The Trial: A Murder in the Family ***warning - contains spoilers***

[NapQueen]

Anyone watching along? Starts tonight, 9pm, C4. Runs for five nights. I loved Broadchurch, and have been on a Jury, and love anything like this.

Hope its good!

radip times link

Well IMO the evidence was circumstancial he was still having sex with her so there's no.reason he he wouldn't have held the back of the neck in an embrace etc ,why wasent there DNA on the front of the neck where he strangled her and finger prints?And when you have just found a dead body you are i imagine in massive shock ,OK he actually killed her but supposing he didn't people react differently in shock.

xboys

You are right about one thing

I think the lack of other forensic evidence presented in the programme was totally unrealistic, given that he did do it

That's the fault of the programme.

.... and the only reason the programme did that was to heighten the suspense. It was totally disingenous - presented as if it were a real case with the jurors acting on real evidence, when actually I don't think it presented the depth of info you'd get in a real trail at all

So then it just became a game of Cluedo for the, and a distrubing Soap Opera for the TV viewer

Pfft

trial!!!

A game of Cluedo for them, and a disturbing Soap Opera for the TV viewer

So irritated, I can't type straight!

The DNA could have been deposited during the ambulance phone call/ cpr attempt.
The 8 minute gap and the neighbour seeing him staring into the distance in the garden, could be attributed to shock of finding Carla.
Added to which there was an alternative suspect who according to a witness was lying about his whereabouts/ could have dine it (according to the timeline).
That would've given me reasonable doubt, so I would've had to vote not guilty.

And another thing

The issue of domestic violence and murder is too important to present in this way

Has anyone seen 'Consent'?. It was on tv in 2007 and was similar to this, using a real jury, but about a rape case? It was excellent, but the jury discussions were deeply alarming and, like this case, pp's own prejudices and preconceptions were more influential in their decision than the actual evidence. Well worth a watch

www.imdb.com/title/tt0945330/

xboys you haven't really said what evidence you would require to have convicted him. He made the 999 call straightaway and then put the phone down. If you were truly in shock you wouldn't do that surely. 8 minutes is ages. Seriously he had a motive, he was there, DNA on her, suspicious re delay in phone call to 999, history of dv, the witness' description of Lewis' clothes was wrong so mistaken identity. Who else was it going to be other than the husband?!

LadyGarden maybe he did, i thought he spluttered and did the whole 'is that a serious question?' thing.

And yes NotYoda, it may have been a crass question but she was trying to illustrate the difference between hitting a man and a woman. That guy was intimating that it was more likely to have been the boyfriend because of his history of assaulting another man but that absolutely is not an indicator of domestic abuse. There was no evidence that he had ever been abusive towards women (although we saw that he certainly came close and was very aggressive). He kind of proved her point with his response.

Ex army guy pissed me off when he was asked if he'd hit a man and kind of intimated he had, then looked really offended when he was asked if he'd hit a woman...then tried to say there is no difference between hitting a man and a woman.

Yes, exactly that MyGastIsFlabbered

I found the actual flashback when they showed what happened really disturbing. I couldn't shake it from my mind for ages. I think Carla was a very troubled woman.

oh definatley MyGasti think she tried to escape her marriage by having an affair with Lewis realised she didnt want Lewis and started having Sex again with Simon maybe for comfort ?When in actual fact she didnt want either of them.

Yeah I thought he spluttered but then she asked him again and he said no. He was a dick though. So frustrating to watch the deliberations when he was there talking such nonsense!

xboys circumstanstial evidence is fine though. In a case like this, it's highly unlikely you would have direct evidence (i.e. a witness saying they saw it happen) so you use circumstantial evidence to build the case and rule out other explanations. He hadn't had sex or embraced her that day. His DNA was the only DNA found on her. If Lewis was involved you'd expect his to be found too. It's quite hard i think to get fingerprints off a dead body plus the victim often has their hands there too to try and get the attacker off and in terms of other forensics, such as what?

I thought that the lack of DNA from Lewis, on the back of her neck, ruled him out. I know he could have worn gloves, but that wouldn't fit with the theory about it being a crime of passion, and him being prone (once, 16 years ago) to lashing out. Putting gloves on suggests premeditation, and there was no suggestion in any of the evidence that they thought Lewis had murdered her in a premeditated way.

That left only Simon as a suspect - and his DNA was on her, including on the back of her neck - and I assume they swabbed the marks from her strangling specifically - so his DNA was on the strangulation marks.

SDTG

Yes, and in real life, there would have been other forensic evidence from the attack, because we know he did it, we know how he did it, and that it wasn't planned (clothing fibres, defence wounds on her, her skin under his fingernails, scratches on him, his spit on her face, footprints etc etc etc.)

As I said above. Totally unrealistic for a programme that sold itself on realism

sorry, his skin under her fingernails

You're right, NotYoda - I hadn't even thought of other forensic evidence. Stoopid SDTG.

Not stoopid. I have read very very too many crime novels

I hated the programme, and that 'orrible army bloke.

I think I might have mentioned it

I'm still so shocked about it all. I was one that thought he was not guilty, purely based on the lack of evidence. However when it showed the flashback, and he didn't go straight to his car when she didn't answer the door, I just knew it was going to be him. I had a strong feeling it was Lewis, but didn't rule out it being someone that they weren't even investigating. She was a troubled woman, and I felt very sorry for the way her life had worked out for her prior to the incident.
I think the programme was a great idea overall, however could have been done better (more realistic). Just like others have said there would have been more evidence, DNA etc. It was a very difficult case for the jury to agree a verdict on, as you never know what happens behind closed doors. I didn't except any of that to be happening.

Also, for a programme that seemed, at the end to be wanting to educate about domestic violence there seemed to be a bit too much about what a flighty madam she was.

Those stats at the ends seemed a bit tacked on to me

I also read very very too many crime novels, and watch a similar number of police dramas, so should be practically a fully qualified forensic pathologist detective inspector DA(USA) QC by now!

Too right