Murder Trial - Death of a dog walker

[Hallelujah2020]

Anyone watching? It’s so well made and there are previous seasons also with different cases.

@Triskellion75 Two of a kind weren’t they. Deeply unpleasant people.

If he hadn't been so obnoxious it may have gone the other way, I'm sure the jury must have been swayed by this somewhat. I thought it would be not guilty to be honest as it was pretty circumstantial.

Could not agree more that the accused did not help himself with the arrogant expressions. Sneering, I would say.

Not sure which was worse for his case - his police interview or his wife giving evidence.

Bet he's a right fucking PITA for the prison staff, he'll think he's better than all the other cons.

I agree he was obnoxious but he wasn't on trial for being an arse. He was on trial for murder and the evidence was circumstantial. No murder weapon. No forensics. A thin motive and no definite time of death

Well evidently the majority of the jury who heard all the evidence over 3 weeks as opposed to the edited highlights we saw disagree. From what I saw he was as guilty as sin and am glad he’ll likely die in jail. I believe he’s also lost an appeal.

I found taping over the ring doorbell to be pretty persuasive! Coupled with all the lies about a stolen ring camera, replacing bike tyres and not wearing hats.

I watched all cases in the series and have been surprised that every single time the jury has convicted.
Every single one of the cases featured despicable people and realistically yeah, they all most certainly did it.
But there was actually only one case where I would have felt comfortable choosing guilty beyond reasonable doubt

It surprises me that some people think they’re clever by turning their phones off, or in this case, cameras at the relevant time. Do they not understand that in itself is damning??

I wonder if in the trial there was more evidence about the feud between them, which could’ve been persuasive.

Of course in this series everyone is convicted - they would hardly ruin the life of others found innocent by making a programme about them.

My Q is did the dog stay with the victim’s body for the hours he was not found?

Also found the victim’s partners situation odd - that she said they had interacted when she came home from work at 8pm on Friday night and heard him leave with the dog at 8 am the next morning. Then said she hadn’t seen him since the Friday morning. Maybe in shock or something else going on in their relationship at the time. Felt very sad for his brother.

But we’ve only seen an edited tv show whereas the jurors see everything.

His wife lying for him so obviously, his refusal to call a hat a hat, taping the doorbell, changing bike tyres and that is apart from the rest of the evidence.
I would stake my house on this man being guilty.

Were there any ballistic forensics? Were the bullets the same as the ones in the garage or did his dispose of everything and use gloves to fill the gun? He seemed very forensically aware. Thank goodness for the pedal soil.

A shotgun was used so ballistics were limited to determining roughly how far away the gun was when it was fired.

They did show shotgun cartridges but I can’t remember if there any comparison. I doubt if it would have meant much if they had been the same type. There are so many of them about.

@Claregalway my understanding is that the dog (labrador called Millie, I think) did remain with her master's body all night. She was certainly still with him when he was found.

The partner's insistence that she'd seen him the night before and the morning he was found was odd. But the mind does very odd things in cases of extreme trauma and grief. I don't think she was setting out to deliberately lie or obfuscate.

Yes, all those things together just did not add up. He came across as very arrogant and controlling. I thought both barristers were excellent.

Was the pathologist unclear about time of death - it could have been the next morning? But when did he go to change the tyres.

I love the restraint of the barristers
who ask the Qs but don’t follow up - very powerful technique as the jury then have unanswered Qs or arrive at conclusions on their own which assume have more impact than being ‘told’ - pure theatre. I wouldn’t be able to be so calm.

I’ve not watched the second episode yet. But I’m puzzled by the victims partner thinking he was in the house but he wasn’t. And then having seen him
on the Saturday morning. Surely she’d have known where the dog was? Im
noy saying she had anything to do with it. But ichanging her story later just seems strange.

Just watched this. Absolutely fascinating. Maybe his partner wasn't questioned about the timings initially as they thought it was a natural death, so being in shock and then discovering he had really died the day before, not that morning, she could well have been confused. The autopsy might have been several days later - presumably was as it was only then they discovered he was murdered.

I think there was enough evidence to convict - especially he and his wife's obvious lies and denials. But it's very puzzling as to why he waited years to commit the murder. There must have been some more recent trigger given they hadn't worked together for years, unless it took him all those years to come up with a plan??

This series is based in podcasts I think which go more in depth. Worth a listen on BBC Sounds.

What a horrible horrible man. The blowing kisses to his daughter and enjoying his performance with his police interview where we saw he sneering and smirking at it ... just gross.

The victim's partner muddling up when she last saw him was bizarre though. I think her point that he was initially found dead and then it wasn't until days later that it was revealed he'd been murdered could have messed with her perception of things. I think she said she'd answered almost on autopilot about what their usual routine was perhaps rather than really thinking about it. I expect she was in shock.

I have noticed this tactic before in scottish courts.
They seem to avoid drama I agree less is most definitely more.
Scots courts don't have opening statements (nor closing statements as far as I know) so there is no opportunity for grandstanding from barristers.
Very interesting in comparison with English courts.

i think he did it but there was no concrete evidence. he was very arrogant. as a juror id have reasonable doubt

Wow - just goes to show how differently peoples minds absorb information