The ITV Drama

[Jane]

of course it can have glowing reviews for the acting ,the  cinematography the representation of what the people involved actually felt because its easy to forget that.

But if it misses out vital facts then i think we should all be entitled to critisise .


Lets wait and see .

What we may see as being "vital facts" all these years on, is something other than representing only what happened in a short window of time in 1985, ie,  they're unlikely to show anything prior to Jeremy's phone call to the police or the alleged conversation round the supper table.

[Jan]

What we may see as being "vital facts" all these years on, is something other than representing only what happened in a short window of time in 1985, ie,  they're unlikely to show anything prior to Jeremy's phone call to the police or the alleged conversation round the supper table.

Well it is over 6 episodes so I would expect it to be quite comprehensive . And there were allegedly lots of statements studied so I would hope they would want to represent some family background . If its relevant of course.

[sami]

Well it is over 6 episodes so I would expect it to be quite comprehensive . And there were allegedly lots of statements studied so I would hope they would want to represent some family background . If its relevant of course.

family background should start with the wonderful gesture of neville and june adopting jb and sc

[Jane]

Well it is over 6 episodes so I would expect it to be quite comprehensive . And there were allegedly lots of statements studied so I would hope they would want to represent some family background . If its relevant of course.

If they use only what was said by, or what was known of, the family at the time, combined with what is felt to be relevant, I can't see what there would be to criticize.

[Caroline]

of course it can have glowing reviews for the acting ,the  cinematography the representation of what the people involved actually felt because its easy to forget that.

But if it misses out vital facts then i think we should all be entitled to critisise .


Lets wait and see .

It's not for the acting, its for the sensitivity and handling of the issue and also for it's factual content. I have no doubt that there will be lots of criticism ............ here - but that won't be just because they get any facts wrong. They could be 100% correct and it wouldn't matter.

[lookout]

It'll be a " whodunnit ".

[Caroline]

It'll be a " whodunnit ".

It's not.

[lookout]

Can't be anything else really, can it ?

[Jane]

Can't be anything else really, can it ?

How can it be a "whodunit" when the "who", for what they "dun", is serving a life sentence?

[lookout]

How can it be a "whodunit" when the "who", for what they "dun", is serving a life sentence?

Because it's looking very much like a MOJ according to many and I'm sure nobody will commit themselves by saying " they saw him do it ".

[Jane]

Because it's looking very much like a MOJ according to many and I'm sure nobody will commit themselves by saying " they saw him do it ".

Sadly, many of the "many" may have been guided by the CT and their erroneous claims, and a woman called Trudi who appeared to be the organizer of various embarrassingly dreadful public stunts. If guilty verdicts require the culprit to have been seen, there'd be very few convictions.

[Caroline]

Because it's looking very much like a MOJ according to many and I'm sure nobody will commit themselves by saying " they saw him do it ".

There is be nothing in the drama that suggests a MOJ. You won't see Bamber commit the murders but you won't hear anything about withheld docs or calls from Nevill.

[lookout]

Sadly, many of the "many" may have been guided by the CT and their erroneous claims, and a woman called Trudi who appeared to be the organizer of various embarrassingly dreadful public stunts. If guilty verdicts require the culprit to have been seen, there'd be very few convictions.

Trudi appears to be a very nice inoffensive person and I'd much prefer to put my trust in her because she's open and honest, than I'd put in anyone who supports JB's guilt, who are spiteful at every opportunity if you are an innocent supporter.
Why should it make any difference to you people anyway ?

[Steve_uk]

There's a saying "fire is a good servant but a bad master" and it's the same with the mass media. Fine when you want to put your point of view, but not so nice when you have to deal with the backlash. I don't wish to criticize Colin for helping with the drama (you know what it's like: pretty young woman telephones or knocks on the door-empathy-we're going to make the drama anyway etc) but I do wonder if he realizes what forces he has unleashed. I can't see it solving things one way or another anyway, as this thread has proved hitherto.

[Caroline]

Trudi appears to be a very nice inoffensive person and I'd much prefer to put my trust in her because she's open and honest, than I'd put in anyone who supports JB's guilt, who are spiteful at every opportunity if you are an innocent supporter.
Why should it make any difference to you people anyway ?

Basically, you would support anyone that supports him - I already knew that Lookout. I don't believe someone is a good person because they believe Bamber is guilty nor vice versa - I speak as I find but I would also have to have some interaction with that person before making such a sweeping statement. Trudi is probably a very nice person but I have no real idea - I don't know her.