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/

Exactly. I think it would be easy for the accused to summon up tears based on the fear of a life sentence.

@KingofDays So basically murder has to be pre meditated, pre planned for quite some time. How long ?

No that's not right, no pre-meditation or planning is required. It increases the sentence of the offence, if it can be shown that these were present. But had 'John' in the midst of a quarrel with 'Helen' picked up a knife or hammer that just happened to be in reach and killed her with it there and then - but hadn't lost control of himself, just gotten 'very angry', that would be murder. The question to be answered is, what does a 'loss of control' mean? Is one person's 'very angry' = another person's "loss of control".

I think the thing which most troubled me was the tendency for the jurors to want to be able simplify things into “good people” and “bad people”.

It reflects some of my own experience of jury duty - on one trial I found a number of the jurors had decided that the defendant was a “wrong‘un” and that was evidence enough. Some got a bit irritated with me insisting the question wasn’t whether they were a wrong’un, but whether we had been presented with sufficient evidence that this particular wrong’un had done this particular wrong deed.

Similarly that it’s not the job of the defence to prove they didn’t do it but the job of the prosecution to prove that they did.

I think in its basic form, it's an interesting format - would two juries, presented with the same information, reach the same verdict? (I don't think they will.) I'm not in favour of them using a real case and think they could easily have come up with a storyline that would meet the brief.

It's obvious that the jurors have been selected based on their own life experiences, to show how that skews their thinking, and they are not necessarily making the final decision based on the facts of the case.

More explanation should be given as to the difference between manslaughter and murder (maybe this was done with the juries but not shown to the viewers).

Tor didn't (or wasn't seen to) say if John left the foundry (after strangling Helen) with the hammer. We don't know if the hammer was already in the house.

How long does "loss of control" last? Is it a momentary thing, or can it last for several minutes? I can accept loss of control leading to the strangulation, but I'm struggling to accept that it can also explain him seeing her turning purply-blue, and then taking the decision to take the hammer (whether that was in the house, and therefore "handy", or if he had to walk to the foundry to get it) and then bludgeon her to death with it.

I haven't read up on the real case yet, but I wonder why this particular case was chosen for the programme, as it seems an unusual one, ie the defendant has people lining up to vouch for his previous good character/no history of violence, whereas the prosecution seems to have no witnesses to call to give another view of the problems within the relationship. Perhaps there were none?

What I find incredible is that the prosecution didn't cross examine Tor, who witnessed John going to the foundry to (possibly) get the hammer. Surely that is a key issue - if John left Helen, already blue from being strangled, to get a hammer from the foundry which he then took back to the house and used to finish her off, it's much harder to view this as a loss of control. For me, anyway. Tor could also perhaps say whether it was normal for tools from the foundry to be in the house (possibly he couldn't know - it's not clear if he was considered a friend as well as colleague who would hang out in the house with the couple). I'm just finding the prosecution quite feeble tbh.

The jury I was on had a far more balanced set of jurors. These have been chosen for hype and drama, for their bigoted and narrow-minded approaches. Irl, the selection is more random.

I haven't read up on the real case yet, but I wonder why this particular case was chosen for the programme, as it seems an unusual one, ie the defendant has people lining up to vouch for his previous good character/no history of violence, whereas the prosecution seems to have no witnesses to call to give another view of the problems within the relationship. Perhaps there were none?

I think the "loss of control" defence is a particularly interesting one to look at because it is really down to the subjective view of the jury - there's no significant dispute around the facts of the case.

It's also interesting that it's a case where it's a man who killed a woman, as I understand that the "loss of control" defence is most commonly used when a woman kills an abusive partner? When the prosecution was questioning the defendent along the lines of "why didn't you just leave her?", I wondered how that would have been judged if the same questions had been asked of a woman accused of killing her partner?

At the moment I don't know what I would decide if I were on the jury. I would expect in a real trial the judge would give some quite clear direction to the jury that would explain the loss of control the defence and what they jury should take into account in its deliberation. I wonder if they will show that in the fina episode? I'm hoping when it comes down to the actual deliberations rather than all the chit-chat that we've seen so far, the juries will be a bit more focused.

I don’t understand why they haven’t interviewed the mother of his children, and asked if he ever strangled her/why did they break up? If anyone knows about how he reacts to extreme stress, it’ll be her. I also don’t believe it was the first time he’s ever been violent. He’s not a battered person. He wasn’t scared to leave her.

I spoke to my mum about this show and she said the 19 year old was too young to be on a jury. I totally disagree. He was strong minded enough not to just go along with the older people who were talking down to him.

I was pleased to see the male juror pointing out that the defence use of referring to John being quiet spoken was clearly a strategy to make the jury think he was a quiet/gentle person.

You could understand strangling her in the heat of the moment, but leaving the room (its up for debate if he went to get the hammer but I believe he did), going back to finish the job, then after he left the room AGAIN to tell his employee that he’d killed her, he told his employee he wanted her dead as they walked back to where she was. That’s not a fleeting moment of uncontrolled rage. He murdered her.

I agree that the location of the hammer prior to the attack is important. Though then the question of how long a moment of madness can last comes into play.
The defence team does seem weaker than the prosecution. The defence would be the crown though wouldn’t it? So public servants or people paid from the public purse. I imagine the top experts who can charge the most might be more likely to be on the defence teams on cases like this.

@CroccyWoccy thank you, I hadn't thought of it that way but I can see why they selected the case now. You're right, the loss of control aspect makes it an interesting example.

Having googled to find out more about the real case, it's interesting to discover that the Ask for Angela campaign was named after the victim.

I feel so desperately sorry for her family, especially her children.

Before this trial was televised , I always assumed that manslaughter was for causing someone's death in error , such as a driver killing someone in an accident . Although that , in effect , is losing control of your car , it's nothing like the case here .

Has loss of control always been classed as manslaughter and not murder , does anyone know ?

I think that if you caused a death by accident, which wasn't your fault - ie no negligence (possibly no recklessness?), then no crime had been committed.

The loss of control defence is what's known as a partial-defence to murder. It used to be known as provocation. Diminished responsibility is another partial defence. I think they were brought into law, when the death penatly existed for murder and it was felt that killing in such circumstances as provocation/loss of control ought not to justify being executed.

Thanks for that , it's interesting .

Trigger warning:

So my brother was murdered 18 years ago this summer. He was stabbed over 16 times in his back by his so called friend after a drunken very very minor argument. My brother and his friend were also neighbours. DB was on the street outside his house after the fall out. The friend went into his flat which was an upstairs one. Called his dad and brothers and they come over and kicked my brother down to the ground. Meanwhile friend is looking around his flat for a weapon. Finds a knife, comes downstairs and while DB is on the ground face down he is stabbed multiple times. He manages to turn over once as there are defence wounds from the knife on his hands. A year later and court case with the friend detailing what happened and not denying it, even saying he was looking for his baseball bat but found the knife instead. There was absolutely no violence between my DB and this friend beforehand. The prosecution team only gave the jury a murder verdict requirement as it seemed obvious. But because the friend had pleaded mental health and they didn't have the option of manslaughter the man walked free! I'll never know what the jury in his trial was on. Even the judge was shocked and pre warned the court to remain calm and respectful during the verdict. This made my family and me think it was a murder verdict and the friends family will kick off. To say we were absolutely floored is an understatement. The friend was set free that day and set off to a life of marriage and fatherhood eventually. Meanwhile my brothers children have struggled so much over the years it's been heartbreaking. I just wanted to share my brothers story as the law in the UK isn't as straight forward as we may think. 😓

@WingingItSince1973 once cleared of murder is there the option to have him tried again for manslaughter?

@WingingItSince1973 I'm so very sorry. What a horrific and absolutely shocking experience 😞

Only if new evidence came to light. Or another witness. There were witnesses that night as it was in the middle of a busy housing estate but nobody was prepared to come forward. The friend is now living his life abroad with his family.

That is the issue with jury trials - you get occasional what used to be called "perverse decisions". I'm sorry about your brother @WingingItSince1973

I think the issue with this TV programme is that's like it's a game, particularly with the personalities they've picked. On the jury I was on jurors were very clear their decision would impact the defendant and the victim and some people shared they were wrestling with how sure they were about things. Others barely spoke.

Thank you. I'd just had my 3rd dd by c section. He was attacked when she was 7 weeks old. He was in hospital for 2 weeks as they kept trying to patch him up but there was too many wounds and he eventually succumbed to sepsis. He was awake for the first week and was terrified. They kept operating on him but it just wasn't working. His last words to me was one night I had a feeling I needed to speak to him. I phoned the ward. The nurse answered and told my brother I was on the phone and obviously he wasn't in a state to speak to me but told the nurse to tell me he loved me. Then he was put into an induced coma and never woke up. He was 28 x

@WingingItSince1973 I'm so sorry, that is just awful

This show is infuriating but important. The 19 year old is being patronised by everyone - I’ve had jobs, kids and a mortgage therefore I know more than you. No, he’s just of a generation where they have been allowed to speak their mind and not blindly follow the majority.

Most of the jurors aren’t able to separate their own life experiences from the accused’s testimony. They also don’t seem to be doing much critical thinking (when I say “them” I mean the gobby ones who want to be on camera, there are some quieter people who are clearly weighing up all the possibilities).

If I was on trial for murder, I’d be meek and gentle on the stand too, it’s not hard to work out. Ditto crying all the time and just saying you can’t remember doesn’t get you off the hook.

He says it’s all he thinks about - I should bloody hope so it’s not every day you bludgeon your wife to death.

I would like to know more about “Helen”. Her life and her struggles have barely been touched upon.

I also hate how the jurors are romanticising their relationship ie, it was unrequited, he loved her so much. No, he was obsessive and out of his depth, she needed treatment. This was no love story. He murdered her.

How do we know if she was already dead by strangulation before the hammer blows? Wouldn’t that affect the manslaughter/murder charge?

The personal stories of the jurors are very irritating.

How do we know if she was already dead by strangulation before the hammer blows? Wouldn’t that affect the manslaughter/murder charge?

In the real life case (linked earlier) "Helen" was taken to hospital and died two days later.

But had she died at the scene, a pathologist would be able to tell if she died by strangulation before the hammer attack by the lack of bruising, which cannot develop after the heart stops beating.

Tor also said she was making gurgling noises when he saw her after the hammer attack so definitely not dead after the strangulation.

Agree. I felt the young juror is probably the only one being objective. Probably because he doesn't have all the baggage of the older jurors. I couldn't help.thinki g about how Helens mum said she was unhappy. I wonder if he was infatuated by her and stifling her. And she told him she was leaving. He said himself he had never felt so strongly about someone. Perhaps that's why he had never shown his violent side.

I would like to know more about “Helen”. Her life and her struggles have barely been touched upon.

To be fair though, in a trial her life is only really relevant in the extent to which it impacts either the prosecution or the defence. Obviously the defence were focusing on evidence that would support a manslaughter verdict (e.g. that she was volatile and controlling).

However (and I'm concious of only seen what bits of the evidence that have been broadcast) if it were me on the jury I can't see how I could accept a "loss of control" defence, given that a critical element the defence is that "the reaction would be expected of an average person in the defendent's circumstances".