I just watched the documentary, and while the comments and behaviour of the accused are bizarre and contradictory and frankly outrageous at times, I was massively taken aback at the end when the two of them were convicted for murder. I mean, maybe it was just the way the programme was edited, but there was literally no solid evidence that anyone had even been murdered, let alone that they'd been the ones to do it. Ok, ok, she's totally disappeared, and they'd been harvesting her social security benefits for 15+ years. They might well have done away with her. It's very possible. And I can see that people want someone to pay for that. But there was no hard evidence at all. And as for some of the witnesses, they were disgraceful, they didn't get what giving evidence is at all, they just wanted to put their own opinion across (i.e. the teacher, who had to be chastened) or actually god knows what the firefighter thought he was about, changing his evidence on the stand and coming up with this mad stuff about 'smelling burning bodies' when there was a bonfire at the house 9 years after she'd last been seen.
All I can say is, I hope they (I hope I) never end up in a court room with people like that jury. It wasn't proper justice. I thought at least in Scotland you could choose 'not proven'? Even if she was killed, how can you possibly know which one or the other of them actually committed the murder? Both of them were given 'guilty' verdicts to say they Done It, but it just flies in the face of the (lack of) evidence.
I thought it was rather terrifying. If that's what people think 'beyond reasonable doubt' is, the system is truly f-ed and woe betide anyone who gets caught up in it.