The Jury Murder Trial - Channel 4

[Ensay]

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.

I don't think it's about "lawfully proving it". The judge said it was about assessing if a reasonable person would have done the exact same thing under the same circumstances and using the evidence to come to a decision.

I've said why I thought it was murder based on the evidence in my post above. I obviously don't want to repeat it all, but my decision was based on the evidence, not whether John seemed like a nice/good person.

It's a shame Helen's family weren't given the opportunity to speak at the trial and they made that very point in their statement.

Mind you, if anyone's also been watching The British Airways Killer documentary on ITV recently they'll know of the case of Robert Brown who dug a grave before killing his wife and burying her in it. Despite all that, the jury still only found him guilty of manslaughter. It's depressing.

 

[50sGirl]

On days 1 and 2 I would've said manslaughter. On day 3 I changed my mind to murder.

Had the hammer been within reach and he’d grabbed it immediately then I could see how that was down to loss of control. However instead it appeared he went and sought out the hammer from elsewhere.
To me that was a conscious decision and not down to loss of control.

Also, before the jury retired to reach their verdicts, the judge advised them in order that to prove loss of control it meant that had anyone else been in that same position that they would’ve acted in the same way as John. I felt that in that position the majority of people would not have acted in that manner so that’s why I went with murder.

Did the programme say how long each jury were in deliberations for? I didn’t feel that they spent long at all going over all the evidence but that could have been down to editing and programme time constraints.

I also felt the programme makers manipulated the jurors so that the groups weren’t picked at random. I’m sure they did that so that they would be 2 different verdicts.

I wonder why “Helen’s” family never gave evidence/character witnesses in the original trial. Perhaps the prosecution felt that it would have been detrimental to their case.

 

[wellwellwellitsanotherad]

I can't believe the red jury have let Ricky manipulate them in to changing their minds

See this is where not enough was shown to the public the judge and likely defence barrister will have said that you have be sure beyond reasonable doubt and Ricky was pointing that out. It's not clear if the other jury address it as we had snippets of two days of deliberations

 

[Tofino]

The real killer of The Trial exposed… and the defenceless wife he bl…

archived 1 Mar 2024 17:29:16 UTC

archive.ph

The Mail have revealed the original case details including a recent picture and comments from Thomas Crompton. Seems they have tracked down other people too such as neighbours, a friend, her brother.

 

[Giggling Squid]

Watching the final ep now- it’s amazing to me, and not in a good way, how many people are basing their decisions on what they believe about him, not the facts of the case.

for me it’s a clear cut case of murder. If he had just strangled her, then I could get comfortable with manslaughter, but the fact he then decided to get the hammer, and use it 3 times from different angles- I am struggling with how so many people are basing their decision on who they’ve been led to believe he is. Clearly the defence wouldn’t have been finding character witnesses who are going to stand up and go “oh hey, yes he was an asshole” are they?

 

[Boogs]

I’ve just finished watching it. Whilst they kept saying their decisions were based on the facts so many people seemed to be convinced that he was a nice guy and a victim based on his testimony. The facts were that he strangled her into unconsciousness and then got a hammer and hit her 3 times in the head. What he says isn’t facts. It’s what he wants people to believe are facts. All the character witnesses only knew part of him. None of them were in that house and knew what was going on behind closed doors. I just read the Mail story and I felt the comments from the former friend appeared to be measured. People painted him as a saint and if he wasn’t a monster he couldn’t be a murderer.

Him being obsessed with his wife was not evidence of love. If anything I would see that as a red flag. For all Helen’s challenging behaviour he had the choice to walk away as he had before. They’d only been married and living together for a short time, this wasn’t someone reacting and snapping after years of abuse. Maybe he did snap and lose it, that doesn’t mean that he is not responsible and accountable for his actions and the choices that he made that ended her life.

Ricky had made his mind up before anyone opened their mouths and it became an exercise in massaging his misogynistic ego to bully everyone to his way of thinking.

I was a juror on a murder trial. It amazed me how many people were ready with their verdict the second we were sent to deliberate. It was clear that they weren’t going to change their mind whatever was discussed. I do wonder whether it would have been different if the victim was a more sympathetic character. There were people whose main aim seemed to be getting a verdict in so it was all over and done with so they could go home. None of us wanted to be sat there for the sake of it but someone died and we owed it to them to be thorough and fair in our decision making.

There were a couple of older blokes who were quite misogynistic, we had a young A&E doctor who clearly had medical knowledge that could have helped us to understand medical reports better but they were dismissive to her. One of the people who I felt was fairest was a 22 year old guy who didn’t come in with preconceived views, he expressed frustration to me at the end when we left about some of the jurors attitudes. We came to a not guilty verdict because the evidence simply wasn’t strong enough. I think there was a possibility that something could have happened and with more evidence I would have probably swung more towards manslaughter. I couldn’t convict on a maybe but I was aghast at how many jurors were ready to just say not guilty straight away.

 

[Popcornshovel]

The real killer of The Trial exposed… and the defenceless wife he bl…

archived 1 Mar 2024 17:29:16 UTC

archive.ph

The Mail have revealed the original case details including a recent picture and comments from Thomas Crompton. Seems they have tracked down other people too such as neighbours, a friend, her brother.

Really interesting that friends of theirs said the portrayal of Tom/John as a saint and Angela/Helen as bad were very one dimensional and not the whole picture.

 

[Ginnyjo]

Really interesting that friends of theirs said the portrayal of Tom/John as a saint and Angela/Helen as bad were very one dimensional and not the whole picture.

I'm not surprised, the defence is there to defend that person, prosecution is mostly there for the case, not to build the 'victim'/'helen' up as a person, for how unbiased a jury case is supposed to be, the odds are stacked in the defendants favour from the start, they are there to voice their version of event, in a murder trail noone hears the victims version, everything they hear could be a lie.

 

[50sGirl]

It didn’t realise, until I read that article, that ”Helen” lived for 2 days after the hammer attack.
I must have missed that in the programme.
Also, the real trial took 9 days so they must have cut out lots for the programme.
I wonder if the “jurors” had 9 days of filming and we only saw an extremely condensed version.

 

[wellwellwellitsanotherad]

It didn’t realise, until I read that article, that ”Helen” lived for 2 days after the hammer attack.
I must have missed that in the programme.
Also, the real trial took 9 days so they must have cut out lots for the programme.
I wonder if the “jurors” had 9 days of filming and we only saw an extremely condensed version.

I read that they had 10 days of filming

 

[50sGirl]

I read that they had 10 days of filming

Thanks.
That would make sense - 9 days for the trial and one day for deliberations possibly.

And they had to wear the same clothes for continuity!

 

[Tofino]

Thanks.
That would make sense - 9 days for the trial and one day for deliberations possibly.

And they had to wear the same clothes for continuity!

I wonder about the logistics of this were they given a spending budget so they could buy multiple sets of the same outfit? Did production pick their outfits like a costume? Did they have to wash and dry them every night or two? Did the production team do the laundry? Did they only get washed at weekends and they all stunk?

 

[Life88]

I found this program infuriating! So much victim blaming.

 

[50sGirl]

I wonder about the logistics of this were they given a spending budget so they could buy multiple sets of the same outfit? Did production pick their outfits like a costume? Did they have to wash and dry them every night or two? Did the production team do the laundry? Did they only get washed at weekends and they all stunk?

No wonder Ricky wanted them all to agree with him so quickly - he needed some fresh air!

 

[Glaschelle]

Yeah I'm actually shocked that a man can strangle and then hit his wife over the head with a hammer multiple times and say that he just lost control and didn't mean to kill her, therefore argue it's not murder.

And in the actual trial, the same verdict was reached!!!

It's quite obvious they thought he was a nice guy and that's partly why they reached the manslaughter verdict.

Did they forget that a woman lost her life??? But then she wasn't a picture perfect victim which probably also affected the verdict.

Women are judged in life and death.

 

[50sGirl]

And in the actual trial, the same verdict was reached!!!

It's quite obvious they thought he was a nice guy and that's partly why they reached the manslaughter verdict.

Did they forget that a woman lost her life??? But then she wasn't a picture perfect victim which probably also affected the verdict.

Women are judged in life and death.

Exactly.
A “nice” man can still be a murderer.
A “horrible” woman can still be a victim.

As I said in a previous post, at the beginning I thought manslaughter but after the prosecution were questioning John and they revealed that he left the room to get the hammer (so not a spur of the moment loss of control) then I changed my mind. It was murder.

 

[twilightgarden]

I wonder if anyone who was on the jury for the real case has watched this and what they think of it.

 

[wellwellwellitsanotherad]

I'm surprised that they didn't go for a more controversial type of case one that isn't talked about enough when men are victims of DV, a few years ago there was a documentary non it and it bought up the conversation from TV and then you don't hear much.on TV for a qhile...male victim of DV where the male was the one that died.

I know men who have been broken down emotionally and physically by DV and coercive control from women so much that in some sad cases they have taken their own lives , it's not a one way problem.

Both genders can be and are victims, there are alot more male suicides, physical violence victims and breakdowns from it than people realise

 

[MissTeddy]

I’ve just finished watching and I’ve avoided reading about the real trial up until now. I am absolutely horrified at the sentence the real life killer received. Even *if* he snapped after provocation - two years in prison for smashing your wife over the head with a hammer it’s just not justice. female victims in the judicial system are judged on their past actions, their lifestyles, their children, their sexual preferences, even in death, even after being hit over the head with a hammer, they are still judged. Quite depressing really.

 

[Dontmissmuch]

Having recently done jury service what I found strange was how they all chatted constantly about the case in between their time in the actual court (over lunch, breaks etc)..... we were given strict instructions that we should not discuss the case until we had heard all the evidence and were alone in the room deliberating the verdict...... like others have said some of the 'stronger' people (that vile Ricky!) swayed others decisions.... I found it incredibly patronising of some of them who implied that the young lad (Oliver I think who was about 19/20) couldn't possibly have an opinion as he'd 'not lived'...... I am surprised that it was manslaughter..... for me regardless of where the hammer was table or foundry he strangled her till she was semi or unconscious, wasn't fighting back and smashed her 3 time with a hammer...