|
Post by beverley61 on Mar 1, 2024 9:20:49 GMT
Well they split and I'm not surprised that man Gary bullied people in the jury room. I think many of them brought their own life grievances to the fore and just couldn't be dispassionate about it. I mean how does not being able to see your child after splitting up with your pregnant girlfriend have any bearing at all on what was being said in that courtroom but the bus driver couldn't move past his own feelings of being hard done to be a woman.
There must be compromise often in jury verdicts but I do think that in the manslaughter verdict more pressure was put on people to change their minds. The foreman was useless on that jury.
I understand her family have commented and said that they felt that Helen was put on trial throughout the court case and not John and they have always felt that it was wrong that they weren't able to provide character witness statements are talk about John and things he had done. They said Helen had a difficult life but her family loved her and her children loved her and they still miss her.
|
|
|
Post by marion on Mar 1, 2024 10:23:42 GMT
I haven’t watched the finale but the family were right, Helen was put on trial. So was it two split decisions then? God, I hope they don’t do a televised retrial!!!!! I for one shan’t be watching it. What was the verdict in the real life case, are we told?
|
|
|
Post by technicolour on Mar 1, 2024 11:04:39 GMT
I don't know if it was cut, but surely in the real trial the judge would have emphasized the difference in law between manslaughter and murder and that this is the point they should consider. It was all 'what type of man' he is. I got the impression a less "likeable" man in exactly the same circumstances would have been judged differently by some of that jury.
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Mar 1, 2024 12:24:55 GMT
What we didn't see was the judge summing up the case. We just saw him directing them to go and consider their verdicts. In the real case he would have done this and perhaps he gave the jury a steer in that case which is why it was missed out.
In real life he got manslaughter with a sentence of 7 years to be able to apply for parole after 3 years 9 months. He had probably done 12 months on remand anyway so that is effectively 2 and a half years from that point and probably moved into an open prison almost immediately.
You are correct of course, if the accused was like Gary off the jury they may have thought differently about it, but they still have to use the evidence and for me, arguing, losing it and trying to strangle her then leaving the property before coming back to beat her to death with a hammer was murder. It was the going away and coming back that did it for me.
|
|
|
Post by technicolour on Mar 1, 2024 14:01:09 GMT
100% agree
|
|
|
Post by marion on Mar 1, 2024 15:00:59 GMT
I was disgusted by the red jury members in the green shirt and yellow jumper, and a bit annoyed by leopard print dress as well. They seemed to regard it as a power play, more interested in getting everyone to bend to their will rather than giving the correct verdict. When Ricky (green sheet) pumped his fist when someone changed their mind, I was pleased at least one person called him on it. What a toxic sh*t he was, totally blaming a “difficult” woman for provoking a good bloke. Victoria (yellow jumper) was also a bully and leopard print made snide comments all the way through about those who didn’t agree. It would have been worth voting murder just to piss them off (joke!). You can just imagine the likes of Ricky discussing a sexual assault… “yeah she must have been asking for it”.
They do say, don’t they, that if we were the same as the US and had Murder 1 or 2 options, the jury would tend to go for Murder 2. Well that’s a theory I read anyway about why we don’t have it. In a way this jury knew that whatever they did, this guy would go to prison because manslaughter was the only other option. There was no Not Guilty option. I think that gave them a cushion.
I think it is difficult to say he lost control because he broke off and got the hammer. If he had just carried on strangling her and left it at that, he would have had a better case imho. I don’t think the legal definition of loss of control was explained clearly enough. It’s not just being very angry, losing your temper etc that these sexists on the jury were talking about. I could lose my temper and stab someone but that’s not loss of control. Well unless I started talking about a cloud coming down and claiming I couldn’t remember…. Exactly what happened in this weeks Law and Order actually. They guy in that cried a lot too, but apparently had Havana Syndrome, something I had never heard of.
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Mar 1, 2024 15:29:02 GMT
Totally agree and I would go for jury selection in this country. I would reinforce that with jury training.
You would get called and do a week of paid training, visit courtrooms, have case studies, decide verdicts etc. During that week they could also assess the level and ability the potential jurors have in processing language and their level of concentration, they could also be watching out for obvious misogynists, racists, radical anything including feminists. Possibly after the week's training they could also whittle out people who had clearly had a difficult life or carried grudges by what they disclosed in case studies. Hopefully at the end of it they would have a bank of 12 pragmatic sensible reasonably balanced people ready to go on a real jury. The people left out wouldn't need to know they'd just think no case came up in the timescale. Say training in January and on-call for a jury for 12 months.
Or maybe they just tell them you're not suitable and here is why.
|
|
|
Post by kakewalk on Mar 1, 2024 17:16:25 GMT
I agree. And I also agree with your assessments of the verdict and juries on this. Some people were heavily biased as that is so wrong.
One of the talking heads described being a juror as an actual job, and it truly is, given the responsibility and need for utter impartiality. My preference would also be to be called up for full year with a month or so training, and then sitting on any number of cases in the following 11 months. I think it was either Norway or Sweden that does that now.
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Mar 1, 2024 19:28:29 GMT
They do it in Denmark but it's not as straightforward as it sounds in terms of inclusion criteria and is almost a local govt job. Some have criticised this and said that nobody questions the govt prosecutors anymore.
So I don't think something official like that would work. More a, you've been called to do jury training after that you might be called up if we need you. The authorities would have a list of trained jurors in their database that they could randomise for upcoming court cases.
|
|
|
Post by kakewalk on Mar 2, 2024 0:36:21 GMT
Oh yes, Denmark. I always forget that’s up there too! You’re probably right about the year-long commitment. I must say, small businesses would struggle to lose an employee for that long too. But I like the idea of giving people a training course and then be ‘on call’.
|
|
|
Post by kakewalk on Mar 3, 2024 2:35:54 GMT
Did anyone else watch the two part documentary on ITV this week about the British Airways pilot who in 2010, bludgeoned his wife to death and buried her body a good distance away. In many ways it was practically identical to the murder in this experimental trial. Much like the genuine defence in the channel 4 show, this pilot’s defence was “loss of control” and the jury ultimately found him guilty of only manslaughter.
This pilot not only killed his wife with a hammer striking her 14 times, but he’d dug a large hole over a series of many trips to the back of beyond (in Windsor Great Park) dragged a large and heavy garden storage box (looked like one of those plastic shed substitutes you can use to store spades and things), dumped her body in it and covered it in earth. He even called the police himself. The documentary stated that the judge could barely believe the verdict and sentenced him to 26 years, but because it was not a murder conviction he was eligible for parole later this year. The family of the murdered woman mounted a campaign to overturn the sentence which (only on Wednesday this week) was successful after government intervention. If I understood it correctly, they actually overturned the verdict and he became convicted of murder. It stressed just how complex a case like this is and how the ordinary man on the street should not be put in the position of having to decide on something like this.
|
|
|
Post by marion on Mar 3, 2024 9:30:36 GMT
I read about that case, a shocking result really given his preparation. They probably had a Ricky on the jury making excuses for him, because he was a good bloke driven to it… Bah. Humbug.
|
|
|
Post by kakewalk on Mar 3, 2024 12:10:18 GMT
Just what I thought too Marion.
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Mar 3, 2024 12:26:55 GMT
And put his wife on trial just like the one we saw.
I didn't see it but I presume the loss of control was the beating with the hammer. The rest would be considered trying to conceal a body.
The jury probably thought he'd lost control initially, then pulled himself together and planned how to dispose of her body. Two separate actions. He then couldn't cope with what he had done phoned the police.
It's a tricky one because concealing/ disposing of a body is a short sentence or fine.
The judge obviously saw through him on the stand and gave him the maximum for manslaughter, 26 years.
|
|
|
Post by linseed on Mar 3, 2024 12:41:35 GMT
I watched the first episode but not the second, so quite happy with this summary.
|
|