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/

Is it only when you have heard all of the evidence that you can discuss it?

Whilst watchign this, let us all remember it isn;t that long ago that's juries were all male!!

Imagine...

This is my memory of it, yes.

I hope he accesses it if he feels he needs it. Thank you for telling us your experience about being on a jury

I heard an interview this morning where someone made a comparison to the Traitors show with the round table.

The woman may well have been a nightmare to live with, but there was no need to take a hammer to her. What a load of shit.

Yeah, it does feel like a Traitors set up!

The jury members also on my trial didn't so overtly emote like that in the court sessions! We had pads and pens etc and all tried to look very poker faced and earnest.

I have never been called for jury service - surely it isn't actually like this? I'm flabbergasted tbh.

A bit. Half watching it.

I'm intrigued by their definition of 'unconditional love'.

I’m shouting at the telly! Is anyone else?

She was already blue and then he grabbed a hammer and smashed her in the face? To me that says he wanted to finish the job. It's brutal to strangle someone until they are blue and then to smash them with a hammer. How do they think he didn't mean to kill her?

Losing control ?

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-21198156.amp

Green shirt twat is really infuriating. What an arse.

Surely any normal person would wait until they had heard both prosecution and defence before forming a considered opinion? Aren't juries given guidance before the trial starts? Argh please tell me this gossiping/spouting half baked opinions over sandwiches isn't what actually happens

Do the research for what you need.

Also really shocked by this, just don’t understand how it could not be murder at the point he picked up a hammer and smashed her skull.

It certainly helps to explain the misogynistic jury decisions in a lot of domestic violence trials.

The “loss of control” argument will always benefit men for obvious reasons.

Just starting the 3rd episode, wonder how the prosecution will balance things out.

it’s pretty shocking how much projective identification is happening. With respect it’s not fucking relevant to this case whatsoever whether your ex called you fat or you’ve not seen your daughter for years!

We couldn't access therapy (horrible murder trial). We were just told thank you and we can guarantee you won't be called again for five years.

But we were allowed, and encouraged to discuss the case among ourselves as the trial developed. (Strictly not with anyone else - ever - not during or after, not even our spouses, not even what the media were saying.) Breaks were very regimented - one morning coffee break, lunch, then usually we finished by mid afternoon as the lawyers had to prep for next day and the accused had a long drive back to prison where they were on remand.

We ended up having lots of conversations over lunch breaks.

Obviously, the first thing I did was find the real case (don’t know why I even bother watching real crime dramas because I’m off on google from the get go).

He seven years that would mean that he’s been out for at least 3/4 years IF he did the whole 7 years.

What I did find interesting in my search was how very little info there was. No typical Facebook pics or wedding pics and only one (generic) statement from her family. It’s almost as if this crime and it’s victim(s) never happened. Interestingly (perhaps the wrong word) an abuse campaign is named after her. It’s almost as if the makers of the show want the viewer to be in no doubt that manslaughter was the correct verdict …

As for the jury, they’re were most likely probed and told to emote. I can’t imagine saying some of the shit they were saying when facing a murder. I can see the producers saying ‘be real’, ‘didn’t you ever attack someone you love?’, ‘how did you feel when someone called you fat?’ Total bullshit.

How interesting!

Funny that neither DH nor I remember this. Maybe it's different trial types or judges. But literally everyone buggered off down Costa or sat in their little chairs reading or napping.

My sense is thta the show wants us to think jury trails are flawed because of people's lack of legal understanding but , also, their biases. It is also strongly suggesting that a verdict can be shaped by strident personalities.

Obviously, usually, the verdict is cut and dried, in all honesty.

Loss of Control
The loss of control defence has three components – see section 54(1)(a)(b)and (c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009:

Loss of control (the first component);
A qualifying trigger (the second component); and
An objective test (the third component): A person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious

Which hopefully we will hear being properly explained by judges and barristers to the jury at some point!

Yes really enjoying it.
I do actually feel sorry for both of them, if everything is true.
She was crying out for help and he just wanted it all to stop.
But once we hear more evidence, things could change.