How does a two-year old witness to his mother’s murder cope with such trauma, let alone articulate to police what they need to find the killer, asks streaming columnist NICK OVERALL. 

What if the only person who held the answers to a murder was a young child?

That’s the haunting premise at the centre of Netflix’s new drama show The Witness (now streaming).

This three-part mini series is based on the true story of the tragic murder of mother Rachel Nickell in London in 1992. The only person who saw the murder was her two-year-old son, Alex.

How does a child so young cope with such trauma, let alone articulate to police what they need to find the killer?

Unlike many other true-crime series it’s not the detectives here at the centre of the story.

The Witness focuses on Alex and his father Andre and how they cope with the investigation, the grief and the intense media interest.

In recent years, Netflix has got itself in some hot water for what many call the “exploitative” nature of its true-crime docos.

The families of the victims of the massively popular series on serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer slammed the platform in the wake of its release, saying they weren’t consulted and that the show had “re-traumatised them”.

With The Witness, it’s the opposite.

Alex Hanscombe, the boy at the centre of this case, was actually brought into the production as a consultant to help shape the authenticity and tone. His father Andre has also had his say on the show. 

Has Netflix learnt a lesson? The timing is coincidental.

While it is a drama series, a documentary called The Murder of Rachel Nickell is also being released at the same time to give a more matter-of-fact retelling of the case.

It seems to be something of a new model for Netflix’s true-crime productions, giving audiences the chance to choose how they want to take in the story.

The Hanscome family’s input on both of these shows is what gives them an extra layer in a market already crowded with murder docos.

Who better to help shape the story than those who were in it? 

SPEAKING of viewer choice, Spider-Noir has become the hit-of-the-month on Amazon Prime Video.

Set in a moody, monochromatic version of 1930s New York, this story imagines Spider-Man as a vigilante detective almost 100 years ago and plays on all the influences of the period to make it pop.

What’s interesting though is the decision it offers viewers before they press play.

Those watching Spider-Noir can choose to watch it in colour or if they want a more “authentic” experience of the era that inspired it, can choose to watch it in a stylised black and white.

This has sparked some heated debate online. Purists say if people aren’t watching Spider-Noir in black and white they’re not watching it properly.

Others say if they’re paying the subscription they should get to enjoy the show exactly how they want to and those watching it in black and white are just “performative”.

There were similar arguments with Better Call Saul, the spin-off to Breaking Bad, which had whole episodes in black and white to differentiate between past and future.

With no choice but to watch it how it is, some viewers were upset they were denied full colour for multiple episodes. 

It would be fascinating to see a stats breakdown on where audiences actually gravitate when given the option as with Spider-Noir.

My humble take? The creators should stick to their vision.

If the story is supposed to be in black and white then do something bold and fully commit to it to stand out. Given a chance, many naysayers might just come round to it.

I must be forgetting this is a Marvel superhero show. Heaven help us if anything too creative might alienate some viewers.

Still, Spider-Noir offers a unique experience in the grand scheme of blockbuster franchise shows.

Nic Cage stars as this take on the famous web-slinger, adding some much-needed levity to a genre that at this point is exhaustingly oversaturated. 

Viewers can definitely dial down some of that saturation here though, if they please.