The jury

[NervyWegovy]

Anyone watching this? Just starting the second episode and whilst flawed I find it very interesting how people interact within the jury

Agree with the outcome

Can somebody remind the jurors that this is a TV show!!!

I suspect its permitted as a counter to her claim of domestic abuse and her defence mainly making out it was one sided and leaving out her violent past.

I found the actual case, the programme is pretty true to the real thing. There wasn't much in the way of forensics proving exactly what happened, or exactly where the stabbing took place - only indicators.

Such an interesting programme
The let's aquit people really infuriated Me especially the chef man who wanted to treat her as a child they would have assessed her prior to trial to see if she was fit to stand trial
He can't just decide to treat her as a child
I think they reached the right verdict
But didn't disagree with with the original jurors.

Totally agree

It’s so infuriating how emotional people dominate these programmes. I was surprised the original jury found for murder but maybe they had fewer rational folks on the panel. In my mind there were three points at stake: 1) Sophie did stab Ryan 2) no ability to say either way beyond reasonable doubt that he had been throttling her or not before she stabbed him 3) no proof or evidence or ability to say beyond reasonable doubt that she had prior intention, him strangling her or not, to kill him that night ir at any point. I’ve said “I’ll kill him” about my colleagues and my son in the past, should that be taken as evidence of mens rea? So therefore manslaughter. The abusive relationship and the diminished responsibility are almost red herrings. Would someone with so much “brain damage” for want of a better expression (to include her adverse childhood experiences, developmental deficiencies as a result, personality disorder, massive intoxication, being the victim of a mutually abusive relationship) really have the capacity to plan to murder her partner at some point in order to escape her situation and think she would get away with it? If so, well IRL she was wrong (as might be expected) and the jury this time I think came to the correct conclusion. It’s a system that is so flawed but IRL there is a lot more court clerk intervention on points of law than we see in the shows, juries do have access to professionals when they get stuck, but it does depend on having a sensible foreperson who is aware of the limitations of the people on the jury in terms of their capacity to absorb complex points of law - and the ability of those in the room to explain things in an appropriately dispassionate way that facilitates understanding of what is actually being asked. Huuuugely complex and as we have seen, open to worrying levels of emotional persuasion- which is the exact opposite of the purpose of the legal system.

When I first started watching this, my initial instinct was how he was stabbed and it didn’t feel like it correlated to her story of self defence.

Watching further, it’s obvious he was violent, so was she and this was a toxic relationship.

My end view was Manslaughter was the best option. Because there was enough reasonable doubt around both acquittal and murder for me not to go with either of those options.

I am now watching The Jury Australia! 😂

Where are you watching it?

it was on straight after on channel4

Knife stabbing produces a lot of blood but not at the point of entry if the knife stays in place. There wasn't a lot of blood on either the carpet or the doorstep. His own brother helped lift him up from the street and back into the house. Why didn't he call an ambulance?

I wasn't surprised by the manslaughter verdict, but for me the telephone call tipped it towards murder. I felt there should've been more discussion about this aspect. I was shocked at the extent to which jurors' emotions were on show, and the extent to which the gobbier jurors were getting most of the attention. I suppose it's entertainment at the end of the day.

None of the jurors seemed to be taking notes, and in my experience of jury service there was far more intervention and guidance from the judge/legal teams.

Does anyone know what sentence she got?

I felt the manslaughter verdict was the right decision based on that group of jurors and what we heard. I'm glad the mouthy ones didn't get their way as I'm not convinced the evidence showed she intended to murder him.

They were clearly all picked for based on the experiences or baggage they would bring to the table.

I'm surprised the real jury found her guilty of murder but we didn't hear eveything they will have.

I listened to the real 999 call and it is quite chilling as she seems so calm.

Reading around the case, it seems there was some question around whether that was a fair conviction given the circumstances of her past, the alleged DA and her personality disorder but she was found guilty in a retrial - which the show seems to have been based on - and lost a further appeal.

i found Marissa really annoying and the older guy.
i I liked Aimee (pink jumper)

Shocked to hear the real verdict.

What was the real case please?

They deliberately changed a lot of details to prevent disclosure of the actual case it was based on. I can’t imagine the victim’s family wanting this at all.

What confused me was right at the very start of Ep1, as the titles rolled, a 999 call was played, and it was the brother calling for an ambulance. Totally different to what happened later when it was Sophie who called. Did anyone else pick up on that.

Just my thoughts, I think the producers deliberately picked ‘jurors’ who were single minded, opinionated and couldn’t calmly weigh up evidence, but based their verdict on their own past experiences. And the reason was to highlight how very flawed our justice system is.

I found Aimee really annoying she wss determined Sophie was a victim from the start and Wass determined to aquit.

the one wearing pink all the time she would do my head in could not cope with her

agreed she would not listen to anything bar her own voice

Always wanted to do jury duty, obviously never called. Dd was, at 20. Had to read out the verdict in court, cos the rest were useless, go girl. Will have to give this a watch, sounds infuriating tho.

would hate to have pink hair as a support worker I doubt she would be much support with her attitude of my way or high way

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk/new-blog-1/2021/4/8/the-emma-jayne-magson-case-misogyny-is-alive-and-well-in-the-criminal-justice-system&ved=2ahUKEwjelsrU9LGPAxWLW0EAHWvuEjQQFnoECB4QAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw1hRiAupg_Gcx6vPDZiVWb4

Her partner had been taking steroids, cocooned and consumed large amounts of alcohol. Various accounts of him being violent that night to her as well as bruising around neck and thigh.

That link doesn’t work but it’s Emma Jayne Magson

I was wondering this too - maybe because both of them had previous violent convictions both sides agreed to allow it?

Yes, I was wondering looking at the T shirt how anyone could say they didn't see any blood. It was as if the knife was in then taken out for bleeding to start - maybe he removed it himself or had another top on top? The blood issue is strange.

I wonder if they've used the wrong defence? Self defence has to be an instinctive reaction to an immediate danger so if he was strangling her in the kitchen, she reached over to the table grabbed a knife and stabbed him. But it looked like from the pathologist that she stabbed him from above Sennen thought he was a lot taller than her. They should have gone with diminished responsibility.
Edit: Oops only read the first page and watched the first episode then spoilerised myself! I won't read any further!