The Jury Murder Trial - Channel 4

1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
Ensay said:
Yeah no one seems to have said the hammer likely wasn't in the dining room. He went to get it... and that was after strangling her till she turned purple. It was too long and too deliberate to be loss of control.
Click to expand...

Yeah and when he let go of her neck and saw she was purple, he didnt call an ambulance or go get the employee to help. He went and got a hammer to finish the job. That's cold blooded.
 
xoxogossip_girl said:
Apologies for sharing the verdict of the actual trial earlier.
I think if anything this show just showed the huge amounts of misogny in society. And a lot of men’s willingness to empathise with someone who I think it’s pretty obvious was an awful husband and a very dangerous man.
Click to expand...
Don't worry about it. It didn't affect the programme at all.
I agree about the misogyny. It's preyed on my mind a lot. That 'Helen' got lost in this programme and most likely in the actual trial too.
A sad, confused woman, sexually assaulted from the age of 12. Got with 'John' then left him. They then married though it was fairly obvious she never really loved him. But she tried to make his house her home. I really don't care if she insulted him or threw cups at him or called him fat. He had choices to just leave. His life was not in danger. But he chose to strangle her and then hit her face with a hammer.
Some men on the juries seemed to really believe a woman disrespecting you means 'snapping' is perfectly justified.
 
It's extremely disturbing to realise that 'reasonable people' think that a man strangling his wife till she turns blue then going off to fetch a hammer to bludgeon her to death is excusable due to 'provocation' such as spitting, throwing cutlery or name-calling. Seriously, it feels like a few of those jurors should be on a watch-list. ☠️

This programme has done as much to advocate for the jury system as 'To Catch a Copper' did for the effectiveness of police investigating themselves. 😤
 
Rosie glow said:
It's been an interesting watch but it's totally shown up that there's definitely something wrong with the jury/ justice system in this country surely things need to change how can a man who murdered his wife in cold blood serve maybe three years Helen and her family didn't get the justice they deserved
Click to expand...
I think there are issues with the jury system but this programme showed us nothing. They chose the jury…so not random, the jurors were discussing and arguing in breaks and this would not happen in a real trial as it would not be allowed.
The jurors chose all had their own back story and agendas. That said….the real case ended in manslaughter so you’re not wrong. It did bring about the Ask for Angela scheme though and this was the woman’s family and campaigners setting up something in her name,
 
Just caught up on the last episode now. Although the judge mentions not to bring emotions into it, most of them do! I cannot stand Ricky, from the start it was his way or nothing and then the celebrating when people change their minds! If he just strangled her I’d get the manslaughter charge but he stops and strikes her a hammer, a massive one at that and not only once but three times! I don’t think any reasonable man could do that!
 
Biffy said:
It's extremely disturbing to realise that 'reasonable people' think that a man strangling his wife till she turns blue then going off to fetch a hammer to bludgeon her to death is excusable due to 'provocation' such as spitting, throwing cutlery or name-calling. Seriously, it feels like a few of those jurors should be on a watch-list. ☠️

This programme has done as much to advocate for the jury system as 'To Catch a Copper' did for the effectiveness of police investigating themselves. 😤
Click to expand...

If they thought that her behaviour was enough to make a reasonable person kill her with a hammer, then imagine the cases of domestic assault. Woman starts an argument and the man slaps/punches/kicks her. It's an everyday occurrance.

Alot of these jurors would probably find that reasonable and he would get off on any domestic violence charges.
 
Zegbru said:
Ricky was a bully. The amount of victim blaming was awful. I believed it was murder, especially as he left to get the weapon and come back
Click to expand...

We don’t know for sure that he left to get the hammer, no one seen him with the hammer, but he still stopped and got it from somewhere! There’s time between strangling her and choosing to hit her with the hammer. That’s murder.
 
Does anyone else feel that if it had been the other way around Ricky would have been keen to send a woman down for murder? He'd have probably called any female defendant lots of misogynistic names and called her crazy and calculated.

I know I probably shouldn't make generalisations like that, but I can't help feel that way from seeing his behaviour and the sexist remarks he made.
---
Lioness1 said:
We don’t know for sure that he left to get the hammer, no one seen him with the hammer, but he still stopped and got it from somewhere! There’s time between strangling her and choosing to hit her with the hammer. That’s murder.
Click to expand...
It's true we don't know that for sure, but two things swayed it for me:
  1. A hammer of that size was unlikely to be in the house because he used it in the foundry as part of his work
  2. Tor's testimony said he saw John leave the house after he heard the cups smashing and saw him return while shaking his head as if to say "what can you do?" To me that's pretty solid evidence that John left the house between the row escalating and the hammer attack.
So I think he strangled her first (he said she turned purple, so he could remember that part) then when she didn't die from that, he went to get the hammer to hit her not once, but three times, to be sure.

That's not what a "reasonable" person would do in my opinion, so it has to be murder...

Also, I'm pretty sure the trial was chosen because the producers felt it was one that the jury got 'wrong' (the real Tom Crompton also got manslaughter). Hence they were interested in the thought processes of juries in cases like that and if at least one of the experiment juries would also go for manslaughter and why.
 
Last edited:
Ricky definitely viewed the whole thing as an exercise to change peoples minds to his way of thinking. He'd made up his mind from Day One about it all - that Helen was disrespectful and was therefore 'asking for it'.
And the airpunching and cheering when someone changed there mind was utterly tasteless. He wasn't at a bloody football match.
He was/is horrible.
 
I think the decision was right by the jury who voted manslaughter and the originally jury on the case voting manslaughter. Although in their hearts they may feel he did murder her, they can't lawfully prove it. I was suprised one of the jury's said murder, I noticed they didn't show them discussing the beyond reasonable doubt (100%). I would have been one of the jurors who thought murder, but couldn't lawfully say murder. Very interesting program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top