on earth could, even the most stupid plod on the force miss recording only the most important bit? The defence barrister had no hesitation in branding the woman, who did not repeat it for 45 years, as a liar.

I did, as I have mentioned before, find it fascinating, but am still concerned at the lack of complete and sequential evidence in the programme. Time cannot be the excuse, lots of documentaries find no difficulty or lack of time in doing the job properly. Maybe I would have come to a different conclusion that the case was not proved, but I doubt it. :smiley:

Just a thought, do you not think that the oft repeated phrase ‘fled to The Netherlands’, was somewhat over the top and prejudicial? Could he have simply ‘gone’ there to take up other work? But even that did not persuade the original authorities to bring a charge against him. Just for the record, I did not ‘flee’ to France in 1999. I came here to work and live in what I thought was a more congenial place. Fingers crossed that no-one suddenly discovers a murder in Nottingham in September of that year. :rofl:

1 Like
12

I think you’re right. Newspapers tend to make up their minds as to “what really happened” and their reporting is then, consciously or unconsciously, biased.

13

Sorry @Adam1 , I missed your post, for some strange reason I was diiected directy to @Porridge’s reply.

At my call I wore jeans and a evening jacket with the FT under one arm and the Mirror under the other, my feet never touched and I was out the door without further ado. Can’t think why, but I did see some people in schoolmasters’ gowns and funny hats scratching their heads. :wink: :rofl:

Yes, I think you are right, the window removal was not shown in the programme, perhaps they thought it was too far fetched.

1 Like
14

Took me a while to re-discover this thread but what I saw last night on BBC Scotland was the exact opposite to my opinion on the Brenda Page trial.

A 37 year old man was walking home in Renfrew from a pub and then a curry house one night. On the CCTV we saw that he was hit violently from behind and fell, obviously by his posture, already unconscious before he hit the ground. As if that was enough the assaillant hit him several more times as he lay there motionless, and if that wasn’t enough, he was then treated to a savage kicking to his face and head.

It was 45 minutes before he was discovered and an ambulance called, a fact which led to his death in hospital several hours later.

After some months a local man was charged and brought to trial. After pleading not guilty at first he then made a plea bargain to admit to culpable homicide and was sentenced to 9 years. YES, ONLY 9 YEARS. :astonished:

Now if that isn’t savage and deliberate murder I don’t know what is. And in any case what the hell is culpable homicide it it isn’t murder? Hoping some Scottish person may explain the difference for me? :thinking:

BTW, the forensic damning evidence of the victim’s DNA was recovered from the accused’s, very distinctive, trainers, spotted even on a dark and grainy CCTV. the ones that kicked him so hard in the face that his nose and surrounding bones collapsed inwards causing blood in great quantities to be sucked into his lungs.

15

I’m not Scottish :upside_down_face:

but culpable homicide is what we’d call manslaughter in England & Wales: causing death without intending to do so. Murder & Culpable Homicide | Murder Defence Solicitors Glasgow | GLP

However, on your description of what happened, in E&W I would expect a charge of murder rather than manslaughter, because the “intent” element can be satisfied by an intent to cause GBH (as well as death)(Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service), and kicking someone repeatedly in the head with force (because of the injuries you describe) indicates intention to cause GBH.

It seems that in Scots law the intent element can be either to kill or “wicked recklessness” (Murder or Culpable Homicide • Criminal Defence Solicitors).

16

I see, thank you, in that case it only strengthens my opinion of the correct sentence.
Hitting somebody on the head which just happens to cause them to die, I can stretch to CH, but to then go on to hit and kick someone for several minutes in their unconcious state, is intent.

Given the DNA evidence of the shoes being, in my mind so strong, makes me wonder if there were other mitigating circumstances, which we weren’t appraised of, to persuade the authorities to accept the plea bargain. But I can’t see it myself.

17

Here’s another one you may have missed, @David_Spardo

18

No I didn’t, I watched it, and will for the rest of the week. Fascinating to see the various fixed opinions of the jurers after just the preliminary facts are know, from guilty no doubt, to, he must have been treated to an extreme amount of provocation.

At the moment I am fixated on the way the thing is being handled. The juries are in separate sound proof boxes and unaware of each other, but those boxes are side by side in the court. They each must wonder surely when they are addressed by someone who is apparently looking at someone else. Also, they are all in the same building and leave by different exits but, unless one is held back at the end of the day, there must be a fair chance that they will meet as they head to their buses, cars or bars and, as they are all from the same locality, what are the chances of meeting someone they know from the other jury and, although they aren’t supposed to discuss matters, what are the chances of one saying ‘Oh fancy seeing you here, what are you doing?’ To which the reply might be ‘serving on a jury but I can’t talk about it’ followed by the other saying ‘that’s funny, so am I and do you know what, it is very strange that the judge and others are not looking at us when they talk to us’ followed by ‘funny you should say that’ etc…

So, not sure how they can keep it a secret without some form of cross contamination, but will be interesting to see.

One other thing. Although names have been changed, this is based on a real case and, I would have thought at least one of them will recognise it from the facts presented, and thus might know the real outcome.

So far I am in the ‘I want to see if there was extreme provocation’ camp before I make my mind up. Knowing as I do my own occasional rage and that of others.

19

I was the foreman of a jury once in a county court and was staggered by the stupidity of many of my fellow jurors who were unable to follow a fairly simple argument. Explaining things to them was worse than dealing with freshers.