Murder, Mystery and My Family (2018–…): Season 1, Episode 1 - Episode #1.1 - full transcript

The British justice system

is the envy of the world.

But in the past, mistakes have been made.

Between the year 1900 and the year 1964,

approximately 800 people were hanged in

the United Kingdom.

Many of those desperately
protested their innocence.

Some of these
long standing convictions,

could be a miscarriage of justice.

She's received most of the
blows, in this position,

once she's already bleeding.



In this
series, a living relative

will attempt to clear their family name.

If the barrister's identify
the miscarriage of justice.

That would make my day.

Searching for new evidence.

I can make the 32, fire both calibers.

With help from two of the UK's

leading barristers, one for the defense.

This is a very worrying case,

I think the evidence is very suspect.

And one for the prosecution.

I'm still of the view that this was

a cogent case of murder, committed during

the course of a robbery.



They are on a
mission to solve the mystery.

Submitting their findings
to a Crown Court judge.

There is a real risk that there

has been a miscarriage of justice here.

I will look again at the evidence

in light of the arguments that
you both have put before me.

Can this modern investigation

re-write history?

On the 22nd December
1935, Frederick Bryant

became ill after supper,

complaining of severe stomach pains.

Fred was brought to the
nearest hospital in Sherborne,

but it was too late, he died within hours.

It looked like a simple
case of gastroenteritis,

but it was discovered that Fred's body

contained high levels of arsenic.

It seemed Fred had been poisoned.

Suspicion immediately fell
of Fred's wife, Charlotte.

On the 10th February 1936,
Charlotte was arrested

and charged with the
murder of her husband.

By May, she was facing a
judge and a jury of 12 men.

She was found guilty
and sentenced to death.

Charlotte Bryant was executed

on Wednesday the 15th of July 1936,

at Exeter jail.

Now 80 years later,
Charlotte's son, William,

and her grandson David, are
desperate to learn the truth.

Charlotte Bryant was my grandmother,

I didn't know who my
grandmother was until I was

in my mid-thirties.

Do you remember when you first told me?

Yeah.

Father's Day, driving along.

That's right.

All of the family in
the car and I ended up

doing a skid, I think, when you told me.

It was only when mom prompted me,

she said you've gotta tell them.

With their father murdered

and their mother hanged,
the five Bryant children

were put into an orphanage
and told nothing of the crime.

The first I knew was when
I read it in the paper,

in 1964.

Up until then, I knew nothing whatsoever,

it was completely out the blue.

I couldn't really believe
what I was reading.

How do you feel about going through

all of the case with this dad?

Just, a bit nervous about it all.

It'll be a fantastic result
if the barrister's actually,

Oh absolutely.

Identify that there's been
a miscarriage of justice.

That would make my day, that would, yeah.

Although I never knew mother at all,

I would like to think she was innocent,

that would be a nice,

well fairytale ending.

The case built against Charlotte

was a salacious one, based on
stories of lust and jealousy.

But was it a miscarriage of justice?

The two things that really struck me was

the lack of, what I would
call, real, hard evidence.

It just seems to be, very circumstantial.

And she was, I guess, an easy target

because she was illiterate,
she was an outsider,

it just looks like it was a easy fix

to hang it on my grandmother.

Charlotte went to her death

claiming her innocence.

But can a modern legal
team discover the truth?

Jeremy Dein QC has been
a defense barrister

for over 30 years,
specializing in serious crime.

Examining this case for the
prosecution is Sasha Wass,

who has a particular
interest in cases based on

medical or scientific evidence.

David has traveled to London
to meet the barristers

who will be re-investigating
his grandmothers case.

I'm very nervous
with meeting the barristers,

I'm worried there could
be even more weight

to the fact that she's guilty.

My name's Jeremy.

Hello Jeremy,
very pleased to meet you.

Hello David, Sasha.

Hello Sasha, hello there.

My role is to look at
your grandmother's case

from the point of view
of a defense lawyer.

And hopefully to identify
new grounds on which

to re-open the case.

I'm looking at this case from
the prosecution prospective,

but that doesn't mean I'm approaching this

in order to uphold these
convictions at all costs,

quite the opposite.

If new material comes to
light that throws doubt

on to the conviction of your grandmother,

I will put that forward before the judge,

in order that the right
conclusion is reached.

Just picking up on that,
why is it important

to you now, to establish,
if it wasn't her,

that that's the case?

I think it would be
closure for the family,

my father, it's turned
his life upside down,

as it did his brothers and sisters.

And I think it would
be good for the family

to know and understand it,
so that we can move on.

Lets say the case got stronger,

you're ready for that turn of events?

Certainly we've talked
through that with my father,

and I've talked to him long and hard about

well dad, once they actually
start looking at this,

it may be that, you know,
it's easy for them to say

no I'm really sorry but this -

That she did it.

That she did it, yeah.

But, I think the chance
is worth taking for us.

So we will let you know how we get on.

Excellent, thank you very much.

Okay.

They seem very professional barristers.

I do genuinely feel that they will look at

any new evidence that they can,

they will look at the existing evidence

and see if there's a way
that it could of been viewed

in a different way and they'll
come to the right conclusion.

David's grandmother, Charlotte,

was born in 1903.

She met Frederick Bryant
while he was a tour of duty

in her homeland of Northern Ireland.

And she accompanied him
when he returned to England.

The couple married in Somerset, in 1922.

As an outsider in the tight
knit farming community

in Sherborne, Dorset where they settled,

Charlotte was viewed with suspicion.

Rumors began to circulate
that the young Irish woman

was entertaining local men for money.

Fred Bryant has suffered
from stomach complaints

on several occasions in
the months leading up

to his death.

The laborer often handled
arsenic in his work on the farm

but it was alleged, that
his death was the result

of deliberate poisoning.

This is not a strong case.

She was hanged for the
murder of her husband,

on what can only be described,

as highly circumstantial evidence.

The starting point for
me is that her character

played a major part in the trial.

She was portrayed as a low-life,

someone without any morals,
by way of starting point,

that is a really dangerous
platform for the case

to proceed on.

This case was very thin indeed.

I'm concerned about the cause of death,

was Fred poisoned or did
he die of gastric problems

which had besieged him for some time?

What was the motive in this case?

Effectively the prosecution
relied, largely,

on a vilification of her character

and wouldn't be allowed nowadays.

Whether
Charlotte was responsible

for his death, or he
accidentally consumed arsenic,

Fred Bryant died in tragic circumstances,

leaving his family desuetude.

It's just along that lane there.

Fred was buried
in an unmarked grave

in Sherborne Cemetery.

And his son and grandson, have
come to pay their respects.

I found out where my

grandfather was buried,

and also understood that

he died a pauper,

so therefore, he's not
in a particular grave,

it's just in a area of land.

And I'm sure,
that's the urn I can remember.

I'm sure that's it.

Absolutely.

So that's where my grandfather is then.

Yep, yeah.

Dear dad, you're down there..

But you're always in our thoughts,

God bless you.

People can talk about family
tragedies that happened

a long, long time ago.

But this for me is my grandfather

and is actually very close,

but going on this journey is helping me

fill in some of the blanks.

I wish I'd brought some
flowers now, to be honest.

I think my father wanted to see it

but I'm not sure he was
looking forward to it.

You all right dad?

Yeah.

The fact that, we were
together and that were able

to experience it together,
I think helped him.

What motive
could Charlotte have had

for killing her husband?

The prosecution suggested that it was

Charlotte's affection for
her lodger, Leonard Parsons.

This is not a love triangle in the way

that one might imagine it.

Certainly Charlotte had had an affair

with Leonard Parsons under
the nose of her husband,

who didn't seem to care at all.

That was over well

before

December 1935

and Charlotte made it plain in court

she was not interested in
having a life with him.

She wanted to stay with her husband,

he provided her with a roof over her head,

he looked after the children.

So I don't see the motive,

which was put forward by the
prosecution as being viable.

Yeah, it's not just the absence of motive,

she knew that she'd be much
worse off by killing him,

she'd of lost her house and
ended up in the workhouse,

so, in fact, the evidence militates in

the opposite direction.

That's a matter of real concern isn't it?

Yes, I agree, I agree.

The barristers
have already thrown doubt

on Charlotte's potential motive.

The verdict in 1936 however,
had a devastating impact

on the five Byrant children,
as William is all too aware.

He and David have returned to
the orphanage he called home.

Which was your bedroom?

I was in this end first,
this is the junior end.

I can't remember whether it
was there or that diagonal.

but that's all dormitory up there.

Right.

And there would of been at
least 50 boys in there, yeah.

This photograph would
be been you on the day

that you got brought
in Dad, and that's you.

That's me.

Yeah.

That's Uncle Eric.

Yeah.

But Sam, as I knew him.

Auntie Mary, as I knew her.

And Uncle George.

Right.

And that was Bobby.

Right.

I call them those names
cause that's how I knew them.

Yeah, yeah.

Nothing else, you know.

Whatever the
truth about the murder,

the Bryant siblings lives,

were catastrophically changed forever.

Because Mary and Eric were older,

so they were put into the
senior girls, senior boys.

But Bobby went over that side,

cause the nursery was that side.

Right okay.

But me being my age, I
was put in the juniors

and from that time on,

I really never saw them again.

No.

William and his
siblings were never adopted.

And spent their entire
childhoods in the orphanage.

William met his future
wife Margaret at the home,

and they were married soon after

leaving Mullers as teenagers.

The first recollection I have of mom was,

we were out playing in the fields.

I was climbing up this tree,

and she shouted at me,

you're being silly, you're
gonna fall any minute

I remember those words now,

so I came down, sat down
and that was the first time

I ever met mom and had a good chat to her.

Right.

Yep.

It's nice for me to see
my father opening up

about the good things that happened.

But clearly, the reason he was here,

their father being murdered
and then their mother hanging,

it absolutely ripped the family apart.

But I think what this is
doing is allowing us to talk

about the good things that have

come out of his time here, as apposed to,

just focusing on the bad things.

The luck of meeting
Margaret, as I knew her then,

mom, was, to me now,

heaven on earth.

Yep.

Medical experts at the time,

were convinced that Fred's
illness' had been caused

by deliberate arsenic poisoning.

The Bryant property was searched.

And a selection of old tins
and bottles were found,

including a burnt out tin.

That would become very
significant to the investigation.

Jeremy, the next thing we
really ought to look at

is the cause of death
because the Pathologist

found

arsenic

in Fred Bryant's body

and the prosecution case was
not that this was accidental,

but that Charlotte deliberately
administered poison.

Now the only person

who said that Charlotte

had anything to do with
arsenic was Lucy Ostler,

a friend and she said that
there was tin of weed killer

and after Fred had died,

Charlotte said I must get rid of it.

Now in order to bolster up Lucy's account,

the prosecution retrieved a tin,

it's the middle tin that was
retrieved from the fireplace.

Prosecution tried to say well look,

it matches weed killer, we
really need to look at that.

The thing is, all of
this is highly technical.

So it's very important that we look

at all of these questions very thoroughly.

It may be that that's the way
we can take the case forward.

What I suggest we do, is find an expert

to explain to us what
quantities of arsenic

are involved in this case,

and whether this item really

is an incriminating as the
prosecution try to suggest.

David and his father William,

are visiting the farm house in Dorset

where Charlotte and Frederick lived

with their five young children.

William has not set foot inside
the house in over 80 years.

And look, see there,

the chimneys still there
look, still the same chimney.

Can you remember anything about this area

when you were small?

Cause you were only, what,

four when you were here weren't you?

Four, yeah, just a vague
memory of being outside

and dad was with me, he told me to be good

and stay that side of the gate

cause he was getting the cattle in.

I obviously climbed over
and the next minute I saw

this cow, bull, whatever
it was, charging at me

and dad just picked me up
and threw back over again.

Coming back to the house,

I can't remember very much about it.

There were seven of us living there,

mother and father, five children.

So there must of been quite a
squash with only two bedrooms.

Despite the
limited living space,

Charlotte and Fred took
in guests on occasion.

Leonard Parsons lodged with the family

until November 1935.

And Lucy Ostler, Charlotte's close friend,

stayed at the cottage on
the night before Fred died.

Here's a photograph
of the kitchen, dad..

And that, that cupboard
there, is that one there.

Even though I didn't realize it,

it's a very important site
in my family's history

because the fact that an
incident happened here,

whether it was natural causes
or whether it was a murder,

It put my father and all
of his brothers and sister

in to the Muller Orphanage.

And it then started a
completely different life,

than they ever thought
they were gonna have.

One of the key witnesses

who helped to link Charlotte
to the possession of arsenic,

was her best friend, Lucy Ostler.

But Jeremy has some doubts

about the truth of her statements.

Lucy Ostler gave some very,
very damaging evidence.

She said that Charlotte
went to the cupboard

and on the bottom shelf
she saw a large tin

marked weed killer.

She said that Charlotte
picked it up and said, quote

"I must get rid of this."

Why did Lucy Ostler give this evidence?

And what reason might
she of had for lying?

Well I can help you,

because looking at the transcript of her

evidence at trial, it was put to her

that she was frightened when
she spoke to the police.

And what's Charlotte's council said

is that the police were
questioning you, were they not?

Yes, said Lucy.

Did you know they were digging
around your husband's grave?

No.

She's then asked about her husband who

had died some four years previously.

And that there was some sort of suggestion

that the police were pressurizing Lucy

and threatening her with looking into

her husband's premature death.

And it was a result of that pressure,

that Lucy came up with this
account about that tin.

On the basis of that information,

Lucy Ostler clearly had a motive

for lying about Charlotte Bryant.

So this is potentially
a very important area

for us to focus on.

Yes.

I think so because other than Lucy Ostler,

there is no connection
between Charlotte Bryant

and any arsenic.

At the Dorset History Center,

David is joined by local
journalist Roger Gutteridge.

Who has an insight into
Charlotte's conviction.

In the form of a flamboyant
and wealthy excentric,

who championed her cause.

There were people at the
time who had serious doubts

about it, as a conviction,
are you aware of that?

No I wasn't.

He has some information to share

about one of Charlotte's
fiercest defenders,

Violet Van der Elst.

Violet Van der Elst was
a leading campaigner

against capital punishment.

Yes.

And she seems to of taken
this case under her wing,

in quite a big way.

Born to a
washerwoman and a coal porter,

Violet Van der Elst made her fortune

by inventing Shavex,

the world's first
brush-less shaving cream.

She traveled to Exeter, spoke
in public in the streets,

campaigning for Charlotte's reprieve,

claimed there was evidence
that she was innocent.

And saying slogans like
don't take two lives for one.

The prolific campaigner

would rally support outside
prisons up and down the country.

Calling for the abolition
of the death penalty.

She would hire a brass band,
to play the Death March

and planes would fly overhead,
trailing black flags.

On the morning of the
execution at Exeter prison,

there were 4000 people gathered outside

and she arrived driving her Rolls Royce,

with her chauffer sitting beside her.

Obviously she didn't
entrust this task to him,

and there was a police cordon with a rope,

she drove straight through
it, straight through the rope.

The policemen scattered and was arrested

and ended up in court
herself and was fined £5.

Right.

Violet Van der Elst died

almost penniless in 1966,
one year after her goal

was realized and capital
punishment was outlawed.

Roger's research has also unearthed

some personal documents from
Charlotte's time in prison,

where she learnt to read and
write for the first time.

Here is that letter with
Charlotte's signature

so maybe, you can have a look at that.

This is the letter that
my grandmother dictated?

Yes, and then signed.

And was.

And it's got
her name at the bottom.

Wow.

It's quite moving I think,

the last thing she wrote

and almost the first thing she wrote

was actually her plea for mercy.

It's actually really
difficult for me to read.

Do you want me to read it?

Yeah, thank you.

She says, sir my I respectfully beg

for your mercy in my case.

The date of my execution has been fixed

for Wednesday next, July the 15th.

And I am not guilty of the
offense I am charged with.

I humbly beg for the sake
of my little children

to spare my life.

I remain yours respectfully,
Charlotte Bryant.

And that is thought to be the last time

she wrote her name because she

had only just learnt to write.

Very emotional, I didn't
think I would feel like this

but certainly seeing the
letters that had been written

on my grandmothers behalf
and still maintaining

her innocence and also seeing her letter,

that was hand signed by her,

it's a very difficult part
of the journey I have to say.

I was aware that a
letter had been dictated,

but I never thought that I'd ever see it.

Can modern forensic science sift

through the evidence to dispute

Charlotte's guilt verdict?

Jeremy and Sasha enlist medical
historian Sandra Hemple,

to look at the use of poison in this era

and it's infamy as a woman's
weapon of choice in murder.

We hear a lot of accounts
of arsenic being used

as a poison in the late

19th and first half of the 20th Century.

But not nowadays, why is that?

There just isn't arsenic around nowadays,

it's not easy obtainable
in the way that it was.

I mean, it was all really people had

as something to control rats and mice,

as a pesticide, as an insecticide,

so it was used very, very
widely in homes and on the land.

And what did it look like?

I mean, what sort of form would it be in?

Well, when they talk
about arsenic as a poison,

they actually mean arsenic trioxide.

And that's a very harmless
looking white powder.

Can you taste it?

I mean, if you accidentally
have some arsenic

in a spoon full of sugar,
would you know that?

No, no you really wouldn't.

And not only is it
tasteless, it dissolves,

or rather disperses very
easily in warm food and drink.

And how easy is it,

would it be for someone to
be poisoned accidentally?

Might he of, you know, over the years,

absorbed or consumed so much arsenic as to

die of arsenic poisoning,
without any deliberate

effort to kill him?

In theory he could, I think
it's very, very unlikely

because very unlikely that
he would be the only person.

Have you come across cases of
accidental death by arsenic?

Not from the environment
in that very long,

slow, drawn out process,
which is what it would be.

Right.

And why do you think
it's known as the woman's

weapon of choice?

Well poison generally was
known as women's weapon

of choice because it's seen to be rather,

duplicitous and sneaky
and there was a perception

in the 19th Century that
that's what women were like.

And then there was the question of,

women were always in
charge of the sick room

and the kitchen.

So they would have access to people's food

and people's medicine.

Yeah, so someone like Charlotte Bryant,

who's character was vilified.

She'd also have to battle in a trial

against the prejudice
that a woman like her

might be more liable to poison
their husband and a man,

- would you agree with that?
- Absolutely,

No absolutely, absolutely.

Fred suffered
repeated incidents of

vomiting and diarrhea,
along with muscle cramps.

All classic symptoms
of exposure to arsenic.

Now that they know that it's unlikely

that Fred's work as a
farmhand would have been

the cause of his fatal
arsenic consumption,

Jeremy and Sasha have asked
Toxicologist David Osselton,

to assist them in analyzing
the cause of Fred's death.

You've seen the postmortem report,

what are your feelings
about the conclusions

drawn in that report?

Arsenic was detected in
a number of the tissues,

and put together with all
of the case circumstances,

the analyst at the time,
Doctor Roche Lynch,

came up with the conclusion that this was

death by arsenic poisoning.

And do you agree with that?

Certainly the presence of high
concentrations of arsenic,

and some of the signs
and symptoms that were

observed would fit that diagnosis, yes.

We know from the Pathologist report

that four grains of arsenic,
as it's been described,

was recovered from Fred's body.

In terms of modern weights
and measures, what is a grain?

A grain is approximately 65 milligrams.

Right.

And in terms of what it looks like,

would it be more than a
teaspoon, less than a teaspoon?

Four grains?

Yes.

Would be probably about a teaspoon full.

So not something that could be ingested

just by maybe, having
contact with a surface

and then putting it in your mouth?

Oh no, it would definitely be a quantity

that was introduced into the body.

Following on from that, the tin,

that I think we have photographed here.

Are you able to say whether
it is more likely than not

to of contained arsenic from
the testing that's been done?

But there was a test undertaken,

on scraping that came out of the tin.

The inside of the tin.

From the inside of the tin,

and that was shown to
contain a very significant

concentration of arsenic.

So what does that tell you?

Well it would indicate that
the tin had contained arsenic.

Rather than golden syrup?

Rather than golden syrup, absolutely yes.

Can I just ask one other question?

We know that arsenic can be detected,

if it's been ingested in the
body in a person's fingernails.

Is that something that was
present in this case or not?

Fingernails were analyzed and arsenic

was detected in them.

Now that's an interesting
point because fingernails

grow quite slowly, it's about a third

of a centimeter a month.

So that could, potentially,
be from earlier doses.

So the fingernail arsenic,
if I can call it that,

suggested what?

It suggests that arsenic had been ingested

perhaps sometime before hand.

Thank you very much.

I was concerned originally about

the cause of death in this case.

Having spoken to the Toxicologist,

it seems quite clear that this
was a deliberate poisoning.

The poison in question being arsenic,

so cause of death has pretty
much been locked down.

I'm also interested in previous

attempts at poisoning

which is suggested from
the fingernail evidence,

and although this is not conclusive,

it dovetails with the previous bouts,

of what was considered at the time,

to be gastroenteritis,
which now may way well

be attempts at poisoning.

The tin evidence is much stronger
than I originally thought,

it's now clear that it contained
large amounts of arsenic.

So all in all, the toxicological evidence

leads me to suggest that the
prosecution case is stronger

than I originally considered it to be.

I was particularly
interested in what Sandra,

the medical historian, had
to say about the concept

of poison being regarded
as a woman's weapon.

And the prejudice that would have resulted

in the direction of Charlotte
Bryant as a consequence

and so that was very useful.

On the question of the toxicologist,

and I have to accept, as things stand,

that aspects of his evidence
reinforce the probability

that this was a deliberate
case of poisoning.

But of course, that doesn't
rule out Lucy Ostler,

or anybody else.

As David and
William come to the end

of their exploration of
their family's story,

they visit Charlotte's final
resting place, Exeter Prison.

This is where my grandmother hung,

back in July 1936..

She was also buried here
in unconsecrated ground

and I think for me, this
is gonna be the most

difficult part of the journey.

And I'm absolutely sure it's gonna be

the most difficult part of
the journey for my father.

There you are mom.

I never knew you love, but
you'll always be with me,

in my heart, forever.

I'll never forget you.

It's more emotional than
I thought it was gonna be,

it's putting in to context,
how times have changed,

in every respect.

Whether it be for five children
that were left parent-less,

whether it was circumstantial
evidence that put together

for a conviction,

and then the hanging

and a burial in
unconsecrated ground within

the grounds of a prison.

It's all, a massive journey.

How do you say goodbye to
somebody you never knew?

You just hold it in your
heart and live with it.

Although they were his mother and father,

he never knew them, so the
bond that you get with someone,

when you actually know
them and you can see them

and touch them and talk
to them, you develop.

Where as if you haven't really known them,

there's a massive piece of
the jigsaw that's missing.

I love you mom..

I didn't have much time with you.

I think he's suppressed lots of feelings

for a very long time.

Blow a kiss to mom.

It's something that
has been in our family,

that hasn't really been talked about

and let's hope that the findings come out

that Charlotte was innocent
and actually none of this

needed to have happened.

With judgment
day fast approaching,

Jeremy has made a startling discovery.

A detailed police report that shows that

Lucy Ostler was interviewed
at least half a dozen times.

And that her statement changed
significantly over time.

Sasha, my concern is this.

That I've seen a police report,

and what that police
report tells us, is quote,

"From the commencement,
Mrs Ostler was regarded

with suspicion.

By the 19th January, it was still plain

that she was holding something back.

And I spent about eight hours with her

and subsequently her demeanor, changed."

And her statement became, he says,

spontaneous and convincing.

There's a stench about this,

probably wouldn't even be
admissible, in the modern time,

as you well know, if there was no record.

No absolutely not.

Wouldn't even see the light of day,

so I don't agree with
the jury when a position

to assess her evidence, in fact,

they were in no position
to assess her evidence

cause they didn't know about
this scenario, it seems.

My feeling about Charlotte Bryant's case

is that it was a weak case.

That she was the obvious suspect,

she was illiterate, vulnerable,

so she was ripe to be wrongly convicted.

At first blush, I thought
this was quite a thin case,

the prosecution evidence
was not very substantial.

We've now interviewed
experts, and I have to say,

my view has changed.

We now know, with some certainty,

that Fred Bryant died as
a result of deliberate

arsenic poisoning.

We also know arsenic
found under the nails,

would give support to the fact that

that the previous incidents
were attempts at poisoning him.

And of course, we know
that the burnt out tin,

did indeed contain arsenic.

I still am of the view that
this was a circumstantial case.

But I'm not sure, from what I've seen,

that this is a miscarriage of justice.

Sasha and Jeremy
have apposing arguments

to put before Judge David Radford,

who will give his view as to
whether the original verdict

was safe or unsafe.

For William and David however,

today marks the end of
a very personal look

into their family's tragic past.

I was 35 when I first
found out about this,

so I'm really looking forward to hearing

if there's anything new,

and it would be a fantastic situation,

we find out the Charlotte was innocent.

They can't overturn what's gone on before,

I'll have to accept that.

And I'm just hoping, hoping,

that the outcome will
be a little different.

Obviously, we are going to both be

putting forward the
arguments to the judge.

Neither of us know how
the judge will rule,

it's a complete mystery
to us as it is to you.

But do you feel able to
deal with the process?

Oh yes, I think so -

It's bound to be stressful.

Between then and now

and I've gathered myself together again.

Right, all right.

Judge David Radford,

will treat Jeremy and Sasha's submissions

as he would a real case.

And he will give his expert
opinion, based on the evidence.

We are here today, so that I can consider

the safety of the conviction of Mrs Bryant

for murder of her husband.

It's going to be my task now

to hear the submissions
of learned counsel,

as to whether or not that conviction is,

arguably, unsafe.

Now, Mr Dein, on behalf of the defense,

do you wish to make
submissions about the matter?

Yes, Your Honor, please.

What has emerged in the
course of this inquiry

is a 54 page police report.

Now, it's my submission
that this material,

evidently not available to the defense,

shows that all of Lucy Ostler's statements

were the product of
unrecorded police questioning.

Therefore, one will never
know how her statement's

came about.

Secondly, the vital weed
killer tin statement,

on the 19th January,
was the direct product

of a whole day of unrecorded
discussion with police.

That's eight hours.

Thirdly, how is it, in the
course of that eight hour period,

Lucy Ostler's statement
changed completely?

So in conclusion,

had this material been
available to the jury,

the jury's verdict might
have been different.

My submission is that there is a real risk

that there has been a
miscarriage of justice here.

Thank you very much Mr Dein.

And Mrs Wass, do you wish to respond?

Yes.

Your Honor, may I take

you back to the scientific
evidence in this case?

Because we have the
opportunity of taking advice

from a toxicologist.

And what has emerged, is the following.

Firstly,

that the deceased died as a result

of a deliberate ingestion of arsenic.

Secondly, the tin, that
was so controversial,

did indeed contain quite
large traces of arsenic.

And the third point that
David Osselton made,

which is highly significant,

is that the deceased fingernails indicated

that there had been previous
episodes of arsenic poisoning.

And most importantly,
the jury saw Mrs Ostler,

they were able to assess her credibility.

And contrary to what
Mr Dein has submitted,

this was not cursory cross examination,

this was very forceful.

So for those reasons

and with regret,

we fundamentally disagree
with the submissions

made my Mr Dein.

Thank you Mrs Wass.

Well I shall take time now to
evaluate those submissions.

And then shortly will give
my judgment about the matter.

David and
William are hoping the judge

will agree with Jeremy's submission.

That Charlotte's conviction was unsafe.

Did someone deliberately
poison Fred Bryant?

Was his wife the only
suspect considered by police?

Did the prosecutions key witness,

change her story under pressure?

The judge is now ready
to give his verdict.

I have now had an
opportunity of considering

the helpful submissions made
by both leading counsel.

It is now my duty to make
clear my view of this matter.

One has to look at the disclosure,

which was not made,

in the context

on the report itself.

In the report, passage
referring to Mrs Ostler

holding something back,
that was of course,

an opinion expressed by a police officer,

at one point in time.

It's also to be noted that
the suspicion harbored

by the police at the commencement,

in relation of Mrs Ostler.

The report itself goes on to say,

was lessened at time went on

because the information she did supply,

was capable of corroboration.

And that her statement that she made,

was spontaneous and convincing.

Of course, eight hours is a long time,

for a statement to be taken,

but there is no evidence
here of any lack of integrity

by the police.

So I have concluded that the disclosure

really would not of assisted the defense

in any proper and real way.

Overall, this was, undoubtedly,

a very strong case in my
view, against the defendant.

It was, as it always is,
a matter for the jury

to determine where the truth lay

and whether they were
satisfied of the accused guilt.

They were so satisfied and in my judgment,

there is nothing now,
which properly, legally,

could recommend, to me..

to reinvestigate this conviction.

I shall rise.

Mixed emotions really,

because either the evidence was
gonna be sound or not sound,

and either way there was
gonna be awkward feelings

because if she was not guilty,

then her life was taken in vein,

if she is guilty, then,

we've got a murderer in the family

and either way it was
gonna be very difficult.

Bye bye, bye bye, nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you both.

It was a very different
disclosure regime in the 1930's,

but the judge took the view
that even if the defense

had been provided with that report,

it actually wouldn't of helped them,

and wouldn't of made any
difference to the case.

So I'm not all together surprised

by the verdict of the judge.

I think at the start it
seemed to be going our way,

in actual fact..

but half-way through the tide turned

I'm afraid and I began to accept the fact

that what went on before,

well I suppose, was the truth.