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/

I've done jury service. I had two cases in two weeks. Different jurors for the two cases with a couple of overlaps. The instructions were a bit confused. When we raised some questions one member of court staff told us we shouldn't be discussing it at all until we were asked to deliberate. Another indicated it was just discussion in small groups that we should avoid. We did of course discuss it. It was very intense and very difficult not to. We did do it as a complete group though. We had a jury room with a large table which we sat round in all the breaks. We could go to a canteen to get sandwiches (it was limited to the jurors) and some people sat there but didn't discuss the case because there were jurors from other cases there.

I haven't seen much of this. The thing that has struck me is that the acting is so poor it's just not convincing. How can the jurors form a view of the 'defendant's' honesty or character when the actor's performance is so bad?

I thought the premise is interesting but I think it's poorly executed and won't tell us much.

The thing that has struck me is that the acting is so poor it's just not convincing.

Absolutely agree x 100. We are told that the courtroom scenes are "word for word" what was said at the actual trial. Some of the language used by the defence/prosecution in their questions is utterly bizarre.

And what's with all the home movies/witness interviews? They clearly feature the actors so are just manufactured. Did the victim's mum actually live in the house shown on the interview? Was that her actual demeanour when interviewed? Same for the exes.

I also find it impossible to believe that nobody on either jury has the slightest inkling that there is another set of people, either in the courtroom or in the building, so that detracts from being able to take any of it seriously.

It has had the potential to be a really interesting experiment, but it's just a lot of wannabe reality stars trying to make a name for themselves and having zero shame for expressing some seriously disturbing views.

I agree, the VTs of actors pretending to be an ex or relative are seriously annoying. I would rather feel like I'm a juror and stay within the courtroom.

I also refuse to believe that the juries are unaware of another jury right next to them. Even if they can't see each other, surely it's odd when one of the barristers or the judge is addressing the jury but not looking directly at you?

I wonder if Gary's wife was prosecuted for driving the car at him and breaking his legs?

It is amazing they are still together. That takes DV to another level.

Ha,

Reminds me of that warring couple on Father Ted, sweet as pie infront of others, then trying to kill one another in private.

The holding hands buisness, very odd.

“ 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.”

I have watched the first three episodes and it seemed like a clear cut case of manslaughter. Then I read the above and do not agree that the majority of people with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint would take a hammer to their partner. So now confused.

I know this isn’t a thread about the Challen case but I remember at the time I did find it hard to believe that was a loss of control/manslaughter, although I’m sure David Challen was a horrible bastard I think it was murder.

Maybe Sally Challen being a middle class white woman had a positive effect because I know there are many young black women in jail for killing their abusers who haven’t been treated as leniently.

So basically murder has to be pre meditated, pre planned for quite some time.

How long ?

We saw the pots smashed, his anger erupted and he proceeded to strangle her, then he stopped.
He walked away and came back with a tool, and blugeoned her to death.

At what point could this have been murder, if he had bought the hammer the previous week/day for this very job or act, or if it was proven that he had planned it.

At what point and how long does manslaughter differ from murder, is it only where intent can be proven ? And how long must the intent be, he looked pretty intent to the co worker he passed on his way to finish the job, and quite intent that he'd carried out the job to his satifaction when he said to the worker that he had killed her.

Well it appears that anyone can get away with murder these days, so long as you have been seen to be angry and out of control.
Very worrying.

He should have been locked up for a very long time in my opinion.

@DitherAndFudge - thank you. I couldn't remember what the deal was about discussing the case before deliberating after all the evidence has been heard. All the jury have to be present for any discussion to take place. There weren't many opportunities on the jury I was on - we went out at lunchtime and not all together. People go to the loo, etc.

When we did discuss the case it was largely to clarify what had been said in court and say what questions we had/what we were thinking. As a jury we asked questions ourselves via the judge and I can't see how there can be any of that in this case.

The younger jurors on the jury I was on were mature and thoughtful I found.

The younger jurors on this seem very thoughtful, and really analyse very intelligently, more then some of the older ones, imo!

The older people were really patronising to him. He had a valid point to discuss.

Absolutely @Newtonianmechanics, the stronger characters like the bald, bling wearing, rounder man, arent interested in anyone elses opinions at all..
Hes right and thats that.

Is it my imagination or was there far more time given to the defence than to the prosecution? The victim had her character assassinated and the defendant gets a load of glowing references from his friends and family. It feels so unbalanced

Yes where were the character references for the victim? And I was so angry at some of the jurors just shutting down anyone who had a different opinion to them.

I totally agree, they really tarnished the victim, and 'big upped' him, defo came across as very unbalanced!

Surely the prosecution would call Tor as a witness for cross examination?

The disjointed format is just awful.

This is really annoying me! It's supposedly filmed over six days so why are they wearing the same clothes each day?

So the viewers can tell them apart more easily I imagine?

To help with the edit. Then they can mix up footage from different days.

The only time she was in front of a Jury, they found her guilty of murder. It was the Court of Appeal that quashed her conviction AND ordered there be a re-trial, but only on the basis that there might be the possibility that there might have been some loss of control (even though, the controlling / coercive behaviour on the part of the victim that she was reacting to, was over 9 months in the past).

It was the CPS that decided not to pursue a trial. I wonder if some pressure was brought on the CPS lawyers tasked to decide this case, possibly by a powerful set of chambers that had a dog in the race ???

This trial reminds me of the Pistorius trial. That was hardly premeditated - can they decree manslaughter for the same reasons (rush of blood to the head) in RSA?

I've always thought I'd want to be on a jury but I can't believe this show - is it really like this in a jury? They all seem to think their own experience is relevant. If they have experienced something similar e.g. they've thrown something, they've been called fat, they think this excuses the defendant's behaviour. What they're doing is excusing their own behaviour.

They have bent over backwards to empathise with the defendant, whilst not at all tried to empathise with the victim. All the character references show is that he had friends and family. Have the victim's family been asked to provide character references or is the victim only to be criticised. It seems that she on trial more than her killer.

I just hope that the producers purposely chose thick/opinionated people.

My partner and I binged the first 3 today. The bias and misogony is shocking. The only objective ones seem.to be the tall thin guy and the young Lad. He seems to be looking at the facts rather than referring to his own experiences. I hated that the bus driver was talking about tne perp not seeing his kids so much if he goes to prison. what about the fact that the victims kids will never ever see their mother again 🤔 I hope in the last episode we hear more from the other jurors.

The only person interviewed on her behalf was her mum, who said she was difficult. That convinced me even more that it was manslaughter as I would expect her own family to stick up for her. That said having googled the real case it comes up with articles saying how upset the family are with the sentence. Where were these family members when it came to having their say at the trial?