The Jury Murder Trial - Channel 4

1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
twilightgarden said:
I wonder why they didn’t make up a case? Did they think the jury wouldn’t take it seriously?
Click to expand...

Maybe so at the the end they can have the dramatic moment of the reveal of the real outcome and sentence? Tbh I think this whole show is less about whether juries are a good way to decide a verdict and more about showing up the 'loss of control' defence.

It feels distasteful for the woman's character to be dragged through the mud at both the real trial and now on TV for entertainment. I keep thinking about whether her kids are watching. And this is worse cos we can hear the TV jury's thoughts on her.
 
StonedCyclist said:
It's 'entertainment' which does leave a bad taste in my mouth as it is based on a real life case.

Jury members should leave personal experiences at the door but, however they are untrained, as are real jurors. Shocking.
Click to expand...

But surely everyone can only use their personal life experiences to relate and form an opinion?
That becomes even more apparent because the 19 year old sees it as black and white - he killed her, it‘s murder - because he doesn’t have the life experience that the older jury members have to realise that there are usually shades of grey too.
 
On the Radio 4 programme discussing it they said in Denmark (I think???) they have professional jurors who have had a year's training which tries to eliminate being 'triggered' or swayed by things eg the woman suddenly on his side because Helen allegedly said John was fat.
They weren't saying that system was better or worse - just different. Probably has its own problems as any system would.
 
There was a similar documentary on the bbc a few years ago that i think was much better than this. It was a completely made up case (again very similar to this - the husband was accused of killing his wife) but the barristers, court staff and the judge were real. The jury were randomly selected people, not actors. You got to see behind the scenes with the defence and prosecution going through the evidence as well, obviously it was fake but it was interesting to see the process.

I remember there being a woman on the jury who was convinced the guy was innocent, she kept saying she was a great judge of character etc etc :rolleyes: It does make you wonder how reliable a jury of random people is, when people can be prejudiced by their own experiences and feelings. But what would be the alternative? a panel of psychologists? or criminologists? lawyers? I'm not sure.
 
50sGirl said:
But surely everyone can only use their personal life experiences to relate and form an opinion?
That becomes even more apparent because the 19 year old sees it as black and white - he killed her, it‘s murder - because he doesn’t have the life experience that the older jury members have to realise that there are usually shades of grey too.
Click to expand...
although they're supposed to only go on what has been presented in court, so many of them are putting themselves in Johns shoes and thinking well I'd do this, when he's not them, on the other hand not many are putting themselves in Helens shoes, and this is the problem of the suspect having the main narrative in a story.
For me I would assume it doesn't matter what 'provoked' him to hit her with the hammer, the sole act of picking up that hammer after strangling her is murder, I'd love to know what legal definitions they were given for Manslaughter Vs Murder and were they given examples or even asked while being selected what they understood the two to be.
 
What sickens me is the defendant is now out of prison and able to watch this on TV.
So much victim blaming and as others have rightly pointed out she’s not around to defend herself, but I actually don’t think it makes a difference as a woman, live victims are not treated much better.
I work in law so I’ve sat through many criminal trials and they are emotionally distressing if you let them get to you.
Every trial I’ve witnessed has had male defendants. That’s all I’ll say.
 
Jelly Bean said:
they never knew where the cameras were.
Click to expand...

the cameras are clear on the wall in episode 2 they look just like big brother house cameras so i dont believe that

twilightgarden said:
I wonder why they didn’t make up a case? Did they think the jury wouldn’t take it seriously?
Click to expand...

exactly. it took just a few seconds to search the case online with just a 5 word search, so with them knowing the circumstances, they would hve been able to find the same so quickly and know the outcome of the original trial at the end of day 1 out of 10. yes jurors are told not to search but i have worked in law for a long time now and always thought that they must do, and sometimes it will come up on the news without search especially if its local.
 
Last edited:
wellwellwellitsanotherad said:
the cameras are clear on the wall in episode 2 they look just like big brother house cameras so i dont believe that



exactly. it took just a few seconds to search the case online with just a 5 word search, so with them knowing the circumstances, they would hve been able to find the same so quickly and know the outcome of the original trial at the end of day 1 out of 10. yes jurors are told not to search but i have worked in law for a long time now and always thought that they must do, and sometimes it will come up on the news without search especially if its local.
Click to expand...
whats really sad is if you google husband murders wife with hammer, there's a crap load of cases it could be... its pretty horrific.
 
Ginnyjo said:
whats really sad is if you google husband murders wife with hammer, there's a crap load of cases it could be... its pretty horrific.
Click to expand...

yes i narrowed down the search to show my assistant how to be more specific in a google search for such information and only came up with two cases, this one and one other of an older man that is clearly a different case but im saddened there is more. i didnt actually see the result though the article was during the trial.
 
Lioness1 said:
Wow we need a spoiler on this! I’ve not looked into anything about the real case so no ideal of the outcome.
I’m guessing now it was manslaughter!
Click to expand...

I must admit I deliberately haven’t searched the case either because I wanted to see it play out like the programme so it‘s a tad annoying that someone just spoilt it. 😕
I‘ve put part of your post in a spoiler just in case.
 
Yes Jodie was incredibly patronising, acting like Oli's opinion is of a lesser value because of his age. She went on about her life experiences, due to being older, but do those experiences make her more qualified to say John is guilty of murder/manslaughter?

Nope. Because the whole point of being in a jury is to listen to the evidence and the evidence alone. What you've gone through in the past is irrelevant, because you're not John.

It's really frustrating to watch.
 
Isn't where the hammer was a red herring? He picked up the hammer and hit her. I get walking to the foundry to get it makes it more premeditated, but even if he just grabbed it from the table imo it's still murder.

(I'd be terrible on this. I literally cannot think of one single mitigating factor for him and can't think anything would change my mind.)
 
Jelly Bean said:
Isn't where the hammer was a red herring? He picked up the hammer and hit her. I get walking to the foundry to get it makes it more premeditated, but even if he just grabbed it from the table imo it's still murder.

(I'd be terrible on this. I literally cannot think of one single mitigating factor for him and can't think anything would change my mind.)
Click to expand...

I suppose the time taken to strangle her, then switch methods and go get a hammer is relevant to the loss of control argument which will decide murder vs manslaughter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top