The Jury: Murder trial

[Newtonianmechanics]

Is anyone watching this on channel 4?

www.radiotimes.com/tv/entertainment/the-jury-murder-trial-channel-4-experiment-explained/

So frustrating. I thought is was murder. Felt the manslaughter team were misled by green shirt man. Hated the yells when people changed their minds to agree with him.

I'm no fan of greenshirt, but his connection to that murder wouldn't (afaik) disqualify him from jury service, and I don't see why it would make him more likely to take a lenient view of the defendant either. We have no idea what his view of that horrific crime was. Having had that experience could have made him interested in taking part in this programme, I suppose.

Regarding the case, as a layperson my inclination was towards murder simply because he stopped and got the hammer. But if I were a juror and had the benefit of hearing all the evidence and receiving guidance from the judge, I might well have said manslaughter with loss of control. As viewers we can't really tell what our verdict would be without all the relevant information, and I think the programme makers could have done a much better job of including that information to help us viewers to form an opinion on how well or badly the juries performed.

I know the show wasn't concerned with sentencing, but after discovering that the real defendant only got 7 years (presumably served something like 4?) that felt incredibly lenient for taking someone's life in such a brutal way. I looked up the sentencing guidelines, and for the defendant to get a heftier sentence he would have had to met high culpability criteria, which he didn't (things like use of a firearm, concealing or defiling the body, loss of control in the context of other criminal activity, weak qualifying trigger) and/or there would have had to be aggravating factors. He appeared to have one aggravating factor (use of a weapon), but then several mitigating factors (no previous convictions, remorse, good character - possibly history of abuse of defendant by victim). He also appeared to have cooperated fully with the police, didn't attempt to conceal the crime, admitted straight away that he had killed her. So with all that in mind, if he was judged at medium culpability (starting point 8 years, range 5-12 years), the sentence was only reduced slightly from the starting point of 8 years.

That doesn't seem like a hefty enough sentence for killing a person. It's not like it was an accident. Her poor family 😞

@bows101 "I have NC for this as I also knew the victim." do you know why they did not reveal the real case name, I mean I am sure it is for security for the guy and the families etc.

It just feels interesting and very sad as it is similar to the other murder case currently on TV of the so called 'BA airlines pilot' who killed his wife. In that case the victim and the family are made known on TV.

@Snozzlemaid* "But refreshing that the young 19 year old lad didn't agree with them. There's hope the younger generation of males have a better view of women."

I agree.

@Snozzlemaid But refreshing that the young 19 year old lad didn't agree with them. There's hope the younger generation of males have a better view of women.

I disagree.

I read today that the builder chap who wore the jewellery is the step father of Jack Sepple who murdered his very young Canadian girlfriend. At one stage his mother had a restraining order him against him also. It makes me wonder just how unbiased the blokes opinions were as a juror.

Somehow I missed that this had an episode on Thursday!
Watching it now

The comments about him 'snapping' because the house was untidy - why couldn't he tidy it?

Or she 'couldn't keep her legs closed' because she had children with two different men

Were shocking.

He had a number of relationships (an ex-wife and other girlfriends who gave character references) but no 'couldn't keep his trousers on' comments.

From day one there were comments along the lines of 'she must have provoked him'.

I despair.

I would have liked to have known about his previous marriage and how that ended.

It seems the whole context of ruining her character was set in a specific time frame which put him at an advantage.

Yes I found it a bit odd when one if his exes was saying how wonderful he was and what a great person he is. I did wonder why then aren't they still together.

I was totally shocked how one bullying man could sway one of the juries. His behaviour was appalling (man in green top).

I was totally shocked that the story of the events is told by the survivor, he said she messed up the place and smashed plates, maybe she did but she is not there to defend herself! He said she spat at him. Maybe she did. Not a reason to kill her of course, but maybe she didn't even spit at him. We just don't know.

But the case was to decide beyond reasonable doubt, not with 100% certainty. There seemed to be a real lack of understanding of the law and I felt the makes should have clarified that, at least for the viewers.

The idea of losing one's temper was mixed up with the idea of losing control. Personally, I think someone who can lose control' and bash someone on the head with an industrial hammer, is incredibly scary.

and I felt the makes of the programme should have clarified that, at least for the viewers.

I deliberately avoided reading this thread until I'd watched as wanted to properly act as if I was on the jury and come to the conclusion I'd have come to without influence - I've posted up thread what I decided

Interesting most people on here came to the conclusion I did that it was murder because of the hammer, as it's exactly what influenced my decision. If there was no hammer and she'd died from the strangling, I think I'd have gone to manslaughter

As they said would a reasonable person have done the same? In my opinion, no. Let's not forget it wasn't "just" once with the hammer, it was 3 times. He had to be in sound enough mind to know where it was and to then either reach for it if on the table or go get it from the foundry

Don't forget also the caretaker who said how his wife tried to run him over then stopped once she hit him - if she'd gone as far as John, she would have repeatedly run him over. It was like it shocked her out of the loss of control, if indeed there was one - in John's instance surely the moment of shock, if there was a loss of control would be seeing her turn purple. Yet he still then used the hammer

What I found so shocking was not the general ignorance of the law, but the lack of respect for the law. Ignorance can be corrected by directions and explanations from the court. But that's no use whatsoever if jurors take the view that 'it couldn't possibly be anything other than murder (or manslaughter) and I will never be persuaded otherwise, I don't care what the law says'. There was far too much of that around for comfort.

I also thought it was murder. I also think I have found the real trail, if I have this man will be out by now which is why I think channel 4 won't say

I have just finished watching this and agree with what you are all saying. The only thing I wonder is that the programme was edited heavily and we didn’t see all the evidence which may have swung to more to manslaughter.

I did also think that it’s as if the jury need a “referee” of sort in the room. Making sure nobody is bullying other jurors. You kind of rely on there being enough good people to stand up against any strong character there who is bullying the others.

You would think if you witnessed your beloved having to get a restraining order against their son or daughter you might have more sympathy for a victim.

This was one of the most frustrating and enraging tv shows I have ever watched.

The misogyny and willingness to minimise the violence against the victim by some jurors, from the outset, was horrific.

Green shirt was a common or garden bully but I was still surprised by the influence he managed to wield on level-headed jurors. They must have been just worn down by the time in the room and they wanted to get out of there. Just so depressing!

I appreciate that there were 6 days of evidence that we didn't see so there may have been better arguments for manslaughter than we saw. But the arguments people were coming up with to defend the defendant were astonishing.

Two of the jury members when I did jury service said how good looking the defendant was! Fortunately he was found guilty.

He is indeed, I posted it upthread last week.

*horrible story re death of a baby**

How could the jury rule this man slaughter?? I know we haven't got the full stories etc but surely this is murder?

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/crime/cruel-dad-jailed-over-death-of-baby-son-4542095?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0TaI4ZXGQaeN35LMXGhVNGE91LQ-60v7_21wk5lyO9OmSqojHR5urzwDI#Echobox=1709568657-23

@PlumpHobbit we didn’t hear the evidence, perhaps his story of falling with the baby swayed them. The judge gave him 15 years though so perhaps he disagreed.

I did also think that it’s as if the jury need a “referee” of sort in the room. Making sure nobody is bullying other jurors. You kind of rely on there being enough good people to stand up against any strong character there who is bullying the others.

I don't think either jury chose the best chair.

Just finished watching it and avoided reading this thread until I had.
It wasnt a straightforward case but I also thought it was murder- i thought the prosecution summing up was spot on.
If he strangled her maybe you could say loss of control. But to strangle her, go and fetch a hammer and hit her 3 times sounds like murder not loss of control.
I found some of the attitudes of the jurors disturbing and infuriating- they were victim blaming. Misogyny was alive and well in at least one of the Jury rooms!
She clearly suffered from mental health conditions but defendant was aware of that when they married and it is no excuse to kill someone.
I also thought the green shirt man was completely overbearing and bullying- i hope i would have the strength to stand up to someone like him. The guy that gave his wife the nickname smelly and had smelly amanda tattooed on his wrist gave me the ick too- he seemed absolutely awful. The juror I most connected with was blue cardigan woman, I really felt for her.

Also as one of the jurors pointed out. He didn’t have a mark on him. He just said she had a “wild” look in her eyes and a few plates were smashed.