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

I was convinced he wasn't guilty and was completely swayed by the relationship with Lewis, especially at the end showing them arguing in the car.

It's made me completely rethink how I would consider a case if I'm ever called for jury service again.

It was quite sad really. Short of a confession of guilt (in which case there wouldn't be a trial) it's hard to see what more evidence there could have been. Domestic violence behind closed doors will more often than not have no witnesses.

Thought the army man was actually quite horrible-he had made up his mind at the start and was never going to change it even when people put good points challenging him. Did anyone else see him whisper 'stay strong' to another juror when they were writing down their verdict? Bit controlling himself methinks.

Problem was, they weren't really looking at the actual evidence were they? It was all about their own preconceptions. Really think there should be a legally trained person in the jury room to guide juries.

I would have found him guilty, you would have to had prove me of his innocence. Not a shred of doubt in my mind either. It was clear. The evidence from the neighbour and his ex wife sealed it for me and his two phone calls to the emergency services. I simply can't see why anyone would have a doubt. Even his defence barrister wouldn't want to be on a dessert island with him (and his summing up was most unconvincing).

I'm really confused about the lack of evidence - surely a statement from the friend Simon phoned in the intervening minutes and some information about Lewis's trip to the garage would have been some of the basic evidence the police would have sought to collect? And how did the evidence from the jogger come about, how did he know to report that he had witnessed Lewis in the road? (I may have missed that bit). I think it seemed quite realistic but the lack of basic evidence seemed odd to me.

I felt Simon was guilty and I do believe the evidence pointed that way - the 999 calls, DNA evidence, history of violence, motive. And the fact the police chose to press charges against him and not Lewis was a strong fatcor for me. I just think the jury were swayed by the one statement from the jogger which was frustrating given that it didn't seem to be watertight to me.

Yeah didn't they say that the defence barrister thought he'd be found guilty.

Fascinating programme that's the whole point though whether we believe someone is guilty or not our system says it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt I would have still have found him not guilty because IMO the prosecution didn't prove he did it this is perhaps a fault with our legal systems people on a jury have to be objective not subjective.

But Elenadon he's innocent until proven guilty that's what our laws say?

I missed the DNA evidence...what was it?

Absolutely fascinating to watch and find out what the actual process is if they are found guilty.

I thought he was guilty as there were three things that I felt gave strong evidence; the historical abuse to his ex, a phrase he used that was something along the lines of being together right till the end and the most damming was the 8 minutes between calls.

His DNA was on the back of her neck.

But if they were having sexual relations it's not impossible his DNA would be there.

Watching him clean up afterwards was quite chilling I thought. Before that I'd genuinely begun to feel sorry for him because I think his ex wife was playing him. Not that she deserved to be strangled though.

His DNA was on her neck. There was no mention of Lewis's DNA being there. I thought that was pretty strong evidence. We heard that he was violent in the past and had a bad temper.

I hated the army guy. He had zero respect for anything the women said and practically called them stupid. Little wonder he seemed to discount evidence from women but be swayed by one man who placed another man close to the scene of the crime at the time. I was surprised that there were so few guilty verdicts. When they were saying 'we just need two people to change their minds and we'll have a majority' i was sure it must have been 8 guilty and 4 ng, not the other way round.

I think it would have been a cop out if it hadn't been him because so often it is the husband.

ShootingStar123
It's not pointless because (IMO) it provides victims and victims' families with more "closure" than a "not guilty" verdict.
There is no closure at all in a Not Proven verdict. The person walks away free, with no record.
In this case he might have been found not proven then gone home to take custody of his children. A hung jury will probably result in a retrial.

I think some people here have a different idea of what constitutes evidence to me. I agree with Althea.

yy and what constitutes reasonable doubt

Shenanagins

I thought he was guilty as there were three things that I felt gave strong evidence; the historical abuse to his ex, a phrase he used that was something along the lines of being together right till the end and the most damming was the 8 minutes between calls

Personally, I don't think the 8 minute gap is particularly good evidence of guilt. People react differently. Some people might react in a way that would seem abnormal to the majority of people.

If you've ever experienced high anxiety, have you ever found yourself "zoned out", pacing without any real awareness of your surroundings or time.

Lets pretend he was innocent. It's plausible that he could have dialled 999 on impulse but in a fit of nervous energy and panic (after finding his wife murdered) dialled off and ended up pacing around just thinking OMG, is this even happening.

He might have difficulty explaining this to a jury or might fear that this explanation wouldn't be believed or he might genuinely have suffered some sort of dissociative amnesia.

In a real trial, if he had the financial means to afford the best defence, it's likely the defence would have called expert witnesses to argue the dissociative amnesia point - thus creating reasonable doubt on this issue.

Again with the financial means to afford the best defence (i.e. lawyers paid enough to be willing to spend more than the bare minimum of time on the case) - it might also have been possible to exclude much of the historical evidence.

Voice0fReason

I take your point, but that is reliant on the numbers of guilty versus not guilty verdicts being less than is need for a majority verdict, and there is no guarantee that such cases would result in a hung jury.

This case was for TV, so there is an added pressure there to get the "right" verdict. In real life, how many jurors would be persuaded by the loudest voice in the room pointing out that they must acquit if there is doubt. It's difficult to argue with this point if each juror only has two options. A "not proven" gives a clear alternative.

Also retrials aren't guaranteed, and a range of additional factors (relative to the first trial) will be considered by the CPS before this decision is undertaken.

Criminals usually don't have qualms about lying when giving evidence. They can literally make up any lie that creates a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.

It's a slap in the face for victims, when they have gone through the ordeal of the crime, the ordeal of the police investigation, the ordeal or re-living the experience when giving evidence, the ordeal of being attacked by the defending barrister; only for a "not guilty" verdict to be given based (most probably) on fabricated "facts" and / or excluded evidence that was not put before the jury.

To see examples of how such victims are treated, just read the comments section of MailOnline, with ignorant people calling for victims to be tried for perjury etc.

I thought this was crap. Sorry. I did. I don't think that it in any way helped u see what a normal trial would be like - there was so little of the trail itself.

And Army Man

Hmm....

He never did answer the 'have you ever hit a woman?' question (that we saw, anyway).

x2boys, that was what I was asking Up thread- what more evidence would you have wanted to see?

That was an utterly crass question, that he was well within his rights not to answer but his attitudes to women were obvious

I thought he did answer it and said no.

I missed the last two episodes because Army man annoyed me so much I couldn't watch. Clearly a control freak himself and shouting down the experienced health visitor who knew and understood how abusive men acted in relationships.

In fact I was hugely unimpressed with most of the men who were too quick to dismiss the DV stuff.

That said I would have gone for a not guilty verdict based upon the two episodes I saw. Am sure that had I continued watching there might have been more evidence that I missed.

I hope the men who sat and witnessed e actual event learned something....but I doubt it.