This man is very well prepared and he knows what he's doing. He is in control all the time, when he feels he might lose it, he starts crying, on command. His need to be in control is based on desperation.
He's been telling his story for almost 50 yrs..he's gotten good at it. However the study of crime has progressed too & its gotten good too & it continues to get better....
I’ve given this some thought as well, I mean, yes, an obvious control freak from the first meeting with David Wilson, to me was rude to not include his wife in the introduction and went ahead of her…leaving her to introduce herself. Not a huge deal but you can see his need to be in the limelight at anyone’s cost including his own daughter😣 IMO, he’s a total narcissist lying, murderous psychopath. Too bad his ex wife Janet didn’t come forward sooner. It would be fabulous to find the bag of antiques he hid…his uniform as well would indeed have Karls blood🙏🏻❤️ Poor kid. RIP🕊️ I just realized he was married three times (during the course of this documentary) interesting 🤔
There's something so sinister about this man. That ability to become so emotional to aggressive is scary. He's almost convincing at some points. David looks very confused at times. He knows what he sees but is amazed at the simplicity of this man's madness. I'm no professional and this man terrifies me. He has no soul but is masterful at trying to convince you he has.
That’s a very good point, but now imagine, just imagine if he was innocent. Imagine living with the weight of everybody telling you that you’re a murderer, for 40 odd years. That has got to do something to you psychologically.Having said that, yes, he comes across as weird.
I disagree. It sounds like that whole township was morally corrupt. He just mentioned how the farmer that he looked up to would get women drunk and sleep with them. I don't blame him for getting a shotgun and blasting the fool for trying to do that to his wife? What would you have done? Keeping in mind that back then the older people had leverage over others as well as the township and could turn everyone against you if you didn't do what they said. And honestly this isn't the only crime that has happened in these small towns in England. There's been all sorts of stories about cults, witch craft and satanism. I believe one of the robbers did kill the kid. Maybe it was an accident, maybe not. You can call anyone 'sinister' but you're being judgemental and as you mentioned you are not a professional. It takes a certain type of person to kill someone and hide it well for so long. Eventually they either break down or slip up. This man freely admitted to killing someone but not the kid. It wouldn't make any sense for him to do that.
I completely agree, but it also works both ways. If you convince yourself that someone acted in a certain manner/committed a specific act over 4 decades, then you will also start to believe it. I’m not saying he’s not guilty, I’m also not saying he is as it’s not for me to judge, however it is for me to have an opinion and in all honesty due to the way this documentary has been carried out it is very difficult to gain a fully objective insight as I feel that crucial information has been left out of every aspect and the interviewer makes it extremely difficult due to his highly questionable professional integrity, due to him being unable to remain neutral from the very start.
@@Angel-tv5lq I totally agree.. If he would have stayed neutral during the interviews he would have been able to obtain much more information from the guy. The man would would have see him as someone interested in knowing how he feels about the whole case and ask questions always letting him know that it's part of what he have to do and not personal.. Neutrality is very important when you are going to interview people.
@@vicksss807 I don't think that's necessarily so. Interviewing techniques need to fit the interviewee. When dealing with a narcissistic personality the 'personal touch' yields better results.
@@ImperfectionGuaranteed I respect your opinion and stick with mine. A good reporter needs to be impartial.. The man have not been charge with the crime. It does not matter that circumstantial evidence says he is the murderer..The questions should always be directed at the suspect letting him know his neutrality..Narcissist people tend to talk more when they feel the interviewer is not judging or is convinced he is the murderer , like it happened here..The reporter should want to know what the accused opinion is not his.. A narcissist reveals more when they feel he is not been judge!
As a lifelong documentary junkie I have to say this is probably the most fascinating one I've ever watched, and I must have watched hundreds over the years.
It’s one of my favourite docs. I have watched a million times and it blows me away every time at the absolute blatant narcissistic psychopathy BS not only displays…but lack of empathy astounds me! His ex wife should’ve come forward long ago. Poor Karl🙏🏻
To get rid of the ads go straight to the last few seconds of the video and play it until it's finished...then the replay button in the middle of the screen comes up. Click on that to play the video from the start ad free. Hope this helps.
The almost last scene where Professor is face-to-face with Spencer sent absolute shivers as I actually know someone who argues the same way when put on the spot and confronted with the truth or criticism!!
me too! I woke up this morning remembering these exact kinda conversations! really sent chills down my spine hearing how he tries to wiggle his way out of everything and reply with threats and reversing what is being said to him.
I've just got back in last 30 mins from a talk given by Prof Wilson. He said as soon as he clapped eyes and shook his hand he knew Bert did it! Prof Wilson is fascinating we all cldve listened to him for hours. Utterly mesmerising 👍👍👍👍
it´s good that it takes more than that to convict someone, because this was scary. I agree that he probably did do it, but the hunch of a famous doctor is not what should convict someone, and luckily isn´nt. It would be 100% possible that this guy was completely innocent, and the doctor could end up with the same conclution. And all the things that make him seem more guilty from our perspective actually makes sense from an innocent persons point of view. And the doctor does indeed look insane if you rewatch it thinking the guy is innocent
@@KyleJames2580 Basically, yes. I would welcome a conviction of Spencer if he is guilty as proven in a court of law, but I'm not convinced Prof Wilson is professional when he claims he 'knows' someone committed a crime from looking at them for a few seconds and shaking their hand". Just a couple examples of this being a bad idea are the cases of Chris Jefferies, an innocent man, who was vilified and accused of the murder of Joanna Yeates in the media based on his eccentric behaviour, which saw him hounded by the public, and Colin Stagg, who was actually sent to prison because of snap judgements about his personality before being exonerated after new evidence came to light. This is exactly why we use evidence to convict people and not, "He gives me the creeps, he must have done it!". If the police are unable to prove Spencer did it with crime scene investigations and extensive research, then I don't think Prof Wilson with his "I looked at him for a few seconds and knew he committed a crime" is on a very strong footing. It may make for sensational soundbites for his paying audience in little clubs, away from the scrutiny of Spencer's lawyers, but it serves no practical purpose in the courts and to harass someone for the rest of their life based on a hunch because "They might get away with it!" is not the way to go no matter how hard that is for us to accept. Additionally, Prof Wilson has possibly made himself vulnerable to litigation by telling public audiences that he "knows" Spencer committed murder. If I was Spencer's lawyer, I'd be sharpening my pencil.
I love that he's indignant about "i would never rob a house where i thought people were, in my uniform for crying out loud" but not "i would never harm a sweet little child"
His argument there is about logical sense, a clever burglar wouldn't carry out a robbery wearing his very identifiable work uniform especially in an area he is well known. That's the point he was making. Of course the counter is if it's something he's done several times without getting caught then he's just become complacent.
Hi Andy, his wife when interviewed stated that on the day of carls murder, she arrived home and bert was in the conservatory, he said to his wife that he felt sick. His wife noticed on the washing line a green pullover, which had been washed, when asked by mr Wilson had she ever seen the pullover before she replied no, and confirmed that after that day she never saw it again. If bert was robbing yew tree farm, he probably wore the pullover and if he murdered Carl in the same pullover it would have been over his ambulance shirt, which thus would have been removed in order for him to return home, when he was seen by the witness who clearly saw the pips on the shirt when he was driving his car
As it goes he missed several ops there where were the owners of the farm ? they were there EVERY day to collect the paper Bert KNEW this ,id have knocked him out m8 the overwhelmimg urge to hit psychos comes from the terraces ill admit but they are all wimps deep down which is why ^^^ bert picked on an old man & a young kid :/
@@mcfcguvnors exactly! Says he doesn't run & doesn't hide...he's done nothing but run & hide & allowed other ppl to take the blame for his misdeeds. Those guys lost 20yrs of their lives.
Well... the obvious lie. He doesn't know what happened after the cocktail comment, but lo and behold, remembers using a hacksaw (which would have reduced stress load) and shooting his friend. That gun was already cut. He stewed in his juices, built up his jealousy, killed his friend, then lied.
But put yourself in his position. If you assume he is innocent, 40+ years of allegations would leave you not exactly 'right' either. I don't think thats sufficient to make a decision.
@Sheerluck Holmes interesting take. I like that. To add to that, maybe there’s something evolutionary or biological to it. We ostracize the bad for a good reason; so we can survive and live as well as possible. In theory, obviously. Maybe that’s too idealistic to be anywhere near accurate.
When he said (around 39:00): "I'm my daddy's boy", that's when I'd have asked who his daddy was, what kind of relationship they had, etc. *_There's_* your key to the guy !
I felt it means that his daddy was sexually abusing him and he was his "boy". Then saying to the question who are you ? He is triggered to reply what his dad might have made him say forcibly: "I'm my daddy's boy" likely something he has to say while being abused. He stayed triggered and mentioned "don't get on my back" which is what his father would have done when abusing him. "If you get on my back IT will come out" are the next words: IT being the split persona that commits the murders.
@Danie R ... I’m my daddy’s boy/girl same as I’m my father’s daughter just means we’re alike in our ways personality and characteristics. Get off my back is an old way of saying get off my case. Old classic UK sayings.
Perhaps his father was abusive or raped him and a child because he’s stuck in the past. Nobody says “I’m daddy´s little boy” maybe its not the case but its just something that crossed my mind. If he was not the killer he would not be so defensive... hmmm
When they were in the old neighborhood speaking with the neighbor who gave him a "iron clad" alibi. She slip and almost said he was missing. She did quickly correct herself, but i heard it. He also let him know in no uncertain terms that he wasn't to be messed with. That was chilling.
Depends what he means by *hurts* and only in an objective context, also you'd have to know if the subject described the friend as a close friend or an acquaintance since the term friend is a variable. The standard issue p-scan is irrelevant as its being applied throughout when multiple stressors are present, this can lead to false results. Ive no doubt hes engineering questions for the p-scan relative to the stressors, this is not what its for. Less professor more nutty professor and i'd be seriously concerned if the cops in my town were using p-scans to formulate guilt and suspects. Lastly there really is no narcissist model of person, there are only traits.
Whether he did it or not, it is clear that Bert suffers greatly from the association with this crime. Not that suffering could stand in place of a criminal conviction & punishment, but his life has been changed by the allegations & he did not go completely unpunished.
Yes, but in different cultures - maybe "societies" is better - sayings can very well have different meanings. If you were to show a short clip to 13 different people, you would undoubtedly get 13 different perspectives.
It's really weird that you can't grip the exact way he's saying it, you must come from a good family 👍 well done to you. He means it and is warning because he doesn't want to but he knows he will if you understand that 👍
“I’ve spoken to & prayed for you Carl, many times” “What do you think he’d say back?” “I don’t know” “He might say you killed him” “He might. But it would be a lie”: 🤔
Like when he's pointing out Carl's house but he doesn't want to seem like he knows exactly where it is he tries to act like he doesn't know where it is, somewhere over there. It's the little things, he is trying to distance himself.
Actually the way those houses all look alike and the fact it was so long ago I don't see it as such a big deal. They look like an apartment complex here in America.
@@songbirdy That’s how I feel too. I didn’t see that as very telling of anything. I’m not sure he did it and I really don’t know how anyone could be certain. I’m not saying he’s a wonderful perfect person who hasn’t made mistakes because we all have. However, I am a firm believer in “Innovation until proven guilty” and there’s just no proof of anything here. The fact so many detectives are in the comments condemning him is scary to me! It really says a lot in my opinion about how quickly people are to point the finger without facts. For that reason only, I am against the death penalty in most cases. I think people would be shocked if really knew how many innocent people have been put behind bars over the years allover the world.
@sarahkitley87 The thing is, it's often not a case of it being true OR being a sob story, you often find that these things often contributed to how someone is, but at the same time, the person is then opportunistic enough to weaponise this and use it in future to try and assuage any responsibility for their actions
What else is odd, they spend so much time focused on how he lives 3 houses down and didnt say he knew the kid, yet she doesnt seem to have any notable recollection of the family either
@@thesouluniversal but the murder he committed was apparently a jealous rage , not robbery, there is nothing to say he was any kind of crook before the murder he committed tbf.
Like everyone else in Worsley they know Spencer did it. It isn't like some unknown bogeyman did it then disappeared into the ether. Sad that the monster isn't behind bars for the rest of his life, but there is some closure for them knowing he did it.
...i think he robbed the place with Hubert and the reason why he continues to deny that he killed Carl is because he didn't. Maybe it was the friend- and the night he killed Hubert, I think they had an argument where Hubert was threatening to admit his crime due to guilt which would blow up his spot too. His coping method to feel a little bit less guilty about it all is to constantly say he didn't kill Carl because in his mind he "technically" didn't. Hubert probably discussed with him that he might go to the police and admit the crime and Bert took it as "jumping on his back" and handled it as his "father would".
hhahahahahhaha He continues to deny it because he enjoys creating lies in the minds of others, he defenetly killed him, he does not want to go to jail. pure narcissist, that simple
Far more likely that Bert killed Hubert in the "throes of passion" knowing he'd do less time for a crime of passion? Bert weighed the odds and figured a few years was better than 25 years. And a child killer probably doesn't do well in prison.
Except that Bert was the one destroying a shotgun. Bert killed his friend in a "moment of passion" No. Bert killed the kid and his friend was not okay with that and it cost him his life. Better 8 years for a crime of passion instead of life as a child killer.
He lives very close to a primary school though, which might be worrying to some…although I don’t think he’s a high risk to children specifically, provided they don’t witness him robbing a place…Dont think they can do much about it though….
"When were you when you heard about the murder of Carl Bridgewater" The dude responds "@ home" pauses a bit and then says "No, sorry sorry, I was at work" That right there is a sign. He might be innocent as a lamb, but hey, that slip would get a brother in some trouble elsewhere.
I'm still 50/50 on this one. The casual nature in which he deals with the murder he did actually commit is disturbing and suggests that he's extremely dodgy. However his point about the unlikely scenario of arriving in uniform, in his own car to do a robbery in broad daylight at the farm is a good defense.
robberies usually are committed in broad daylight, because it’s more likely that nobody will be home, but it is unlikely that he’d do it in uniform and in his own car, though i have a theory as to why he did that (if he did). he’s a psychopath; he gets a kick out of the added risk of getting caught, though this theory is quite weak because he’d have to be extremely stupid to do that and act on that temptation. but because he’s a psychopath (as i’ve mentioned), maybe it’d be a lot harder to resist.
@@zeckua Wearing a uniform is more reason to me he is guilty. He can explain he's there for a reason, knock on the door in an official capacity, to see if someone is home not as a stranger trespassing. Car he is driving is of no consequence, just convenience. I think he either told Wilkes what he'd done in a drunken stupor or had been stealing from the old timer too, then had to get rid of him.
Why are the comments mainly used for giving opinion? What about discussion? There are so many unanswered questions: 1: Why wasn't the first wife asked about the night of the second murder? 2: How far was the cottage from the hospital? 3: If the door of the cottage was open, was it forced open? Or who might have had a key? 4: Was anything in the cottage disturbed? There are so many questions...
@Alex B Thank god there is at least 1 open minded person in the comments. It really annoys me in this comment section with all these so called internet experts saying things like "im only 3 mins in and i can already tell he did it and he is a psychopath" its insane to just go along with whatever theory that a documentary puts to you and David Wilson himself didn't go into this to find out if he did it or not he went into this wanting the guy to confess because in Wilson's head he done the crime. How that guy makes a living i do not know and it annoys me that in every crime doc i see in England he is in it giving his one sided biased opinions not based on facts. Its the same with the Maddy McCann story lots of documentaries get made on the pretence that she was kidnapped yet they should be going into the doc thinking what happened to Maddy because they is no evidence that she was kidnapped and if someone's reads this and says to me "Yes she was because her parents said so" I will say to you if your using that logic then this guy Burt didn't kill that kid because he said so.
I have mentioned that in a response to a comment. I feel it is very difficult to form a true opinion as I feel that there is a lot of crucial information all round that has not been included but in asking the questions do you really feel that the makers of this documentary will answer them? If they wanted them to be known, or included they would be in it and therefore no questions to ask. A very subjective viewpoint from the interviewer is the only true opinion I can offer.🙌🏼
Assuming no creative editing, and that nothing is missing from this, I’m convinced Spencer is the killer and this professor is brilliant. I’ve been face to face with narcissistic killers and this is exactly how they react. The rage is brimming under the surface and professor knew how to talk, what to ask, how close to get and when to slightly back off enough to alleviate pressure but still stay on the trail.
@@DyreStraits All the credits are doing is acknowledging the actors who worked on the re-enactment scenes that are dotted throughout. Caerphilly Players is a drama group in that local area.
@@redtez I suppose that is the explanation. I have watched a bit of the documentary again and am trying to recall what made me think otherwise. Perhaps it's just my suspicion of manipulative media sources.😄
@@Queenwraith ... I am a lawyer, mate and it seems that the entire Crown Prosecution Service (the CPS) , all very experienced criminal lawyers, agree with me so who gives a toss what you think, LOL
AHAH Marmelade AHAH Marmelade ‘Lawyer’ and ‘mate’ don’t mix. Are you saying there have never been miscarriages of justice or something? They put the wrong 4 away for 20 years you idiot, and then the law decided to agree WITH ME that he IS a Murderer killing someone in the exact same way a year later! I understand if you’re a trolling defence student but if you think this guys completely innocent you’re deluded
On the contrary, a person who is innocent would act rightfully indignant and frustrated after having been falsely accused for decades. Stop pretending to know things you don't know.
The level of narcissism of Bert is incredible. To think you could call one of the UKs most respected criminologists and try to convince him that your a nice guys is just off the charts. Don’t get me wrong I’m not a huge fan of David but this program is an incredible insight into the mind of a psychopath and I have to watch it every now and then!
He’s repugnant, hey-he thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and that no one will be capable of seeing through the treachery-I can only imagine how terrifying and intimidating it would be to be in the same room, with that creep, whilst he is giving you death stares, through those reptilian eyes, when you tell him he’s an accomplished liar and a murderer-😡
Reminds me of Chris Watts, how he talks about how the murder he committed impacted himself, while showing zero compassion or consideration for for the person he killed or their loved ones.
Yes and the trainer of Chris watts was his mother,,, it seems that Bert Spencer had a basket case of a father ..... When the police go for a perpetrator they should interview parents separately to see who is culpable for turning out narcissists, covert, grandiose, etc sociopaths, psychopaths, etc Parents not doing their job right lands the rest of society with a nightmare landscape. Of these type of people many not human. Interview them too Peace out ☮️ SW England 🇬🇧
I went ‘a bit unwell ‘after being abused by a Narcissist. I’m still ‘unwell’ and probably will never recover. All along the Narcissist played the victim of some unhinged man .
I think Bert Spencer is more than a narcissist. He is most likely a full blown psychopath. Narcissism is always present in a psychopath though, but you can be a narcissist without being a psychopath, all though its a very fine line. Being subjected to a person with narcissism or psychopathy is extremely hard, and it will be with you for life. My advice to you and other people who have been the victim of this is to realize that nothing was your fault. A narcissist will lay all blame on you for the bad things they do. And they are masters of manipulation. They prey on soft and good hearted people.
I agree. @Purple Water Lily What are you on about "not humanly possible" ? to do an interview without bias ? Of course its possible to do an interview without bias. Please explain why you think otherwise ?
Simon Dominic Jesus Wept....!!! When a judge is hearing a case every person before him, and in the eyes of the police is legally to be considered and treated as innocent until proved guilty. It is one of our unqualified fundamental rights within the u.k, which is what makes our justice system ‘allegedly’ one of the best. Unfortunately some judges become what is called as ‘case hardened’ as do some police officers - unfortunately! However that is why the burden of proof in criminal cases MUST be ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’! In a nutshell, all wrapped up nice and neat means that the legal system are not in any position to be biased, which is also why the case shudnt be jeopardised by the media and in some situations cases have been heard in Courts halfway across the Country - so the judge, jury etc are completely unbiased and base their ruling or determination on the facts of the case alone and in most cases, actually nearly all cases, any other previous convictions are not allowed to be made known unless the person is convicted (found guilty based on factual evidence - although in very rare instances some cases are taken to court based on circumstantial evidence, but in the u.k that’s very difficult to do). Only if convicted are previous offences made known and that is for purposes of sentencing. So yes - unbiased or viewed objectively, is what our civil and human rights afford us when facing a criminal offence which could potentially take away our liberty for a lifetime...or the best part of it!
He knows he's getting interviewed about killing a child so he starts out talking about how he likes delivering babies and getting all emotional. Yeah he did it.
Maybe but he also seems false somehow.. god knows how I’d behave if I was accused of something like that but this dude seems über hinky! Gives me the heebee geebees.
He bawls talking about what a hero he was when he delivered a baby. He LAUGHS talking about murdering his friend and beating the crap out of his wife. Oh but it was his wife who was crazy and burned his paintings.
There are a lot of psychos in the medical fraternity. Police, military, CEOs, teachers, social workers, surgeons, etc. there are certain jobs that attract them. Peace ☮️ out SW England 🇬🇧
@@vordman there’s plenty of Drs. You’re just thinking of cases in recent years that are nurses and have gotten a lot of attention. But if you do a simple search, you’ll see the plethora of Drs!!
As an American, I can say confidently that if this crime and interview had happened in the U.S., the interviewee would have had the interviewer in civil court in "a New York minute" and sued him for a boatload of $$$.
Yes but defamation is a civil matter tested on the balance of probabilities not beyond all reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial - I think there’s enough evidence for him to be considered guilty on a civil test - very lucky not to have been prosecuted.
Dawnguard disagree. The fact that four of them were found guilty for the killing and there was a number of confessions is enough. What is the point of a conviction if the person convicted’s mom can go on national television and accuse someone else?
Just a dotery old man that makes silly jokes like charging 30p for a cuppa, but then turns on a dime when challenged. Fake tears, fake emotion. He thinks he’s playing the part of a human really well, it shows in his arrogance. But he is simply wearing a human suit nonetheless.
@@sandyb6571 I don't believe him, he definitely was involved in some way, whether he killed Carl himself or not I don't know. But the interviewer did a horrible job and the only reason why I'm convinced he or at least his gun was involved is what his former wife said about him getting rid of the gun the day after
That moment where he asks what would the dead boy say, and the interviewer says he'd say "you killed me" and the accused for a brief moment role plays with the idea of "he might say that" before realising the insanity of such an idea, and reverts to "he would be wrong" speaks to me that he is guilty... cause most innocent people when posed with the idea of "if the innocent young dead boy could speak- he'd say you killed me" would be outraged at the intimate statement and outright deny, rather than stating "well he might say that" SHOCKING!
I strongly believe that this man is a textbook psychopath, and a pathological liar. The way that he subtlety devalues others, his underlying rage and shallow “acted” emotions. In my experience, all very strong indicators of a personality disorder. I’m quite shocked that police have not had enough evidence to convict him.
That sums him up. He’s mentally agile but can’t conceal his anger. In fact when he gets angry he loses it to such an extent that it’s obvious he’s trying to conceal it, which is much much worse.
What you believe doesn't make it a FACT. What an ignorant basis LOL.....how about show EVIDENCE without reasonable doubt?? Judgmental minds of stupid ppl is the very cancer of the justice system.
Are you talking about me? I sure hope not cause I do have an education and second he IS a murderer because he assumed he killed his friend and that's why he served 14 years. I never assumed he killed the boy.
@Isaiah Jammes he is talking about the title that says "interview with a murderer" implying we are seeing the interview with the "murderer" if he isn't then the documentaries title is a little misleading.
Bert confessed to murdering his friend. Guilty. He gives himself away in this interview. At 9:48 he says "The only problem is anything good you've done in life, say saving lives, delivering babies...it doesn't count for anything when you get yourself in trouble. It's all demolished." Narcissists always give themselves away if you pay attention. He can't produce a real tear and had to hide his eyes in the handkerchief. Another narcissist trick. At 10:46 he says he took a course in delivering babies so the baby would survive his rough handling. Then the fake tears. If you continue to watch, he will smile after telling lie he believes he got away with.
The chemistry between Spencer and the interviewer leaps through my phone screen! Their eyes are like daggers! If looks could kill, they'd bothe be laying on the floor! ☠️🗡 😆
Amen Barbara! All too often these violent men are allowed to stay in society far longer than they should, and we should take seriously women’s reports of violence and threatening behavior. No matter if he committed this crime or not, he should have faced consequences for his treatment towards his ex-wife.
My ax husband is a smary person like him every one though he is a nice person he was a pediofile one of worst the police had ever met my girl's were lucky I divorced the beast before he had the chance to do any thing to them don't be fooled he is a nasty piece of work
@@bethany2820 …agree but I don’t think there was much help, if any back in those days for women of domestic violence. Family or friends would shelter the women for a few days till hubby dearest “cooled down” ..or was manipulated into returning home with all types of promises from hubby. For women back then, the old mentality of “ put up and shut up” stood fast as well … sadly.
@@bethany2820 … yes, it still does but at least there is much more help including financial help for those who do seek help in getting away from an abuser. For some the old mentality or cultural mentality stands fast unfortunately…
@Molly Mars Yes l agree it definitely appears that Wilson is biased not saying that Burt is innocent but that bias is notable early on in the documentary
@@stevencorder36 why do you think Wilson is biased? He's an expert clinical psychologist who deals in facts. He acted professionally and wasn't hoodwinked by Spencer's blatant attempts to kid him that he was a nice old bloke.
@@JD-li1xw People think he's biased because he's asking hard questions. Not a lot of people directly confront a person the way he does. It's like a police officer who's bluffing to you that they know you did something and they have evidence to see if the person will admit to their crime. It feels like that's how Wilson confronts him. He's not afraid to relentlessly ask heavy question after heavy question while looking at him and telling him that he's convinced that it COULD'VE been him who killed Carl; poking him for a reaction.
But surely the boy's time of death would be fairly accurate to within an hour and if the 4 originally found guilty of the robbery were there at that time, it makes it unlikely an outsider would be responsible. They certainly never implicated Burt or anyone (it seems) at the time of their arrest and interrogations, only after they went to prison and Burt began a suspect after the second murder. How far was the hospital from the house? He was working until 5:15pm and the murder occurred around 4pm well past his lunch break and too early before he finished work. How would he get there and back that quick unless the hospital was really close? What about his clothes and also the shock effect of just blowing someones head off, would he even be capable of acting normal and doing his job still?
This is one of the most interesting documentaries I have ever watched. It is completely spell binding and fascinating to see such a scholar as David Wilson interview this man. What a professional man, such intelligence and completely awe inspiring. Having watched it several times now, I am ( in my humble, amateur opinion, convinced of this mans guilt.) Such a terribly sad way for that beautiful young boy to lose his life and my heart aches for his family. David Wilson is incredible
Its fascinating and one thing nobody asked, is that if he was a regular visitor at Yew tree farm, why would he have to break in ? I cannot without being in the same room as him tell if he is genuine or not.
@@allisonthompson9782 Breaking in makes it obvious it was a burglary which would mean anyone may have perpetrated it. Going in by means of someone familiar to the property narrows the pool of suspects to very few. Carl was his neighbour and would have identified Spencer within seconds, dead men tell no tales. Spencer is a narcissistic psychopath, he doesn't care Carl was a kid, he did not care Wilkes was elderly and like a father figure either, he did not care he beat his wife with the butt of a shotgun and would have killed her too had she not run and hidden. In my opinion, he probably told Wilkes what he'd done in a drunken stupor on his birthday, again, dead men tell no tales.. That's why could offer no genuine explanation to why he killed him, it would also implicate him further.
Me to, mi 1st feeling is he did not kill this boy, he acts all defensive cuz he is tier of all those years off alegations against him whitout 1 rea l peace off evidence against him. Now he is old and bitter and have nothing to hide no more.
This is causing her great anxiety. Her memory seems in tact. If it's true she was abused, she wouldn't have been questioning him much then and why she says that because of his book and the documentary is only why she speaks now! Bless them all.
In the whole thing Bert plays the victim when he's been found guilty of murder himself! I feel for the poor boy and his family, they are the real victims in this story ❤
Where are all these quarantined folks at ? I havent seen anyone quarantined down here. Must be up north ?. I havent even seen anyone wearing a mask in weeks. Even in tha wal n Martz
If you like this documentary, you may also like the documentary interview with the mother of one of our most favourite entertainers, I’m talking about the mother of jb. A mummy of a little guy called Justin, Justin Bieber
Spencer gives off the impression of a rather angry man, with no control at all. Who seems to be very very manipulative. He’s just so weird, I’ve never felt this off about a person in my entire life. I’m certain he was involved.
My take is that he definitely has his issues but I can imagine being hounded and called a child killer for over 40 years probably would make me upset and pissed about it whenever someone brings it up yet again
You are lucky to see your first psychopath his ex wife still has the shakes when she talks about him, can you imagine living with a guy that killed a man & then a kid ? She never told on him because he would be out on bail or have someone kill her before she could be a witness. They only keep killers in jail all that long he got out early on the first one.
David Wilson asked Bert Spencer if he could go back to 1978 what would he change. Bert said he'd go on holiday. Why didn't he say he'd stop Carl going to Yew Tree Farm.
This whole documentary is a perfect test on how naive you, as a viewer and a human being, are. Bert Spencer is very convincing as a deeply empathic individual -- and everything is an act. And yes, I myself was duped in the beginning.
You might have been duped that does not mean that everyone was. If you been living close to a narcissist for a longer period of time, and manage to see trough it and start to actually study the behaviour it is often quite easy to recognize.
I lived in multiple apartments as a small child and I’m 45. I remember quite a few people from every street and every complex. Even a place I only resides in for a year. It’s absolutely NOT the norm to just go blank.. that’s kinda weird
@@modaciouslav4792 and yet the guys own wife at the time cant seem to remember they lived a few door down from the family? she just says they were "from nearby". Before that i was completely on the side of "how did you not know" but after that.. i mean the whole point of her interview was a gotcha moment and she cant remember they lived a few doors down?
At the beginning I thought that he could be innocent. But after seeing how quickly he turns nasty and threatening, the fact he didn't have an real alibi and his ex-wife's account it leaves no doubt he is 100% guilty. When confronted with the P Scan he acted like a child saying that David needed psychiatric help. Horrible man!
I believe that if he wanted to show/prove his innocent, he would have act more rationally. By accusing, trying to degrade and insult Wilson, the behaviour shows that - probably - there's something wrong.
Have you thought at least once what it would be like to be accused for 40 years for a crime you did not commit? I see that you are a great specialist to have the verdict of 100% guilty, based on which evidence??? that he doesn't have an iron alibi? if a crime is committed on your street, and you are the main suspect, but you know that you didn't commit that crime, but you don't have an alibi... how do you think your psyche will be after so many years when people look at you as a criminal? People with an iron will, psyche and character have fallen, but then a simple man?
@@leatheraccessories646 tbh, I've always thought he was guilty too for those reasons but your comment makes alot of sense. I'm gonna watch again but with a less biased approach (hopefully!)
Spencer hopelessly misread the room. He clearly thought the Prof was about exonerating him, the penny eventually dropped that the opposite was the case. Also note how Spencer has an excellent memory after all these years...when something is in his favour..his memory fails him when it isn’t. How convenient. And how he tries to distance himself is almost laughable. He didn’t know Carl, despite for years living a few doors away? Yeah, right. And he tried to say the artists impression of Wilkes was nothing like him? When anyone could see they were virtually identical! I believe he did it.
Ive lived here for over a decade and had No clue they had 2 kids 4 doors down till last year.Im rural, Cities are even Worse for not knowing a neighbor. The way he spoke seemed to me hes a bit on the racist side or something similar. When he said he doesnt mean to offend and say they all looked the same, ya. Hes prob like me, doesnt give a plank about the neighbors or whats going on around him, to a point.
Chilling. It’s the second time I’ve watched this and this time it left me feeling cold and fearful for anybody that crosses him. He used laughter and “jokes”, he’s a very dangerous man.
@@paulacarberry1216 that must be pretty daunting for you I should imagine. I don’t know how many times I’ve watched this, he fascinates me, I find his arrogance unbelievable. Hope you’ve dealt with your past. Have a great day.
@@vordman I think he’s too arrogant to allow anything to torture him. The main thing I pick up is that he’s right and the world is wrong. I don’t think he cares, to be tortured you would have to have compassion, I personally don’t see any .
To whom it may concern, Spencer asked for the involvement of a criminalologist. He wanted his story out there. He got the expertise he asked for. He may not like the opinion of the experts but that’s neither here nor there.
One thing I notice in all these types of cases. They bring up something embarrassing in there timeline of events. I remember a case which the suspect brought up tampons. It has no relevance, it's like they are trying to show you how gullible or vulnerable they are. Like of course they wouldn't murder someone they just showed me humility.
Do you know what at that comment I thought exactly the same. Its a constructed answer, a brush off answer would have been "I didn't kill" but that was a pre rehearsed answer. I am not saying he did it, I'm saying that particular answer is a red flag.
Innocent people always say I didn’t instead of I did not (Peter Hyatt Statement Analyse) He was so arrogant, believing he could dupe a professor of criminology and an ex prison Governor
I had the very same thought. I can’t lie though, as soon as I saw his eyes when he positioned himself in front of the camera, with zero context, I thought to myself “oh that guy is the killer.” He seems like he has nothing behind his eyes.
Bert is certainly no 'sweet old man' - he demonstrates that he has the capacity to be infuriated/enraged by what he regards as baseless accusations. and it's difficult to argue that the accusation/allegations are anything more than circumstantial. There is plenty in this video to lead one to assume that he DID kill Carl Bridgewater but the man has been harangued since that murder and his subsequent killing of the farmer so any bitterness is understandable, yet nothing presented in the video can be held up as concrete evidence that could be used to convict him. The Bridgewater 4's release from prison on account of a fraudulent confession doesn't exactly eliminate them from suspicion in regard to Carl's murder, though the media and their supporters seem to take it as read that they are innocent. Clearly, as armed burglars, they were not nice people and it's perfectly feasible to imagine them forcefully exerting their will on any unexpected intruders disturbing their nefarious activities. Burglars will frequently 'case out' a location prior to commiting to a break-in and stealing valuables. If they see one likely target-home while burgling another, it's quite likely they will return to turn over that new location, later - so it's entirely possible that they were at Yew Tree Farm and and already earmarked the property at which they were eventually caught, in the process of cleaning out Yew Tree Farm. Neither Bert nor the Bridgewater 4 are nice, good people. They all would probably seize on any opportunity to point the finger at a possible scapegoat for their own crimes. This video exposes nothing that sheds a stronger light on the case against either suspect(s). It does expose Bert Spencer as a considerably unhinged, fiery old man but that is not proof that he killed Carl B.
This guy almost had me...........I almost fell for the act. ' We all make mistakes, you can see the good in him, you can see the gentle side of him '..............Yeah Bert, ya NEARLY had me. A well rehearsed act.
It would be interesting to hear some background on his father. I'm daddy's boy to me tells me his dad involved him into criminality. Getting him to do things as in some kind of schooling way. The boy was killed because he obviously recognised the person there. Bert may have had a accomplice. But I'm pretty certain he had to have had some involvement. Too many coincidences point directly to him. He had previous, the antique interest. He knew the farm and had been frequently. He lived doors down from the boy. The car, the uniform. And not really a alibi now so.. That's quite alot! He's literally got away with murder. A bodged robbery interrupted by the kid that recognised the perpetrator.
I vaguely remember Bert Spencer from my hospital visits at the Corbett Hospital at the time as a 13 yr old boy. My mother always said there something about Bert that not right. Unfortunately my mother passed away in 2012 but always maintained that it was Bert Spencer that killed Carl Bridgewater.
A sign of anger. What you want to watch out for is if his face then drains of colour as that is a sign of iminent attack. He kept it together though because he had to but had given himself away by then anyway.
Never been a fan of David Wilson and his theoretical assessments. Clearly, Bert Spencer was not convicted because of insufficient evidence produced in the Court. I thought Spencer was fairly tolerant towards Wilson and his accusations.
So funny, when Bert Spencer called David Wilson on his bias, Wilson ran. I guess it takes one to know one. And it seems to me that David Wilson is determined to convict Spencer on circumstances. I'not saying that I think he is innocent, but certainly there isn't enough honest evidence to convict.
Particularly beating in mind Wilson wriggled his way Into Berts trust and confidence misleadingly and slyly. The David Wilson throughout the documentary was very different to the David Wilson in the last interview for example. Wether Bert is guilty or not, David Wilson is certainly guilty of moral and social deviance on account of his calculated, misleading and dishonest actions toward Bert making Bert feel like he finally had somebody on his side or who was neutral, whereas all along he was being trapped and framed essentially by David Wilson.
🗣 *BRAVO* 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 _ABSOLUTELY_ *one of* _the best_ *produced and edited CRIME* _RETELLINGS_ *ever done* ❗️ I say _retellings_ because stories conjure to mind _fairytale “stories”_ …whereas *this was REMARKABLE and felt like* _we were THERE_ *collectively witnessing as the missing witness testimony were put together ➕ with the prior obtained evidence* _that COMBINED would have SOLVED & PROVEN what happened._ Not stories… We witnessed the video/audio documentation of fact finding _that POLICE failed to obtain_ 40 years ago. *I loved it* ❣️ Combing through HOURS of video and photos TO PUT IN A TIMELINE that was truthful but also allowed for a delightfully unexpected *MISSING PUZZLE PIECE MOMENT* at around 01:15:00 where during the interview _with someone who hadn’t previously spoken PUBLICLY_ *we learned ✔️ her husband threw away/got rid of a gun that matched the murder weapon ✔️ threatened his wife to never tell about PREVIOUSLY STOLEN ANTIQUES he was tied to…* I’ll stop because my words can’t match my enjoyment of this amazing program. ✅ Producers ✅ Camera 🎥 operators ✅ Sound technicians ✅ Editors 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼JOB👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼WELL DONE👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼BY ALL👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 CHEERS FROM UTAH, USA❣️
I think he's full of rubbish. He's making every attempt to control the situation himself, then when it doesn't go his way he blames everyone else. It's like Ted Bundy.
I wholly agree. Also, when I checked out the Psychopathy test referenced within the documentary, it mentioned that Psychopaths tend to just wipe under one eye, as they're not really crying natural tears. As opposed to someone who is genuinely crying and wiping tears from both eyes. You will see that Bert does this a number of times throughout the documentary! Another thing that stung him, was making an 'unscheduled' stop at Barbara's house, expecting that this would make him look like a warm and caring man and hoping that she would still be able to offer him a 'cast-iron' alibi for the day of poor Carl's murder. Ooph, backfire for ol' Bertie on that one. 🤔😮🤤
Well ye But psychopaths are not always murderers David Wilson has also proven this in another documentary David Wilson also has the same traits as Bert I like what his daughter said that her father was different that day But it doesn't mean he murdered anyone David Wilson just picks the bits that fits his narrative
@Floyd1504 So well said!! More so after the expert was so conservative with his comments throughout the documentary, explained his professional findings etc. but the guy constantly displayed extreme narcissistic traits to the point that even a layman like myself can read through him from miles!! Kudos bro.
I think it raised a lot of questions that need to be answered, the alibi was certainly shown to be worthless for a start and the amount of circumstanceal evidence is great
His former wife threw him out and burnt a lot of his paintings. What a lady, well done.
Probably another exaggeration by him. He was arrested straight after killing Wilkes
That lady kept quiet for 40 yrs.
I was hoping the prof would have asked about that.
She had a funny
Not too clever.
This man is very well prepared and he knows what he's doing. He is in control all the time, when he feels he might lose it, he starts crying, on command. His need to be in control is based on desperation.
Exactly
Highly manipulative and people fall for this bull💩
He's been telling his story for almost 50 yrs..he's gotten good at it. However the study of crime has progressed too & its gotten good too & it continues to get better....
I’ve given this some thought as well, I mean, yes, an obvious control freak from the first meeting with David Wilson, to me was rude to not include his wife in the introduction and went ahead of her…leaving her to introduce herself. Not a huge deal but you can see his need to be in the limelight at anyone’s cost including his own daughter😣
IMO, he’s a total narcissist lying, murderous psychopath.
Too bad his ex wife Janet didn’t come forward sooner. It would be fabulous to find the bag of antiques he hid…his uniform as well would indeed have Karls blood🙏🏻❤️ Poor kid.
RIP🕊️
I just realized he was married three times (during the course of this documentary) interesting 🤔
Text book psychopath
"I'm not going to say let me get a word in, I AM going to get a word in, David-"
*Ad interrupts him* 😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 funniest comment on here 🤣
_|'
💀😂😂🤣
No ads during the whole thing for me
@@MrMississippiMan Me either...
There's something so sinister about this man. That ability to become so emotional to aggressive is scary. He's almost convincing at some points.
David looks very confused at times. He knows what he sees but is amazed at the simplicity of this man's madness.
I'm no professional and this man terrifies me. He has no soul but is masterful at trying to convince you he has.
David Wilson looks just as psychopathic. I find them extremely similar.
You’d be amazed what they can do with editing.
That’s a very good point, but now imagine, just imagine if he was innocent. Imagine living with the weight of everybody telling you that you’re a murderer, for 40 odd years. That has got to do something to you psychologically.Having said that, yes, he comes across as weird.
@@scratch5120 don't be so ludicrous
I disagree. It sounds like that whole township was morally corrupt. He just mentioned how the farmer that he looked up to would get women drunk and sleep with them. I don't blame him for getting a shotgun and blasting the fool for trying to do that to his wife? What would you have done? Keeping in mind that back then the older people had leverage over others as well as the township and could turn everyone against you if you didn't do what they said.
And honestly this isn't the only crime that has happened in these small towns in England. There's been all sorts of stories about cults, witch craft and satanism.
I believe one of the robbers did kill the kid. Maybe it was an accident, maybe not.
You can call anyone 'sinister' but you're being judgemental and as you mentioned you are not a professional. It takes a certain type of person to kill someone and hide it well for so long. Eventually they either break down or slip up. This man freely admitted to killing someone but not the kid. It wouldn't make any sense for him to do that.
When you keep repeating a lie for years and years, at some point, you'll convince yourself that what you're saying is the truth.
I completely agree, but it also works both ways. If you convince yourself that someone acted in a certain manner/committed a specific act over 4 decades, then you will also start to believe it. I’m not saying he’s not guilty, I’m also not saying he is as it’s not for me to judge, however it is for me to have an opinion and in all honesty due to the way this documentary has been carried out it is very difficult to gain a fully objective insight as I feel that crucial information has been left out of every aspect and the interviewer makes it extremely difficult due to his highly questionable professional integrity, due to him being unable to remain neutral from the very start.
Wasnt this h*tler’s sentence?
@@Angel-tv5lq I totally agree.. If he would have stayed neutral during the interviews he would have been able to obtain much more information from the guy. The man would would have see him as someone interested in knowing how he feels about the whole case and ask questions always letting him know that it's part of what he have to do and not personal.. Neutrality is very important when you are going to interview people.
@@vicksss807 I don't think that's necessarily so. Interviewing techniques need to fit the interviewee. When dealing with a narcissistic personality the 'personal touch' yields better results.
@@ImperfectionGuaranteed I respect your opinion and stick with mine. A good reporter needs to be impartial.. The man have not been charge with the crime. It does not matter that circumstantial evidence says he is the murderer..The questions should always be directed at the suspect letting him know his neutrality..Narcissist people tend to talk more when they feel the interviewer is not judging or is convinced he is the murderer , like it happened here..The reporter should want to know what the accused opinion is not his.. A narcissist reveals more when they feel he is not been judge!
As a lifelong documentary junkie I have to say this is probably the most fascinating one I've ever watched, and I must have watched hundreds over the years.
You would thoroughly enjoy The Jinx then.
The staircase is good too.
Me too .Love crime documentaries the most .
It’s one of my favourite docs. I have watched a million times and it blows me away every time at the absolute blatant narcissistic psychopathy BS not only displays…but lack of empathy astounds me!
His ex wife should’ve come forward long ago.
Poor Karl🙏🏻
Also low key hilarious, this guy is like a character
To get rid of the ads go straight to the last few seconds of the video and play it until it's finished...then the replay button in the middle of the screen comes up. Click on that to play the video from the start ad free. Hope this helps.
Rachel Collett thanks!
You've just solved my daily breakdowns, thank you 😭✌🏼
👌👍
Rachel, you are a hero.
Or add an adblocker for youtube to your browser bar.
The almost last scene where Professor is face-to-face with Spencer sent absolute shivers as I actually know someone who argues the same way when put on the spot and confronted with the truth or criticism!!
me too! I woke up this morning remembering these exact kinda conversations! really sent chills down my spine hearing how he tries to wiggle his way out of everything and reply with threats and reversing what is being said to him.
When you've experienced it in person, you can spot it, even taking good editing into account. Some things can't be edited.
He is trying so hard not to attack him.
Sounds concerning, please be very careful of that relationship Kelly...
@@debra7699 you will be happy to hear I’ve cut that negativity out of my life! Better for it!! 😁
I've just got back in last 30 mins from a talk given by Prof Wilson. He said as soon as he clapped eyes and shook his hand he knew Bert did it! Prof Wilson is fascinating we all cldve listened to him for hours. Utterly mesmerising 👍👍👍👍
it´s good that it takes more than that to convict someone, because this was scary. I agree that he probably did do it, but the hunch of a famous doctor is not what should convict someone, and luckily isn´nt. It would be 100% possible that this guy was completely innocent, and the doctor could end up with the same conclution. And all the things that make him seem more guilty from our perspective actually makes sense from an innocent persons point of view. And the doctor does indeed look insane if you rewatch it thinking the guy is innocent
Wise words. So without evidence no one should be able to harrass Bert.@@Myrzghe
Professor Wilson is biased at @Wendyross7206
@@KyleJames2580 Basically, yes. I would welcome a conviction of Spencer if he is guilty as proven in a court of law, but I'm not convinced Prof Wilson is professional when he claims he 'knows' someone committed a crime from looking at them for a few seconds and shaking their hand".
Just a couple examples of this being a bad idea are the cases of Chris Jefferies, an innocent man, who was vilified and accused of the murder of Joanna Yeates in the media based on his eccentric behaviour, which saw him hounded by the public, and Colin Stagg, who was actually sent to prison because of snap judgements about his personality before being exonerated after new evidence came to light. This is exactly why we use evidence to convict people and not, "He gives me the creeps, he must have done it!".
If the police are unable to prove Spencer did it with crime scene investigations and extensive research, then I don't think Prof Wilson with his "I looked at him for a few seconds and knew he committed a crime" is on a very strong footing. It may make for sensational soundbites for his paying audience in little clubs, away from the scrutiny of Spencer's lawyers, but it serves no practical purpose in the courts and to harass someone for the rest of their life based on a hunch because "They might get away with it!" is not the way to go no matter how hard that is for us to accept.
Additionally, Prof Wilson has possibly made himself vulnerable to litigation by telling public audiences that he "knows" Spencer committed murder. If I was Spencer's lawyer, I'd be sharpening my pencil.
@@Vinterbukser I ain't reading that.
I love that he's indignant about "i would never rob a house where i thought people were, in my uniform for crying out loud" but not "i would never harm a sweet little child"
Nor, “I would never rob a house.” Period. Something is definitely off abt old man Bert
His argument there is about logical sense, a clever burglar wouldn't carry out a robbery wearing his very identifiable work uniform especially in an area he is well known. That's the point he was making. Of course the counter is if it's something he's done several times without getting caught then he's just become complacent.
Hi Andy, his wife when interviewed stated that on the day of carls murder, she arrived home and bert was in the conservatory, he said to his wife that he felt sick. His wife noticed on the washing line a green pullover, which had been washed, when asked by mr Wilson had she ever seen the pullover before she replied no, and confirmed that after that day she never saw it again.
If bert was robbing yew tree farm, he probably wore the pullover and if he murdered Carl in the same pullover it would have been over his ambulance shirt, which thus would have been removed in order for him to return home, when he was seen by the witness who clearly saw the pips on the shirt when he was driving his car
@@Suzyfromtheblock Except the witness said he saw the blue car driven by a man in uniform "turning into the farm" not leaving it.
@@janiceal-najjar5093 yes good point, we only have that witness and was it Bert he saw
Brilliant Documentary. Hats off to this Interviewer. We need him for GLOBAL POLITICS !
As it goes he missed several ops there
where were the owners of the farm ? they were there EVERY day to collect the paper
Bert KNEW this ,id have knocked him out m8 the overwhelmimg urge to hit psychos comes from the terraces ill admit but they are all wimps deep down which is why ^^^ bert picked on an old man & a young kid :/
@@mcfcguvnors exactly! Says he doesn't run & doesn't hide...he's done nothing but run & hide & allowed other ppl to take the blame for his misdeeds. Those guys lost 20yrs of their lives.
@@debra7699those guys were armed robbers.
@@epiphanyx3705 Hi, what's your point? It's been very well established that guns were used,.?
My sincere condolences to the parents of this paper boy who was so kind to go in the house to the elderly couple how very sad ,chilling to watch
Rain, hale or shine that young man delivered those papers!
why would you cut the barrel off before shooting his friend and surely any normal person would calm down and see sense after 15 mins of sawing
Well... the obvious lie. He doesn't know what happened after the cocktail comment, but lo and behold, remembers using a hacksaw (which would have reduced stress load) and shooting his friend. That gun was already cut. He stewed in his juices, built up his jealousy, killed his friend, then lied.
PROUD_BRIT exactly
PROUD_BRIT Lmao
Using a standard American Made hacksaw a shotgun barrel can be severed in under one minute, even a double barrel!
Narcissists rage is methodical and doesn’t look like rage at all
You can easily tell this guy isn't right. It's just a feeling he gives off. Like you would feel uncomfortable around him.
Emily the loli Nightray The understatement of the century.
I feel uncomfortable with the guy THRU THE SCREEN!
What on earth are you people talking about? This is an innocent man if ever there was one 😂😂😂😂
But put yourself in his position. If you assume he is innocent, 40+ years of allegations would leave you not exactly 'right' either. I don't think thats sufficient to make a decision.
Especially if you think he could leave the room and come back with a gun! I wonder what his "friend" was thinking when he saw that?
If you did something good no one remembers, If you do something bad nobody forgets
True! Sad but very true!
There are things people need to know to have peace
I think it is the thought of shooting a ten year old in the face!
??? . The guy killed 1 person (so called friend) and most likely killed a second person being a young innocent paper boy!
@Sheerluck Holmes interesting take. I like that. To add to that, maybe there’s something evolutionary or biological to it. We ostracize the bad for a good reason; so we can survive and live as well as possible. In theory, obviously. Maybe that’s too idealistic to be anywhere near accurate.
Yes: and condolences to Carl Bridgewater's family! R.I.P Carl, an innocent child doing his paper-round.
When he said (around 39:00): "I'm my daddy's boy", that's when I'd have asked who his daddy was, what kind of relationship they had, etc. *_There's_* your key to the guy !
He was probably a violent murderer.
I felt it means that his daddy was sexually abusing him and he was his "boy".
Then saying to the question who are you ? He is triggered to reply what his dad might have made him say forcibly: "I'm my daddy's boy" likely something he has to say while being abused.
He stayed triggered and mentioned "don't get on my back" which is what his father would have done when abusing him. "If you get on my back IT will come out" are the next words: IT being the split persona that commits the murders.
@@reallythere
You're a moron
@Danie R ... I’m my daddy’s boy/girl same as I’m my father’s daughter just means we’re alike in our ways personality and characteristics. Get off my back is an old way of saying get off my case. Old classic UK sayings.
Perhaps his father was abusive or raped him and a child because he’s stuck in the past. Nobody says “I’m daddy´s little boy” maybe its not the case but its just something that crossed my mind. If he was not the killer he would not be so defensive... hmmm
When they were in the old neighborhood speaking with the neighbor who gave him a "iron clad" alibi. She slip and almost said he was missing. She did quickly correct herself, but i heard it.
He also let him know in no uncertain terms that he wasn't to be messed with. That was chilling.
timestamp?
I noticed this also
Yeah, I noticed that too.
@@ruthd7274Yes. There's a devil in that man whether he's guilty or not.
If you all noticed it you'd know she wasn't a neighbour as youve stated she was his secretary at the hospital where he worked, he's guilty
"Killing my friend hurts me" - the mark of a narcissist.
@Combat Bananas it might but hes making the death about himself not his friend
Spot on!
For narcissists everything is about them.
@@sundinfamforlife4129 and that's another trait of a narcissist. It's always about them.
Depends what he means by *hurts* and only in an objective context, also you'd have to know if the subject described the friend as a close friend or an acquaintance since the term friend is a variable.
The standard issue p-scan is irrelevant as its being applied throughout when multiple stressors are present, this can lead to false results. Ive no doubt hes engineering questions for the p-scan relative to the stressors, this is not what its for.
Less professor more nutty professor and i'd be seriously concerned if the cops in my town were using p-scans to formulate guilt and suspects. Lastly there really is no narcissist model of person, there are only traits.
First of all, may Carl Rest in Peace 🙏 Secondly, the daughter (especially) and the wife know what happened ...time to reopen this case 😔
Whether he did it or not, it is clear that Bert suffers greatly from the association with this crime. Not that suffering could stand in place of a criminal conviction & punishment, but his life has been changed by the allegations & he did not go completely unpunished.
“Don’t get on my back .................... I am my daddy’s boy”
such an odd thing to say. The guy is unhinged
That made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. That WAS a threat, despite his constant denials that it was such.
Yes, but in different cultures - maybe "societies" is better - sayings can very well have different meanings. If you were to show a short clip to 13 different people, you would undoubtedly get 13 different perspectives.
It's really weird that you can't grip the exact way he's saying it, you must come from a good family 👍 well done to you.
He means it and is warning because he doesn't want to but he knows he will if you understand that 👍
really really odd thing to answer a question of: "who are you?"
He's way too old to be saying that.
“I’ve spoken to & prayed for you Carl, many times”
“What do you think he’d say back?”
“I don’t know”
“He might say you killed him”
“He might. But it would be a lie”:
🤔
So crazy
He's not especially educated: a better read person would've said "untrue" but native cunning will only take this horrible man so far.
Yeah, that was weird. I thought it showed that Burt was digging for something he thought would show him in an innocent and caring light.
"That's your shtick Bert"
"That's your shtick Bert"
Like when he's pointing out Carl's house but he doesn't want to seem like he knows exactly where it is he tries to act like he doesn't know where it is, somewhere over there. It's the little things, he is trying to distance himself.
Houdini, and he claimed he didn't know what Bridgewater looked like. I know exactly what the boys in my neighborhood look like.
Actually the way those houses all look alike and the fact it was so long ago I don't see it as such a big deal. They look like an apartment complex here in America.
@@keepitsimple4629
That's creepy
@@songbirdy That’s how I feel too. I didn’t see that as very telling of anything. I’m not sure he did it and I really don’t know how anyone could be certain. I’m not saying he’s a wonderful perfect person who hasn’t made mistakes because we all have. However, I am a firm believer in “Innovation until proven guilty” and there’s just no proof of anything here.
The fact so many detectives are in the comments condemning him is scary to me! It really says a lot in my opinion about how quickly people are to point the finger without facts. For that reason only, I am against the death penalty in most cases. I think people would be shocked if really knew how many innocent people have been put behind bars over the years allover the world.
Absolutely spot on! It's ridiculous to claim not knowing a child who only lives a couple of doors away that plays regularly outside your house.
Poor child. Rest in Peace Carl Bridgewater 🙏
I would like to have heard more about Berts relationship with his father. I suspect there’s a lot to learn.
Yes turning him into the person he was. .☮️
Yes true!
Nah that’s just a sob story to gain sympathy
@sarahkitley87 The thing is, it's often not a case of it being true OR being a sob story, you often find that these things often contributed to how someone is, but at the same time, the person is then opportunistic enough to weaponise this and use it in future to try and assuage any responsibility for their actions
Always be cautious with the bastards that bursts into laughter every 5 seconds after telling a "joke"
Exactly..hiding his nerves
Omg yes! There is ALWAYS something off about men like that.
one thing l cannot stand - someone who laughs at their own jokes.....eww!
I knew one. "Small business man." Con man ...
Very grating forced laughter at that.
If someone living close to me got murdered my first reaction wouldn't be to immediately ask my partner "did you commit that murder"
Odd.
no you're right, one would have to have some reason to do so.
Agreed. I also thought that was very odd...
What else is odd, they spend so much time focused on how he lives 3 houses down and didnt say he knew the kid, yet she doesnt seem to have any notable recollection of the family either
What about if your partner had already served time for a shotgun murder previously? I think then you might.
@@thesouluniversal but the murder he committed was apparently a jealous rage , not robbery, there is nothing to say he was any kind of crook before the murder he committed tbf.
Professor David Wilson summed him up perfectly
He was ever so slightly threatening towards the interviewer at times.
He has been through the years
I think he was openly threatening
Narcissism
@@globalwarmhugs7741 oh, me too..very threatening🤯
He was more than that, he's very threatening despite advancing yrars: he exudes menace at will. And he is a wilful man.
Through all this bullcrap there is a family that still has no closure on Carl's murder. This is sad
William Edward strange bloke
Never even said how sad he felt for Carl and his family though.
@@williamedward1892 so weird
Like everyone else in Worsley they know Spencer did it. It isn't like some unknown bogeyman did it then disappeared into the ether. Sad that the monster isn't behind bars for the rest of his life, but there is some closure for them knowing he did it.
@@vordman agree completely
...i think he robbed the place with Hubert and the reason why he continues to deny that he killed Carl is because he didn't. Maybe it was the friend- and the night he killed Hubert, I think they had an argument where Hubert was threatening to admit his crime due to guilt which would blow up his spot too. His coping method to feel a little bit less guilty about it all is to constantly say he didn't kill Carl because in his mind he "technically" didn't. Hubert probably discussed with him that he might go to the police and admit the crime and Bert took it as "jumping on his back" and handled it as his "father would".
Incredible theory!
hhahahahahhaha He continues to deny it because he enjoys creating lies in the minds of others, he defenetly killed him, he does not want to go to jail. pure narcissist, that simple
Far more likely that Bert killed Hubert in the "throes of passion" knowing he'd do less time for a crime of passion?
Bert weighed the odds and figured a few years was better than 25 years. And a child killer probably doesn't do well in prison.
You pretty much go it there man. I reacken that happened aswell. Rite on brother
Except that Bert was the one destroying a shotgun. Bert killed his friend in a "moment of passion" No. Bert killed the kid and his friend was not okay with that and it cost him his life.
Better 8 years for a crime of passion instead of life as a child killer.
he shows all the emotions of a guilty man....he knows he did it and the interviewer does too....creepy...imagine him near you...
Agree.... even then,at that time, he could & would kill you & it wouldn't even raise his pulse - very much anyway:)
He lives very close to a primary school though, which might be worrying to some…although I don’t think he’s a high risk to children specifically, provided they don’t witness him robbing a place…Dont think they can do much about it though….
😱
"When were you when you heard about the murder of Carl Bridgewater"
The dude responds
"@ home" pauses a bit and then says
"No, sorry sorry, I was at work"
That right there is a sign. He might be innocent as a lamb, but hey, that slip would get a brother in some trouble elsewhere.
I'm still 50/50 on this one. The casual nature in which he deals with the murder he did actually commit is disturbing and suggests that he's extremely dodgy.
However his point about the unlikely scenario of arriving in uniform, in his own car to do a robbery in broad daylight at the farm is a good defense.
robberies usually are committed in broad daylight, because it’s more likely that nobody will be home, but it is unlikely that he’d do it in uniform and in his own car, though i have a theory as to why he did that (if he did). he’s a psychopath; he gets a kick out of the added risk of getting caught, though this theory is quite weak because he’d have to be extremely stupid to do that and act on that temptation. but because he’s a psychopath (as i’ve mentioned), maybe it’d be a lot harder to resist.
I guarantee he did it. Wilkes either knew he did it or was there with him so he killed Wilkes too. Two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead.
Doing robbery on broad daylight because he knows that the owner is working on the farm the time he do the robbery=).
@@zeckua Wearing a uniform is more reason to me he is guilty. He can explain he's there for a reason, knock on the door in an official capacity, to see if someone is home not as a stranger trespassing. Car he is driving is of no consequence, just convenience.
I think he either told Wilkes what he'd done in a drunken stupor or had been stealing from the old timer too, then had to get rid of him.
Hiding in plain sight
Why are the comments mainly used for giving opinion? What about discussion? There are so many unanswered questions:
1: Why wasn't the first wife asked about the night of the second murder?
2: How far was the cottage from the hospital?
3: If the door of the cottage was open, was it forced open? Or who might have had a key?
4: Was anything in the cottage disturbed?
There are so many questions...
Where were the people who lived there?
I would say that the crazy old fella was the most disturbed thing in the cottage.
He could be innocent but those days people jump into conclusions.
@Alex B Thank god there is at least 1 open minded person in the comments. It really annoys me in this comment section with all these so called internet experts saying things like "im only 3 mins in and i can already tell he did it and he is a psychopath" its insane to just go along with whatever theory that a documentary puts to you and David Wilson himself didn't go into this to find out if he did it or not he went into this wanting the guy to confess because in Wilson's head he done the crime.
How that guy makes a living i do not know and it annoys me that in every crime doc i see in England he is in it giving his one sided biased opinions not based on facts.
Its the same with the Maddy McCann story lots of documentaries get made on the pretence that she was kidnapped yet they should be going into the doc thinking what happened to Maddy because they is no evidence that she was kidnapped and if someone's reads this and says to me "Yes she was because her parents said so" I will say to you if your using that logic then this guy Burt didn't kill that kid because he said so.
I have mentioned that in a response to a comment. I feel it is very difficult to form a true opinion as I feel that there is a lot of crucial information all round that has not been included but in asking the questions do you really feel that the makers of this documentary will answer them? If they wanted them to be known, or included they would be in it and therefore no questions to ask. A very subjective viewpoint from the interviewer is the only true opinion I can offer.🙌🏼
Assuming no creative editing, and that nothing is missing from this, I’m convinced Spencer is the killer and this professor is brilliant. I’ve been face to face with narcissistic killers and this is exactly how they react. The rage is brimming under the surface and professor knew how to talk, what to ask, how close to get and when to slightly back off enough to alleviate pressure but still stay on the trail.
In the docu it’s interesting who is bert talking to when he says that prof Wilson has got him by trial by media, and how did they get that recording
I am also curious about the possibility of "creative editing". Did you notice the credits included a cast of 6 players?
@@DyreStraits yes
@@DyreStraits All the credits are doing is acknowledging the actors who worked on the re-enactment scenes that are dotted throughout. Caerphilly Players is a drama group in that local area.
@@redtez I suppose that is the explanation. I have watched a bit of the documentary again and am trying to recall what made me think otherwise. Perhaps it's just my suspicion of manipulative media sources.😄
You can imagine his demeanour turning nasty and violent very quickly
I agree.you absolutely can see how he could change.
All you can do is imagine it... because it did not happen...
AHAH Marmelade seems like nobody agrees with you, evil will get him in one form or the other before he dies
@@Queenwraith ... I am a lawyer, mate and it seems that the entire Crown Prosecution Service (the CPS) , all very experienced criminal lawyers, agree with me so who gives a toss what you think, LOL
AHAH Marmelade AHAH Marmelade ‘Lawyer’ and ‘mate’ don’t mix. Are you saying there have never been miscarriages of justice or something? They put the wrong 4 away for 20 years you idiot, and then the law decided to agree WITH ME that he IS a Murderer killing someone in the exact same way a year later! I understand if you’re a trolling defence student but if you think this guys completely innocent you’re deluded
“We’re not arguing, we’re seriously discussing something that touches my emotions!”
"The truth does not mind being questioned. The lie hates to be challenged."
Bender bending Rodriguez, My my very intelligently put . We have a philosopher here ! :)
@@sonnycorleone2602 Nah, I saw that quote somewhere on the internet
On the contrary, a person who is innocent would act rightfully indignant and frustrated after having been falsely accused for decades. Stop pretending to know things you don't know.
@@huss03He's guilty div
The level of narcissism of Bert is incredible. To think you could call one of the UKs most respected criminologists and try to convince him that your a nice guys is just off the charts. Don’t get me wrong I’m not a huge fan of David but this program is an incredible insight into the mind of a psychopath and I have to watch it every now and then!
Sociopaths and their fake tears... some are better than others, this guy is terrible
I agree he is uncouth and a loud mouth who never gave all the facts
He gets kicks out of reliving it
Good enough to stay out of jail and troll the world to do a documentary to show his "power".
Doza spot on the guys a joke. Only a sheep would believe his fake tears
Crocodile tears
This guy practically sends shivers down my spine, he is really intimidating and I do not envy the man interviewing him.
He’s repugnant, hey-he thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and that no one will be capable of seeing through the treachery-I can only imagine how terrifying and intimidating it would be to be in the same room, with that creep, whilst he is giving you death stares, through those reptilian eyes, when you tell him he’s an accomplished liar and a murderer-😡
He’s a punie fetal old man. Push him over with one finger
Febal
Feeble, yes he is and creepy with it!I wouldn't want to find out how "puny" he is😱he comes off as cunning too.@@marietaylor9032
@Matt 22 I totally agree.
Reminds me of Chris Watts, how he talks about how the murder he committed impacted himself, while showing zero compassion or consideration for for the person he killed or their loved ones.
Yes and the trainer of Chris watts was his mother,,, it seems that Bert Spencer had a basket case of a father ..... When the police go for a perpetrator they should interview parents separately to see who is culpable for turning out narcissists, covert, grandiose, etc sociopaths, psychopaths, etc
Parents not doing their job right lands the rest of society with a nightmare landscape. Of these type of people many not human.
Interview them too
Peace out ☮️
SW England 🇬🇧
I went ‘a bit unwell ‘after being abused by a Narcissist.
I’m still ‘unwell’ and probably will never recover.
All along the Narcissist played the victim of some unhinged man .
I think Bert Spencer is more than a narcissist. He is most likely a full blown psychopath. Narcissism is always present in a psychopath though, but you can be a narcissist without being a psychopath, all though its a very fine line. Being subjected to a person with narcissism or psychopathy is extremely hard, and it will be with you for life. My advice to you and other people who have been the victim of this is to realize that nothing was your fault. A narcissist will lay all blame on you for the bad things they do. And they are masters of manipulation. They prey on soft and good hearted people.
It permanently changes your brain
Takes a long time to heal
People are not a narcissist because they admit to being unwell
if you're going to do a proper interview you should go into it without bias
much like prosecutors...they are to seek justice but they just want to win...:(
I agree, this a biased interview and documentary
I agree. @Purple Water Lily What are you on about "not humanly possible" ? to do an interview without bias ? Of course its possible to do an interview without bias. Please explain why you think otherwise ?
Maryam Hussain exactly what my comment is attempting to explain, however you have got it nicely wrapped up in just a few words.🙌🏼
Simon Dominic Jesus Wept....!!! When a judge is hearing a case every person before him, and in the eyes of the police is legally to be considered and treated as innocent until proved guilty. It is one of our unqualified fundamental rights within the u.k, which is what makes our justice system ‘allegedly’ one of the best. Unfortunately some judges become what is called as ‘case hardened’ as do some police officers - unfortunately! However that is why the burden of proof in criminal cases MUST be ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’! In a nutshell, all wrapped up nice and neat means that the legal system are not in any position to be biased, which is also why the case shudnt be jeopardised by the media and in some situations cases have been heard in Courts halfway across the Country - so the judge, jury etc are completely unbiased and base their ruling or determination on the facts of the case alone and in most cases, actually nearly all cases, any other previous convictions are not allowed to be made known unless the person is convicted (found guilty based on factual evidence - although in very rare instances some cases are taken to court based on circumstantial evidence, but in the u.k that’s very difficult to do). Only if convicted are previous offences made known and that is for purposes of sentencing. So yes - unbiased or viewed objectively, is what our civil and human rights afford us when facing a criminal offence which could potentially take away our liberty for a lifetime...or the best part of it!
He knows he's getting interviewed about killing a child so he starts out talking about how he likes delivering babies and getting all emotional. Yeah he did it.
haniffah, Hi I agree. I think he did kill the kid and is having a difficult time living with it everyday. That's why all the crying.
@@channelthegijoeshow oh phooey! People can have an opinion and dialogue it’s the point of comments and half the fun of watching. ✌️
Maybe but he also seems false somehow.. god knows how I’d behave if I was accused of something like that but this dude seems über hinky!
Gives me the heebee geebees.
Great point, I never looked at it like that about him and babies.
@@commonsense571
.
He bawls talking about what a hero he was when he delivered a baby. He LAUGHS talking about murdering his friend and beating the crap out of his wife. Oh but it was his wife who was crazy and burned his paintings.
There are a lot of psychos in the medical fraternity. Police, military, CEOs, teachers, social workers, surgeons, etc. there are certain jobs that attract them.
Peace ☮️ out
SW England 🇬🇧
@@christynorman7288 Definitely in the medical fraternity. Doctors not so much, but I've seen a lot of nurses who are very suspect.
@@vordman there’s plenty of Drs. You’re just thinking of cases in recent years that are nurses and have gotten a lot of attention. But if you do a simple search, you’ll see the plethora of Drs!!
Whoever framed him up in front of that tiger tapesty deserved an Emmy for it.
As an American, I can say confidently that if this crime and interview had happened in the U.S., the interviewee would have had the interviewer in civil court in "a New York minute" and sued him for a boatload of $$$.
Yes but defamation is a civil matter tested on the balance of probabilities not beyond all reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial - I think there’s enough evidence for him to be considered guilty on a civil test - very lucky not to have been prosecuted.
Dawnguard disagree. The fact that four of them were found guilty for the killing and there was a number of confessions is enough. What is the point of a conviction if the person convicted’s mom can go on national television and accuse someone else?
Maybe, but it didn't happen in the U.S., so...
I really doubt that. In a civil case aren't the rules of evidence a lot looser? Bert looks terrible now, he'd look much worse in a civil case I bet.
right, its slander
I feel that some of you are fooled by the old man act.... he is a cold blooded killer .. watch again and again and again .. then think
Just a dotery old man that makes silly jokes like charging 30p for a cuppa, but then turns on a dime when challenged. Fake tears, fake emotion. He thinks he’s playing the part of a human really well, it shows in his arrogance. But he is simply wearing a human suit nonetheless.
Mate i watched only one time and i can say he is f...ing clever !!!! Everyone who bealive to this old f..ker is moron !!
@@sandyb6571 I don't believe him, he definitely was involved in some way, whether he killed Carl himself or not I don't know. But the interviewer did a horrible job and the only reason why I'm convinced he or at least his gun was involved is what his former wife said about him getting rid of the gun the day after
Just like golden state killer pretending to be old and feeble when they first brought him in then shown exercising in his cell just fine
If he killed child.Have they found any DAN on the victim’s Body.
I remember this oh so well. About 2 miles away from my home. Poor Carl, r.i.p and bless his family. X
What an exceptional documentary! First class work
That moment where he asks what would the dead boy say, and the interviewer says he'd say "you killed me" and the accused for a brief moment role plays with the idea of "he might say that" before realising the insanity of such an idea, and reverts to "he would be wrong" speaks to me that he is guilty... cause most innocent people when posed with the idea of "if the innocent young dead boy could speak- he'd say you killed me" would be outraged at the intimate statement and outright deny, rather than stating "well he might say that" SHOCKING!
That's a point
Exactly, he gave himself away there. Wilson was too quick for him.
TOTALLY! I caught that right away. It was like a confession.
Excellent observation
Even though Bert tried very hard he couldn't keep his true nasty attitude hidden. He's an 'it's my way or the highway' type of bloke.
I strongly believe that this man is a textbook psychopath, and a pathological liar. The way that he subtlety devalues others, his underlying rage and shallow “acted” emotions. In my experience, all very strong indicators of a personality disorder. I’m quite shocked that police have not had enough evidence to convict him.
That sums him up. He’s mentally agile but can’t conceal his anger. In fact when he gets angry he loses it to such an extent that it’s obvious he’s trying to conceal it, which is much much worse.
Out of interest, what 'experience' is that?
He's a sociopath as a psychopath can have remorse. I've only ever diagnosed 3 Narcacists but he is well in the frame.
Odd what I've said is credited to you. Never known that. 101% is my saying an word for word you said the same. ???
What you believe doesn't make it a FACT. What an ignorant basis LOL.....how about show EVIDENCE without reasonable doubt?? Judgmental minds of stupid ppl is the very cancer of the justice system.
Hahaha uhhh "I did not kill Carl Bridgewater, and I will prove to you I did not"
*Cut to title*
INTERVIEW WITH A MURDERER
n. p. He did assume to killing his friend so yea he’s a killer after all
Are you talking about me? I sure hope not cause I do have an education and second he IS a murderer because he assumed he killed his friend and that's why he served 14 years. I never assumed he killed the boy.
Metal Matt clearly he didn’t watch the video before committing.
@Isaiah Jammes he is talking about the title that says "interview with a murderer" implying we are seeing the interview with the "murderer" if he isn't then the documentaries title is a little misleading.
Bert confessed to murdering his friend. Guilty. He gives himself away in this interview. At 9:48 he says "The only problem is anything good you've done in life, say saving lives, delivering babies...it doesn't count for anything when you get yourself in trouble. It's all demolished." Narcissists always give themselves away if you pay attention. He can't produce a real tear and had to hide his eyes in the handkerchief. Another narcissist trick. At 10:46 he says he took a course in delivering babies so the baby would survive his rough handling. Then the fake tears. If you continue to watch, he will smile after telling lie he believes he got away with.
The chemistry between Spencer and the interviewer leaps through my phone screen! Their eyes are like daggers! If looks could kill, they'd bothe be laying on the floor! ☠️🗡 😆
I was thinking, if the cameras weren't there and it was just the two of them on a chance encounter I doubt he'd have got away so lightly.
Calm down.
@misstinytrader,the interviewer refused to be manipulated by him. Something the man is unaccustomed to.
His ex-wife is still afraid of him and she's telling the truth. She didn't "have a funny." She was his target of abuse for many years.
Amen Barbara! All too often these violent men are allowed to stay in society far longer than they should, and we should take seriously women’s reports of violence and threatening behavior. No matter if he committed this crime or not, he should have faced consequences for his treatment towards his ex-wife.
My ax husband is a smary person like him every one though he is a nice person he was a pediofile one of worst the police had ever met my girl's were lucky I divorced the beast before he had the chance to do any thing to them don't be fooled he is a nasty piece of work
@@bethany2820 …agree but I don’t think there was much help, if any back in those days for women of domestic violence. Family or friends would shelter the women for a few days till hubby dearest “cooled down” ..or was manipulated into returning home with all types of promises from hubby. For women back then, the old mentality of “ put up and shut up” stood fast as well … sadly.
@@JojoplusBo sadly indeed, and even sadder that it still happens all the time today. 😔
@@bethany2820 … yes, it still does but at least there is much more help including financial help for those who do seek help in getting away from an abuser. For some the old mentality or cultural mentality stands fast unfortunately…
“I just had a poo in the toilet”.
Sinister.
1:02:45 Look how red he goes
it made me think, along with another scatological comment, that there's some molestation in this story
Yes, he’s obviously the murderer 🤦🏼♀️.
There's one important fact that came out now: he has no allibi, he wasn't at the hospital all day. Not at all.
@Molly Mars Yes l agree it definitely appears that Wilson is biased not saying that Burt is innocent but that bias is notable early on in the documentary
@@stevencorder36 why do you think Wilson is biased? He's an expert clinical psychologist who deals in facts. He acted professionally and wasn't hoodwinked by Spencer's blatant attempts to kid him that he was a nice old bloke.
pluijm2, Plus Bert Spencer never gave a reason why he murdered, Hubert Wilkes his friend with a shotgun.
@@JD-li1xw People think he's biased because he's asking hard questions.
Not a lot of people directly confront a person the way he does.
It's like a police officer who's bluffing to you that they know you did something and they have evidence to see if the person will admit to their crime.
It feels like that's how Wilson confronts him. He's not afraid to relentlessly ask heavy question after heavy question while looking at him and telling him that he's convinced that it COULD'VE been him who killed Carl; poking him for a reaction.
But surely the boy's time of death would be fairly accurate to within an hour and if the 4 originally found guilty of the robbery were there at that time, it makes it unlikely an outsider would be responsible. They certainly never implicated Burt or anyone (it seems) at the time of their arrest and interrogations, only after they went to prison and Burt began a suspect after the second murder. How far was the hospital from the house? He was working until 5:15pm and the murder occurred around 4pm well past his lunch break and too early before he finished work. How would he get there and back that quick unless the hospital was really close? What about his clothes and also the shock effect of just blowing someones head off, would he even be capable of acting normal and doing his job still?
Love Professor David Wilson ..He is such an intelligent man .. Had Burt Spencer summed up from the 1st meeting
Insincerity prevalent from the outset upon greeting David Wilson. Excellent episode 👍
Totally, anyone greeted me that way I'd run a mile in the other direction
This is one of the most interesting documentaries I have ever watched. It is completely spell binding and fascinating to see such a scholar as David Wilson interview this man. What a professional man, such intelligence and completely awe inspiring. Having watched it several times now, I am ( in my humble, amateur opinion, convinced of this mans guilt.)
Such a terribly sad way for that beautiful young boy to lose his life and my heart aches for his family. David Wilson is incredible
Its fascinating and one thing nobody asked, is that if he was a regular visitor at Yew tree farm, why would he have to break in ? I cannot without being in the same room as him tell if he is genuine or not.
@@allisonthompson9782 Breaking in makes it obvious it was a burglary which would mean anyone may have perpetrated it.
Going in by means of someone familiar to the property narrows the pool of suspects to very few.
Carl was his neighbour and would have identified Spencer within seconds, dead men tell no tales.
Spencer is a narcissistic psychopath, he doesn't care Carl was a kid, he did not care Wilkes was elderly and like a father figure either, he did not care he beat his wife with the butt of a shotgun and would have killed her too had she not run and hidden.
In my opinion, he probably told Wilkes what he'd done in a drunken stupor on his birthday, again, dead men tell no tales.. That's why could offer no genuine explanation to why he killed him, it would also implicate him further.
Me to, mi 1st feeling is he did not kill this boy, he acts all defensive cuz he is tier of all those years off alegations against him whitout 1 rea l peace off evidence against him.
Now he is old and bitter and have nothing to hide no more.
Nah, seems to me that the doctor has an agenda from the get-go
It's terrible, absolutely terrible
This is causing her great anxiety. Her memory seems in tact. If it's true she was abused, she wouldn't have been questioning him much then and why she says that because of his book and the documentary is only why she speaks now! Bless them all.
I was also stunned with how stressed she was. Her breathing was so laboured & ßhe was so compelling. I believed every word she said!
Fascinating interview and overwhelming evidence. Thoroughly well done. Bravo.
In the whole thing Bert plays the victim when he's been found guilty of murder himself! I feel for the poor boy and his family, they are the real victims in this story ❤
@randyp070129 do some more reading on the case. Hes guilty.
randyp070129 I agree with you!
Steven McCallum I have read on it. What else is there?
One of the best documentaries I have ever seen!!!,,and I'm quarantined!!..so I watch a lot of shows!!..lol..just amazing sleuthing!!
i hope this was sarcasm lol
I think it's really good
His body language tells a story in itself.
Where are all these quarantined folks at ? I havent seen anyone quarantined down here. Must be up north ?. I havent even seen anyone wearing a mask in weeks. Even in tha wal n Martz
If you like this documentary, you may also like the documentary interview with the mother of one of our most favourite entertainers, I’m talking about the mother of jb. A mummy of a little guy called Justin, Justin Bieber
Spencer gives off the impression of a rather angry man, with no control at all. Who seems to be very very manipulative. He’s just so weird, I’ve never felt this off about a person in my entire life. I’m certain he was involved.
I see your a Celtic man so I shall take your word at that good sir!
My take is that he definitely has his issues but I can imagine being hounded and called a child killer for over 40 years probably would make me upset and pissed about it whenever someone brings it up yet again
You are lucky to see your first psychopath his ex wife still has the shakes when she talks about him, can you imagine living with a guy that killed a man & then a kid ? She never told on him because he would be out on bail or have someone kill her before she could be a witness. They only keep killers in jail all that long he got out early on the first one.
you think he was involved, and you evidence is what? shut up fool
I think he killed his "friend" because he was threatening to tell what he knew
I believe the same. His friend may have been involved and threatened to give him up. Burglary gone wrong.
@@David-m1y6f The "wife swapping" story was a lie, then.
23:37 "top security prison" Presumed murderer un-contained pacing on a roof shouting and painting on walls for 89 days.
Yes, I also found this 'top security prison' rather a contradiction in terms.
🤣😂
David Wilson asked Bert Spencer if he could go back to 1978 what would he change.
Bert said he'd go on holiday.
Why didn't he say he'd stop Carl going to Yew Tree Farm.
Because he's more concerned with himself.
Because that was nothing to do with him so much he didn’t consider him in that question. Awful
He has no concern about the murdered child or his family. It’s all about him. Selfish pig.
Because throughout the whole interview, he uses distancing language. Why not choose to physically distance himself from the crime too.
Burt said that because if he was on a holiday, he would have a perfect alibi.
His blink rate went crazy when his daughter spoke and his face turned bright red and stayed there through the rest of the interview.
That was a lot of blinking, but he still has nothing on shawcross.
This whole documentary is a perfect test on how naive you, as a viewer and a human being, are. Bert Spencer is very convincing as a deeply empathic individual -- and everything is an act. And yes, I myself was duped in the beginning.
You might have been duped that does not mean that everyone was. If you been living close to a narcissist for a longer period of time, and manage to see trough it and start to actually study the behaviour it is often quite easy to recognize.
I lived in apartments for years , and remember absolutely NOBODY , not even my next door neighbor . Not their vehicle , NOTHING
was this by chance 40 years ago?
I lived in multiple apartments as a small child and I’m 45. I remember quite a few people from every street and every complex. Even a place I only resides in for a year. It’s absolutely NOT the norm to just go blank.. that’s kinda weird
@@modaciouslav4792 and yet the guys own wife at the time cant seem to remember they lived a few door down from the family? she just says they were "from nearby". Before that i was completely on the side of "how did you not know" but after that.. i mean the whole point of her interview was a gotcha moment and she cant remember they lived a few doors down?
Tinfoil hat stoner.....you don't remember them because you got highhh
At the beginning I thought that he could be innocent. But after seeing how quickly he turns nasty and threatening, the fact he didn't have an real alibi and his ex-wife's account it leaves no doubt he is 100% guilty. When confronted with the P Scan he acted like a child saying that David needed psychiatric help. Horrible man!
I believe that if he wanted to show/prove his innocent, he would have act more rationally. By accusing, trying to degrade and insult Wilson, the behaviour shows that - probably - there's something wrong.
Have you thought at least once what it would be like to be accused for 40 years for a crime you did not commit?
I see that you are a great specialist to have the verdict of 100% guilty, based on which evidence??? that he doesn't have an iron alibi?
if a crime is committed on your street, and you are the main suspect, but you know that you didn't commit that crime, but you don't have an alibi... how do you think your psyche will be after so many years when people look at you as a criminal?
People with an iron will, psyche and character have fallen, but then a simple man?
@@leatheraccessories646 tbh, I've always thought he was guilty too for those reasons but your comment makes alot of sense. I'm gonna watch again but with a less biased approach (hopefully!)
Wow! What an amazing documentary. He seems like a very angry, unpredictable individual who kept deflecting.
15:31 is the garden of a very angry, unpredictable gardener! 😁
Spencer hopelessly misread the room. He clearly thought the Prof was about exonerating him, the penny eventually dropped that the opposite was the case. Also note how Spencer has an excellent memory after all these years...when something is in his favour..his memory fails him when it isn’t. How convenient. And how he tries to distance himself is almost laughable. He didn’t know Carl, despite for years living a few doors away? Yeah, right. And he tried to say the artists impression of Wilkes was nothing like him? When anyone could see they were virtually identical! I believe he did it.
Ive lived here for over a decade and had No clue they had 2 kids 4 doors down till last year.Im rural, Cities are even Worse for not knowing a neighbor. The way he spoke seemed to me hes a bit on the racist side or something similar. When he said he doesnt mean to offend and say they all looked the same, ya. Hes prob like me, doesnt give a plank about the neighbors or whats going on around him, to a point.
He went to great lengths to put distance between himself and Carl.
Chilling. It’s the second time I’ve watched this and this time it left me feeling cold and fearful for anybody that crosses him. He used laughter and “jokes”, he’s a very dangerous man.
He certainly is. Watching him is like watching my father
@@paulacarberry1216 that must be pretty daunting for you I should imagine. I don’t know how many times I’ve watched this, he fascinates me, I find his arrogance unbelievable. Hope you’ve dealt with your past. Have a great day.
He's a tortured man who will find no peace. He might not be behind bars but he's being punished all the same.
@@vordman I think he’s too arrogant to allow anything to torture him. The main thing I pick up is that he’s right and the world is wrong. I don’t think he cares, to be tortured you would have to have compassion, I personally don’t see any .
@@kellyannnoonan2674 i totally agree with that.
To whom it may concern, Spencer asked for the involvement of a criminalologist. He wanted his story out there. He got the expertise he asked for. He may not like the opinion of the experts but that’s neither here nor there.
“I had just taken a poo.” Lmfaooooo I died laughing when the alleged killer said that. That came out of nowhere lol.
Haha me too
Your a killer inside
One thing I notice in all these types of cases. They bring up something embarrassing in there timeline of events. I remember a case which the suspect brought up tampons. It has no relevance, it's like they are trying to show you how gullible or vulnerable they are. Like of course they wouldn't murder someone they just showed me humility.
Lol
It was a pretty obvious point.
This was absolutely incredible. Wow, kudos to Professor David Wilson. My god.
“I did not kill Carl Bridgewater”
I instantly believe he killed Carl Bridgewater.
Do you know what at that comment I thought exactly the same. Its a constructed answer, a brush off answer would have been "I didn't kill" but that was a pre rehearsed answer. I am not saying he did it, I'm saying that particular answer is a red flag.
@@benniethai7829 just exactly what I was thinking
Innocent people always say I didn’t instead of I did not (Peter Hyatt Statement Analyse) He was so arrogant, believing he could dupe a professor of criminology and an ex prison Governor
He said yhat like a cold blooded murderer; scary dude
I had the very same thought. I can’t lie though, as soon as I saw his eyes when he positioned himself in front of the camera, with zero context, I thought to myself “oh that guy is the killer.” He seems like he has nothing behind his eyes.
Bert is certainly no 'sweet old man' - he demonstrates that he has the capacity to be infuriated/enraged by what he regards as baseless accusations. and it's difficult to argue that the accusation/allegations are anything more than circumstantial. There is plenty in this video to lead one to assume that he DID kill Carl Bridgewater but the man has been harangued since that murder and his subsequent killing of the farmer so any bitterness is understandable, yet nothing presented in the video can be held up as concrete evidence that could be used to convict him.
The Bridgewater 4's release from prison on account of a fraudulent confession doesn't exactly eliminate them from suspicion in regard to Carl's murder, though the media and their supporters seem to take it as read that they are innocent. Clearly, as armed burglars, they were not nice people and it's perfectly feasible to imagine them forcefully exerting their will on any unexpected intruders disturbing their nefarious activities. Burglars will frequently 'case out' a location prior to commiting to a break-in and stealing valuables. If they see one likely target-home while burgling another, it's quite likely they will return to turn over that new location, later - so it's entirely possible that they were at Yew Tree Farm and and already earmarked the property at which they were eventually caught, in the process of cleaning out Yew Tree Farm.
Neither Bert nor the Bridgewater 4 are nice, good people. They all would probably seize on any opportunity to point the finger at a possible scapegoat for their own crimes. This video exposes nothing that sheds a stronger light on the case against either suspect(s). It does expose Bert Spencer as a considerably unhinged, fiery old man but that is not proof that he killed Carl B.
I totally agree; well put.
I also agree. If he’s guilty, where’s the proof?
Hes Guilty as can be. The Police arent looking for anyone else either. Just like John Cannan and Suzy Lamplugh.
@@pasta4me786
Buried by that pole where he stood waving at the end...
Along with a bag of antiques, a green sweater and a gun...
@@pasta4me786
Buried by that pole where he stood waving at the end...
Along with a bag of antiques, a green sweater and a gun...
This guy almost had me...........I almost fell for the act.
' We all make mistakes, you can see the good in him, you can see the gentle side of him '..............Yeah Bert, ya NEARLY had me. A well rehearsed act.
He’s been telling his story for decades!! Good for you though:)
His day will come when he has to face the truth,followed by the words guilty as charged.Not one once of empathy shown,that speaks volumes.
it's the frequent forced/nervous laugh that gets me... makes it seem like he's trying REALLY hard to be convincing.
Too hard, he's a total nut job
He also blubs at the drop of a hat.
I'm in love with professor David Wilson's crime documentary
His books are amazing too!
It would be interesting to hear some background on his father. I'm daddy's boy to me tells me his dad involved him into criminality. Getting him to do things as in some kind of schooling way. The boy was killed because he obviously recognised the person there. Bert may have had a accomplice. But I'm pretty certain he had to have had some involvement. Too many coincidences point directly to him. He had previous, the antique interest. He knew the farm and had been frequently. He lived doors down from the boy. The car, the uniform. And not really a alibi now so.. That's quite alot! He's literally got away with murder. A bodged robbery interrupted by the kid that recognised the perpetrator.
I vaguely remember Bert Spencer from my hospital visits at the Corbett Hospital at the time as a 13 yr old boy. My mother always said there something about Bert that not right. Unfortunately my mother passed away in 2012 but always maintained that it was Bert Spencer that killed Carl Bridgewater.
Rip to your mother
His face got really red when the pictures of the crime were shown!!
A sign of anger. What you want to watch out for is if his face then drains of colour as that is a sign of iminent attack. He kept it together though because he had to but had given himself away by then anyway.
I agree!
Hmmm not really, his face was as red as a tomato before the pictures were shown because he was really angry with the accusations of the interviewer
@elba, and obviously the man is still a drinker.
50:47 - How could this guy have not solved the crime. He has enough room in that forehead to fit 2 brains......at least.
Haaa!!! Now I can't unsee that!!! 😆😆😆
Jessus christ
Wot a forhead im crying
Haha yes Jesus Christ I’ve never seen anything like it.
Lol
those detectives look like clowns.
Never been a fan of David Wilson and his theoretical assessments. Clearly, Bert Spencer was not convicted because of insufficient evidence produced in the Court. I thought Spencer was fairly tolerant towards Wilson and his accusations.
David Wilson is a moron he talks bollox and him and his hand movements he's a clown
So funny, when Bert Spencer called David Wilson on his bias, Wilson ran. I guess it takes one to know one. And it seems to me that David Wilson is determined to convict Spencer on circumstances. I'not saying that I think he is innocent, but certainly there isn't enough honest evidence to convict.
Particularly beating in mind Wilson wriggled his way Into Berts trust and confidence misleadingly and slyly.
The David Wilson throughout the documentary was very different to the David Wilson in the last interview for example.
Wether Bert is guilty or not, David Wilson is certainly guilty of moral and social deviance on account of his calculated, misleading and dishonest actions toward Bert making Bert feel like he finally had somebody on his side or who was neutral, whereas all along he was being trapped and framed essentially by David Wilson.
@@keithohanlon1934 takes one to know one dont it then!
🗣 *BRAVO*
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
_ABSOLUTELY_ *one of* _the best_ *produced and edited CRIME* _RETELLINGS_ *ever done* ❗️
I say _retellings_ because stories conjure to mind _fairytale “stories”_ …whereas *this was REMARKABLE and felt like* _we were THERE_ *collectively witnessing as the missing witness testimony were put together ➕ with the prior obtained evidence* _that COMBINED would have SOLVED & PROVEN what happened._
Not stories… We witnessed the video/audio documentation of fact finding _that POLICE failed to obtain_ 40 years ago. *I loved it* ❣️
Combing through HOURS of video and photos TO PUT IN A TIMELINE that was truthful but also allowed for a delightfully unexpected *MISSING PUZZLE PIECE MOMENT*
at around 01:15:00
where during the interview _with someone who hadn’t previously spoken PUBLICLY_ *we learned ✔️ her husband threw away/got rid of a gun that matched the murder weapon ✔️ threatened his wife to never tell about PREVIOUSLY STOLEN ANTIQUES he was tied to…*
I’ll stop because my words can’t match my enjoyment of this amazing program.
✅ Producers
✅ Camera 🎥 operators
✅ Sound technicians
✅ Editors
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼JOB👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼WELL DONE👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼BY ALL👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
CHEERS FROM UTAH, USA❣️
HOW MANY ADS CAN WE PUT ON ONE VIDEO???
i think we just found out
Install adblock plus in your browser free and works fine..
I installed two different ad blockers on my iPhone and they don’t do anything for the TH-cam app. Sooo annoying.
@
Lindsay S, im on a PC so i can't say anything for a phone iphone or android
I don't have a ad blocker and I didn't see any.. Lol
I think he's full of rubbish. He's making every attempt to control the situation himself, then when it doesn't go his way he blames everyone else. It's like Ted Bundy.
Njnñńñn nñń
I totally agree with you, he is full of crap 😮
An ad every ten minutes? Ridiculous.
get ad blocker
Install uBlock Origin for your browser and you won't be seeing any ads ever again
LOL how d you not have ad blocker?
I didn't have any ads and I don't have that blocker..
Theres no ads on TH-cam red
When the first detective started speaking,i thought went from ‘an interview with a murderer’,to ‘an interview with an alien’.
Can't imagine what Karl's family are feeling after all this time.
I pray for them. I also pray they get justice.
''just stop a minute''..(while i get in character)_
😂 Lol, my thoughts exactly.
😂
lights camera & ........actiion hes a terrible actor & would not survive todays prison
I wholly agree. Also, when I checked out the Psychopathy test referenced within the documentary, it mentioned that Psychopaths tend to just wipe under one eye, as they're not really crying natural tears. As opposed to someone who is genuinely crying and wiping tears from both eyes. You will see that Bert does this a number of times throughout the documentary! Another thing that stung him, was making an 'unscheduled' stop at Barbara's house, expecting that this would make him look like a warm and caring man and hoping that she would still be able to offer him a 'cast-iron' alibi for the day of poor Carl's murder. Ooph, backfire for ol' Bertie on that one. 🤔😮🤤
😭😭🤣🤣😂😂😆🤣😅🤣😅🤣🤣😅🤣😅
A chilling documentary. Displays all the classic traits of psychopathy.
Well ye But psychopaths are not always murderers David Wilson has also proven this in another documentary
David Wilson also has the same traits as Bert
I like what his daughter said that her father was different that day
But it doesn't mean he murdered anyone
David Wilson just picks the bits that fits his narrative
@Floyd1504 So well said!! More so after the expert was so conservative with his comments throughout the documentary, explained his professional findings etc. but the guy constantly displayed extreme narcissistic traits to the point that even a layman like myself can read through him from miles!! Kudos bro.
@@ronm9101 he literally killed someone
@@monkeytennis8861 my point is That David has the same traits
@@ronm9101that’s interesting,
What gets me is that nobody has provided any actual evidence against anyone. This show didn't prove anything about anyone.
Murderer
It's true. Nobody can actually do anything about this.
Exactly. All Feelings and Opinions. Not one shred of Demonstrable Evidence. I wasted my time even watching this crap.
I think it raised a lot of questions that need to be answered, the alibi was certainly shown to be worthless for a start and the amount of circumstanceal evidence is great
@@davidjames6551 that's not actual evidence that the person in question actually did anything wrong.