Printable version of thread

Click here to view this topic in its original format

BuzzJack Music Forum _ Television _ The Trial: Murder in the Family

Posted by: Klaus 20th May 2017, 09:52 AM

QUOTE(The Guardian)

Channel 4’s latest TV experiment The Trial: A Murder in the Family starts from a fictional premise – Simon Davis is on trial for the strangulation of his estranged wife, Carla. But the alleged killer is prosecuted and defended by real QCs (Max Hill and John Ryder) in a courtroom presided over by a genuine retired judge, Brian Barker. The dozen peers deciding Davis’s fate are members of the public, hearing evidence from experts and witnesses who are a mix of actors and members of the public.

Basically a fictional scenario played out in the court as if it were real, allowing for a real examination of all parts of a UK Court trial! This includes an inside look into the jury deliberations!

Starting on Sunday 21st May, it will air for five nights at 9pm on Channel 4. Should be really interesting, especially in regards to the jury deliberations which people aren't allowed a look into in a real life case.

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st May 2017, 09:41 PM

An interesting first episode. I look forward to the rest of it.

Posted by: Silas 21st May 2017, 10:33 PM

I hope to catch up on this later in the week. Looked really interesting from the trailer.

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd May 2017, 10:53 PM

This has continued to be gripping. I love the way the scriptwriters keep throwing in another twist making it hard to tell what the jury's verdict will be.

Posted by: common sense 24th May 2017, 07:29 AM

I think with the boyfriend a possible suspect, although he must have been ruled out by the police for the CPS to charge hubby, there'll be "reasonable doubt" and he'll be found not guilty.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th May 2017, 09:45 AM

That's an interesting point. I wonder if one of the jurors will mention it and whether that swings the jury towards a guilty verdict.

Posted by: common sense 24th May 2017, 03:20 PM

You could be right. Hadn't thought of that actually.

We'll get the verdict tomorrow and then a short dramatisation of what really happened, to see if they got it right or not. The producers decided on guilty or not guilty and filmed that bit first without telling any of the jury.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th May 2017, 08:19 PM

Does anyone know whether the jury have seen more "evidence" than we have seen, i.e. something more closely resembling a real trial?

One of the most interesting things abut the programme has been the very calm demeanour of the barristers questioning the witnesses. Most courtroom dramas show some fairly aggressive questioning of witnesses but we haven't seen any of that.

Posted by: Klaus 31st May 2017, 02:17 PM

Some interesting thoughts coming out of that final episode...

Have to say that I am slightly disappointed that they weren't able to reach a decision but there's not much that can be done about that. I'll admit that I was certainly going back and forth between who I thought was guilty but, looking at the actual evidence, there was a lot there for a guilty verdict. I think there were two factors that went in favour of the defence, one was that the defence barrister was so much better than the prosecution, his closing statement was incredibly influential. The other factor is that I think they played too much on the 'reasonable doubt' aspect and, in fact, the law isn't really 'beyond reasonable doubt' anymore, it is more 'satisfied so you feel sure'. While doubt SHOULD be a factor n deciding the verdict, I think if there is a case with no doubt, then the defence haven't done their job sufficiently. In the end, with all the evidence gathered up, the evidence surrounding the current partner was way too circumstantial and they were purely relying on a jogger who thinks they passed him in the area. There was no photographic or say DNA evidence that he was there and even if he was, it doesn't let the ex-partner off the hook e.g. it doesn't mean he would kill her. The time difference in phone calls and DNA evidence on the back of the neck is a really strong basis for a case. I was really shocked that the 8-4 decision was actually in favour of not guilty!

The final few points of the 4 who said guilty being women was an interesting fact but, I think there is also a danger in the way it was putting across that message that suggested every ex-partner who may be on trial will be guilty. It is definitely an issue that needs addressing and needs more attention but I think, on the other hand, it is difficult to do so without influencing people.

I think it was an interesting look into jury deliberations and how 12 random lay people must come together to decide on the fate of one person they have no clue about.