The Jury: Murder Trial S0-S2

Bon film !

Bon film !

Bon film !

Bon film !

source: The Jury: Murder Trial

I appreciate that the intention of this program was to determine whether two independent juries could come up with two different results. However, surely the experiment needed more control procedures to try and reduce (elimination not being possible) the impact of factors that would not be present within the original trial. What I felt was that the experiment showed how two groups of differing people could come up with different results based upon interaction that would not be present within the court and trial system. The fact that the people chose to go on a TV program, rather than the non optional reality of being put on jury duty, also shows that ego and playing to the camera were very present factors. I appreciate that the real pressure of being on jury duty could not be replicated, but the process and procedures could have been better simulated. For me it was an interesting experiment but value degraded to make it a more watchable program.

Was good watch over 2 nights, enjoyed the arguments but wasnt really anything that stood out and gripped us. If they were to do another one i would watch. The biggest flaw was due to the heavy editing that happens through it you can tell there are key moments and convosations that are missed and this is bery obvious watching. The best thing about it i would say is the actors playing victims and wintness's they do an amazing job of making the court room look and feel as real as possible. The one thing it was missing is i would of love to have seen the 2 jurys mix at the end and talk about decicions they made.

Of course, C4 can never just show something trashy for entertainment, so this is therefore an 'experiment' supposedly showing how the dynamics of a jury work. Yet it is in two respects completely unrealistic. First, the juries were obviously not selected randomly but in accordance with 'BBC diversity'. Actually the white blokes included are middle-aged white van men, and the whole thing seems set up as a deliberate microcosm of the culture wars. And second, they may reproduce the words spoken in the real-life trial, but what they can't reproduce (of course) is the general impression made by the witnesses - and, as the jurors' comments make clear, *that is what they mainly go by*. Did the real defendant have such mother-me eyes? Did he burst into tears quite so much? We don't know. Yer man gives it his all, though, I must say that. Indeed it is clear that most people made up their minds pretty early on, and did this according to their existing prejudices. Two eps in, we haven't really seen any discussion, as such, at all; those who hold minority views are keeping quiet. Almost nothing that anybody has said - and least of all the barristers who are paid so much to present a case - has actually had any bearing on how it should be judged. Any fictional defence lawyer, Saul Goodman or Kim Wexler say, would rapidly have made mincemeat of the prosecution's feeble efforts. So if the show proves one thing, it is that people don't decide things on reason. But we already knew that... Curiously, and in contrast to TV whodunnits, there has been very little focus on the actual MO of the killing. Yet this seems of crucial importance. The guy, having already strangled the woman, and not sure if she is already dead, then finishes her off with a big club hammer that happens to be handy. Why reach for that at all, if the strangling was just 'loss of control'? And okay, he's a sort of blacksmith, but what is the hammer doing on the kitchen table? Nobody in the juries has spotted this anomaly. I suspect him of a pre-meditation that would invalidate the 'loss of control' defence - for whatever that was ever worth. ETA: no change in the last ep, in which the juries had to decide their verdicts: every single person went by their general impression of the guy and the case, as seen through the lens of their own previous experiences; not by the specific facts of the killing which were the only things relevant. Added to that, we saw those with minority views in both juries cave in fairly rapidly to the social pressure to agree with the others, in spite of having been apparently adamant in their original opinions. One or two of these seemed to feel they'd been cheated, when they realised there was another jury that had returned the contrary verdict and that therefore their own previous views were defensible. But they had no-one to blame but themselves and their lack of backbone. All in all it was pretty depressing, whether considered as illustrating how the jury system works or its wider implications about how beliefs form and spread in society. Interesting, but not exactly fun.

This, to me, seems to be false. Why are they wearing the same clothes for a week or more? They must be uncomfortable at least. There is a lack of real diversity in both juries and . They seem to have made their minds up at the beginning. The juries forgot that the defendant is an actor and took what he said and displayed emotionally as fact without questioning it. (Yes I know it's dramatised) WHY is there a lump hammer in the kitchen? The jury failed to question this at all. Most artists keep their equipment where they work. Not in the kitchen All in , disappointing. Could do better next time-if there is a next time!