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/

How do you know that?

Because a journo I know unearthed it, but hasn't published it. If you can find his Facebook and that of his wife, you will see enough pictures to prove it, so you can check if it's true. No they are not friends of mine or friends of friends.

I’m watching this now and it’s infuriating. I was on a jury fairly recently in a sexual/domestic abuse trial. Some of the comments from the defense shocked me, saying that she probably enjoyed it so it couldn’t be rape and they really riled the victim up to the point she was in tears. We weren’t allowed to discuss anything til we’d heard all the evidence, so chat in the break rooms was purely small talk. After 2 weeks luckily we were unanimous in finding him guilty, but watching this show is making me think it could have gone very differently with a couple of misogynists in the mix!

@Howmuchhh I'm interested to know, did the judge give guidance to the jury to combat misconceptions about rape? I've read that this is happening now because rape myths are still so widespread and the criminal justice system is making efforts to improve outcomes in this type of case.

@Turkeyhen yes, we were given definitions and guidance around consent. I was, rightly or wrongly, surprised by the whole jury agreeing in favour of the victim, especially as we had more men than women on the jury. It was quite refreshing.

@Howmuchhh Some of the comments from the defense shocked me, saying that she probably enjoyed it so it couldn’t be rape and they really riled the victim up to the point she was in tears.

How dare the defence advocate cross-examine the main prosecution witness, putting forward [presumably] the defendant's position that the penetration {for want of a better word] was consensual. Any more of that sort of thing and maybe we should ban the trial stage altogether and move swiftly to sentencing. Those chaps in Saudia Arabia seem to have the right idea. Maybe at the plea stage the options could be 'guilty' and 'probably guilty' only - cutting out that silly 'not guilty' wokery. Anybody that disagrees is a misogynist obvs.

@sawdustformypony I didn’t say they shouldn’t cross examine them, it just shocked me as someone who has never been involved in the justice system. It made me realise why some people do not want to take cases like this to trial.

@Howmuchhh Very few people find the experiance of giving evidence a pleasant experiance. Given the trial was fairly recent and hopefully your memory of it still quite good, maybe you could come up with, say, 4 or 5 questions that you would have liked the defence to have put to the complainant. Bear in mind, that the series of questions must 'bring' out the defendant's defence. Also, as this is a cross-examination, you are permitted to put 'leading' questions to the witness. Good luck.

That is really encouraging to hear!

The misogany was appalling and I personally would have gone for murder not manslaughter because the claw hammer was not conveniently there, he had to go somewhere to get it so it wasn't a case of in a blind rage he forgot himself and icked it up, he actually planned on getting it!

I agree 🥲

I keep trying to find out whether he did go out to the foundry to fetch the hammer, which is what I thought was said, or, as many people have written, that it was in the house. The only difference being the decision to leave and return to the house and the time taken. Odd how opinion is divided though.

All I can really be sure of is that the witness said he came out to the foundry and declared he'd killed her.

Thanks. Wonder how he got involved in the whole thing.

The defendant claimed that he couldn't remember and couldn't definitively say if the hammer was in the house or fetched from the foundry, iirc. His colleague said that he saw John walk past and that he had gesticulated as if to say "don't ask". Then the defendant came back to the foundry and told his colleague that he had killed his wife ("That's it. I've killed her." or words to that effect).

I found it frustrating that the prosecution didn't seem to drill down on this crucial point by cross examining the colleague. When did Tor hear the sounds of the argument coming from the house? When did he see John walk past and gesticulate? And how long was it before John reappeared at the foundry and told Tor that he had killed his wife? Was equipment from the foundry commonly taken into the house? So many questions that did not seem to have been asked (but perhaps they were asked in the real trial?).

To me the gesticulating as if to say "don't ask" undermines the loss of control defence, but the timing of the gesticulation is crucial.

Thanks for clarifying @Turkeyhen I thought I was paying attention so couldn't work out why I wasn't clear.

The production company paid for a transcript, which I read is available for £5,000, so quite why they decided to omit this from their script is very odd to me, as you say, the points you mention seem pretty crucial in order for good decision making by any jury.

@martinisforeveryone I found the lack of detail/heavy editing made it so hard to follow - the constant breaks and cutaways to actors pretending to be exes or family members didn't help either. I get that it was supposed to be an entertainment show rather than a properly serious social experiment, but I wish it had been more thorough, detailed and accurate so I could actually learn something from it.

Just watched the final episode. I found it quite frustrating as an exercise - I wanted to hear more reflection from the legal experts about what they thought of the discussion and deliberation; apart from one comment about certain personalities dominating (hell yes!) there wasn't enough reflection. When I was on a jury (decades ago) I remember us getting very exercised about what exactly represented "reasonable doubt", which was something that came up here too. I'd have welcomed more discussion of that. I'd also have liked to hear more from the individual jurors reflecting on their experiences.

Mr green shirt and gold jewelry was really really annoying - he made it far too competitive and would have driven me mad. Persuasive though, clearly.

I also finished it and was disappointed.

The loss of control defence seemed to miss one vital element (an insult of grave character, paraphrasing abit)

And that the judge has to confirm that there is sufficient evidence of loss of control for the jury to even consider it.

And no real judge directions.

A trained foreperson in the jury room, who can't decide, to keep on track and correct wrong ideas would've good.

The idea that the defendants evidence was a fact and could not be disbelieved was stupid! That's the whole point of it -is he reliable and do you believe what he said!

Also murderers can well be nice people who have killed people (I mean look at midsummer murders).

A frustrating case as it should have been clearer on the timeline of the hammer part and the assistant seeing him and when an ambulance was called. But maybe that is real life cases -poorly presented at times.

Good points, well made @burnoutbabe

Yes, well, apart from quoting Midsomer Murders!

Well yes that was being a bit silly.

But it would be interesting to know the stats on what a murderer is?

Is it a violent person from a gang?

Or is it sometimes a one off thing?

Do jurors tend to go manslaughter for the second lot to distinguish from the gang types? Ie "there but got the grace of god go I?" -same as it's not murder if you kill soneone when driving (mostly) as realistically juries just would not convict them.

Actually I have access to a law library so I ought to be able to find that out.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/homicide-sub-type-data/homicide-sub-type-data#fn:2

from this, it splits it into domestic and non domestic murders and most are to over 25 males in a public space. but still, quite a large amount are "domestic" or occur within a house (maybe robbery gone wrong?).

It might be so that it can be edited together in a different way? Something that came out later can be moved to a more dramatic/televisual place?

The case this is based on is local to me- this is the article in the local paper about it relating to the TV programme.

He is already out and casually living life again....working in the same town my husband does.Ready to prey on some other poor woman! Makes me sick.

It also says regarding the family's opinion;
Following the verdict Angela’s family released a dignified statement stating: “We are deeply disappointed with the manslaughter verdict in this case.
“During the court case it felt that Angela herself was on trial, and in many ways that has been the hardest part for us. We feel Angela and her family have been let down in this case by the justice system.” Angela’s brother Michael Hulme, who was forewarned of the Channel 4 series, reiterated those feelings.“It’s fair to say that the family’s opinions haven’t changed,” he said.

Absolutely disguising the lenient sentence he got and that he got away with a manslaughter charge?! Should be in prison for life for murder.

Haven't watched the series yet but am not suprised how misogynistic and victim blaming the people in that courtroom were....how else would he have got off so lightly.

The 'Ask for Angela' campaign was also set up by her friend in her memory.

Sorry forgot to include the link;

https://www.becclesandbungayjournal.co.uk/news/24165563.jury-murder-trial-tv-show-based-norfolk-killing/