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

those guys are such assholes

Army arsehole

oh yes, all having a good laugh at the older lady. ageist assholes.

There's so little evidence I can't see how it can be considered 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.... People seem to be making up stories to fit in with what little they know, and what reaffirms their own life experience.

Youre also trying to gauge the reactions of a total stranger who is in a highly unusual and stressful situation...they seem very focused on body language and how the defendant comes across. I do wonder if the defendant was a bit more of a 'warmer' personality type it would be easier to convince them... I can see why the defence weren't overly keen on him taking the stand.

So when they created the story they deliberately gave her 2 abusive relationships to make a clear pattern? That makes sense.

The time frames would be helpful..its hard to judge without all the evidence

I think he did it BUT I don't think there's enough evidence to convict him, it's all circumstantial.

I think there was a lot missing from Lewis's evidence - he was going to pick up the car from the garage, wasn't he?

Did he do so, if he did, what time, how did that fit in with the time of the murder, did the mechanics notice anything unusual about him, did he go to work after etc.

I'd also like to know more about the pattern of contact/relationship between Carla and Simon. I can't decide whether they were really considering reconciling or he was deluded, especially given the Scotland thing.

I also found it passing out that there was no best friend or confidente that knew about the baby, Scotland etc who could perhaps shed some light on how Carla was feeling about things.

Passing odd, not passing out.

I also think he probably did it, but it isn't proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I think he may well be guilty but the prosecution have failed to prove that it is beyond reasonable doubt so I would have to go with a not guilty verdict.

Agree with a PP who mentioned how the Scottish legal system have a "not proven" verdict and that it could be appropriate in cases like this.

I am astounded that so many jurors verdicts so far are instinctual without entertaining the reasonable doubt factor at all.

I can't get my head around the 8 minutes ..his loss of memory in that time.. Yet he can recall before and after...

I'd like to have heard more from their children.

I agree Clash, there is a lot of missing potential evidence concerning Lewis. If it were a real case there would be more clear time frames, witness statements etc. It's hard to imagine what could have really happened, but he is very suspicious.

Still sticking to Simon being not guilty though. I know the 8 minutes between the phone calls is hard to justify, and I struggle to think of what he could have been doing at that time. My only explanation is he panicked. Anyone walking in on a crime scene, alone, would worry they would be wrongly accused.

A lot of the people in the jury are looking at the case too personally for my liking. Especially some of the women. I know it's hard not to relate when you've been through similar, but it's influenced their decisions. I'd worry about being in their hands if it were my case. And yes the defence lawyer was amazing . I can't wait for tomorrow's episode!!

Could it be that the wife had not arrived home yet? Was he waiting for her in the car to arrive home ? Did she enter front door or back door?
Is there evidence of her calling him that day?
They were together the day before...why did she not tell him the news then?
So many questions

The thing I find conclusive is the DNA from Carla's neck. If someone other than her husband had strangled her, their DNA would be on her, and there was no DNA other than her husband's.

I am also sure the police would have looked at the boyfriend, especially after the evidence from the jogger who saw him in the neighbourhood came to light - and if there was enough evidence, the Crown a prosecution service would have prosecuted him.

I think the husband did and will be so pissed off if we are not actually told tomorrow !

Evidence his DNA and his car was there and the eight minutes in between calls

The lack of other DNA on her neck could be down to the killer wearing gloves.

The Scottish Not Proven verdict is completely pointless, I'm glad England doesn't have it.

I don't think the prosecution have proven their case at all. There is a distinct lack of evidence. It's a Not Guilty from me.

I've really enjoyed this programme - fascinated to see the last episode, I suspect the jury room is going to get quite heated.

Too subjective for me nobody has proved anything he may have been aggressive in the past but look at the reasons why, his wife had two affairs the current boyfriend also had a violent past it could of been either one of them ,on the balance of evidence I would say not guilty

Also from my own experience the police decide something has happened and go all out to prove it in my dh case their was evidence from another s witness the police chose not to interview because it didn't fit in with what they thought happened.

x2boys

She had two affairs. So that's all right then

Dependent isn't very warm is he? I wonder if the actor was told to show a certain demeanour.

Then again the first partner smiled at him and he smiled back at her after her evidence....it was a clear warm moment between them of mutual regard.

I am going for Not Guilty based upon no real hard evidence...I don't think it's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that it was Simon.

The No Comment answers are something I've only seen in video clips of guilty people after a trial is over. I guess there are plenty who do the same and are never found guilty because they are not guilty though. We don't see those although I am sure police detectives will see many in their time.

I'm going for not guilty. I think he could well have done it, was capable of doing it, but not evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did.

Can't wait for tonight.

The important point for the jury isn't that they think he's guilty or he's probably guilty- they have got to say he "is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt".

Also, as they said in last night's episode, the police and CPS bringing someone to Court doesn't mean they're guilty. Otherwise there would be no point to the jury or the judge or having a court case at all really.

Another thought, why is it murder and not manslaughter? I thought murder was premeditated? The case seems to be that he lost control in a moment of anger?

If it was the boyfriend though, it would imply it was murder- covering his tracks by turning off his GPS, (if he was) wearing gloves (so lack of DNA).

But the husband doesn't appear to have planned to kill her or he'd have a better story- is no missing 8 minutes.