[TV] Anyone on NSC watching 'The jury' on channel 4?

[Binney on acid]

I love a good courtroom drama. I've found the concept to be an interesting one, and the first three episodes to be captivating.

 

[dazzer6666]

I love a good courtroom drama. I've found the concept to be an interesting one, and the first three episodes to be captivating.

Mrs D was talking about this…….I was watching football, obvs Going to have to take a look…..

 

[abc]

An interesting aspect is how the juror's back stories impact their view of the case. But I would like to know they have been selected for this reason (in which case it rather influences the experiment's outcomes) or whether actually every juror in real life has something in their past that has this impact. So far, I don't think the jury system is coming out looking very reassuring- though I don't know what the alternative is.

 

[dazzer6666]

Ok, binge-watched this now. All felt as staged as it was and really wondering how much of the actual trial was in fact restaged (odd for example that by ‘day 6’ all the jury were still wearing the same clothes they started in) - really difficult to gauge from what was essentially a highlights package massively cut down. That said, wasn’t an unreasonable attempt at showing how jurors interact, how certain people can get a view quickly and then become entrenched (‘Baleba is shit’ on here kind of thing perhaps ) and how stronger/more vocal characters - some actually quite unpleasant (one in particular) - can dominate the jury to some extent, shutting down any view that doesn’t align with their own. From that perspective it was quite similar in many ways to what I experienced on jury service……things like the day one ‘definitely guilty, I don’t like the look of him’ type comments to a couple of people almost bullying the one juror that wasn’t convinced as we tried to reach a verdict. The pressure on ‘dissenters’ in the jury room is enormous - the programme got that quite well, including how they can quickly fall into line with the majority under that pressure. Both juries in the show were split, and the dominant characters got everyone round to their way of thinking. Can see the big guy in the green shirt gobbing off down the pub to his mates how he was right all along and had to get everyone on his side

It was an ok watch but looked more like a group of employees on a company residential training event than the re-enactment of a trial to me, but I’ve only got a (real) sample of two to compare it with - the characters in the show seemed exaggerated to what I experienced, but then it’s made for TV. I wouldn’t draw any conclusions about the legal process from it.

 

[Easy 10]

I had a real problem with how the jury room was set up throughout the trial - tables and chairs all over the place like it was some kind of bistro. Which meant little groups and cliques developed, all chatting about the evidence amongst themselves. The whole POINT of a jury is to sit 12 around a table and go over each session together, so you hear everyones point of view and opinion, not just who you happen to be sitting with that day. They didn't do this until they began deliberating on the verdict at the end, which was ridiculous. "Ooh, now it gets SERIOUS!". I mean...WTF ??

The Essex man with the stupid beard and chunky jewellery was a total prick throughout. Made his mind up on day 2 and would not be swayed, then bullied others into his way of thinking. Thick as mince, with a big mouth - a dangerous combination for a juror. Too many of the red jury let emotion cloud their verdict IMO, plus the influence of Essex Man, and didn't focus on the important facts - there were some absolute morons amongst that lot.

The blue jury had a few who were more clued up, most impressive was the young 19 year old student who kept a clear mind, weighed up the FACTS without being swayed, spoke very well and didn't let his personal opinion of the defendant colour his judgement of the crime.

Personally after hearing the defence and prosecution, and weighing up the evidence, I had the guy guilty of murder. The show ended up annoying me tbh, but if they did another one I'd definitely watch it again.

 

[Normal Rob]

I wouldn’t draw any conclusions about the legal process from it.

But the legal experts (QCs, crminologists etc) did.

I agree about the clothing though, and the stubble not growing back in the lightning...

 

[dazzer6666]

I had a real problem with how the jury room was set up throughout the trial - tables and chairs all over the place like it was some kind of bistro. Which meant little groups and cliques developed, all chatting about the evidence amongst themselves. The whole POINT of a jury is to sit 12 around a table and go over each session together, so you hear everyones point of view and opinion, not just who you happen to be sitting with that day. They didn't do this until they began deliberating on the verdict at the end, which was ridiculous. "Ooh, now it gets SERIOUS!". I mean...WTF ??

The Essex man with the stupid beard and chunky jewellery was a total prick throughout. Made his mind up on day 2 and would not be swayed, then bullied others into his way of thinking. Thick as mince, with a big mouth - a dangerous combination for a juror. Too many of the red jury let emotion cloud their verdict IMO, plus the influence of Essex Man, and didn't focus on the important facts - there were some absolute morons amongst that lot.

The blue jury had a few who were more clued up, most impressive was the young 19 year old student who kept a clear mind, weighed up the FACTS without being swayed, spoke very well and didn't let his personal opinion of the defendant colour his judgement of the crime.

Personally after hearing the defence and prosecution, and weighing up the evidence, I had the guy guilty of murder. The show ended up annoying me tbh, but if they did another one I'd definitely watch it again.

Agree with all of that

 

[Easy 10]

Agree with all of that

I'm trying to avoid spoilers for now in case some on here are catching up. But your observation of some of them becoming "entrenched" is spot on, and something I think was quite worrying. There was a sense of belligerence amongst some of them, like they didn't want to climb down from their initial early judgement. Nobody needed to commit one way or the other until ALL the evidence and testimonies had played out, and some were (rightly) torn on it throughout. But others, I think, lent FAR too much weight to the defendant coming across as being genuinely remorseful and a formerly "good guy". Which in the details of the case is a small factor IMO, when you look at what he did, and how he did it.

What was your opinion then chap. Murder, or manslaughter ?

 

[The Clamp]

An interesting aspect is how the juror's back stories impact their view of the case. But I would like to know they have been selected for this reason (in which case it rather influences the experiment's outcomes) or whether actually every juror in real life has something in their past that has this impact. So far, I don't think the jury system is coming out looking very reassuring- though I don't know what the alternative is.

Coin toss?

 

[abc]

Coin toss?

Watching this, I think that might be as effective!

 

[Normal Rob]

I had a real problem with how the jury room was set up throughout the trial - tables and chairs all over the place like it was some kind of bistro. Which meant little groups and cliques developed, all chatting about the evidence amongst themselves. The whole POINT of a jury is to sit 12 around a table and go over each session together, so you hear everyones point of view and opinion, not just who you happen to be sitting with that day. They didn't do this until they began deliberating on the verdict at the end, which was ridiculous. "Ooh, now it gets SERIOUS!". I mean...WTF ??

The Essex man with the stupid beard and chunky jewellery was a total prick throughout. Made his mind up on day 2 and would not be swayed, then bullied others into his way of thinking. Thick as mince, with a big mouth - a dangerous combination for a juror. Too many of the red jury let emotion cloud their verdict IMO, plus the influence of Essex Man, and didn't focus on the important facts - there were some absolute morons amongst that lot.

The blue jury had a few who were more clued up, most impressive was the young 19 year old student who kept a clear mind, weighed up the FACTS without being swayed, spoke very well and didn't let his personal opinion of the defendant colour his judgement of the crime.

Personally after hearing the defence and prosecution, and weighing up the evidence, I had the guy guilty of murder. The show ended up annoying me tbh, but if they did another one I'd definitely watch it again.

Afraid i totally disagree about your views on the Essex Builder and the young lad. Dropping the issues regarding the builders appearance i think he came across simply as being very assertive. I, like him, formed an early view that this man could not be guilty of murder as I'd seen no proof that he had not lost control. Being aware that my views could easily change in the light of hard evidence i waited for it to arrive, and it didn't. Had they been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had left the scene and gone outside to fetch the hammer before returning and striking his wife then that, for me, would have persuaded me that this was indeed a case of murder. But they didn't. They could prove that he went outside, but not that it was at this time that the hammer was brought into the house. The builder chap was waiting, like me, for that type of conclusive evidence to arrive. If you still harbour any doubt, then you have to opt for manslaughter. He did harbour doubts, and he stuck to his guns and in my view he rightly persuaded others to that way of thinking. His celebrations on doing that were completely unnecessary and extremely crass though.

The young lad said from day one that he was convinced that it was murder and that nothing would dissuade him from that, to the point where he was selectively hearing what was being presented. Then, and i could not believe this (but he clearly just wanted to convict and go home) he said (i have to paraphrase as i cannot recount the words verbatim) around the table when it was 9/3 'well if we want to get this done you are going to have to change your minds to murder'. Sorry, but i thought he was dreadful.

To me there was clearly 'reasonable doubt' and as such the manslaughter verdict was right. I was delighted when it was revealed at the opening of the ending credits that the the defendant in the real case was found not guilty of murder but of manslaughter due to loss of control. I believe that justice was served in reality. Others will disagree, as is their right, but then i guess that was the point. Clearly 'Trial by Jury' needs looking at and revising.

 

[Easy 10]

Afraid i totally disagree about your views on the Essex Builder and the young lad. Dropping the issues regarding the builders appearance i think he came across simply as being very assertive. I, like him, formed an early view that this man could not be guilty of murder as I'd seen no proof that he had not lost control. Being aware that my views could easily change in the light of hard evidence i waited for it to arrive, and it didn't. Had they been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had left the scene and gone outside to fetch the hammer before returning and striking his wife then that, for me, would have persuaded me that this was indeed a case of murder. But they didn't. They could prove that he went outside, but not that it was at this time that the hammer was brought into the house. The builder chap was waiting, like me, for that type of conclusive evidence to arrive. If you still harbour any doubt, then you have to opt for manslaughter. He did harbour doubts, and he stuck to his guns and in my view he rightly persuaded others to that way of thinking. His celebrations on doing that were completely unnecessary and extremely crass though.

The young lad said from day one that he was convinced that it was murder and that nothing would dissuade him from that, to the point where he was selectively hearing what was being presented. Then, and i could not believe this (but he clearly just wanted to convict and go home) he said (i have to paraphrase as i cannot recount the words verbatim) around the table when it was 9/3 'well if we want to get this done you are going to have to change your minds to murder'. Sorry, but i thought he was dreadful.

To me there was clearly 'reasonable doubt' and as such the manslaughter verdict was right. I was delighted when it was revealed at the opening of the ending credits that the the defendant in the real case was found not guilty of murder but of manslaughter due to loss of control. I believe that justice was served in reality. Others will disagree, as is their right, but then i guess that was the point. Clearly 'Trial by Jury' needs looking at and revising.

Well, like the jurors we all have our views. I found the loss of control aspect troubling. He was strangling her, then he stopped, picked up an industrial hammer, and bashed her head in. Whether he went out to fetch it from his workshop (more likely than it already being in the dining room), or grabbed it because it was next to him, he still made a conscious decision there. In his rage he could've just punched her several times in the face and instead been up on a GBH charge, but instead, he upped the stakes massively and murdered her. A 'reasonable person' doesn't do that. His claims of not remembering it were dubious as well. He can remember her face changing colour. He can remember her lips turning blue. He remembers the first of the 3 hammer blows to her head but not the others. He remembers all that, but can't remember where he got the hammer from ? Too much didn't add up for me.

I think he got massive leeway from many of the jurors for it being out of character for him. For him apparently being a "nice guy". He still did what he did though, and had the victim been my daughter, I'd have been distraught at that verdict.

I agree with you that trial by jury needs revising. They mentioned the danish version of "professional jurors" being used, people who's job it is to sit and deliberate on these cases. That seems quite a sensible option.

 

[Normal Rob]

Well, like the jurors we all have our views. I found the loss of control aspect troubling. He was strangling her, then he stopped, picked up an industrial hammer, and bashed her head in. Whether he went out to fetch it from his workshop (more likely than it already being in the dining room), or grabbed it because it was next to him, he still made a conscious decision there. In his rage he could've just punched her several times in the face and instead been up on a GBH charge, but instead, he upped the stakes massively and murdered her. A 'reasonable person' doesn't do that. His claims of not remembering it were dubious as well. He can remember her face changing colour. He can remember her lips turning blue. He remembers the first of the 3 hammer blows to her head but not the others. He remembers all that, but can't remember where he got the hammer from ? Too much didn't add up for me.

I think he got massive leeway from many of the jurors for it being out of character for him. For him apparently being a "nice guy". He still did what he did though, and had the victim been my daughter, I'd have been distraught at that verdict.

I agree with you that trial by jury needs revising. They mentioned the danish version of "professional jurors" being used, people who's job it is to sit and deliberate on these cases. That seems quite a sensible option.

Unlike most, I've had personal experience of a similar case to this in which a family member was murdered. I guess that affects you somewhat. In our case the defendant's first knife broke, so they went and fetched another and inflicted a total of 57 stab wounds into my wife's niece. That was nailed on murder, but i did not think this was. It was the utter certainty that in that case it was murder that made me think that this was not as clear cut. Perhaps i over objectified but it was, and still is, my view.

 

[dazzer6666]

I'm trying to avoid spoilers for now in case some on here are catching up. But your observation of some of them becoming "entrenched" is spot on, and something I think was quite worrying. There was a sense of belligerence amongst some of them, like they didn't want to climb down from their initial early judgement. Nobody needed to commit one way or the other until ALL the evidence and testimonies had played out, and some were (rightly) torn on it throughout. But others, I think, lent FAR too much weight to the defendant coming across as being genuinely remorseful and a formerly "good guy". Which in the details of the case is a small factor IMO, when you look at what he did, and how he did it.

What was your opinion then chap. Murder, or manslaughter ?

Hah…..had a heated debate with Mrs D last night who asked me the same question. Quite simple - didn’t see enough of either argument to be able to form a decision. Six+ days of stuff condensed into little more than an hour of soundbites from the defendant and the barristers isn’t any basis to form a view.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Well, like the jurors we all have our views. I found the loss of control aspect troubling. He was strangling her, then he stopped, picked up an industrial hammer, and bashed her head in. Whether he went out to fetch it from his workshop (more likely than it already being in the dining room), or grabbed it because it was next to him, he still made a conscious decision there. In his rage he could've just punched her several times in the face and instead been up on a GBH charge, but instead, he upped the stakes massively and murdered her. A 'reasonable person' doesn't do that. His claims of not remembering it were dubious as well. He can remember her face changing colour. He can remember her lips turning blue. He remembers the first of the 3 hammer blows to her head but not the others. He remembers all that, but can't remember where he got the hammer from ? Too much didn't add up for me.

I think he got massive leeway from many of the jurors for it being out of character for him. For him apparently being a "nice guy". He still did what he did though, and had the victim been my daughter, I'd have been distraught at that verdict.

I agree with you that trial by jury needs revising. They mentioned the danish version of "professional jurors" being used, people who's job it is to sit and deliberate on these cases. That seems quite a sensible option.

Innit

"Wait there love whilst I fetch the hammer to stove your head in" is murder in my book. "Forgetting" it as well is proper Jimmy Hill. "but he fed the neighbours cat when they were away" didn't quite cut it as a defence to me either.

I'd be awful as a Juror. I'd probably be up for murder myself at the end of it dealing with some of those bells for an extended period.

 

[pb21]

Interesting concept but sounds like it's been made to be entertaining as much as anything, so arguably all a bit pointless?

 

[Binney on acid]

Incredibly thought provoking. I took an instant dislike to the builder, but ended up admiring him for his understanding of mitigating circumstances. To be brutally honest, I'd defy anyone to tolerate years of mental and physical abuse at the hands of their spouse, and not snap. It could have been any one of us in the dock ! I found the builder's clenched fist celebrations to be distasteful, disrespectful, and completely unnecessary.
I wasn't impressed by how the young black girl on the other jury was pressurised into going along with a guilty verdict. The young male student seemed completely unable or unwilling to process any information holistically. He came across as being mentally arthritic, and in my option simply couldn't / wouldn't see beyond the crime. The prosecuting lawyer was brilliant. He made a clear cut case for murder, but ultimately failed to convince me. I opted for a verdict of manslaughter.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Spoilers ! Don’t read if you haven’t finished the series…."."

Really , this went according to expectations. It is a tried and tested thing that a re trial with new jury will get a new result. It all goes to show what a lottery the legal system is. I wonder how they chose their jurors? Presumably with an eye to making good television first and foremost.
My opinion?,,,,,,letting this guy off with manslaughter means that half the murders committed in real life would downgraded to that. It was a stonewall murder in my view .

 

[Sheebo]

I had a real problem with how the jury room was set up throughout the trial - tables and chairs all over the place like it was some kind of bistro. Which meant little groups and cliques developed, all chatting about the evidence amongst themselves. The whole POINT of a jury is to sit 12 around a table and go over each session together, so you hear everyones point of view and opinion, not just who you happen to be sitting with that day. They didn't do this until they began deliberating on the verdict at the end, which was ridiculous. "Ooh, now it gets SERIOUS!". I mean...WTF ??

The Essex man with the stupid beard and chunky jewellery was a total prick throughout. Made his mind up on day 2 and would not be swayed, then bullied others into his way of thinking. Thick as mince, with a big mouth - a dangerous combination for a juror. Too many of the red jury let emotion cloud their verdict IMO, plus the influence of Essex Man, and didn't focus on the important facts - there were some absolute morons amongst that lot.

The blue jury had a few who were more clued up, most impressive was the young 19 year old student who kept a clear mind, weighed up the FACTS without being swayed, spoke very well and didn't let his personal opinion of the defendant colour his judgement of the crime.

Personally after hearing the defence and prosecution, and weighing up the evidence, I had the guy guilty of murder. The show ended up annoying me tbh, but if they did another one I'd definitely watch it again.

Afraid i totally disagree about your views on the Essex Builder and the young lad. Dropping the issues regarding the builders appearance i think he came across simply as being very assertive. I, like him, formed an early view that this man could not be guilty of murder as I'd seen no proof that he had not lost control. Being aware that my views could easily change in the light of hard evidence i waited for it to arrive, and it didn't. Had they been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had left the scene and gone outside to fetch the hammer before returning and striking his wife then that, for me, would have persuaded me that this was indeed a case of murder. But they didn't. They could prove that he went outside, but not that it was at this time that the hammer was brought into the house. The builder chap was waiting, like me, for that type of conclusive evidence to arrive. If you still harbour any doubt, then you have to opt for manslaughter. He did harbour doubts, and he stuck to his guns and in my view he rightly persuaded others to that way of thinking. His celebrations on doing that were completely unnecessary and extremely crass though.

The young lad said from day one that he was convinced that it was murder and that nothing would dissuade him from that, to the point where he was selectively hearing what was being presented. Then, and i could not believe this (but he clearly just wanted to convict and go home) he said (i have to paraphrase as i cannot recount the words verbatim) around the table when it was 9/3 'well if we want to get this done you are going to have to change your minds to murder'. Sorry, but i thought he was dreadful.

To me there was clearly 'reasonable doubt' and as such the manslaughter verdict was right. I was delighted when it was revealed at the opening of the ending credits that the the defendant in the real case was found not guilty of murder but of manslaughter due to loss of control. I believe that justice was served in reality. Others will disagree, as is their right, but then i guess that was the point. Clearly 'Trial by Jury' needs looking at and revising.

Really enjoyed this. Here is what I wrote to a mate:

‘Just starting last episode but heard all the evidence we can. So much depends on if the hammer was there or he went and got it which can’t be proven. She pushed and pushed him and controlled him. He was under extreme pressure from her behaviour and I can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt it was murder so I’m 100% going manslaughter. Could only be the difference of like 5-10 actual years in prison too and don’t reckon he’d reoffend either. But also would want to see the exact bloke on trial to see his voice and body language. But based on the programme I’m 100% manslaughter’

I also said I’d go 5-6 years which wasn’t far off the 7.5 the judge went for. It’s a case of remembering ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ for me.

I also felt my decision was just by the adamant murder jurers and how dislikable they were. The last lady to be turned on the manslaughter team was an attention seeker and wouldn’t listen to the facts of what a jury do. Sonia (big black lady) who was murder from the start and incredibly annoying was also on wife swap once - which again aligned to her liking the limelight and being very outspoken and annoying. I didn’t like the 19 yr old lad - his reasonings weren’t for me and his age def showed.

I read on YouTube they put them back in the same clothes for some reason or other so don’t think they lied and it was across 4 separate days. I’m sure there were some inaccuracies for TV purposes but thought it was an excellent show.

 

[Right Back]

Interesting concept but sounds like it's been made to be entertaining as much as anything, so arguably all a bit pointless?

Disagree. It is entertaining but also very thought provoking. I’ve never been on a jury but really makes you think how you would try and influence the other jurors if you didn’t agree with them. Made it interesting when it was murder or man slaughter rather than guilty or not guilty. Would recommend to anyone who hasn’t seen it.