The Trial

Excellent, I'm not that well versed in the logistics of a trial, never having done jury service, so I liked the novel mix of fact and fiction setting out the procedure involved. I will continue to watch with interest, over several nights I believe.

Thankfully I haven't had to do jury duty but I really enjoyed it

there used to be a lunchtime programme with a real jury called Crown Court ,many years ago .Is this similar ?

I think that Crown Court had a real jury, but weren`t the judge and barristers actors? In this the judge, barristers and jury are real. I found it very interesting, but haven`t made my mind up yet as to guilty or not guilty.

I too am not sure... at the moment I m coming down on not guilty The acting is very good Callgirl

I've recorded it but wonder if I'll ever get round to watching it.

I was thinking innocent until his ex-wife gave evidence, but maybe she`s a red herring?

There's another similar thing starting on freeview channel 66 on Sunday night at 10 ..... I shall be watching that too
Yes ex wife thrown a bit of a spanner in the works.... although I am wondering about the other boyfriend or even if she was seeing someone else she seemed a bit promiscuous from her lifestyle

I would hate to be sitting on a jury with a case such as this having to make what is going to be a very crucial judgement. I've veered between innocent and I'm not so sure, given the ex wife's testament.

Well now we have another possible suspect what do you think to the boyfriend?
I too am so thankful I ve never had to do jury service as I d never manage a decisive decision that could put an innocent man behind bars
What if she was carrying on with a third person both of them seem credible
I m surprised more people arent watching
It's very well acted I think

I've always enjoyed court case programmes and movies very much. This has been brilliant in showing how hard it can be for a jury to decide. Barristers are very clever at persuading people - so you keep changing your mind depending on the last one you listened to.
Looking forward to the final episode.
Either the husband did it or the boyfriend did it. Both were capable.
Shall we take a vote?
Husband.

I think this is excellent and am totally hooked. The fact that Carla was planning to go to Scotland for 6 months and had not included her husband speaks volumes, I think, and the jury seem to have forgotten the neighbour who saw him standing in the garden when he said he'd stayed with his wife's body until the ambulance arrived. There is no doubt about her testimony whereas there IS doubt about the young man out jogging who possibly identified the boyfriend.

Yes, the boyfriend did hit someone 16 years ago, but had no record of assaulting/abusing women. Those emails the husband sent Carla were vindictive and full of hate, and he has assaulted her before ... and also his ex wife.

I think the husband did it. What does everyone else think?

I find this program very absorbing and cant wait to find out the verdict tonight. Lets hope we have more of this kind of thing in the future. It gets your brain thinking which is more than can be said for some programs!!!

I think it's too obvious to be the husband he's hard faced, downward mouth, not very attractive rather mean looking and has a history of minor abuse losing his temper when exasperated The boyfriend is much more attractive with a fairly open face and comes over much better although he has had a more major aggression to his past which accounted for him losing his job.... however the husband was at the scene whilst the boyfriends link to the scene was more tenuous The husband is adored by the daughter so must have been a good dad and any domestic violence in the relationship not put her against her dad
I don't think if I was on the jury I would think it was clear cut enough to send a man down
I thought the retired health visitor was well out of order bringing her friends death into the equation .I think the office manager made her mind up he was quilty before she heard any evidence
I think the jury will find him guilty but will we ever know if they are right or not

Yes we will know, because after the verdict tonight they are going to show a short film to show what really happened.

It's possible the jury won't reach a verdict on which they all agree because they all have opposing views and it has to be unanamous.

I have found it fascinating especially watching the barristers and the way they work. I hope they do a series of these.

The thing is, BlueBelle, that in real life there are no red herrings or things being "too obvious", only in fiction. The jury just has to look at the evidence only.

The health visitor talked about her friend's death and the ex soldier talked about his wife having an affair and having to cope with similar - so she is very much against the husband and the soldier is on the husband's side. One of the barristers said that the whole point of having a jury of 12 is that each person brings their own personal experiences into their judgement. The young lad with acne will not have had much life experience unless he has come from an abusive home background himself.

I'm really looking forward to tonight. I agree with others' comments in that I really do hope they do a series of these.

I was right!

Yes I was wrong, ah well that figures I picked two husbands that turned out to be nasty so I ve obviously got no good radar for villains Lol
Really enjoyed it and really brings it home how many bad uns get away with murder and maybe how many good people are innocently in jail

I didn't necessarily think he was innocent just that I (personally) wouldn't feel I was sure enough to send him down which I guess is how most of the jury felt hence the no verdict

I suppose in real life he would then have to face a different jury. How many times would that happen .... say the next jury did the same ? Would it go on until a jury made a decision or would it collapse ?

Well that was a surprise, I too had veered on the side of innocent, obviously in tune with the majority of the jury. I would have found it very difficult to conclusively say one way or the other on the evidence provided. In real life I would like to know how many juries would follow with that end result, I believe there is something different in Scotland a "not proved" verdict.

I found it compulsive viewing and thought it gave the viewer a good insight into the workings of a trial by jury.

I wavered between both. My problem was that I thought the verdict had to be beyond reasonable doubt and I wasn't convinced that the prosecution had done that. I would not make a very good juror!!

It was interesting last night when we were finally told what happened and how the jury voted, that 4 women found him guilty, and they were all women who had had experience of abusive relationships - either personally or, in the case of the health visitor, with her patients and her work colleague. The young lad was very naïve and said something like "Well, he said he loved her, why would he kill her?" The men didn't seem to register the violence.

Like you, BlueBelle, I have picked bad husbands but after some very good counselling years ago I learned to recognise how I was abused, and my experiences have finely tuned my radar!!

I was thinking innocent, then wavered a bit when the ex-wife gave evidence, but finally decided on guilty when he took to the witness stand, he just seemed so cold and unfeeling. My daughter thought innocent.

Had to skim to the bottom of this thread as I am only up to part 3 on catch up so don't know the outcome yet.

I have already changed my mind ten times, but my gut instinct is saying innocent.

O and I I can't bear that "know it all" big mouthed, woman on the jury. She seems so prejudiced.

I have just watched this - all the episodes - on catch up. I thought it was very well done - it was impressive.

I have to say that I would have said Not Guilty - not because I did not think the husband might not have done it, but because I could not see that the prosecution had provided enough evidence that he had - beyond reasonable doubt. That is their job and I did not think that they had done it.

I was very shocked that the jury brought in so many personal issues - we know that juries will be swayed by their own life experiences but for it to be so overt was a bit worrying. And at least two jurors said that they could "read" people and they would know who was guilty by looking at them - hmm.

I found the defence barrister a total pain - a poser.
I hope that I never have to sit on a jury. I was always exempt when I was at work; but I guess that now I am retired I could be called.

A good piece of TV I thought.