The Jury Murder Trial - Channel 4

1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
I also think it's murder.

If he'd strangled Helen to death that would be more of an argument for manslaughter because then he could argue he was so blind with rage that he temporarily took leave of his senses and strangled her before fully realising what he'd done.

However, it's clear strangling her was only part of it and he can remembering doing so because he described the colour she went. What's key for me is that he then stopped strangling her and then seemingly went to the foundry to find a heavy object - in this case a hammer. (We have Tor's testimony to support that he left the house because Tor said he saw John walking away from the house after he heard the cups breaking, which we know Helen threw.)

Leaving the room to go looking for a hammer doesn't show a lack of control to me, it spells out a deliberate action. It was as though he realised strangling her wasn't doing the job, so he needed to find another way. He wanted her dead, and even said so. (I know the 'manslaughter' crew twisted that into saying he wanted her to die rather than suffer pain, but I don't see it myself.)

Another part is that the hammer struck her three times in the head and all in different places. Again that seems deliberate, because it shows he shifted the position of the hammer, presumably to deal maximum damage. He was a sculptor and was used to using hammers.

Apologies for being graphic, but I think it's important to consider all the evidence here.

So yeah, murder. I can accept he was maybe a good man in the past and that Helen was a difficult person to live with, but that doesn't mean John didn't want to kill her in that moment.
 
50sGirl said:
I bet the jewellery man in the green top will not listen to anyone else’s views.
Click to expand...
He said in episode 2 he would make sure the result went his way of thinking, that sorta tit disgusts me, a jury isn't there to convince each other, they are there to form their own opinions and in turn hopefully give a verdict as a group, each of their opinions have the same weight and value, even if they can't agree, thats a result and then the defence and prosecution need to go back and see what isn't adding up.
 
kettlekitten said:
Sor If this has been mentioned before but, if this was filmed over a number of weeks, why are they all wearing the same clothes? Bit pedantic I know but I notice these things
Click to expand...
I think it’s for continuity so it’s easier for them to take footage from different days and splice it up. I over think it and then am convinced reactions aren’t as they seem, like there’s a shot of person A looking shocked at something person B just said, but actually the reaction is from a totally different thing C said the day before. They do the same on Bake Off etc.
 
Ginnyjo said:
He said in episode 2 he would make sure the result went his way of thinking, that sorta tit disgusts me, a jury isn't there to convince each other, they are there to form their own opinions and in turn hopefully give a verdict as a group, each of their opinions have the same weight and value, even if they can't agree, thats a result and then the defence and prosecution need to go back and see what isn't adding up.
Click to expand...
People like gold jewellery Ricky are not a good advert for jury service. He has his opinion and sees it as a macho challenge to get everyone to think like him. That is his main objective. He won't even listen to further evidence now as to him that would be backing down. Plus a mouthy woman is no doubt asking for it.
I seriously wonder if the future of jury service is to still get 12 people, but they are all in isolated booths and have no interaction with each other. Or just have no communal room where they can discuss it.
So many things come into play in a jury - some of them might fancy each other, or want to impress/agree for whatever reason.
Scary to think the amount of miscarriages of justice there have no doubt been in the past.
 
I’m so glad I wouldn’t be eligible for jury service. I just don’t think I can cope with it. I do think the actors have been amazing though
---
NetflixMom96 said:
The real life case is based on Angela Crompton - it’s quite interesting reading the real life case whilst watching the series.
Click to expand...
Ooh! How did you find THAT out? Going for a Google now!
 
I loved doing Jury Duty even if the subject matter was not pleasant and it was a long and heavy case. I can say that genuinely my fellow jurors were great. We all cared about getting the right verdict even if it took a long time to get there. There was only maybe one or two that struggled with the concept of being SURE that the alleged crime had been committed but they got there in the end. Even those who could relate to the circumstances didn't let that get in the way of their rational thinking.
 
I don't know why I watch this as it's getting me terribly wound up.
The fact a man can blungeon his wife to death - for whatever reason - and jurors will cry about how they feel so sorry for him and how he loved her so much.
Poor real Helen. He seems controlling and very jealous to me.
 
The trouble with these juries is that they all applied to be on the programme. Most jurors are reluctant when they get the summons - I certainly was although in retrospect I enjoyed the experience. So in my opinion it is not a true reflection but of course all the lawyers slagging off the system are loving the fact that it supports their conclusions.

When I was on the jury there was a group of obviously bonded jurors who ate together in the canteen. It turned out they were on the Morecambe cockling murder case and had been there for about 3 months and in fact I think the case took 6 months, mainly due to needing Chinese interpreters. I could not work out whether they were told the case would be very long before being added or just found out as personally I could not spend months doing jury service like that.
 
Shinythings said:
The guys playing the barristers are excellent. They get the way if talking and questioning spot on. Also Judges do not get this involved. They may ask the odd question here and there for clarity but they don't question people like this judge is doing
Click to expand...

They are reenacting the actual transcripts from the original case but with names and places changed.
Therefore surely the “Judge” on here is only saying what the real judge said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top