The Jury- anyone watching?

However unstable someone is maybe they don't deserve killing
Non fatal strangulation in a relationship is very often a precursor to the perpetrator going on to murder the victim. I see that t some point Jane Monckton smith will be speaking, (maybe she already has, am needing a bit of catching up as I did actually snooze off during one episode as it was late at night, she knows all about the timeline down to a murder.
If we assume that the strangulation was 'merely' to shut her up, and she would not have actually died from it, again have I missed the results of the PM which said what actually caused her death, then if she was still alive after he did it, actually getting up and getting a hammer from elsewhere and then doing what he did shows intent to me. It seems likely to me that he wanted to make sure that she was dead.
If I drove my car at someone trying to hurt them and they fell down and then I reversed and deliberately drive over them and this time they were definitely dead, I'd have committed murder I'm sure.

Louella12

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.

We weren't allowed to eat in the room either but I'm guessing that they have to do that to keep the 2 juries separate

Nothing like when I did jury service
We sat round a large table discussing it as a group and not individual clicks. And we had to bring our own food

If human beings are too unstable to come to an objective verdict then maybe they will use AI to sit on the jury in the future. I would be interested to see how AI handled this case (if that is possible).

I’ve done jury service twice both times for very violent cases which were long.The juries were similar to the programme and there was a lot of switching as more evidence was heard. I felt in both my trials that the result was right. One was a very aggressive female who attacked people with broken bottles. Her convictions were many and we found out afterwards that she attended our court daily from prison ! I’m so pleased we found her guilty.

Stephania1954

I have watched all 3 so far. I would say it’s murder because he used 2 different methods and remembers seeing her face change colour after strangling her this shows his mind was clear at that point. I was also concerned by the character witnesses of course they would say nice things about him. Will there be any character witnesses for the victim. It appears that she has no voice in the trial which bothers me.
The juries are just seeing one side. A man crying, his family and friends saying how nice he is. This poor women is being portrayed as a control freak and mentally ill and no one is defending her.

Her friends and family have all said she was unstable.

I haven't watched, but from a crime perspective, strangulation is considered to be a very deliberate act, as it is hard physically, can take a long time, and involves close contact with the victim.

I find that quite worrying. How do the 'experts' know that the verdict is wrong? Having sat on many trials (as a magistrate, and twice on a jury) I feel that the verdict reached is usually correct. Especially when the prosecutor reads out the 'previous' of the defendant!

I have watched all 3 so far. I would say it’s murder because he used 2 different methods and remembers seeing her face change colour after strangling her this shows his mind was clear at that point. I was also concerned by the character witnesses of course they would say nice things about him. Will there be any character witnesses for the victim. It appears that she has no voice in the trial which bothers me.
The juries are just seeing one side. A man crying, his family and friends saying how nice he is. This poor women is being portrayed as a control freak and mentally ill and no one is defending her.

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

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'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'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 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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 🤣🤣

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, 🤔

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

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 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.

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.