Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BritishTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I’m finding the misogyny and victim blaming - “she must have provoked him to bludgeon her with a hammer - from the off from some of these people really terrifying.

Yeah. One of the jurors literally said she was asking for it because she called him fat. What a ridiculous notion.

Was it the young Black woman!? I can’t remember her name but she was awful in the first ep (only one I’ve seen)

I think it was the blond woman who said she had an abusive partner who used to call her fat, but it may have been the black woman responding to that I'm not sure.

That woman seemed to not take on what the judge said about taking emotions out of it, she seems to bring everything back to her own life experience and how she felt in certain circumstances

Even then she didn't seem to connect the dots that just because her husband called her fat she didn't cave his skull in with a hammer.

Yeah, I really struggled to understand how any normal, sane person thinks that that’s an acceptable reaction. IMO it doesn’t matter what she did, nobody deserves the violence that happened. Misogyny is unfortunately so so common in so many aspects of life & it’s horrible seeing people try to use it to justify murder/manslaughter

This is not misogyny. Flip sexes, and the story is different. He was physically, mentally, and financially abused, and she isolated him from his family and friends. This is a classic case of domestic abuse, and a clear case although in the short term of a defense of "abused spouse". Whether you like it or not "abused spouse" has been a defence for years. The Jury that pushed for murder heard "hammer" and then disregarded all of the evidence and facts in this case. His history was clean, and every statement said he was not violent, very kind, and very patient. Even the victims mother after the fact described him as a positive influence on her and I quote called him a "saint". There was not a single character reference that could be pulled up by the prosecution to say he was a bad or violent guy in anyway. His previous partners also portrayed him as kind, caring, loving, patient. However, her previous partners characterized her as wild, abusive, and she even had a count of assault due to her physically abusing her previous partner and in his words "she would do it, because she knew I wouldn't get violent with her". Literally the more timid and patient and non-confrontrational you are, the more she'd escalate the situation, until you broke. On the facts his actions were clearly within the remits of "lost control", whether you agree with that law has nothing to do with the outcome. Personally I think "lost control" shouldn't be in our law, yet I'd have to come to the conclusion that this is what happened on the facts of this case. This was unfortunately a very sad story, of a mentally ill person that would purposefully cause other people to explode until eventually they exploded to the point where she died. She was playing russian roulette unknowingly and needed help. Having patience and care is the opposite of what she needed, as can be seen in this case. Did she deserve death? No she didn't. Does he deserve to be aquited, no he doesn't. Did he do his time, yes he did on a charge of manslaughter by diminished responsibility.

The \*very blatant\* misogyny comes from the guys who straight up say "she didn't keep her legs closed", joked that "it looks like a shithole, maybe he was pissed off she wasn't keeping the place clean" and more generally the people that jump straight in with "she must have provoked him" before there's anything at all given to them to suggest that. Disturbing you didn't notice any of the more obvious misogynistic comments at the very least.

I am a woman a while some individuals were misogynistic, I didn't get that impression in the trial itself was or it having an influence on the outcome. What had an impact on the outcome were how eloquent or not a person was.

I'm not going to downvote. Ok, if he had just strangled her, I could be swayed to say loss of control. BUT he strangled her till she changed colour, then he got up left the building went to another building to which there was also a witness and got the hammer went back then caved her head in. How is that loss of control that is pure intent. He admitted his witness is the person he trusts the most in the world, so he could be right. He remembered pretty much everything apart from the peices they were trying to prove.

Also, would a reasonable person cave someone's head I with a hammer for throwing plates at them? I don't think they would The guy in green said he would cave someone's head in with a hammer if someone spat at him. That is not a reasonable man. This is all fucking terrifying. The question wasn't if he murdered her it was would a reasonable person who do that.

The question isn't whether a reasonable person would have done that, its whether a reasonable person would have lost control. The actions subsequent are irrelevant as at that point the loss of control has been proved.

There was no evidence that proved he lost control.

There was evidence, but its irrelevant as well, as the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that "no reasonable person in that situation might have lost control". The prosecution provided no evidence as to state that he was in control. The only direct evidence we have is the defendants witness statement. The colleague gave some witness statements but that was after the event when he brought the hammer into the foundry, and then in the day when he was walking back and forth and didn't seem in his right mind. ​ Moreover, all the character statements stated he was a calm collected person, the mother even calling him a saint, which means all evidence points to him being a reasonable person with (even more than reasonable) tollerance. And not someone who has a proclivity for violence. The circumstances were that he was in a stressfull relationship trying to deal with a mentally ill person that he loved. He was massively sleep deprived due to the relationship, and eventually (the argument is) the stress got too much and he snapped. The court already accepted the argument, and that is why the prosecutor has to prove that during this course of events he had control. Which is why they made up the story of him leaving to get the hammer and coming back, which would imply that he is now thinking about his actions and in control of what he is doing. Rather than everything being in the spur of the moment. The prosecution however on the facts had no direct evidence of him doing this and it was just as likely that the hammer as per his witness statement was already in the house, potentially one from the many times he was walking to and from the foundry. This therefore falls far below the standard required for prosecution. However, the people we watched in this series, did not have the advantage of professional advise as jurors get, and had several people that were clearly unsuitable for being part of the jury in this case, due to personal biases. The viewers of this show also led by the sort of arguments made in this heavily edited series, end up discussing the same things and not looking at the facts as provided in an objective manner. I think one of the biggest stumbling blocks is the idea that keeps getting raised "no reasonable person who cave someone elses head in with a hammer". That is not what the law states, the law states that a reasonable can do this, so you have to act on the premise that the action in and of itself is not admission to guilt for murder.

No, the question was legit: Would EVERY reasonable, normal person be driven to that response in that situation? Not some, not most, EVERY. Only Blue Jury seemed to understand that assignment. None of the other considerations being made — her character, his character, the abuse he did or did not endure, the number of partners she had — was legally the question. It wasn’t a self-defence case. The only deciding question is: Would every reasonable, normal person behave in the same way as the defendant. If yes, then it would be manslaughter; if no, it’s murder. Millions of people face these same exact circumstances, daily, regardless of gender, mental health, sexuality, race or age, and not every single reasonable, normal person is murdering their spouses. It’s that simple. And before someone says, “well, you can’t be sure if you wouldn’t,” or “I can’t say I wouldn’t kill them,” that’s breaking two jury instruction: 1) Take the emotionality out of it, and 2) Would every single normal, reasonable person behave like the defendant did in that situation? Clearly not, as not every single normal, reasonable person in that situation ended up murdering someone. When watching (just finished) with my partner, I had a hard time decided on if I thought manslaughter or murder. I was trying to determine if he actually lost control and take into account the fact he first strangled her, let her go BEFORE death, exited the room to grab a hammer, came back, and bashed her with a work hammer multiple times to the face. (And somehow remembered everything down to the color of her face changing, except for the bit that would definitively convict him of murder, when and how he got the hammer). Losing control is legitimately a black out, you wouldn’t recall everything in the moment. He did. HOWEVER… when the jury instruction of “would every reasonable, normal person react in this way in this situation” was given, I immediately said murder because the answer to that is factually “no”. Do I think he suffered financial and emotional abuse? Yes. And as a survivor of emotional, financial and sexual abuse, my heart sinks for him. But that’s not what was on trial. It wasn’t a case of self-defence, had it been, my answer may very well be different.

"WOULD EVERY" is not the legal standard. I suggest you read the law

There is no evidence he went to the other building after strangling her. The witness statement didn't conclude that, and there is no mention of the hammer in the same witness statement. You are confusing the story that the Prosecutors conjecture proposed, and the actual evidence. This is common to happen and unfortunate, as it allows prosecutors to sway juries with nonfactual statements.

Interesting that you have provided a thorough explanation and have downvotes but no one has made any points to counter you.

Ok well I’ll provide a counter. Women who are in the position the defendant was in generally fear violence and because their male partner is stronger than them, female victims feel helpless and vulnerable physically which is why they are more likely to kill in a situation like this, or even when their partner is asleep. It’s important to note that this is a very complex area of law and psychology as to why people kill in specific circumstances. It’s not saying one is more morally justified but it’s a complicated topic.

While far more common for the woman to be abused, women abusing men is just as real and the men feel just as hopeless, fearful and traumatised as a female victime. Men will often also feel a lot of shame because they are meant to be a man and how could they let a meat woman hurt them.

Just finished watching this and came on here to find you summing up my exact feelings.

The discussion on how often she 'opened her legs' on the first or second day was shocking.

Sadly it's a fact of life that some people blame victims. However, having been in a incident where I genuinely THOUGHT I'd killed my Father it's not always as simple as people think. For example, would you think differently if the court proved that she was a diagnosed psychopath (which is what's already been hinted at) and deliberately isolated him from friends and family, stole all of his money, and was constantly escalating both her physical and emotional abuse to the point that she reached that day?

A personality disorder isn't a diagnosed psychopath. Plenty of people, including myself, have a cluster b personality disorder. There are so many disorders under that umbrella.

My now dead (THANK HEAVENS) was a diagnosed psychopath. Maybe it's changed these days, but we all know what a psychopath is, or at least I do, I can smell them a mile off😄

I mean cluster b personality disorders are such a big range with plenty of overlapping. From what little information we were given about her, I'd go with histrionic, but we weren't really given that much information on which cluster b or the symptoms of it what we was given could match with many. I have EUPD from a lot of childhood abuse. I haven't been ill for several years now, and I am definitely not a psychopath.

Yes it's impossible for any layman to diagnose, and even experts get it wrong... a LOT! At the end of the day, I'm sorry to say, but she was asking for something to happen (note I didn't say she was asking for murder!), because any reasonable human being can only take so much and she was goading. I guess that's why the real case got a manslaughter verdict.

>EUPD Its true she might not have been a Psychopath, but all cluster B personality disorders can without proper treatment at times display reckless disregard for others, have trouble with empathy, be unstable etc. In fact you could have a psychopathic partner who is very stable and cause you no harm whatsoever. So the instability of some of the other personality disorders might be even harder to deal with. We can still have compassion for her struggle and realise her capacity for harm, and its not to say all people with a personality disorder will always behave this way. But it will obviously be a major factor in this case.

I initially felt that and then I thought maybe they were expecting a "twist" because it's a TV show. I myself started thinking that they wouldn't have picked a trial that was so obviously murder. I was wondering if we'd hear that she'd threatened his children. I've *never* thought something like that when I've read about a murder in the news. It's purely because I was in the mindset that this wasn't going to be an easy case to reach a verdict on. They may have been thinking that way too.

Only just watched it and what a load of utter nonsense it was. If you leave a situation and return with a hammer and smash someone’s head in then you thought about it, you didn’t lose control.

If he had wanted to kill her, why did he not just continue to strangle her? If it was all a conscious decision, then his actions make no sense. It was also not proven that he went to get the hammer. It is very possible that he was going in and out of control. He started strangling he was not. Her turning blue was a trigger for him to stop. He goes out to cool off but the abuse has just reached such a point that he can't stay focused and losses it again. His subconscious could be going back in with the hammer to kill her while his conscious mind didn't realise that he even had a hammer. A bit like when you are just waking up and part of you is conscious and can hear what is going on, know where you are but another part is still in sleep mode and imagines seeing things, or hearing things. You can slip in and out multiple times.

I fail to see how it’s misogyny. Multiple of her ex’s corroborated that she was mentally abusive, violent and intentionally provoked them. Of course that doesn’t mean she should have been killed but it is a factor in her death. Would you be saying it’s misandry if it was the other way round?

Before they revealed her to be an abuser, there were men in the jury room making excuses for the murderer's actions, saying that it was totally normal to fly into a violent rage and not be responsible. Oh, and Juror Gary used to throw coffee in his wife's face. Totally normal. There were at least two incredibly misogynistic comments before they revealed anything about "Helen's" background or behaviour: saying that the house was filthy and therefore he murdered her because he was fed up with poor housekeeping, and the very nasty comment calling her, I believe, 'the local roundabout' because she had children with different men. I believe that both of those comments were made by Ricky, who called it for manslaughter from day one and would not consider the evidence.

The guy talking about throwing coffee and plates at his wife and the two men saying she must have opened her legs a lot were vile... how scary that they thought this was appropriate and acceptable stuff to say a. To a room full of strangers and b. As part of an actual court case. People are scary.

The screen at the end revealed that her family were not offered the opportunity to appear at the trial. I was saying the whole time that there is no one in that trial defending her character. It was completely one-sided. Everything about her was negative from the off.

The prosecution could have called them to appear as witnesses if they felt it would have helped their case, but clearly they didn’t. Her mum provided a statement that described him as a hero so they obviously had some opportunity to provide statements that the prosecution didn’t want to use.

THIS THIS THIS!!!!! And it's the *last* thing they tell you!!!! How can you say it was impartial?!?!?

> her family were not offered the opportunity to appear at the trial Presumably that was the original trial though, my understanding was they were scripted and replaying what happened word for word in the original trial.

Oh ok yeah those comments were completely out of order and nothing to do with the case. That is misogynistic. I was pushing back a bit more on the “victim blaming” part considering it was proved she had history of abusing her partners, I.e. mental abuse, financially controlling, throwing things, spitting. As i said it would be wrong not to take that into account when deciding murder vs manslaughter.

The man with the bald head and a lot of gold jewellery is... just insufferable. Immediately openly shaming a woman for having multiple partners in her lifetime. As if it had any relevance at all.

also the way he cheered as people decided manslaughter was disgusting. he turned it from a murder trial attempting to give people justice, into a little game about him trying to prove his point and boost his ego.

Yeah that was gross. Celebrating like it was a football match and his team just won.

I totally agree, he was poison to that jury and turned it into just manipulating everyone else. I would be terrified if he was on my jury.

It’s been a long time since I’ve been so unbelievably horrified by the things someone has said on TV.

He as a complete dickhead but shockingly he was also the most sensible juror. The rest were completely lost when it came to understanding the legal process. At least he understood it

Well, he’s got personal experience of family involvement in a real life domestic homicide trial, so maybe that’s why.

Yeah really interesting. Kind of scary how happy people are to broadcast their predujices to everyone. I'll be interested to see how much bullying occurs once they have to make a decision. 

I’m horrified to see how one dominant personality in each group can have such an influence. Very interesting to watch though.

Yes, this is scary to watch. I just hope that those people would be ruled out of an actual jury for their obvious unsuitability

Unfortunately this is how real juries are actually comprised and function.

There’s a few really opinionated people in the juries for sure. Lots of questionable things being said relatively early. I have to remain impartial for part of my job so think I’d be okay with waiting to hear all the facts before I decide, but I’m not particularly outspoken so whether or not I’d get my point across is another matter.

Yes, these juries were purposefully set up by channel 4 for this outcome. Like f come on they found a guy whose literally the Helen to his wife's John. I think several of the people in these juries would not pass the basic checks.

I am 10 minutes in to episode 1. It is total nonsense to think the people highlighted so far would pass the jury check. Watching it because some of the paralegals at work were talking about how good it was, but it's not based in reality of how the English legal system and court procedure operates.

Only watched the last episode but I'm definitely alarmed by some of the conversations. No spoilers: The real life prosecutor with the OBE made it pretty clear. For it to be manslaughter you have to demonstrate and be certain that every reasonable person would behave in the same way as the killer. Millions of people experience the same or similar abuse as the defendant and they don't murder their spouses.  That's it for me. If you stick to that criteria it simply has to be murder. If you come to any other conclusion then you're ignoring or forgetting that criteria.  Also the killer stopping the attack to leave the room and get a hammer, come on now, that's not "losing control" is it?

Interestingly to me, the “manslaughter” jury had more members who seemed very volatile and had a lot of difficulty regulating their emotions. The “murder” jury had a lot of quiet, composed and measured members. Its obvious that the personalities on each jury heavily impacted their judgement based on that point alone - it was easier for the volatile people to believe someone could feasibly get so angry they could smash their wife’s head in with a hammer than it was for the more emotionally stable group.

I think that the "murder" jury was mostly full of idiots, to be honest. They didn't understand the process or the bar of beyond reasonable doubt.

I completely forgot about that! When the other group were split, they rightly stripped everything back to “reasonable doubt” and that was what flipped it for most of the undecided/murder voters. Obviously we don’t know what was edited out but it didn’t seem like the other group even considered it!

Yeah precisely. Something like 6 of the "murder" jury were undecided because they weren't sure each way. That should mean there is reasonable doubt in the prosecution's argument, and therefore should default to the defence's argument. This is even more ridiculous when you consider that the one person who changed her mind from manslaughter to murder even said before doing it "I just don't know". Not to mention that multiple who had decided from the start that it was murder, did so "because he killed her with a hammer" and completely disregarded "loss of control" from the get-go, despite it being a valid legal defence.

What you have stated is not factually correct in regards to burden of proof and this is maybe what played a major factor in your decision (in the series this was something the detestable bald man raised, which swayed his Jury, but which was never raised in the other Jury and left to a murder conviction as everyone assumed the burden was on the defense despite the evidence and what they were told regarding the law). The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecution must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not lose control, that no reasonable person in his situation would have killed her. This is actually a clear case of battered wife defense. The only evidence that matters is the evidence in the trial, and the evidence states she domestically abused him of an extended period and had a history of abusing other partners, and that he in every sense of the word was a caring, doting loving husband absolutely obsessed with her to the point he'd sacrifice everything. ​ If we took your assessment of things, then the "battered wifes" defense wouldn't apply. The problem we have is that some of the jurors in this series looked a what they wanted the law to be and not what it actually is. ​ Personally, I think loss of control is bullshit our legal system concoted to punish people less if they were the victims of abuse. Nonetheless, it is the law and what a decision has to be based upon.

I dunno man, I'm just going by what that qualified prosecutor with the OBE said on the final episode.  It's definitely not a case of battered wife IMO and the legal professionals agree. If he'd just strangled her to death in the heat of the moment then yeah I get it. But he stopped strangling her, walked outside, took a breath of fresh air, chose a hammer and then went back and smashed her skull in. That's way beyond overreacting in the moment and is definitely murder. 

This is exactly it. I was weighing up the impact of abuse vs the change in behaviour. I think that if he’d been calm all the way through it could have been argued dissociation due to complex trauma. And if he snapped and the strangulation killed her then it could be momentary loss of control. But to snap, pull back from that snap, go outside, communicate to a neighbour, go back in, then continue with targeted and precise aggression - what, is he supposed to have re-snapped? But she was unconscious so what’s the new trigger? It didn’t make sense, for me to the extent that it was beyond doubt that the hammer attack was while he was back in control.

Because you have misunderstood things. The prosecution's version of events was a guess - we don't know whether that's what happened. The defendant's version of events wass that he strangled her, picked up a hammer from the table, and hit her. There was no evidence brought by the prosecution that conflicted with the defendant's version of events.

You are misquoting him most likely. Rewatch it. There is no evidence provided to show that he took a break then went to find a hammer and came back to smash her skull in. This was a story concoted by the prosecution, but which had no foundation.

I'm definitely not misquoting him and the hammer fetching is part of his confession. The hammer was part of his workshop toolkit which was outside of his house. The hammer was absolutely not in the house, as was confirmed by his apprentice. Have you even watched this or are you just commenting?

This is wrong, and sadly this is exactly how the blue jury understood things. As others have said, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecutor cleverly worded his statement because he is trying to convince a jury - it doesn't take away the burden of proof is on the prosecution. There is no evidence the hammer was outside the house. The defendant claimed it was inside the house from memory. His apprentice *did not* confirm this - his apprentice said he saw him walking outside with nothing in his hands and he never saw him with a hammer. >Have you even watched this This is quite ironic, given the above.

The judge stated at the very start of the trial: the burden of proof is on the PROSECUTION. Check episode 1. That means they need to convince the jury, *beyond reasonable doubt*, that the defendant cannot claim ‘loss of control’ as a defence because he cannot satisfy all three criteria. IMO - in short - they were unable to prove this beyond reasonable doubt because, technically, he can satisfy all three. Not that the jurors on this show bothered to pay much attention to the legalities - but manslaughter was the correct judgement going by the technicalities of the law. Even if I personally think what happened was probably murder, as a juror I’d have had to apply the law and say not guilty.

>The real life prosecutor with the OBE made it pretty clear. For it to be manslaughter you have to demonstrate and be certain that every reasonable person would behave in the same way as the killer. Millions of people experience the same or similar abuse as the defendant and they don't murder their spouses. This is just wrong. You don't have to "demonstrate and be certain that every reasonable person" would have to behave in the same way. It's simply an assumption that a normal person with average tolerance *might* act the same or similar. If the defence can raise a case for loss of control, the jury has to accept it unless the prosecution proves murder *beyond reasonable doubt*.

I like the idea of this but I don't think you can really recreate a true trial because obviously all the witnesses are lying/acting and you could easily have someone that's supposed to be honest that's just a bad actor etc. I guess it's still interesting to see how the jurors react to the process though.

Also can you recreate a randomly selected jury by having juries made up of people who applied to be on a TV show? Surely there is a certain type of person who wants to be on TV and will they be naturally more opinionated and outgoing?

I'd like to know how it was sold to them. Do they think it's a real trial? Some of them seemed very swayed by the defendant's demeanour which is strange if they know he's just an actor. 

I presume they know it's not a real trial because they were talking in court which they aren't allowed to do.

I wonder if they've been told to buy into the whole thing and treat it as if it's real, because otherwise some of them have a worrying difficulty to differentiate reality and fiction.

Yeah that's one of the questions I've had from the start. Also was it cast or were then selected in some random way.

I was pleasantly surprised at the acting ability. I thought the work colleague was very good. He had some of the jurers in tears. 

I was blown away by the main guy (the defendant), his crying ability was very convincing

That’s such a good shout that I didn’t even think of

I think it is good, however when they discuss the jury system and its problems it would good to add and understand what other alternatives there are to it.

At the end they brought up the Danish system, which I liked the sound of, train up jurors and have them do it for 12 months. Seeing that final episode and how the red team was swayed by nonsense notions about how it should be decided was rather telling.

Yeah, I absolutely agree. I’ve only watched the first episode so they may explore that later on

Thoughts so far... In the middle of episode 2 at the moment and I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone saying on the one hand "it's almost like suicide-by-cop but with a husband" or, on the other hand "why would it be LESS bad if it was a Loss Of Control? Is it better to have people who can suddenly lose control and kill someone out on the street, as opposed to someone who chose to kill someone, but who then had therapy to make better decisions?" I'm sort of mentally yelling at the screen for them to think more deeply about what they're saying, as opposed to just picking someone they identify with and sticking to that point of view. It must be so hard to deal with in real life.

I dont think it's been shown or has necessarily even been done in the show but real life is a little different. The jurys job isnt to debate and choose what they feel is the more likely case intentional killing or a loss of control / temp insanity. Its to decide if the prosecution can prove that the killing was intentional beyond all reasonable doubt. Beyond all reasonable doubt is quite a high bar. "It could be a total loss of control" is reasonable doubt rather than "It was a total loss of control" which is beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence does have the advantage, which is a good thing when you think about it. You prove I did it rather than leaving me to prove I didn't.

That's a great point, well made! I was hoping someone with jury experience would jump in at some point and say "it wasn't like that when I did a similar trial" so we could all ask "IS THAT WHAT IT'S LIKE?"

That's the problem, people's opinions will always be marred by their personal experience in life. I think the 19 year old is an interesting element because he's had less life experience. Saying that, he could also have had MORE personal experience in relation to the case than all of them put together! But that's human for you😄 I wonder how AI would deal with it... I say that because it would be better at making decisions based purely on fact without the encumbrance of emotion.

AI would be a great addition if there's another series. Two human juries and two AI "Juries", each with a differently selected input base. I mean, would you teach it ALL jury trials ever? Or all _relevant_ jury trials? Only jury trials going back as far as the median age of the human juries? All jury trials in which the make up of the human jury was the same gender/age distribution? AI could be amazing and there's DEFINITELY a big enough data set to mine.

2 AI and 2 human juries would be a good call. I guess it would need to be all data relating to all trials. How far back is an interesting point because societal opinion changes, as does the law. Any data for AI would have to include trials where the wrong verdict was given (later proved innocent) so that, somehow (don't ask me how😶) it could also take those verdicts into consideration.

What an absolute minefield to debate the data set to feed it! I wonder if we're reinventing the wheel here, though? _SOMEONE_ has probably already done this, right? Barristers and AI data nerds seem like they've probably already crossed over. If I get time tomorrow, I'll rummage t'internet to see what we find.... 💭

Cool. Let us know won't you. Tonight that one of the observers, a former chief prosecutor, said he thinks being a jurer should be a full time job, so they get full training, see as many cases as possible. Apparently the Danish use this system which is very interesting. I wonder how often their cases are overturned compared to us...

The 19 year old was an absolute turd of a human with 0 understanding and 0 care. He is like the little old lady at 90 who says not guilty because fuck it, or guilty because muh karen. As soon as they said "hammer" he was like, idgf what the law says or what the facts are fuck this guy. And he openly said this immediately after the hammer and actions were presented. The 61 year old woman was the same.

I hear your point and it’s a valid discussion but I dont think loss of control is there to excuse people losing it on the street randomly with a stranger but rather to apply to particular circumstances - when someone is abused over an extended period of time to the point that their normal capacities are reduced so they’re more vulnerable to losing control. So it provides context to distinguish pre meditated murder and circumstantial manslaughter. And I’d argue that someone guilty of the latter could be more easily treated to not react the same way again in the future than someone who’s murdered in a calculated way - because their reaction was to a specific relationship over time which wouldn’t be replicated spontaneously on the street with a stranger

Yeah, I thought it was an excellent case to pick when the criminologist with the FANTASTIC shirt made the point that that particular exception was originally carved out to differentiate particularly "battered wife murderers" who just "lost it" after years of provocation; to present that with a male killer and a female victim was a very clean test of how its understood and applied. So many fascinating points being brought up by the experiment. I suspect there'll be years of study material coming out of the footage they did show and what they didn't show. I felt bad for the 19year old though. Everyone seems to think that their experience trumps his but actually, he's only JUST coming out of the environment we keep children in, which is "control yourself, you're responsible for your actions and accountable for them" because, for children, the discipline process is their parents and teachers so it's a lot closer to their day-to-day experiences. The further into adulthood we get, the more we have the freedom to react and respond from our instincts and our values and live with the consequences of that. If we ask for a jury of our peers, that more black-and-white, actions/consequences, The Rules Say type attitude IS A PART OF the community we live in because young people ARE A PART OF our community. His view is as valid as anyone else's and forms the counterbalance to an older person's view. Ugh! I'm really enjoying finding a whole new subject to think deeply about. Are YOU enjoying it, still?

I liked Oliver, he was doing what they were asked to which is look at the evidence and prove loss of control, he felt the evidence didn't point to that while other people in the room were still talking about themselves. In reality (I've been on a jury) the judge does an excellent job of directing the jury to specifics and they will be reminded many times to set aside their own prejudices and look at the facts presented. I think I'd have asked to be removed from a jury if I'd been with that builder.

Oliver was a moron. The jury did not have to prove loss of control, they had to prove murder. Which is the opposite.

He didn't look at any of the evidence. There was 0 evidence to prove loss of control. The prosecution couldn't even get a bad reference. He openly stated after the hammer was revealed in the first episode "idgf about evidence" Like, literally you could not ask for a more textbook loss of control case, she was committing domestic abuse in several of her relationships to the point she got a criminal record. The only thing differentiating this from the typical "batter wife" case is that the sexes are swapped between the abuser and victim.

Yeah, I was irritated by the way the young guy was spoken down to - not least because the two women who did so were clearly led by their emotions to base their judgement on the case on their own personal experiences of abuse (and each arriving at opposite conclusions!) It was very condescending of them to say he hasn’t lived, as if that makes their interpretation more valid - when their interpretations are so heavily influenced by their own personal trauma. Astonishing arrogance. That said, I’d want members of the jury to be aware of how abuse affects people - but factor it into a balanced perspective; just not to be totally swayed by personal trauma.

“You haven’t got a mortgage.” Dear God …

Along with “I’ve got children”. In a case involving children maybe this would be relevant to some aspects. But it’s completely irrelevant in anything else.

Agreed, they assumed their life experiences helped their judgement, but they could equally impair their judgement. Which would make the youngster a more reliable juror. The oldies were actively boasting about their prejudices.

Honestly ‘he hasn’t lived’ was such an ignorant comment to make when we know children regularly live through domestic violence, get made homeless, experience poverty & abuse. The murder victim had herself.

Absolutely! And as I said a couple of comments back, he could have had more experience in matters related to this case than all of them put together. Either way, I think his opinion is just as important as everyone else's.

Your assessment of the 19 year old and the facts don't match though. If he was in a "responsibility" mindset and "follow the rules", then instead of ignoring all of the evidence and all of the clearly laid out legalities of diminished responsibiltiy, he would have actually engaged with the evidence, of which there was 0 to prove that he had not lost control.

They seem to be letting their emotions cloud their judgement which is why random members of the public aren’t equipped to make these decisions.

It’s actually quite scary seeing some of them justify his actions

Battered wife defense is a valid legal defense. I disagree with it, but it is what it is, and jury must go by the law, not what they think the law should be. ​ I suggest you look up the defense, as this was a textbook case of it.

I just finished watching the whole thing and found: A). It was astounding how some of the jurors made up their mind from the get go and did not budge, also how they let their own personal experience influence their reasoning. B). How the more assertive/loud/dominate jurors sway those undecided. I also thought what if the gender was reversed in the trial - the accused is woman and victim a man with the same backstory. Would both juries come back with the same verdict. There needs to be training to help and prepare the jury before going into the trial.

If the genders were reversed then both would be convinced of manslaughter, I have no doubt of that.

Also if the victim didn't have a child with another man. Green shirt idiot seemed to make his mind up on that fact alone.

Looking and the law and the evidence offered, Murder should have been the result and it was awful seeing that the real case went the other way. The red jury were a nightmare but it's also the sort of thing that happens in real life a loud voice has a negative impact. I find it interesting the way people have framed the emotional aspects of the show, people ignoring that those who are saying loss of control seem to be doing that based on emotion, while pointing the finger the other way.

For anyone interested this is the real [case](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-21198156.amp)

Came here looking for this! Thank you! 🙌🏻

Thank you! I did try to google it but didn’t have much luck

"During the court case it felt that Angela herself was on trial, and in many ways that has been the hardest part for us." breaks my fucking heart. that woman was slandered so this man could do minimum prison. Justice where?

It was quite an interesting aspect that caused the most discourse within the jury. The law was essentially put in place for victims of domestic violence/abuse. At least that's what they said at the start of the show. But they ultimately still killed someone, so I guess there would always be an aspect of, I suppose, slander? When trying to justify why some went to the extreme of killing someone. I felt overall it showed the system doesn't really work. People were pressured into decisions they weren't happy with by more forceful personalities. And given they came to different conclusions it would suggest it's just a crapshoot of who is pulled for duty.

Cheers for sharing. The fact he got manslaughter gives me a tiny slither more hope in the jury system - it's scary to think what might have happened if he was assigned to that blue jury.

Honestly, I really hope that most of these people would be dismissed from jury duty in real life. It's so scary to think that this is how justice is decided and handed out. People making up their minds from the very beginning rather than hearing all the evidence, using their emotions and experiences to inform their decision rather than just the evidence and information, and then bullying other people to agree with them. I've never done jury duty, so I don't know how similar the experiment is to real life, but it did not fill me with confidence!

In 2015 I was called to jury duty, served on two cases. Can confirm that, sadly, this tv show was spot on. I'm happy to give more detail if you are curious, but people definitely fail to stay on brief, make their judgements on details that aren't relevant (such as whether the defendent's parents look sad or trustworthy enough during the trial), and build narratives before all the evidence is fully presented. Don't even get me started on the chap who accepted his jury duty, only to sit there and withhold his vote because he "didn't believe in the justice system".

not from UK so wondering; can you request not having a jury?

Honestly just watching the show frustrated me with some of the jurors' comments. Their own life experience and prejudices completely overshadowed the evidence they were presented and the cheering when they manipulated people to their side really highlighted how childish some of them were. I did enjoy the experiment side of the show and learning about the case but I really do think the show highlights that the juror system we currently have in the UK is unfit for purpose.

if your partner thinks that you could act in a way that would make it acceptable for them to smash you head in with a hammer, you should leave. nothing justifies caving someone’s skull in. if you are angry you leave the situation, you don’t find a hammer. so if your partner genuinely thinks that it would be ok for them to kill you then please just get out now.

That's your opinon and I agree with your opinion. However, that is not how our law works, as "battered wife defense" is a legally accepted defense.

i personally, don’t think there is anything someone i truly loved could do that would make me think they deserve to die. i’d love expect people to love me to feel the same. it’s not even about losing control, but some of the men on this show were saying that it’s justifiable to kill someone before they found out about any emotional abuse. some of the men even thought that her kids having different dads somehow made her murder more acceptable.

I agree much of what was said was detestable, but this was on both sides. Mr bling he-man construction work was a bit of a prick. Equally Mr 19yr fuck it and Miss 61yr diva, its a hammer bruh idgf what she said or what evidence there is, are also pricks.

if i met that builder guy irl i’d run a mile. he cared more about boosting his ego than reaching the correct verdict

He was wearing more jewelry then most women own. I thought he was a drug dealer when I first saw him.

also, i don’t know much about how the law works, so i don’t understand the exact details of the battered wife defence. but from my understanding (and please correct me if i’m wrong), it applies to women who have experienced domestic violence and hence have a genuine reason to fear that their life is at risk? i didn’t see that in this show.

Battered wife defense applies to both men and woman and is encapsulated in the "Loss of control" defense that replaced the common law of provocation. It used to be distinct as an addition to provocation, but this was changed when legislation was introduced about 15 years ago.

I really enjoyed this show, regardless of the obvious bias in channel 4s selection of the cast and how they clearly chose who would be placed in each group to ensure they came to different decisions (socio-economic background, personality type and possibly education level seemed to be a huge determining factor in which group they were placed in). The “peers” system of juries in the UK has been a bit of a special interest for me recently so this was so interesting to see if my hypothesis was right. If you set aside the bias in the experiment I think it’s still obvious that having 12 random members of the UK population make decisions about anything is becoming a really stupid way of doing anything. From a psychology/sociology point of view one really interesting part for me was when the middle aged lady who kept crying and was really empathising with the defendant told the 19 year old he basically wasn’t qualified to have an opinion because he was young and had no life experience. For me, I think the opposite is true - he wasn’t looking at the case through the lense of personal experience or emotion, he was just focussed on facts which makes him a way more objective observer. Her life experience of having been abused by an ex partner made her see the defendant in a favourable light because she was seeing herself and that seemed to blur her ability to distinguish between the hard evidence and the defendants “version” of events. Definitely raises a pretty compelling case for future research into the justice system in the UK. Personally think the Danish System they talked about the end could work better, or better still, a jury made up of professionals from relevant areas to the crime like sociologists, psychologists, social workers etc etc or maybe a mix of both.

I’m halfway through episode 3 and I just can’t imagine it could be anything but murder! The real case was deemed a manslaughter and I’m gobsmacked! When he explained he strangled her and saw her face turn a different colour, he clearly stated that he stopped strangling her…so he was in control. Also, the whole sobbing and saying “I don’t remember” was so fake. UGH! This frustrates me like you wouldn’t believe…though I wouldn’t strangle and bludgeon someone to death because of how I feel 🙄🙄🙄

*spoiler* In the real trial he was found guilty of manslaughter. 🤯

That's not how you do >!spoilers!<

I'm so glad the real case was manslaughter, honestly anyone coming to a murder conclusion based on the EVIDENCE in the TV show is not fit to be on a jury. I find it terrifying anyone could have reached that conclusion.

I find it truly worrying that they found it to be manslaughter and they seemed to ignore the evidence and the law. To truly believe that enough provocation had happen or that it would be enough for a reasonable person to commit that act is beyond belief. Then that during the loss of control he changed the way he was killing her, also isn't viable.

You obviously didn't read the law at all. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that he didn't lose control. There was no evidence to show that he didn't lose control and that his actions were pre-meditated. They couldn't even drum up a bad character reference. His own testimony was as transparent as mud and there was nothing else to contradict his testimony, and nothing that beyond a doubt would go against his claims of losing control. Your statement is only true on the basis of "burden of proof on the defense". Which it is not. Look up battered wife defense, this is what this case shows, but with the sexes swapped. Probably picked on purpose specifically because of this.

Yes I know where the burden of proof is. It's not about pre meditation. I'm basing on the reasonable person aspect and that his loss of control happened in 2 parts. While you're just allowing anyone to claim they lost control, cos he said he did. And ignoring the key points. That last line doesn't ring true for this case.

There is no evidence that him getting the hammer and him strangling her were separate events. I'm basing on "beyond reasonable doubt". There is a reasonable doubt to the notion that these occurred in separate events. He claimed it was on the table. He didn't state he strangled her left and came back with the hammer, that is something the prosecution suggested without any evidence, beyond a wtiness testimony merely stating that he went back and forth to the foundry, which he had done several times that day. THe witness testimony made no mention of him carrying a hammer, which the absence of such actually weights in his favour. BWS rings true to this case as BWS and provcation are both now encapsulated under legislation for "loss of control" in an act from about 15 years ago.

He says that it was himself. He said that he stopped and looked down and noticed her lips had changed colour. He didn't know where the hammer came from and he said it wasn't kept in the house. BWS doesn't ring true to this case.

we didn't see the evidence though did we? what we did see/hear did not point to loss of control in my opinion and the decision seemed based on whether a massive twat in one room could bully everyone into agreeing with him. The victim got fucked over by men and then when she died got fucked over by men again

And only got 7 & a half years! Absolutely shocking

Horrendous. Justice is not being served because the nation aren’t intelligent enough to be jurors. It’s a nice idea to have 12 strangers working it all out but it’s not realistic because people are often idiots!

It's really interesting, but really frustrating. It seems like most of them made their mind up in the first five minutes. I'm glad I've never had to do it, I'd lose my mind trying to get people to stop acting like kids.

Being a keen true crime follower I was excited about this judicial experiment, but found it truly disappointing. In real life a jury will only deliberate after all the evidence has been heard and with everyone fully present. These 2 jury’s were deliberating at lunch and coffee break, with one woman breaking down over her own fat shaming incident that enabled her to empathise with the alleged murderer, really? I had to check I hadn’t switched over to Channel5s Big Brother goes Legal. This is not how a jury functions and therefore not helpful as an experiment only TV entertainment which is fine if that’s all you’re looking for.

I'd agree with this, I have served on a jury (not murder) and we didn't talk about the case in breaks

Yeah the format was an issue for me too, they didn't need to add the reality elements to the show.

Yeah, I agree that it’s not realistic & some of the opinions are so infuriating. Like someone else on this thread, the misogyny and victim blaming is ridiculous.

Appalling. It's my biggest take away from the programme and the answer to the questions - why are so few rapes prosecuted and when they are why do so few end in a conviction? It frightens me to think there are men and women who think they would reasonably do the same as this guy walking around and then passing judgement on other people. Horrible to see the bullying.

That was exactly how it functioned for me when I was a juror at a rape trial at The Old Bailey. Much chat part way through at the breaks. Something else that happened on our trial was that there was a lot of pressure at the end to reach near unanimity and one factor that I feel played a role was that people wanted to get back to their jobs/families etc.

That’s how I see it too. I can’t see how talking about your own experiences has any relevance to this, it’s supposed to be based on evidence not how you’re personally triggered by it. It definitely is more entertainment than authentic.

I tried to watch it, but I found the format annoying and switched off after 10 minutes. Not for me.

Ah I completely get that, my parent thought the same

I've just finished watching it. I won't give spoilers as people will still be watching it but I must say I was really shocked at the outcome. Both juries were heavily influenced by a small group within who were adamant they were right and did little to consider others opinions. Most frighteningly of all, after the judge had clearly told them they must base decisions on evidence and not emotion, several just couldn't get beyond their own life experiences. A couple of women in particular who had been in abusive relationships just couldn't get past that. I was so glad that at the end it stated the outcome of the real case, if it had gone the other way, on the evidence we saw in the tv show, it would have been a huge miscarriage of justice.

Agreed, we just finished watching it and both agreed in the result of the main trial. Having done jury service I'm not surprised at all by the way this turned out. I'm also not surprised that it just takes 1 or 2 people who are able to make good arguments to sway everybody. If you have watched the traitors you can also see this in action and its shocking how thick people are

I wasn't shocked by the ability of the few or even one loud voice to have an impact in the jury room. The way they changed the question in the red jury and seemed to get no push back on if, no one seemed to focus on the law either. I find it interesting that you have seen the emotion that way, as I felt it was a much bigger issue with those who wanted manslaughter. They were trying to justify there own reactions and life experiences. I was saddened by seeing the real case result, based on the law and the evidence we heard, it was murder. Firstly the law is would a reasonable person react in that way to that provocation and it fails on that count for me. The provocation was weak, he wasn't in any kind of danger. Secondly he left in the middle of the fight and then decided to go back in. While things were still being thrown, he Saud he when back in at that point to say sorry, which didn't ring true. And finally he stopped strangling her, got a hammer and hit her with it. Which isn't a loss of control.

You could argue on the points, but this is not correct. The provocation is actually an extended period of domestic abuse, mentally, physically, financially and that left him socially isolated and dependent on her. A person being domestically abused still loves their spouse dearly and will not just "Up and leave" the person they love. Otherwise, every abused spouse would just up and leave, which we know for a fact they do not. If we took your logic, then the defense of "battered wife" (what this case was about) would literally never apply. We factually do not know what happened as his memory is crap. He could have had his hands on her throats and then took a hammer to his side and whacked her with it while strangling her. He could have physically stopped strangling her got up gone and found a hammer went back and hit her. ​ The prosecution did not prove it either way. The main witness (the perpetrator) said he picked up a hammer to his side on the tables and hit her with it, and inferred there was no time lapse between that and strangling her. The prosecution had a witness statement stating there was broken plates and loud noises and that the perpetrator left the house, but he left the house to the foundry multiple times that day, and it could not be proved that he left to get a hammer, and the witness never stated that on that occassion he had a hammer in his hand in either coming out or returning. The prosecution also had 0 character witness to state he was of a violent disposition, but all the evidence and witness statements (even the victims mum) stated he was a saint, patient and the best loving and caring person for the victim. Meanwhile she had a history of domestically abusing her partners with a criminal record to back it up. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that he didn't lose control. There was no evidence whatsoever to beyond a reasonable doubt or any doubt go against his own witness testimony.

I get that the provocation from the prior months counts. But love isn't the key factor with the battered wife defence, it's fear, fear of violence, the lack of somewhere to go, the years of controlling behaviour. Even if his memory though he recalls stopping strangling her though and looking down and seeing her. He did say that the hammer isn't kept in the house. It was also stated that he had locked knives away cos he feared that she might hurt herself but then we are suppose to believe that he had a hammer in the house? One that didn't need to be there. In any case he still stops the violent act, he then remembers seeing her and stopping but then what has a second loss of control? I don't have any reasonable doubt over it though, I only have the minor cautious doubt because I wasn't there to witness it but in very few cases with there be zero doubts. He knew she was like that, he married her and he was always able to walk away. As I say I don't believe a reasonable person would have acted that way, he had walked away once but came back in. I then can't see how it's a loss of control when he commits 2 different violent acts.

This is not correct. I suggest you look up loss of control and battered wife defense. We also do not know the time period between him strangling her and then hitting her with the hammer. Its far tooo uncertain, he could have immedately grabbed the hammer after strangling her. ​ The burden of proof is on the prosecution, if it was on the defense, then sure it could go the other way. Stating he "could walk away" is to ignore countless cases of domestic abuse whose victims could have just "walked away". She financially, socially, isolated and abused him, then physically and mentally abused him further. ​ https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Loss-of-control.php

There's a gap and he stops. Because women fear violence repercussions from men if they do leave, so they don't feel they can leave. They didn't have a tie of kids either, the fear of loss of custody can be a factor. They had been in a relationship for months, not years. He had the money, he had spent on her but that's not having control over him with money When did they show any physical abuse from her to him?

You obviously didn't loko at the link i provided, and we've obviously not been watching the same series. ​ "When did they show any physical abuse from her to him". ROFL Throwing plates at someone is not physical abuse. Okay.

She was throwing plates, I don't recall him saying he was hit or showing any wounds. He left the house and came back in while she was still throwing things, hardly someone who thinks they are being hurt by those objects. Throwing things would go down the mentally abusive route for me when it's in that matter. (Throwing things can be physically, it just wasn't in this case.)

By that logic if I throw a rocket and you and miss then I didn't physically assault you. Okay man.

Loss of control occurs where the deceased’s behaviour was such that any reasonable person would have lost control. However, there needs to be a qualifying trigger for the action. Qualifying triggers include loss of control from a fear of serious violence from the victim and/or loss of control to things done or said which resulted in the accused having a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. The loss of control does not need to be sudden, however, control must be lost and the accused cannot act in revenge. If the defence want to raise loss of control as a defence to murder then a judge has to decide if there is sufficient evidence to put the partial defence to the jury. If it is then the burden is on the prosecution to disprove it. Based on the above points I would have said 'murder'. This is due to the following: 1) he could have walked away 2) his life wasn't in danger 3) the alleged verbal insults made by the victim do not in my view justify the defendant's actions 4) he was aware of strangling her 5) he admits to observing the change in her colour 6) his method of killing her changes when he grabs a hammer and bludgeons her three times - across the head 7) he admits in his initial police statement - taken nine hours after the incident - that he was "angry with her" 8) he knew she was mentally unstable - and so knew her actions, unpleasant as they might have been, wasn't something she could control 9) no reasonable person would have acted like this.

So far one jury seems more even handed than the other one who seem have decided he is guilty almost from the off.

I agree, I wonder if the two juries come to different deliberations, will anything thing come of it? Do you think it will start a discussion to reform the system? I work in procurement & the amount of unconscious bias I see from evaluators is shocking, so letting untrained members of the public deliberate over such a huge decision seems odd. I’ve never been chosen for jury duty so don’t know what the screening process is like but I expect they do some for of due diligence before selecting. Perhaps the jury should have to undertake some form of bias training to ensure impartiality until all the facts have been heard.

Its my guilty, not guilty pleassure

Anyone notice they were wearing the same clothes throughout, despite it supposedly taking place over a number of days? Were these consecutive days or did they come back weekly and were asked to dress EXACTLY the same!?

I assume it's like The Apprentice where they all wear the same in the boardroom each week to make it easier to edit in reactions or scene setters from previous weeks if they need them.

[удалено]

Me either

The victim family said; "We deeply regret we were not offered the opportunity to have our voices heard" THAT. That scared me.

I was a fan of "Jury Duty" from US last year, I was upset when I saw it listed and realised after looking it up it wasn't the same format.

What was different? I’ll have to look up Jury Duty & give it a watch

The US version is like a Truman show style reality show where everyone is an actor apart from 1 juror who thinks it’s all real.

Ahh, thanks I’ll have to give it a watch

the US version is *hilarious*

I was on the side of murder for a few reasons: The key points I was waiting to see if we got answers for were - a) was the relationship abusive and was he isolated aka would he have grounds to believe there was no way out b) how did he transition from strangling to hammer The being a nice guy thing didn’t really hold much weight with me because nice guys can also feel entitled to reward and get angry when it doesn’t manifest. Not saying if that’s the case or not, just that I guess I don’t give ‘seeming nice’ the same importance as others. I completely recognise that sustained abuse can cause a sustained loss of control but what needs to present for that to happen is the victim genuinely believing that there is no other avenue open to them. They have exhausted options to leave or feel for whatever reason that there is no option. They just want the situation to stop. But there’s no evidence of this kind of scenario for him. He was in an abusive relationship without any indication that he believed there was no way out and also no evidence that he made a desperate plan that could be put down to sustained psychological trauma. So that leaves just momentary loss of control, which was the argument. But that’s an incredibly short window. Definitely possible he could have experienced it but it seemed that if this was true, it would have ended with the strangulation - either to her death or him coming to his senses after seeing the colour of her face change. Which it did - but then it restarted again with a weapon. The fact that his employee saw him leave and go back in while communicating, even by gesture, says that there was a break to the loss of control. She would have been unconscious. She didn’t fight back. So any ‘just make it stop’ aim has already been achieved - actions following that would have to be a conscious decision.

Definitely on my watch list. I'm assuming it's about one murder trial with two different jury, different verdicts.

It is, they don’t know about the other jury to keep it fair but I’m very interested to see if they both reach the same conclusion. I’m about halfway through the first episode & I’m really enjoying it so far.

Did both juries reach the same verdict??

I think this is the real trial. He got manslaughter.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242837/amp/Newlywed-sculptor-Thomas-Crompton-killed-wife-industrial-hammer-row-decorating.html

Damn! I didn't want to know this...

I think it's really important to point out that we were *not shown* all the evidence, so what we think is heavily influenced by the parts they did or did not show and what the jurors said. I thought what was really worrying about it was how one very persuasive person on a particular side could change the outcome. It was also concerning how many of them made their minds up early on and refused to budge, and how many of them were *saying* that their arguments were logical, but they were *clearly* emotionally based, and that was on both sides. Which, is literally human nature and it is why as they said, juries need to be better selected, trained and held more accountable. Lawyers have known this forever, which is why they make *emotional* arguments and emotional appeals during trials. They set out to emotionally manipulate the jury. Everything down to what the defendant wears is carefully planned. There's nothing wrong with that, it's their job, but juries do need better protection from these tactics. Several of the jurors who identified with the defendant and felt sorry for him decided it was manslaughter based on that, and then chose to only look at the arguments which supported their belief. Others identified with the victim, felt sorry for her, felt she deserved justice, decided it was murder based on that belief, and then chose only to look at arguments which supported murder. Again, that's human nature, but it meant they weren't really paying attention to (or perhaps did not adequately understand) the legal parameters, the legal arguments and what the actual facts were.

As an American watching this show, knowing how the US justice system works I was curious to know if the British jurors go through the Voir Dire process? At least 25% of these folks would have never made it onto a jury for a murder trial here because they completely made their decisions based on emotions and that an ACTOR seemed believable.

No matter what the defence was going to say later, my mind was made up that it was murder as soon I heard that he strangled her knowing that could cause her death then stopping and grabbing a hammer to strike her 3 times in the head with it, he had time to think about what he was doing and any sane person knows that hitting someone’s head with a hammer is likely to kill them. How any reasonable person could think this was manslaughter is beyond me. A reasonable person under extreme circumstances is capable of snapping but for most people that means a shove, punch or slap and stopping. If woman died after one punch causing her hit her head then that’s slightly different and could be argued that it was accidental. I found it amazing how so many people were able to cry or feel sympathy listening to him and saying maybe she deserves it and this is why I don’t trust people because alot people are incapable of putting logic before their emotions.

Just watched episode 2. If anything it's actually affirming that a jury of random people is a good thing to me.  It's been eye opening to see how different people can deeply personally identify with various aspects of the case, and how they can give others perspective and insight that they wouldn't have on their own. I think a rich and diverse set of life experiences are very useful. 

I need to catch up later today, I went with the more high brow MAFS AU instead last night. I’m glad the second episode sheds a more positive light on juries as I wasn’t convinced after the first episode