The Trial (Channel 4, 9pm, 21/05-25/05)
Discussion
Deerfoot said:
Well there you go, I was on the not guilty side...
Did you think the boyfriend had done it when it first showed the husband arriving and seeing the spilt shopping already on the floor though? The case was set up with plenty of doubt, so a not guilty (more accurately "not proven") verdict was the right one, regardless of who actually did it.
It actually worries me that 4 of the jury were happy to send someone down for life on that flimsy amount if evidence, even if it turns out it would have been the right decision.
He was present - confirmed
His DNA was on her neck
He made no account for the 8 minute gap in the phone call
The domestic violence bit was irrelevant for me in that I didn't think it proved enough to make him an outright nutter.
So as a TV spectator I was veering on 'not guilty'. I just wanted that bit more to push me over the edge. I was actually surprised they went majority not guilty.
I think the problem with a made up scenario is that it does not play out like real life. In real life I reckon other things may have come into relevance.
In reality I think if I was on a real jury the above 3 factors would possibly put me in the guilty camp. Although it was discounted by the Judge, the fact that the Police charged Simon and not Lewis would be a factor in my mind.
His DNA was on her neck
He made no account for the 8 minute gap in the phone call
The domestic violence bit was irrelevant for me in that I didn't think it proved enough to make him an outright nutter.
So as a TV spectator I was veering on 'not guilty'. I just wanted that bit more to push me over the edge. I was actually surprised they went majority not guilty.
I think the problem with a made up scenario is that it does not play out like real life. In real life I reckon other things may have come into relevance.
In reality I think if I was on a real jury the above 3 factors would possibly put me in the guilty camp. Although it was discounted by the Judge, the fact that the Police charged Simon and not Lewis would be a factor in my mind.
youngsyr said:
Deerfoot said:
Well there you go, I was on the not guilty side...
Did you think the boyfriend had done it when it first showed the husband arriving and seeing the spilt shopping already on the floor though? The case was set up with plenty of doubt, so a not guilty (more accurately "not proven") verdict was the right one, regardless of who actually did it.
It actually worries me that 4 of the jury were happy to send someone down for life on that flimsy amount if evidence, even if it turns out it would have been the right decision.
I really enjoyed the 5 programmes.
I too thought before the final ad break that she was already dead when he turned up at the house, what with the shopping on the floor. Quite shocked when the toilet flushed!
I was unsure throughout - it could have been either of them for me. I think the jury reached the right conclusion - there just wasn't enough evidence that the husband had done it - not sure whether that's the fault of the prosecution or whether without a witness, anomalies can be explained away by the defence (who I thought was great).
Really liked the way they just slipped into the story in the final episode - genuinely excited at that point to see how events had really unfolded.
And as for the jurors, there was definitely a lot of speculation going on... they really needed to focus on the evidence right in front of them, and stop making stuff up based on their experiences. Although I imagine that goes on a lot!
I too thought before the final ad break that she was already dead when he turned up at the house, what with the shopping on the floor. Quite shocked when the toilet flushed!
I was unsure throughout - it could have been either of them for me. I think the jury reached the right conclusion - there just wasn't enough evidence that the husband had done it - not sure whether that's the fault of the prosecution or whether without a witness, anomalies can be explained away by the defence (who I thought was great).
Really liked the way they just slipped into the story in the final episode - genuinely excited at that point to see how events had really unfolded.
And as for the jurors, there was definitely a lot of speculation going on... they really needed to focus on the evidence right in front of them, and stop making stuff up based on their experiences. Although I imagine that goes on a lot!
Nick NE said:
I really enjoyed the 5 programmes.
I too thought before the final ad break that she was already dead when he turned up at the house, what with the shopping on the floor. Quite shocked when the toilet flushed!
I was unsure throughout - it could have been either of them for me. I think the jury reached the right conclusion - there just wasn't enough evidence that the husband had done it - not sure whether that's the fault of the prosecution or whether without a witness, anomalies can be explained away by the defence (who I thought was great).
Really liked the way they just slipped into the story in the final episode - genuinely excited at that point to see how events had really unfolded.
And as for the jurors, there was definitely a lot of speculation going on... they really needed to focus on the evidence right in front of them, and stop making stuff up based on their experiences. Although I imagine that goes on a lot!
I really enjoyed the series too and was on the edge of my seat as they showed the defendant arriving at the house.I too thought before the final ad break that she was already dead when he turned up at the house, what with the shopping on the floor. Quite shocked when the toilet flushed!
I was unsure throughout - it could have been either of them for me. I think the jury reached the right conclusion - there just wasn't enough evidence that the husband had done it - not sure whether that's the fault of the prosecution or whether without a witness, anomalies can be explained away by the defence (who I thought was great).
Really liked the way they just slipped into the story in the final episode - genuinely excited at that point to see how events had really unfolded.
And as for the jurors, there was definitely a lot of speculation going on... they really needed to focus on the evidence right in front of them, and stop making stuff up based on their experiences. Although I imagine that goes on a lot!
I don't think the amount of doubt in the case was anyone's fault - the situation was set up so that either the husband or boyfriend had a motive, time available, history of violence and lack of an alibi. On top of that, from the evidence shown it could theoretically have been a third person (perhaps a burglar disturbed during his rifling through the house). There simply wasn't enough evidence shown to prove it either way.
Your point about the jury's speculation is also spot on, IMO. There's a difference between believing someone did it and there being proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it.
Oh and: "Totally called it!" 
Will be interesting to see how it turns out though.
youngsyr on Wednesday said:
Juicetin1 said:
They have to find him not guilty don't they? I don't see how they can prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he did it
I think that's what the producers are aiming for - they've introduced enough doubt in the storyline to make a conviction unsafe. IMO the twist will be that he did it!Will be interesting to see how it turns out though.
Yes I could see it going that way all along, a lot of "what ifs" and circumstantial evidence, they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did it.
It made me quite cross when the loud mouthed women were saying things like he's definitely guilty because "he's the sort of man who wouldn't like it when a woman wants to go off on her own" etc, etc.
It made me quite cross when the loud mouthed women were saying things like he's definitely guilty because "he's the sort of man who wouldn't like it when a woman wants to go off on her own" etc, etc.
FiF said:
macp said:
Get Karter said:
It's terrifying listening to some jury members and how they are basing their beliefs on their own bad life experiences and 'intuition' rather than the evidence!
Agree what about the evidenceParticularly cringed at the "no comment, that's suspicious." That worked exactly as the prosecution intended in their opening statement. Still only part way through ep 1 though.
However all the things you've said here could be said about the Jury I was on a few years ago.
What you have missed out is a couple of under 25 females, who want to "I don't care about this, can't we just say he's guilty so I can get out of here and go home".
My opinion is you should never, ever go in front of a jury trial if you can possibly avoid it. They do not care about justice, most are annoyed at being there and will take it out on the defendant.
GetCarter said:
Get Karter said:
It's terrifying listening to some jury members and how they are basing their beliefs on their own bad life experiences and 'intuition' rather than the evidence!
You still here? Back on topic. I was disappointed in Channel 4s summary at the end suggesting that the male jurors were wrong in their decision and the 4 females who said guilty were right; and the insinuation that this showed different attitudes to domestic violence!
They missed the point altogether. Thankfully this thread has identified the real issue: evidence, or lack thereof.
Six Fiend said:
The defence barrister earlier...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cwyq3XWeHE
Definite resemblance
Finding it very intriguing and like the level of doubt sown.
Danny La Rue? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cwyq3XWeHE
Definite resemblance
Finding it very intriguing and like the level of doubt sown.
Edited by Six Fiend on Wednesday 24th May 16:54
Just started watching this.
Enjoyed that, but, the whole Lewis thing was a red herring really. This wasn't about choosing between 2 people who might have done it, but about whether one man did commit the murder. Whether Lewis was in the area, switched off his phone, could have got from the bus stop to the house, etc. had no bearing on the case. As said above, she could have been killed by a disturbed burglar, etc.
Also, is there a reason the kids weren't called to give evidence about relationships between their mother and the men? That could have cast a lot of doubt in the minds of the jury.
Also, is there a reason the kids weren't called to give evidence about relationships between their mother and the men? That could have cast a lot of doubt in the minds of the jury.
Well I was on the side of possibly guilty but had the prosecution proved it's case beyond all reasonable doubt. One of the key bits of evidence being the accused DNA on the fingerprints on her neck that was tipping me towards guilty.
A big issue was the fact that we didn't see all the evidence, didn't see the judge's summing up. Secondly, maybe this was deliberate, but there were a lot of convenient breaks just after some significant point for the prosecution which allowed the jury to stew over it.
Was surprised how many of the jury went for NG, but I think that emphasises the state of the evidence. What irritated me, no doubt that old bat who was clearly for G will no doubt be all righteous, when her decision making process was the most flawed of the lot of them.
Anyway it was a good effort to show up the flaws, maybe we could reduce the nation's deficit by cutting back on jury snacks and biscuits.
A big issue was the fact that we didn't see all the evidence, didn't see the judge's summing up. Secondly, maybe this was deliberate, but there were a lot of convenient breaks just after some significant point for the prosecution which allowed the jury to stew over it.
Was surprised how many of the jury went for NG, but I think that emphasises the state of the evidence. What irritated me, no doubt that old bat who was clearly for G will no doubt be all righteous, when her decision making process was the most flawed of the lot of them.
Anyway it was a good effort to show up the flaws, maybe we could reduce the nation's deficit by cutting back on jury snacks and biscuits.
speedking31 said:
Enjoyed that, but, the whole Lewis thing was a red herring really. This wasn't about choosing between 2 people who might have done it, but about whether one man did commit the murder. Whether Lewis was in the area, switched off his phone, could have got from the bus stop to the house, etc. had no bearing on the case. As said above, she could have been killed by a disturbed burglar, etc.
Also, is there a reason the kids weren't called to give evidence about relationships between their mother and the men? That could have cast a lot of doubt in the minds of the jury.
Couldn't disagree more about Lewis being irrelevant - if he could have done it, then that introduces a doubt that Simon did it.Also, is there a reason the kids weren't called to give evidence about relationships between their mother and the men? That could have cast a lot of doubt in the minds of the jury.
The stronger the possibility that Lewis did it, the weaker the case against Simon is.
On the other hand, someone clearly strangled her, so if Lewis had a rock solid alibi, the case against Simon would move past a reasonable doubt, IMO.
Get Karter said:
It's terrifying listening to some jury members and how they are basing their beliefs on their own bad life experiences and 'intuition' rather than the evidence!
I have done jury service twice. Both cases were sex offences and both juries were composed 75% of middle-aged/older ladies. Absolutely as Get Karter says; neither man stood a chance. One was convicted of indecent assault which consisted of briefly touching a girl wearing trousers on the outside of her thigh. The judge went to great length to define indecent assault and showed what he thought of the verdict by giving the man an Absolute Discharge; unfortunately as a serving police officer his career will have been destroyed.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff