Hahaha that's me on the jury sat at the front with a denim jacket...my sister worked for Granada TV back in the 80s she said I could have all the food I can eat and £30 I said why not...
Found the defendant (17 years of age) too smooth with his answers, never an hesitation..Was it possible in 1982 to elicit what time the call was placed for the ambulance? I believe that he knw exactly what effect the mushrooms would have on his stepmother. This is a stellar series, grand scripts, great acting, beautifully spoken English, humour, has all the hallmarks of great English Drama. Thank you for posting.
Both Hugh Fraser and Jeremy Child were in Sharpe's Enemy playing Lord Wellington and Sir Augustus Farthingdale respectively. The clips are on youtube. It's interetsing to see them sparing in both programmes.
Despite the defendant being such a cocky little sod (probably takes after his father in that respect!), I was surprised that there was no mention of accidental death. His whole defence revolved around the mistaken identity of the mushrooms. The suggestion of manslaughter from the Judge seemed to come from nowhere! Cocky or not, it seems a reasonable scenario that it was a confluence of unfortunate circumstances - the fading light making the red staining less obvious, the haste that he wanted to get to his chess club, his somewhat arrogant certainty that he had identified St George's mushrooms. Onus of proof on the prosecution - who at times seemed to me to be clutching at straws - innocent until proved guilty...
A confluence of circumstances could otherwise be termed circumstantial evidence, and consistent circumstantial evidence can, and does, convict people. It's a question of probabilities. One supposed unfortunate circumstance piling on top of another, can eventually reach the point, where the chance of innocence is pretty remote.
It's some time since I saw this storyline, but I was surprised by the verdict. Yes, he was an irritating young pup, but I felt there was sufficient doubt in the case.
Absolutely, the judge's instructions to the jury left them with 2 possibilities, murder or manslaughter, but it ought to have been 3, including not guilty.
SPOILER ALERT. Don't read this until you have watched the programme. I have to say I am surprised at the verdict. I don't think it was proven or even indicated that he intended to make her ill. It was just a suggestion thrown into the mix by the judge. Although the defendant came across as a smug git, I don't think the verdict was a fair one.
I thought he was guilty (of murder), and I suppose that the judge thought so too, which is why he pointed the jury in that direction, and gave the manslaughter option in case they couldn't bring themselves to convict him of murder.
I think it was the field book evidence that went against him. He came across as someone who would likely be a bit of an "anorak" whatever his chosen hobby was .He got off quite lightly with the actual verdict. Might the character have been based upon Graeme Young?
I must say, sir, that the charge which the defendant was found guilty of, is *manslaughter*. It differs greatly from the charge of murder by the fact that there was no intent; one might say, accidental.
Absolutely. Writer Glenn Chandler is a well-known aficionado of historical killers having written films on William Palmer, George Joseph Smith, and John George Haigh. He also created and wrote several episodes of "Taggart".
This is the mushroom in question - I have the video on Watch Later and will do so - but, as I recall from seeing it on telly at the time, this is the mushroom featured in the episode - the Wikipedia article contains a lot of Latin words: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inocybe_erubescens EDIT: Finally got round to watching it last Sunday - had a pizza while doing so - didn’t have mushrooms on it!
Quite right. You are found guilty on the charge of being a smug git. The sentence of this court is that you be taken from this place to a place of execution.
I would had the same verdict as the jury. Why? The boy said to his friend.....I might have poisoned her, not I might have killed her. He knew what type of mushrooms they were.
Thanks for another great episode...SPOILER ALERT.... The jury were wrong on this one! -- having missed to put any significance on the kid's confession of his guilt. There were a HUGE number of events related that were circumstantial evidence, and it stretched credulity for these to have only been complete coincidences. Amongst the many coincidences, the one that showed he was definitely guilty was his having made a comment to his chess partner, on the same night as his step-mother's death, that he thought he had poisoned his step-mother. The chess partner was a credible witness having related what he said to her, and so his comment to her could not be disputed. Since the kid was adamant he had no knowledge of poisonous mushrooms, nor that he had any reason to believe what he collected in the field was anything other than edible, for him to speak about having poisoned his step-mother was indication of his guilty conscience. For someone who stated unequivocally throughout the trial that he had no need to fear anything about the mushrooms he collected and gave his step-mother to consume, to make any reference to poisoning his step-mother would be suspicious, to say the least. At least he got manslaughter, but he clearly had a pre-meditated plan to introduce his step-mother to eating mushrooms, and then to poison her with ones he would know to be fatally toxic.
The defendant is played by actor David Carlton-Young. He seemed to me a quite capable and good looking actor showing much potential here, but I can't find out anything about him. His IMDB entry has virtually no biography, and lists nothing about him after 1982 in one episode of a thing called 'I remember Nelson". Considering Crown Court had such high standards and was a recognized showcase for many talents, I find it very surprising that his career seems to have come to an abrupt end. Does anyone know anything about him?
Rubbish! Many of us read the comments to get an idea of the story line..for example I have children who like to watch these but some story lines are really inappropriate. Considering it is a long standing and widespread etiquette to use the word spoiler and then scroll down a few lines before writing anything significant that is likely to spoil the viewing pleasure of others it's quite reasonable to assume that decent people will honour that. It's a very small effort to make and the viewers of this channel are notable in the politeness of their comments and interactions with each other.. there's always an exception.
@@goodwifelucy5602 you could try reading the description of the episode under the subscribe button before the comments begin , this might help you out .
Demeanour evidence is a Big issue in the judicial system and frankly too much weight is given to It. Tbf in this case there was plenty of other evidence. Pressure can cause people to behave in very different ways. Indeed It was an issue in the Lucy Letby case, her demeanour was used as evidence in a very arbitrary way.
Interesting sidelight on the position of psychiatric medicine at the time. These days the boy would probably be identified as having an autistic spectrum personality. The proposed sentence gives no hope that he would ever get out of institutional care.
School was still open at 10.00 pm at night ? Poor caretaker having to wait around to lock up that late at night and poor teacher(s) having to work late to supervise the students wanting to play chess till that time.
I'm impressed at how meticulously researched this programme is.
And how much barristers have to know
Hahaha that's me on the jury sat at the front with a denim jacket...my sister worked for Granada TV back in the 80s she said I could have all the food I can eat and £30 I said why not...
Excellent episode, I remember watching this as a kid of 11. It got me interested in Fungi.
Have you come across the St. George mushroom? Mushrooms are delicious, but I wouldn't go out and forage for them. I'd rather buy them at the store. 🙂
Wonderful episode. A stellar performance by TP McKenna.
Found the defendant (17 years of age) too smooth with his answers, never an hesitation..Was it possible in 1982 to elicit what time the call was placed for the ambulance? I believe that he knw exactly what effect the mushrooms would have on his stepmother. This is a stellar series, grand scripts, great acting, beautifully spoken English, humour, has all the hallmarks of great English Drama. Thank you for posting.
On the 999 side of things calls were always logged as routine.
Fun to see Hugh Fraser (Hercule Poirot’s Captain Hastings) in such a sympathetic role. He’s a Prince.
Thank you for these posts,Fantastic TV
Bloody hell, that psychiatrist is Captain Hastings of Poirot fame!
I remember watching this with my mum at 12 😂
Me too but a few years older😁😁
@@robinredshanks9096 never forgot the mushroom 🍄 name 😆
Both Hugh Fraser and Jeremy Child were in Sharpe's Enemy playing Lord Wellington and Sir Augustus Farthingdale respectively. The clips are on youtube. It's interetsing to see them sparing in both programmes.
Good one. Classroom in a court. Thanks for posting
Despite the defendant being such a cocky little sod (probably takes after his father in that respect!), I was surprised that there was no mention of accidental death. His whole defence revolved around the mistaken identity of the mushrooms. The suggestion of manslaughter from the Judge seemed to come from nowhere! Cocky or not, it seems a reasonable scenario that it was a confluence of unfortunate circumstances - the fading light making the red staining less obvious, the haste that he wanted to get to his chess club, his somewhat arrogant certainty that he had identified St George's mushrooms. Onus of proof on the prosecution - who at times seemed to me to be clutching at straws - innocent until proved guilty...
Hear hear !
A confluence of circumstances could otherwise be termed circumstantial evidence, and consistent circumstantial evidence can, and does, convict people. It's a question of probabilities. One supposed unfortunate circumstance piling on top of another, can eventually reach the point, where the chance of innocence is pretty remote.
It's some time since I saw this storyline, but I was surprised by the verdict. Yes, he was an irritating young pup, but I felt there was sufficient doubt in the case.
Absolutely, the judge's instructions to the jury left them with 2 possibilities, murder or manslaughter, but it ought to have been 3, including not guilty.
I guess It wasn't credible that he hadn't Heard of the mushroom in question, given he had all those books@@t.p.mckenna
no mention of "beyond any reasonable doubt"???
SPOILER ALERT. Don't read this until you have watched the programme. I have to say I am surprised at the verdict. I don't think it was proven or even indicated that he intended to make her ill. It was just a suggestion thrown into the mix by the judge. Although the defendant came across as a smug git, I don't think the verdict was a fair one.
I thought he was guilty (of murder), and I suppose that the judge thought so too, which is why he pointed the jury in that direction, and gave the manslaughter option in case they couldn't bring themselves to convict him of murder.
I would agree, although my verdict would have been based solely on the fact he was such a horrible smug.little git, lol
I think it was the field book evidence that went against him. He came across as someone who would likely be a bit of an "anorak" whatever his chosen hobby was .He got off quite lightly with the actual verdict. Might the character have been based upon Graeme Young?
I must say, sir, that the charge which the defendant was found guilty of, is *manslaughter*. It differs greatly from the charge of murder by the fact that there was no intent; one might say, accidental.
@@derby1884 Could well be. Young was meticulous in his record-keeping, which led to his first arrest.
Tp mackenna great actor and the voice from Dublin
McKenna is from Co. Cavan not Dublin.
@@MrGranfieldMullagh, Co. Cavan... 👍🏻
I'm going to become househound before long with all this telly to watch lol
Nurse Crippen is a rather unfortunate name for someone dealing with poisons though lol
Salfordric UK No doubt chosen by the script- writer on purpose
Even the judge said so
Absolutely. Writer Glenn Chandler is a well-known aficionado of historical killers having written films on William Palmer, George Joseph Smith, and John George Haigh. He also created and wrote several episodes of "Taggart".
@@matejadjedovic I believe my great great great great grandfather Julian Edward Disbrowe Rodgers was a medical witness in the trial of William Palmer.
I came to the comments in hope that someone might have made the connection that any mycologist would be perceived as a fun guy...
This is the mushroom in question - I have the video on Watch Later and will do so - but, as I recall from seeing it on telly at the time, this is the mushroom featured in the episode - the Wikipedia article contains a lot of Latin words:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inocybe_erubescens
EDIT: Finally got round to watching it last Sunday - had a pizza while doing so - didn’t have mushrooms on it!
Good stuff, and I submit my lord, that the accused is a smug git
Haha!
Haha Was going to post the same - you beat me to it ! He was a rather smarmy sod wasn't he ?
Quite right. You are found guilty on the charge of being a smug git. The sentence of this court is that you be taken from this place to a place of execution.
Glenn Chandler the man who created and gave us Taggart
I would had the same verdict as the jury. Why? The boy said to his friend.....I might have poisoned her, not I might have killed her. He knew what type of mushrooms they were.
Remember not to eat wild fungi unless you can identify them!
He'd be better off giving his step mum a red apple! Arrogant little sod! Many thanks Jez T :)
Thanks for another great episode...SPOILER ALERT....
The jury were wrong on this one! -- having missed to put any significance on the kid's confession of his guilt. There were a HUGE number of events related that were circumstantial evidence, and it stretched credulity for these to have only been complete coincidences. Amongst the many coincidences, the one that showed he was definitely guilty was his having made a comment to his chess partner, on the same night as his step-mother's death, that he thought he had poisoned his step-mother.
The chess partner was a credible witness having related what he said to her, and so his comment to her could not be disputed.
Since the kid was adamant he had no knowledge of poisonous mushrooms, nor that he had any reason to believe what he collected in the field was anything other than edible, for him to speak about having poisoned his step-mother was indication of his guilty conscience. For someone who stated unequivocally throughout the trial that he had no need to fear anything about the mushrooms he collected and gave his step-mother to consume, to make any reference to poisoning his step-mother would be suspicious, to say the least.
At least he got manslaughter, but he clearly had a pre-meditated plan to introduce his step-mother to eating mushrooms, and then to poison her with ones he would know to be fatally toxic.
I knew Arthur, he was a fun guy 🍄
I wish they would show the judge passing sentence in all episodes, not just announce as the credits roll, but did they have the time to do so?
Judges directions not really 100% kosher
Here in Greece this TV series is used in advanced English classes by quite a few colleges.
The defendant is played by actor David Carlton-Young. He seemed to me a quite capable and good looking actor showing much potential here, but I can't find out anything about him. His IMDB entry has virtually no biography, and lists nothing about him after 1982 in one episode of a thing called 'I remember Nelson". Considering Crown Court had such high standards and was a recognized showcase for many talents, I find it very surprising that his career seems to have come to an abrupt end. Does anyone know anything about him?
Sadly, he was bludgeoned to death by Big Vern in “D” Wing two weeks after being sentenced.
Captain Hastings. I say. Good Lord.
Nice hair Tony Chute 😂
I hope that this judge is recording the measurements given!!
My first wife died of mushroom poisoning. My second wife from a gun shot to the head. She wouldn’t eat her mushrooms! 😅
The doctor at 41.45 could play a superb Duke of Wellington.
He played the Duke in the "Sharpe" TV miniseries.
Travelled with the mushroom in the ambulance funny
That lil smug smile got wiped right off his face when the words guilty were said
misscritique66 thanks for the spoiler
Rubbish! Many of us read the comments to get an idea of the story line..for example I have children who like to watch these but some story lines are really inappropriate. Considering it is a long standing and widespread etiquette to use the word spoiler and then scroll down a few lines before writing anything significant that is likely to spoil the viewing pleasure of others it's quite reasonable to assume that decent people will honour that. It's a very small effort to make and the viewers of this channel are notable in the politeness of their comments and interactions with each other.. there's always an exception.
@@goodwifelucy5602 you could try reading the description of the episode under the subscribe button before the comments begin , this might help you out .
Wether you come across this poisoning regularly, should one not carry something that can help alleviate?
Guilty of murder. How much proof is sufficient motive ? Some murderers in death camps had even less motive !
What about the yellow staining mushroom
Demeanour evidence is a Big issue in the judicial system and frankly too much weight is given to It.
Tbf in this case there was plenty of other evidence.
Pressure can cause people to behave in very different ways.
Indeed It was an issue in the Lucy Letby case, her demeanour was used as evidence in a very arbitrary way.
Very entertaining.
Interesting sidelight on the position of psychiatric medicine at the time. These days the boy would probably be identified as having an autistic spectrum personality. The proposed sentence gives no hope that he would ever get out of institutional care.
School was still open at 10.00 pm at night ? Poor caretaker having to wait around to lock up that late at night and poor teacher(s) having to work late to supervise the students wanting to play chess till that time.
What is the remedy for this poison
An antidote could be administered
I suppose T P McKenna must have given a dud performance or two in his time, but I never saw them.
I don't agree with the verdict. Completely wrong. He was either guilty of murder or not guilty. I believe beyond a reasonable doubt the former.
YES and why 'detained at Her Majesties oleasure'? that's worse than a life sentance for murder:
Enjoy
Poison was always supposed too be a woman's weapon
Did you not do your job properly then doctor? Checking for heart problems?? Obviously you are trained are you not?
french
Never seen this program for donks thanks