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

Notyoda I don't think it is unrealistic. He was there and didn't deny being there so forensic evidence like footprints and clothing fibres, even skin under his nails could be consistent with him being there innocently.

I don't think so

There was a massive struggle

Mmm...i didn't get the impression of a massive struggle. I thought he'd taken her by surprise, which could possibly account for the lack of other dna evidence.

I think the programme was rather clever. It made one think, certainly. I think the Jury, and their approach, was fairly typical. I've done Jury Service myself and I was flabbergasted at the casual disregard of evidence and the reliance on "gut feelings".

I personally thought him guilty, but didn't feel I could convict on the basis of the evidence presented. The introduction of the sighting of Lewis was just enough to confuse matters. I would have put it down to a random person - victim had had a number of relationships it seems, any of which could have turned bitter, or the killing could simply be a burglary gone wrong.

Martha was pretty spot on in her observations, though! Even if she ignored the actual evidence......

"Gut feelings" juror got on my wick. .

No, I didn't think there was a massive struggle either. He seemed to overpower her quite quickly. It's really interesting the different takes we all have on it. I thought the stats at the end were quite poignant. And the way Carla was portrayed as flighty I quite liked as showed a victim can be anyone not just the 'timid' woman that army man was trying to say. Particularly following Mel B's allegations of DV it chimed a chord with me. I have 2 DD's and to me the evidence was so obvious that I just thought if either of my DD's were victims of a guy like him and it turned out he'd been on trial in those circumstances previously and been found not guilty I would be mighty pissed off with the jury, to put it mildly! I didn't think Martha ignored the evidence, she drew on her past experience and linked it to parallels in the case and was bang on.

not really a big struggle
all contained in that area

There wasn't a massive struggle, otherwise he would have had dna on him, which , no doubt, he would have used to his advantage.

In my past post I was referring to post evidence only and not the summary of the defence and prosecution. Post evidence, it was obvious he had done it. It was a simple case, not difficult at all.

Just think, that man, who murdered, is now back having contact with his children or free to start another family. It's beyond belief.

so were the jurors actors or real people?

It was realistic NotYoda. That's what happens.

Imagine if a woman was in court with a similar story, timeline. There's no way the jury would have taken into account the word of a person with a bit of a grudge, against the word of the OW. Not a chance.

If she had been a he, she would be behind bars by now, and rightly so.

The jurors were real people.

I still don't agree
I think that there would have been more forensic evidence, but that would have made boring telly

So they needed to make the jury discussion about prejudice and assumption, rather than the evidence

I have no doubt at all that prejudice and assumption play a part in lots of jury deliberations, btw

I know they were real people

Oh sorry, realise that wasn't to me!

He had to fight her, push her down. There was at least a minute of struggle

He would have had bruises, perhaps scratches

She may have left hair on his clothes, or vice versa

They would have examined his body from head to toe

They would have examined her body for hand grip marks, skin under the fingernails

I am far too invested in this

I wanted it to be good, and I just didn't think it was

Apart from the sexism, which was interesting and depressing

Does anyone wonder that if a defence barrister believes a client is guilty (especially of a really nasty crime) they don't go full blast at trying to get a not guilty verdict?

I found it really interesting both in the way I kept changing my mind as we went along and also the way the jury were bringing their own experiences in to play so much. I would probably have felt compelled to go not guilty because I wasn't sure beyond a reasonable doubt.
It did feel like the last episode was quite different through and stopped being about how a jury works and more a piece about domestic violence and women who are killed by their partners/ ex partners. The fact that the 4 members of the jury who voted guilty were women felt like it was being presented as something meaningful but they didn't clarify what so it felt to me like it was left hanging there.

Also gut feeling woman was called Cherry Morello? That's the reason I thought they weren't real people to start with :)

They would have done all that Yoda in forensics and the only DNA was his and hers. His on the back of her neck. She didn't think of him as a threat, but he was! It was obvious he was a threat given his past history. But they lived in a lovely home and he had a well respected job. Sorry Yoda, not all women struggle, especially with those they know.

Haven't watched the last 2 episodes yet but I know one of the barristers on it and they said that it was all massively edited so that a whole afternoon of forensics would be edited down to 5 minutes. Now I've seen it will quiz them more deeply!

annoying

Interesting

But that's exactly what I mean. The programme misled us, the TV viewer. But that's TV I suppose - all in the Edit

Presumably they would have edited it to show the main relevant parts. Trials run all day so I got the impression the jury were there all day each day but we only saw the highlights. If there was additional forensics like scratches on him etc then I think we would have been shown that. I'm assuming not as if the jury had that evidence how on earth would anyone say he was not guilty? Notyoda I'm pretty sure strangulation can cause someone to lose consciousness really quickly and that the victim usually puts their own hands round their own neck to try and get the attacker's hands off all while becoming weak quite quickly so the attacker is unlikely to have extensive scratches and bruises and it tends to be fingernail marks from the victim on their own neck.

Condensed no, defence barristers are paid to do a job. A lot of the time their clients will be guilty but they're entitled to a good defence.

she did have bruises on her neck could they not compared his finger prints or hand size or something to the bruises, my uncles a QC hes worked in the defence of some notorious murders but they have to do a job as the defence QC said his job is to create doubt.

Lady

I think they deliberately didn't show it, for the reasons I mentioned above: they wanted to emphasise the jury's prejudices, and de-emphasise the facts of the case (which I think would have been there if this were a real case)

There were more concerned about their little drama excerpts, and entertaining the TV audience, than showing what a real case is like

This will be my last comment

I would far rather watched a documentary which showed real footage of a real case (obviously not UK ones). There are loads of these

or

A drama, based on a real case/cases and insight from jurors

This didn't work IMO

Oh I enjoyed this programme but found it infuriating too!

I do think the programme makers made it extra hard for the jury by having the boyfriend also at the scene. Does that really happen that often irl? If he hadn't been waiting fir his car I think they may have found him guilty.

For me he was guilty
DNA on the back of her neck and head
No Dna found of anyone else.
The phoning of 999 then putting the phone down then phoning a friend then waiting 8 mins before failing 999 again. Who the fuck does that!!!!
The domestic violence against both wives.
The sister saying he was always controlling.
The fact he was convinced their relationship had never ended.
She'd secretly planned to leave and go to Scotland.

I was 99% convinced he did it and was so bloody confused and sad that if this were real life, he'd have walked free.