Animal Crime Scene (BBC1)

The Slavery Business (BBC2)

PICTURE the scene: high-powered BBC creative-types sitting around a table, thinking of ideas for new programmes. How to get away from those home makeovers and bargain hunts. Beads of sweat start pouring down brows as the silence is broken only by the nibbling of custard creams. Then, one of those worried little faces lights up.

First creative: "The BBC has a worldwide reputation for its wildlife programmes, right?" Blank looks all round. What's new with wildlife programmes? This guy's a jerk.

First creative: "And what's the most popular genre on television? Crime. Why don't we put them together? Animal crime!" Sighs of relief and custard creams all round.

A cross between Life on Earth and CSI, with a bit of Animal Hospital thrown in, Animal Crime Scene recreates a "crime" of nature, and tries to find out what happened. Last night's first instalment took the death of a kangaroo as its subject, apparently based on real events. The poor little Skippy was found after a forest fire, but it soon became clear the fire wasn't to blame, and darker forces were at work.

The animal crime scene squad went to work, sealing off the scene with that yellow tape they all love, and scouring the grass for clues, while experts went through the possible suspects using one of those virtual boards borrowed from adverts for an electrical retailer.

It was all hugely silly stuff. Narrator David Attenborough somberly told us that the autopsy had discovered Skippy's right leg was missing. They don't miss much, these pathologists, although you wonder why nobody noticed this before. Then we were told that it was possible the victim had been hit by a car, as the search team found a road nearby. That wouldn't be the road the investigators used, by any chance?

But it was a chance for the BBC to show off its wildlife photography, superb as usual, although it was hard not to wince as Attenborough signed off talking of kangaroo courts and a Cluedo-style accusation. Of course, there could be a deeper point about whether one animal killing another could really be called a crime, but that could open up too many ethical problems, so it's probably best not to go there.

But there's no doubt that one of the worst crimes in man's history was the slave trade. Although Britain, thanks to William Wilberforce, abolished its slave trade in 1807, it was another 31 years before the slaves in the West Indies were freed. The Slavery Business was the story of how this came about.

Where once this type of documentary would have featured experts grandly imparting their knowledge, the need to fit in with our short attention spans meant most of the story was told through actors playing the principal characters, talking to camera as if they were being interviewed.

The result was a sober and thoughtful recreation of the events leading up to the emancipation of the slaves, but one question remained: why do television producers feel the need to make controversial statements at the start of their programme, in this case that Wilberforce was not the friend of the slaves he's made out to be? It was something of a red herring as the following hour barely touched on this. Do they think we won't watch unless we think history is going to be rewritten? Are we really that shallow?