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 found the extremes at both ends equally as frustrating. There was nothing that they heard evidence wise that would persuade them away from their original knee-jerk reaction decision. The jurors away from these extremes seemed to be considering the evidence more closely and weighing it all up against each other.

As someone watching the show and obviously only seeing the evidence that was presented on screen to us (I’m presuming there was a lot more we didn’t see/wasn’t included in the final cut of each episode) I don’t think either barrister presented enough to justify acquit or murder. It was clear the relationship was toxic and there was violence on both sides. I think it’s completely believable that she could have attack him in a spur of a moment way, possibly whilst defending herself, and I can believe she may not have really appreciated the severity of the situation initially if she was drunk and the wound wasn’t bleeding as heavily as you’d expect. However, on the other hand, the phone call was damning and if she had actually been attacked by him why would she not have said on the phone to the paramedics that she had been attacked and defended herself.

I think given there was reasonable doubt for both acquit and murder, manslaughter was the correct verdict as we know she did stab him and we know that she did delay informing someone about what she had done which ultimately lead to his death.

I also agree with manslaughter - there were mitigating circumstances and proof he was violent to her on the night and the bruising to her neck and body. I also think the leaving him to die and phone calls were why she wouldn't have been able to be aquitted.

I wish they would show what Q's they ask going around the table; do they say "how do you feel about the bruises on the neck?" or "which facts of the case show you she wasn't using self defence?"

Still also confused how the brother didn't notice he had been stabbed if it was obvious...carried him so clearly had to have looked at him and held him for a fair amount of time.

I can believe she wouldn't have said he attacked her - it seems she only mentioned that once to his brother (who clearly didn't care) and to a couple of close friends. As they said she almost thought she deserved it - coercive control can make it hard to see yourself as a victim. That's the issue I had with the jurors, because of their personal attachments three of them couldn't see her as a victim of abuse because it "wasn't as bad" or whatever as their own and they never killed anyone. I wonder how many people their mothers had to tell loudly about abuse to get out? I took this as a good reason to explain domestic abuse to kids once you are safe, so they fully grasp how hard it is to get out.

Yes! I thought that was really interesting, wonder why they didn’t use that format this time?

I didn't recognise the actors, except when the accused's grandmother appeared played by Nigel's wife from Eastenders!

The Jury, Australia is so much better. Rational, reflective people who discuss the evidence. It is an interesting case too.

@cramptramp Good critique and reasons for the change in The Times today. The audience feedback was that the previous format was too complex.

This format is direct quotes from the actual trial. An abridged version of it. Obviously all the juror discussion is for the tv series and the jurors were picked for their background and tv appeal as “characters”. Even the teacher was the “victim” of a hung jury in a no verdict case. The jury therefore were not random 12 people but their pre judgement was a real cause for concern. As was their bickering and entrenched positions despite evidence being given to them. No judge summing up either . Heaven help us if some of them had to try a complex case though!

It made me wonder if the chairman of a jury should be a professional (no 13?) or that there was always a referee in the room to keep them focussed and doing the job properly. Should we have 10 on a jury? Some jurors (larger lady) were very quiet. Maybe that was to provide jeopardy at the end as we didn’t know what she thought?

It’s always interesting that both juries (real and this one) listened to the background history of “Sophie” but this one decided to compromise . The real one didn’t. It’s why women get prison sentences for relatively trivial offences (not that this was) and the actual jury wasn’t persuaded she was abused by “Ryan”. I thought manslaughter was probably fair.

The Parole programme was interesting too.

Also, if his brother from across the road helped Ryan into the house, why didn’t he call 999? He seemed to walk away with no concern.

I also think the murder conviction was quashed and reduced to manslaughter. Just read about it. That makes more sense.

He even talked to him. I find that most upsetting that your own brother wouldn't help you.

@placemats I wonder if “Sophie’s” delay in phoning was something to do with the brother too. Very odd nothing was included about that. The Appeal judges did take her mental state into account. I’m surprised the programme added the “experts” at the end. The appeal was based on “new evidence” about her state of mind and the abuse she suffered which explained how she behaved. The tv programme had this at the end but it seems the Court of Appeal heard this evidence in full 6 years later!

Real juries are forbidden from discussing the case with each other until (1) all the evidence concludes and (2) the Judge does his/her summing up and gives his/her instructions to the Jury.

Typically the Judge will set the jurors a small number of key questions that they should collectively set out to answer. And will indicate what should be the verdict if the answers are Yes & Beyond Reasonable Doubt or No/Not Sure to these key Qs.

Then, and only then, the jurors can retire and deliberate as a group. They are not allowed to discuss the case unless all of the jurors are present. No chatting in smaller groups over coffee!

So the process shown was overly confrontational. It allowed factions to form and bond. And encouraged views to harden before all the evidence was heard.

Very poor show, Channel 4 show!

Yes, considering it is supposed to be showing the nation what goes on inside a Court to see if the system works, that's alarmist mis-information at best!
Maybe the Judges of the country should intervene before Farage uses it in his next manifesto for him being the omnipotent Judge for the UK or something...

Wow he moved in with her the day after she met him

On the other hand she asked him to move in with HER the day after they met.

Well yes exactly....
However you want to put it i was just shocked that he had moved in the day after they met each other

It wasn't the retrial was murder to

I thought the whole premise of this Programme was to query whether the Jury system was fit for purpose. I didn't have much faith in it to start with but after doing jury service . . . Comments said in a sage manner (the one time I will apply 'they' as a pronoun) 'they have such a nice face' and 'it wasn't a very big machete'.

Emma Jayne Magson is currently serving life for
murder. She has been tried twice. Murder was the verdict both times.

I think the fact it happened was a clear indication of her not having a clue about making anything resembling a good choice.

I mean how do you just take a stranger in off the street to live with you, let alone when you also have a young child.

"Don't get me wrong, he was abusive, arguably did far worse over a period of time to her and she likely snapped"

I mean even posters on here and bringing their own judgements and biases to bear before hearing all the evidence so not a suprise that the fake jury are doing the same when they seemingly get multiple opportunities to discuss evidence as it is presented whereas this is not allowed in a real trial until all evidence is heard.

Not sure how you do "far worse" that fatally stab someone.

I have just finished watching The Jury- Australia. It was brilliant and the last episode especially good. Very different to the UK version. I feel very wrung out! How the real jurors must feel?

I knew one of the jurors on the first series. These are regular real people who take part, just like real juries.

Exactly!
The Australian version does seem to give more direction from the Judge and they have set things to check at various stages. It's worrying how frequently our legal system is portrayed incorrectly when they seem to be doing everything they can to open to the public to allay fears - eg Family Courts. I bet this will become a political football like it did a few years back when Judges were the Enemy of the People or whatever it was.

The judge summing up is a serious omission in the tv programme. There was a problem with the first verdict in 2015 as it went to the Court of Appeal in 2021 and was reduced to manslaughter with a shorter sentence. The accused had significant issues from childhood but didn’t plan this murder. She did not get a fair original trial in real life.

"There was a problem with the first verdict in 2015 as it went to the Court of Appeal in 2021 and was reduced to manslaughter with a shorter sentence. The accused had significant issues from childhood but didn’t plan this murder. She did not get a fair original trial in real life."

Incorrect.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Magson-202102271-Final.pdf