The Jury- anyone watching?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

Do you have catch-up?

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

I am another one who will keep watching. The fact that the CPS agreed a charge of murder has made me wonder what is going to come out during the prosecution phase, as at the moment the defence are making a solid case for manslaughter.

I think I'll keep watching. The case is fasinating in itself I think. She sounds like a troubled woman- clearly a toxic relationship as one of the jurors commentated.
I think manslaughter for sure so far, though the loss of control element is interesting.

This could have been an excellent programme if they had actually picked a random selection of jurors instead of using personality tests. I wasn't convinced that the juries weren't composed of actors as it all seemed so false. There were too many breaks after each short piece of evidence and I got fed up with it. No-one had a good word to say for the deceased which seemed a bit odd. However, I will tune in for the verdict.

Did try, but found being given the evidence to handle, made the man guilty in some cases, especially a couple of women. No neutrality here. So no I won't be wasting my time with this one.

I gave up on this after a few minutes last night. So many prejudices, so many personal stories, affecting jurors’ opinions.
I can’t think it bears much relation to reality, but then which reality show does?

LovesBach

The programme seemed to rapidly evolve into yet another episode of reality TV, with jurors talking about themselves and their life experiences at length. Only one man seemed to want to hear the evidence before making his mind up, and it was disturbing, as others have said, to hear several men saying that they wanted to hear how/if the man's wife had provoked him - appearing to suggest that provocation is a justification for beating her over the the head and causing fatal injuries. The format seems rather contrived and I won't be watching any more episodes.

It does seem as though the wife had serious mental problems and an ability and desire to drive men crazy. I don't think anyone is saying that justifies bashing her over the head, but that is what caused the husband to see the red mist and lose control. He should have walked out of the room before he reached that point, but he didn't and then it was too late. So they both contributed to the event. She pushed him to the limit and he didn't stop himself in time.

I'm finding it's typical 'reality TV' format and we even have 'music' of sorts with dramatic sounds to give atmosphere. We don't need atmosphere, music is not required! That just adds to the general dumbing down of the trial, along with the repeated explanation of things.

I realise we can't see the whole trial but I feel like we are missing a lot of important stuff. We just get 45 mins covering two days of trial, so we're seeing very little.

I really feel for the actor playing the defendant. He has to convey very deep emotions and this is captured not only by the camera but the 24 jurors who are watching his every move!

He also has to remember NOT to look at the jurors, because there are two sets of them! If he looks at one set then the others will be wondering who he is looking at. Very tough call for him having to ignore them all completely, and they are wondering why he doesn't look at them.

The programme seemed to rapidly evolve into yet another episode of reality TV, with jurors talking about themselves and their life experiences at length. Only one man seemed to want to hear the evidence before making his mind up, and it was disturbing, as others have said, to hear several men saying that they wanted to hear how/if the man's wife had provoked him - appearing to suggest that provocation is a justification for beating her over the the head and causing fatal injuries. The format seems rather contrived and I won't be watching any more episodes.

Not impressed so far.

It's interesting but agree some have made up their minds before all the facts are presented.
I also got the impression some had no idea what the difference was between Manslaughter and Murder?

I'm intrigued to see what happens next.

Lilypops

Started watching. I felt the jurors were acting up to the cameras too much ,and some had already decided he was guilty.
A bit disappointing ,

When I did jury service, two of the jurors on my panel had firmly made up their minds before hearing any of the witnesses. It was disturbing to say the least.

Final verdict was not guilty, 10 to those 2.

I am reading a similar thread on Mumsnet and it seems that the people chosen as jurors were selected not randomly, as would happen in real life, but based on personality tests, so they were clearly selecting on the basis of extremes of view with the chance to pit one person against another - it rather negates the point of the programme.

Luckygirl3

I found it chilling. Some jurors were making pronouncements before they had heard any evidence. Two of the men said they could understand the loss of temper as they had thrown things at their wives. The gendered comments were concerning implying that women could be irrational. Neither jury had anyone being remotely objective and insisting on hearing the evidence before making comments.

When I did jury service there were men and women who had quite startling views about teen schoolgirls more or less "asking for it".

As it is based on a real case, I wonder if we will learn what that jury decided at the end of the programme.

I found it chilling. Some jurors were making pronouncements before they had heard any evidence. Two of the men said they could understand the loss of temper as they had thrown things at their wives. The gendered comments were concerning implying that women could be irrational. Neither jury had anyone being remotely objective and insisting on hearing the evidence before making comments.

I hope it gets better. The format is confusing and skips around too much. I would like to see more of the dynamics of each jury, but find it very confusing. Will carry on watching though, it may get better.