The Accused- An Inside Job (Channel 5

[fiction-factory]

Did anyone else what this fascinating case on Channel 5 on Monday ?What did you think? Clearly guitly? Framed? Grounds for appeal? There seemed to me to be a few odd aspects to this case. Anyone agree?

[fiction-factory]

Ah well- maybe no-one here watched it.

[albaqwerty]

don't fret FF.
Am hopeful the tv bods will appear once they have risen from their slumbers.

Sounds like a good watch, will have to go and see if I can find it.

[CheekyChops]

I did! I really enjoyed it.

At first I thought that Lukasz had been set up and quite liked him but by the end... not so sure. Too many coincidences for my liking - debit card used at the same bar that was his regular watering hole, money transferred using his log in details, money disappearing from his FXPro account (where DID that go?).

On the other hand, surely he was too clever to change the address on the account to one that he was associated with and surely nobody is thick enough to withdraw sums of £200, £260, £300 etc from the deceased persons account and then pay almost identcal sums into his own account a day later?

But, if he thought the credits to his account were an inheritance from his father, wouldn't that be one sum credited not dribs and drabs of a few hundred here and there?

One thing for sure, if he is guilty then he will probably have the money waiting for him when he gets out as they never recovered most of it did they?

[CheekyChops]

Oops, sorry albawerty, hope there aren't too many spoiler there if ou are going to watch!

[fiction-factory]

Thanks cheekychops.
I couldn't work out why no-one (police, Santander, the accused or his legal team) seemed to want to know where the money ended up. When Lukasz learnt that the £28000 or so had disappeared from his FX account- why didn't he mention this to his legal team and say "look, someone else - the mastermind?- has got the money not me".

I didn't think the 'inheritance' wa said in dribs and drabs- I thought the £200 or so payments were his earnings from a part time evening job. But why was he unable to prove he had a part time job?

Why was there no attempt to look at CCTV to see who made the purchases at the 'gay' bar using the funds from the stolen account?

I couldn't work it all out.

He was a very convincing person. He seemed so genuine/likeable.

[albaqwerty]

Cheeky, it's quite alright.

If I think there may be spoilers, I wouldn't read.
Sometimes it's nice to read others opinions which can make one more intrigued about a programme/film x

[CheekyChops]

I agree, he was very likeable and initially seemed conviced that he would be found innocent. I forgot about the part time job!

There were definitely a few things that could have been investigated in a lot more depth, the Police just didn't seem to be interested in digging deeper into some aspects.

I'm glad Lukasz allowed it all to be filmed and shown on TV though, it made compelling viewing.

[fiction-factory]

Yes. It's more of a fly on the wall documentary. I was hooked but was left wanting more. Could the defence team have asked more questions- or did they really feel his case was a hopeless one?

[Peter Pedant]

yeah I did big boy

fascinating - no wonder I cdnt find it to make my frenz watch it -
I thought it was BBC-FOUR

the structure of the prog
got in the way of what happened

Consent - they had to have consent to film from the beginning so Lukas ( I think polish sz is a straihtg soft ess - ) has to say yeah at get-go and not at verdict stage
and he was he said 'obviously innocent' - and was initially amused he had been accused. hem hem

there was a procession of stages and cutting may have put one of the forward reveilations as known earlier than it was

The investigator had thought Lucas was guilty very early on
I hadnt realised how ham strung the defence is when they say "what about Mrs Mopp?"
"oh" says the investigator "we will wait and see!"
when in fact the investigator is thinking - "my foot I am going nowhere near mrs Mopp"
and then defence show Mrs Mopp couldve
the firm had notice and didnt do nowt

The firm had shown the old lady was dead - her account wasnt closed but the money transferred instead into an account (FX)near Lucasz and he had pretty obviously used her card
and his ident was all over the transactions

but then in the case they showed the FX account that should have contained £26 000 - didnt ! So they said they had traced the money and hadnt ! and the case didnt fail apart ! and the police interview where all this came out - hadnt beeen disclosed !
and so even the prosecution said 'oo-er' ! - and the police said whatevuh !
but otherwise no one turned a hair

I thought all this was in the interests of film making

cant wait for the next episode tho ' !

Oh and the defence solicitor looks outside the gay boys; bar and doesnt go in but sniffs ! - and he doesnt go in and say can I see the viddie of the card transactions of the little old ladys card please ?

and the bar where Lukasz does money in hand shifts he never goes near let alone demands the video of the cash till
( I reckon the publican of the cash in hand shift has said - I wouldnt demand the viddie because you wont see him - ever ! and you wont like that)

Oh and I also think he was confronted with
1)your card is all over the santander transactions
2)you are all over the gay bar card transactions and nowhere to be seen is a dead old lady doing it
3) the money in hand shifts in the other pub cant be traced
4) your old uncles will that you say the money came from doesnt seem to exist

and he said - oh it is a CIA MI4 conspiracy !
oh pleez! -I thought the lawyers were gonna say - sorry we are outta here !

[fiction-factory]

Thanks all. Yes, I suppose we only had excerpts from the conversations, the documentary may have shown things out of sequence and the programme makes may have been a selective in what they chose to include.

[ummmm]

Watched it yesterday. I really hoped he was innocent but it didn't look that way in the end.

[fiction-factory]

So did I, ummmm, but i knew deep down that he would be found guilty as the case had gone too far with so little evidence in his favour- and hdespite all his knowledge about bank systems he wasn't able to come up with any suggestions of substance as to how it could have been done, nor was he trying hard to prove his story a- eg CCTV footage of him working in a pub or of someone else using teh card in the gay bar, or finding the mysterious woman that came in to sort out the 'legacy'.