The Trial (Channel 4, 9pm, 21/05-25/05)
Discussion
Did anyone else watch this last night? For those not familiar, this is a series using a fictional murder case but using a real jury and legal teams that runs this week only.
My feeling is that he didn't do it and the 'message' will be that 'we have to be absolutely sure to convict' and this series will go some way in helping to to explain why some people 'get away with murder'
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/may/...
My feeling is that he didn't do it and the 'message' will be that 'we have to be absolutely sure to convict' and this series will go some way in helping to to explain why some people 'get away with murder'
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/may/...
Guardian said:
While this is the right decision in terms of narrative satisfaction for the audience, it misses one of the most brutal realities of the legal system, which is that real-life jurors often never know if they have made the right decision.
How can a jury be wrong? The jury's decision defines what is right.speedking31 said:
Guardian said:
While this is the right decision in terms of narrative satisfaction for the audience, it misses one of the most brutal realities of the legal system, which is that real-life jurors often never know if they have made the right decision.
How can a jury be wrong? The jury's decision defines what is right.TL;DR A rapist got away with it because we the jury couldn't convict due to a poor and unprofessional prosecution barrister.
I'm finding it gripping viewing - the acting in it is tremendous, particularly from what I'm assuming are non-acting jury members and barristers? Seems to me that they're utterly convinced that it's a real case.
I'm often forgetting that it is actually fictional. The use of historic home video and photos clearly showing younger versions (or at least convincingly similar younger versions) of the main characters is particularly convincing.
I also feel that it being fictitous will ultimately leave me feeling disappointed at the end - I'm sure several versions of events are possible, including the extremely unlikely (aliens did it!!), but we won't have an absolute answer, only the producers' version of events.
Specific thoughts under spoiler tag below...
It does feel that the case has been made deliberately confusing though - I find it hard to believe that in many cases they can dig up ex-wives from 25 years ago who happen to have been domestically abused, but only "lightly" and not in a controlling way!
Seems like the producers have gone out of their way to introduce ambiguity - the conflicting views of the two police officers on the defendant's demeanour when they arrived is a prime example.
I'm often forgetting that it is actually fictional. The use of historic home video and photos clearly showing younger versions (or at least convincingly similar younger versions) of the main characters is particularly convincing.
I also feel that it being fictitous will ultimately leave me feeling disappointed at the end - I'm sure several versions of events are possible, including the extremely unlikely (aliens did it!!), but we won't have an absolute answer, only the producers' version of events.
Specific thoughts under spoiler tag below...
It does feel that the case has been made deliberately confusing though - I find it hard to believe that in many cases they can dig up ex-wives from 25 years ago who happen to have been domestically abused, but only "lightly" and not in a controlling way!
Seems like the producers have gone out of their way to introduce ambiguity - the conflicting views of the two police officers on the defendant's demeanour when they arrived is a prime example.
Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 23 May 12:51
Juicetin1 said:
I'm enjoying this programme and am finding myself transfixed by junior defence barrister Lucy Organ. I think she's seriously hot.
Really, surely she's the very definition of "plain Jane"? Great surname though! 
The lead defence barrister is hilarious though - I could listen to him opine on pretty much any subject.
I caught some of this last night but I couldn't watch it for long.
Did those appearing on the jury have to apply to be on the show? Or did they just get randomly selected?
I would worry that if they had to apply, then that in itself appeals to a certain type of person rather more than being selected at random from the entire population of a full cross section of society?
Did those appearing on the jury have to apply to be on the show? Or did they just get randomly selected?
I would worry that if they had to apply, then that in itself appeals to a certain type of person rather more than being selected at random from the entire population of a full cross section of society?
Shakermaker said:
I caught some of this last night but I couldn't watch it for long.
Did those appearing on the jury have to apply to be on the show? Or did they just get randomly selected?
I would worry that if they had to apply, then that in itself appeals to a certain type of person rather more than being selected at random from the entire population of a full cross section of society?
The opening preamble to the show says they were selected at random, but I think the "selected at random" description can be taken with a hefty pinch of salt. I suspect there was at least a small degree of selecting people for how they'd come across on TV - otherwise it's highly coincidental that there's a health worker with experience of working with domestically abused women, a woman who was sexually abused as a child and her abuser was found not guilty at trial and an ex-soldier whose wife cheated on him and became pregnant whilst he was away on active duty.Did those appearing on the jury have to apply to be on the show? Or did they just get randomly selected?
I would worry that if they had to apply, then that in itself appeals to a certain type of person rather more than being selected at random from the entire population of a full cross section of society?
Edited by youngsyr on Wednesday 24th May 11:55
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.
The defence barrister earlier...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cwyq3XWeHE
Definite resemblance
Finding it very intriguing and like the level of doubt sown.
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
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.
Deerfoot said:
Martha is especially strange...
Tonight's episode was the final nail in the coffin for the "randomly picked jury" claim - absolutely no way they just happened to pick someone whose friend/colleague was killed by their "pillar of the community" husband.Can't wait to hear their verdict and see the reenactment of actual events. From the evidence shown, it's quite clear to me that either of the suspects could have done it, so a not guilty (i.e. not proven) verdict is the only option.
This explains a bit more about the background. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/may/...
Whether the Jury were hand-picked or not doesn't really matter, what matters is that they knew this wasn't real and therefore don't have anywhere near the pressure on a real jury to make the right decision.
The woman juror spouting off all the time over everybody else would do my head in.
Whether the Jury were hand-picked or not doesn't really matter, what matters is that they knew this wasn't real and therefore don't have anywhere near the pressure on a real jury to make the right decision.
The woman juror spouting off all the time over everybody else would do my head in.
C997 said:
This explains a bit more about the background. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/may/...
Whether the Jury were hand-picked or not doesn't really matter, what matters is that they knew this wasn't real and therefore don't have anywhere near the pressure on a real jury to make the right decision.
The woman juror spouting off all the time over everybody else would do my head in.
It gets worse in reality - I've heard of cases where a juror changed her mind just to go with the majority because it was Friday afternoon, she wanted to get away early so she could go out that evening and she couldn't be bothered to come in Monday! Whether the Jury were hand-picked or not doesn't really matter, what matters is that they knew this wasn't real and therefore don't have anywhere near the pressure on a real jury to make the right decision.
The woman juror spouting off all the time over everybody else would do my head in.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff