The Jury- anyone watching?

Is it worth trying to watch at this point, if I've not seen any episodes, please?

Do you have catch-up?

No, I don't have anything like that, but I had planned to watch the programme, and now my curiosity is piqued.
I do enjoy a bit of crime!

I have enjoyed it so far, and have already watched tonight's episode as we will be out. Will be interesting to see if both juries reach the same verdict. A lot of the jurors have had past experiences which has made them empathise with either the wife or the husband. I think it's a good experiment and was quite shocked to hear from one of the legal experts that 25% of verdicts reached by juries are wrong. I think that was the figure.

MissAdventure - if you watch tonight's and tomorrow's episodes (it finishes tomorrow), you could follow it as they give a resume at the beginning.

Oh thank you.
I will give it a go then.

Mind you, it was incredibly stressful when I did jury service; I keep getting flashbacks!
It wasn't a gruesome crime, it was quite a boring one, but it was the weight of making the right decision.

Do you not have an iPad or telephone you can watch on MissA I missed last night so caught up before tonight’s started
I m enjoying it though, I agree the juries are not the best I’ve never done jury service thank goodness I wold hate to do it
I think the actor is playing a good role
I have one opinion, my daughter the other which makes it interesting

It’s a worthwhile watch but I am disappointed to hear (not surprised) that the jury selection wasn’t random, it makes sense of the comments from the jurors. In real life I doubt that 12 people would have experiences that closely match the victim and the perpetrator. Anyway, it’s an interesting experiment.

It's all very dumbed down but as I said the actor playing the defendant is giving an award worthy performance.

My view is simply this. You have to give a manslaughter verdict unless you can prove beyond doubt with evidence that it was murder. There is no actual evidence (so far anyway). I could not lock someone up for years and years unless there is absolute certainty.

I don't believe the words of one person can be considered proof of guilt. That is at the heart of our justice system, and comes from the case of Timothy Evans. He was executed on the evidence of just one person, and that was the actual murderer John Reginald Christie.

Therefore the evidence of one person cannot prove guilt. They could be mistaken or lying.

Nanatoone

It’s a worthwhile watch but I am disappointed to hear (not surprised) that the jury selection wasn’t random, it makes sense of the comments from the jurors. In real life I doubt that 12 people would have experiences that closely match the victim and the perpetrator. Anyway, it’s an interesting experiment.

That’s what we thought too, a truly random selection would have been better for the experiment.
The accused gave a brilliant performance of acting, I wonder if that closely resembled what really happened?
If I was a juror in that case I would def have said it was murder.
Even tho he was a mild mannered man who was pushed too far by his wife’s behaviour, in the end, he strangled her then went to get a hammer to finish her off, red mist or no red mist.

I would most certainly have gone with manslaughter.

I have done jury service twice. The most recent was 15 years ago. I don't know if is today's society but none of the jurors linked any of their life experiences with the cases.

We weren't allowed to eat in the allocated room where the 12 of us sat to discuss the case either.

I haven’t watched this so I can’t really comment on how accurate it is. However, just on the points raised here, I did jury service 20 years ago and was on a long murder trial; we were allocated a separate room and our food was brought in for us. We did not return to the general jurors’ waiting room or cafe for the duration of the trial. We did discuss the case at each stage and were not instructed otherwise - I think it would have been impossible to hold on to all that information without speaking about it for the six weeks of the trial.

I would definitely go for manslaughter
He snapped it wasn’t premeditated he’d never been violent in any way with ANYBODY in the past I thought his sister spoke very eloquently He was a fairly quiet gentleman who totally over reacted after having his buttons constantly pressed Of course it’s tragic and he can’t go without punishment but lesser not more in my opinion This was not domestic violence he completely snapped after months of trouble Totally wrong reaction and he knows that and needs some punishment ( his own self will punish him for the rest of his life ) but definitely
Manslaughter in my head

Oh dear bluebelle I disagree to a point, I think he snapped, yes, strangled her until she changed colour!! Then calmly walked away to get a hammer from his workshop came back and hit her with it...murder for me, 🤔

Well do we know he walked calmly? he probably had lost all connection with reality by then but I do agree it does place a bigger question mark but I still think he was totally in the moment and walked calmly because he’s a calm man
I don’t think he strangled her then thought what more can I do oh I know I ll get a hammer I think he was totally mentally out of it and in a different place altogether
Anyway it’s good to all have different opinions Bridie22 especially if we were on the same jury 🤣🤣

The point I made was that we don't know any of these things and have no evidence or proof, therefore have to give the benefit of the doubt and go with manslaughter. We will never be able to get inside his head at that moment.

When I did my time, I found that a lot of information just wasn't available.
The first short case featured a girl walking out of school, shouting at her teacher and going home, where she sobbed to her mother.

The teacher just said "I have no recollection of that", and that was it!

I wanted some sort of proof, paperwork from the school, maybe, that a pupil had left the premises, but it was never even a consideration.

Chestnut

The point I made was that we don't know any of these things and have no evidence or proof, therefore have to give the benefit of the doubt and go with manslaughter. We will never be able to get inside his head at that moment.

I agree. To those who think it doesn't seem authentic- it doesn't have to be. It's television and therefore entertainment. They couldn't choose randomly, because it would have been very expensive and long winded. They would have no powers to enforce and I suspect most people if approached would not have responded. Therefore they had to ask a 'pool' of people who had volunteered, whatever their reasons.
I think the actor is doing incredibly well at portraying a man out of his depth in a relationship with a very vulnerable woman. Indeed, he seemed equally vulnerable in that he just wanted 'someone to love.' How sad, but also how typical I think.
When I look back on some of my relationships I realise it can be quite easy to tip over into situations that get carried away.
I think it is good television for this reason, and agree with Chestnut- we can't be sure therefore we must call it manslaughter.
I have a feeling the jury will come to the same verdict though, but I could be wrong.

Again, I haven’t seen this (I will watch it now though) but I’m uneasy about the suggestion that he was a mild mannered man who snapped under provocation. Surely that has been the excuse used by men who murder their wives since time immemorial. The wife is no longer here to give her side of things, and I don’t like victim blaming. Perhaps because I have relevant experience in my own wider family.

I've watched the first 3 episodes, no4 tonight. I think there is far too much prejudgement by some of the jurors. I have never done jury service, thank goodness, it seems a harrowing experience to say the least. But I think it must be very difficult to come to a conclusion without bias.

I was on a jury for 5 weeks during Covid on a ‘ very serious ‘ case.
I don’t recognise how the jurors behave in this tv series. My experience was far more formal. We discussed the case mostly for all those weeks. We were brought in by an usher to sit in our seat in the court room. We took 3 days to deliberate the verdict in a locked room with our mobiles taken from us. We all thought it looked an obvious case of guilty until the defence put their case forward and then realise theres a different way of looking at things. All on points of law.

I'm afraid the programme is totally fake. Many real life jurors have said this is not how it's done at all. I also object to the use of music.

These jurors were hand picked, not random. Some have clearly had issues in their own lives which are affecting their ability to be objective. This is probably why they were picked. Their background stories are irrelevant to the case! They should put all feelings aside and be analytical so they can base their verdict on the evidence alone, not their personal feelings.

This case has been dumbed down for modern viewers and does not represent a real trial.

I'm in team murder too, many people get so furious with someone else the 'red mist' comes down but they stop themselves and walk away. If that was true all my ex's would be dead. I wouldn't want to set a precedent that it's ok to kill someone if you are really furious and this justifies a reduced sentence, especially since he can't remember what was going through his mind at the time. I guess it was something along the lines of 'the bitch I'll put paid to her...' walking away to get a hammer, even if it was in the same room, shows enough presence of mind to know what he's doing.
I like the way C4 have presented it, I like the court scenes interspersed with acted bits gets the message across but stops the boredom. I like the way they chose different types of people too, it makes a more vibrant debate.
Well done C4 for taking a look at something that usually happens behind closed doors and exposing it, for all its faults and strengths, with a high proportion of verdicts being wrong (25%) maybe its time we looked at its role in justice.

I thought it would be interesting. I have done Jury service twice.

Each time in my experience the Judge will direct you to the right conclusion in his summing up.

One case I was on, we did find the chap guilty. It was only after. we found out he had loads of conviction in the past.

The other occasion, x2 young men opted for a trial. Both were accused of Safe Breaking, during the trial which went on for 5 days it was blatantly obvious they were innocent.
Apprently advise to go for a trial so their innocent would never be in doubt.
I'm still open minded about this until the summing up.

I was going to watch but having read these comments I think as a former Clerk of Court it would irritate me