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

I did a quick google on this and I think what @PsychoHotSauce said upthread is right - previous convictions can be shared on an exceptional basis depending on relevance to the case. Presumably in this situation because she was being presented purely as a victim yet had a history of violent convictions herself.

I’ve learned something at least!

I went on Place in the sun. We wore the same clothes for continuity.
Would help with the piece to cameras if they are filmed on different days.

Did they have 2 sets of jurors both watching the trial at the same time on the last series, or have I imagined that?

Yes they did and if I recall they reached different verdicts.

It’s on CH4, it was literally on straight after the UK one!

Thanks I'm watching it now .

I also didn't like how the let's aquit contingent were quick to dismiss the second psychiatrist opnion becsuse it didn't fit their narrative that Sophie was a victim
I used to be a mental health nurse and psychiatrists disagree all the time
It doesn't mean they are not good at their jobs.

I believe they said it at the end, that in the real case, she got life with a minimum of 17 years

They didn’t confirm with the manslaughter verdict on the show, but I’m sure I heard someone on the jury panel mention 12 years if it was manslaughter, earlier on? They could have been talking rubbish though 😂

I didn't realise until the end that the jurors knew it was acting. I wonder at how engaged they got knowing it wasn't real.

it reality telly 🤦‍♀️

The juror wearing the checked coat was a loud mouthed horror.

The older man who made his mind up within minutes of the case opening was also a horror.

having read all about the real case, the trials and complexities, i think they did ok with their decision. It’s a shame that the woman is serving a life sentence but manslaughter feels appropriate. I dont think i could have acquitted her

At the start, I was convinced that I would be on her side and I believe she was in a toxic relationship with a violent man. However, I don’t believe her actions following the stab afforded her the leniency of an acquittal

seventeen years is a harsh sentence: i hope she manages to be released early. God only knows how she will fare in prison. She’s obviously a vulnerable person who had already suffered more than anyone should in a lifetime, let alone 23 years

Given that they had only been in a relationship for 6 months, is it fair to assume she had no other way out of the relationship? Interested to hear others views on that as im fortunately ignorant in DV

I know it's reality TV but this is a more serious subject that most reality TV. I think the first season they were told it was a social experiment but that the case was real but this one it seems they knew from the beginning it was based on a real case.

I think it was a toxic relationship and she was vulnerable
But she wasent averse to using violence herself, she also has a criminal record for violence she also moved him in within 24 hours of meeting him, which is highly irresponsible considering she had a two year old child.

@Slimtoddy

completely agree but I was surprised you thought the “contestants” didn’t realise they were watching a reenactment.

The jurors treated court time like a theatre show. Commenting, reacting, conversing during witness testimonies. At one point, red lips smiled, rubbed her hands and said “here we go”

that wouldn’t be allowed in a real court.

i do feel for the real life people involved having this broadcast in this way.

As an aside - There was another TV show a few years ago called Jury Duty where everyone (including the jury)except one individual was an actor . It's very funny. Still interesting to see how he responds to bizarre behaviour by the other jurors.

I wonder if the length of the relationship has a bearing on anyone’s decision?

She cannot claim to have endured years of abuse. She moved him into her house (after 24 hours) . I wonder if she had tried to chuck him out

She got life with a minimum of 17 years

Her background meant she was a messed up individual. I'm not sure she would have had the ability or expectation to be in a relationship that wasn't volatile.

Her defence wasn't that she was worn down by abuse but that she was defending herself in the moment against strangulation by someone she felt could kill her, and that her behaviour was influenced by a personality disorder that meant she couldn't be held criminally responsible for her actions.

See I thought that of the team Ryan lot. Instantly dismissing anything, saying it wasn’t violent etc.

I felt that Aimee did listen to the evidence

I find this programme hugely problematic. There's no discussion of the relevant points of law. The judge's directions to the jury weren't even mentioned. It was edited to highlight the arguments. Who knows what the producer said to the jurors in the background. I was on a jury for a retrial - we didn't know it was a retrial - and we had something like 11 counts to decide. Some were straightforward and others weren't. It was difficult and there were some emotional conversations in the jury room. There was also some pressure from court staff for us to hurry up. I was the jury foreperson and ignored that.

I think they were as bad as each other Aimee and the chef man were determined to aquit Sophie from the start and the chef even wanted to treat her as a child ,it wasent up to him to make thst decision
And the long haired red lipped women and older man were both adamant it was murder from the start and didn't take into account any mitigating factors
I think it' manslaughter was the right decision, but I'm amazed they managed to get a majority verdict.

The tv trial was obviously heavily simplified/edited

i dont doubt the producers do everything they can to make it as entertaining as possible. Probably goading individuals.

I completely agree with you.