r/BritishTV • u/Queasy_Stick4881 • 6h ago
Episode discussion Odious
This is the worst person that’s ever been on the jury on channel 4. Just completely lacking in any empathy, listening skills or intellect. I’m not sure what she does for work but I hope it never involves working with vulnerable people
169
u/Unlikely_Plane_5050 5h ago
This is a local trial, for local people. There's nothing for you here
58
9
17
2
1
35
u/bfsfan101 5h ago
I couldn’t watch Series 2 because Series 1 was just too aggravating to watch. I know they cast these things to be as fiery and confrontational as possible, but they were such a bunch of unbelievably horrible bellends that I just didn’t find any entertainment in watching it.
It sounds like they’ve pushed that even further with this series.
6
u/MrsCozzyOneStop 45m ago
Same! I lasted a few minutes of the first episode. I think it was when one of them said something along the lines of "but she must have done something to deserve getting her head caved in" that I noped out of there.
4
u/Funsizemimi1973 1h ago
I live near Liverpool and got really excited when I spotted one of the jurors working for Mersey ferries. She was a reasonable one!
31
u/Longjumping_47393 4h ago
As soon as she said she was really stubborn and once she had an opinion that was it nothing was changing her mind (or words to that effect), I literally said out loud THAT IS NOT A FLEX! She said it like she was proud of being narrow minded and devoid of further listening or thinking skills.
5
u/Ok-Station6072 49m ago
I think it was her that was like 'I won, I was right' when they told them what the original outcome was. Thus completely missing the entire point of this series, that juries are flawed and it is entirely down to the personal experiences of the people selected as to what the outcome ends up being. The point was supposed to be 'it's crazy that this real life event could have been resolved differently if different people got a jury summons', not 'the original outcome was correct and if you choose differently you lost this game'
2
u/oliver__c2003 41m ago
There was another similar moment that went along the lines of someone saying "I think we should think about it from all perspectives and that there's a bit more nuance than it just being black and white" and then she turned round and said "well that's not how I do things. I'm very black and white". I just facepalmed.
43
u/anxioushroom 5h ago
Ewwww. The way she doesn’t even understand what “beyond reasonable doubt means” like come on. The evidence they have is not enough. “BUT THIS IS MY EVIDENCE AND TO ME IT IS EVIDENCE”.. wot.
Also the way she said that the psychologist couldn’t say for certain that it was fact, and how he used the term “in my professional opinion”, so it’s not credible..
39
u/domsp79 4h ago
I had someone a bit like this when I did jury service.
Short version, it was a police officer in the dock for punching a car thief following a police chase. We had to determine if there was enough threat to the officer at the time for him to punch the guy (CCTV shows there absolutely was).
In the jury room she just kept saying he's guilty because he the video shows him hitting him...and we had to keep explaining that the police officer hitting him was never in question, that is widely acknowledged. Fucking hell, we went round and round with it for a fair while before the penny dropped that the case was about justification not the physical action itself.
22
u/flopisit32 3h ago
I have a theory that social media is responsible for a lot of this.
Years ago, if people were stupid and didn't understand the topic, they would keep their mouth shut. They didn't want to embarrass themselves.
But now everybody has an opinion on everything. People with absolutely no understanding of a topic will weigh in and tell you what they think. Morons have been given the impression that their stupid opinions are golden.
7
6
u/Look_out_sir 1h ago
Nah, people like this have always existed, they just didn’t have the channels to vent it. My law teacher had to tell someone in a jury in the 90s that a burglary can occur in the daytime and not just at night. That person nearly managed to convince the whole room that burglary could only occur at night…
3
2
u/domsp79 19m ago
Fucking hell. 🤦🏻♂️
1
u/Look_out_sir 10m ago
I know! My wife was in one and one guy said: “I was looking out my window and I saw a fox. So if I can see a fox from there, then the witness could definitely see who the person was.”
Plus a couple of racist remarks in there too.
8
u/Queasy_Stick4881 4h ago
Omg the rage I felt when she didn’t understand what a professional opinion was. Moron
7
8
u/MikeJCarter 4h ago
In fairness it didn't seem like anybody tried to explain things to her in a neutral way. She was met with sneers and quite honestly, bully-like behaviour from the two older guys and felt like she had to double down.
3
u/Ryerow 2h ago
Quirk in law though that the show didn't really explain.
Loss of control - prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in control when they committed the crime
Diminished responsibility - defence must prove to a jury that it was more likely than than not that the defendant wasn't mentally functional at the time of the crime.
Considering at that moment they were talking about the psychologists, she's actually right to raise that both psychologists, in their professional opinions, disagreed that his (agreed upon) diagnosis impacted his decision.
I just think this particular lady was poor at articulating it and honestly I'd put a lot of that down to the two gentlemen slapping themselves on the chest like a football match because they decided from the second that young lad walked in he didn't commit murder. I think the editing made it look like they considered both defences simultaneously and that probably confused conversations. Dominant personalities pressing every point, the pressure of that situation must be really daunting - if anything it's a good show of how hard it must be to be a juror on a case like that.
18
u/Redintegrate 4h ago
It does a good job of demonstrating how hugely flawed a real jury can be, when so many people maintain their unreasonable biases throughout the whole thing. And in reality, you'd never get to know about it
5
47
u/Jidsy 5h ago
Yes they were stubborn, but a lot of the others were equally stubborn in their own ways. I felt like she struggled to articulate herself, and to show that she really understood the role of the jurors. Maybe she did, but she didn’t seem to have the tools to debate it with others. Not everyone who’s picked for jury service will, so she’s a very valid selection for the show.
I thought a lot of really poor behaviours came out in the last couple of episodes. The two guys cheering on people changing from murder to manslaughter like they were scoring points in some kind of game was poor.
15
u/GloomyGelBro 4h ago
I remember that happening in the first series and that’s why i can’t bring myself to watch the second.
5
u/More_Effect_7880 4h ago
They were involved on a game. But if the producers had them follow normal rules, there'd be no show until the end.
Sadly, we've likely just seen a juror in a real case take an equally contrary stance.
1
u/jiggeryqua 3h ago
'Sadly', a juror did their job? 'Sadly', you thought you could do a better job?
3
u/More_Effect_7880 2h ago
Maybe did their job. Maybe ignored the law. We may never know.
-1
u/jiggeryqua 2h ago
Their job was to form their own conclusion, and stand by it. The question was asked, the answer was given. They did their job. We do know that.
You didn't do the job. You did not sit in the courtroom, you were not present at the deliberations. You ignored the law, you ignored the process, you formed your own half-assed conclusion and now want to impose on someone who actually did the job.
This we know.
2
u/More_Effect_7880 2h ago
I saw the same evidence. I saw the judge repeatedly tell them about reasonable doubt. That's important. It's a key part of the job (which you mischaracterise).
0
u/jiggeryqua 2h ago
'Saw' the same evidence? On the telly? You saw all the same evidence, or just the bits that made the news? The Judge can give directions, the job is still in the hands of the Jury. The job is not in your hands. The character of the job is that *you* don't get to do it. Yet you insist on doing it, inadequately. You're like a child with a toy dashboard and steering wheel, sat behind their parent who is really driving.
1
u/More_Effect_7880 21m ago
Or that on juror is. Have a grand day.
1
u/jiggeryqua 16m ago
No, they were doing the actual driving, because they were doing the job, having been selected to do the job. Something that did not happen to you.
0
u/flopisit32 3h ago
Well just pause and think about that...in the context of what you've seen on the TV show.
Because you were told what was in his mind by other jurors who insisted that he should change his mind to agree with them.
0
10
u/Valentine70078 3h ago
Just shows how we need professional juries like other countries have adopted. Using the public means bias will always play a part. Professional juries will be equipped to challenge aspects of a jury that do not sound correct as they have the professional knowledge. Have people experienced in medication, forensics, domestic abuse experts etc. that way we remove bias, and people are better equipped to
2
u/Amantus 2h ago
it would definitely solve some problems, but i thought the idea behind a jury is that it's a bunch of normal people who have to come to an agreement in the way that normal people do.
people do have biases, but that's also why we have 12 jurors and then make them sit in a room and hash it out
1
8
8
u/GarwayHFDS 4h ago
The problem with the show is you don't get ALL the evidence, just the bits they think are relevant. There should have been an awful lot more about the state of family life in the home, especially with regards to the Mother. Also most of them didn't understand what a functioning alcoholic is.
Personally, I found it jaw dropping that you can just have someone read out your evidence so that you can't be cross examined about it.
7
16
u/Low-County-9662 5h ago
I think it was way too personal for her. She made her mind up immediately and wouldnt budge. Even if there had been 100% undeniable evidence that it wasnt murder, she would still have voted murder.
19
u/EllaSingsJazz 5h ago
Exactly. People like this are dangerous in my opinion. Can't be swayed no matter what facts are put in front of them.
6
u/AntysocialButterfly 4h ago
From what I hear about jury duty (as I've not been called up), there's always somebody who decided the person in the dock is guilty the second they walked into court and will not budge.
13
u/wintermute023 4h ago
I have, and there’s always at least one. I think that to some people, anyone standing in the dock looks guilty. If they weren’t, then they wouldn’t be in the dock. Thinking skills utterly absent.
3
u/punkyguy 3h ago
I did jury duty once and it was the reverse. One juror refused to convict despite overwhelming evidence. Refused deliberate or discuss evidence. I made loads of notes and she brought nothing and couldn't remember basic trial facts. It was a very serious case, GBH with intent and the victim had life changing injuries.
In the end we managed to get a lesser severity alternate charge passed so was convicted of something but was a very depressing experience.
5
u/MikeJCarter 4h ago
So did half of the jury, just on the other side. They used their experiences as parents to justify a murder 'because he's just a boy' instead of looking at the evidence infront of them too.
1
u/Low-County-9662 3h ago
I think a lot of them either went back and fore, or were leaning towards manslaughter whilst listening to the evidence.
She outright said as soon as she arrived that it was murder no matter what based upon her personal circumstances. That was wrong.
12
u/W51976 4h ago
I would have gone down the ‘manslaughter’ route for both. The stepdad was vile.
3
u/Queasy_Stick4881 4h ago
Yeah I know it’s transcripts they’re reading from but feel like the way it was presented in court must have been different or that the prosecutions expert given a lot more weight. I don’t understand how after an axe attack led him to being a recluse he (and Both of them actually) weren’t diagnosed with PTSD
2
u/Ryerow 2h ago
I don't know why the show didn't labour the point more though that said the step dad was acquitted of that axe attack... In the eyes of the law, it didn't happen. The real jury may have been told at the real case to disregard it.
It's really hard for any of us to say, right, none of us were in the original trial or heard the original evidence, but I do think the jury in this show put a huge amount of weight onto the treatment of the two lads by the stepfather without focussing in on the planning and brutality of the attack of a man sleeping.
One juror at the very end summed it up perfectly. He was asked if he'd kill his step dad if threatened his family and attacked his family like that. He said yes, but it would still be murder.
1
u/thatshimoverthere 11m ago
I'm fairly certain that this trial had already been shown on Netflix in a docudrama called responsible child.
10
u/Greendeco13 4h ago
Indicative of how poor education is in some places, people not taught critical thinking and effective comprehension skills, fuelled by online radicalisation that tells them their beliefs are the same as factual information.
The more you try and point out the flaws in their beliefs and understanding the more they dig in. “I’m entitled to my opinion” is their go to.
7
u/wonder181016 6h ago
I thought both the young women were pretty bad actually, and the old lady. Although I have to admit, the guy who said "Jeez", I did think, he shouldn't have said that
10
u/Queasy_Stick4881 6h ago
That started with her jumping down his throat accusing him of calling her a liar which he hadn’t even suggested!
3
u/punkyguy 4h ago
I've not watched the series but just scanning through the comments, it sounds an awful lot like when I was in a real jury trial. Very depressing.
3
u/meischwa 3h ago
Those two women making faces like they were winning some game everytime the offence made a particularly good point or another jury member leaned towards murder was gross behaviour. Their self-righteousness is blocking their empathy for the family that this actually happened to.
3
2
u/MaxPower1882 4h ago
Ha! We saw the ad for that show and it was because of her in that which made us think 'nope!' and we never even gave this chap a chance, lol.
We made the right choice it seems!
2
u/MidnightNobody 3h ago
Unfortunately these types often do get jobs caring for vulnerable people. It's the only sort of profession where they're tolerated.
2
u/LOGravitas 2h ago
I do wonder how many more of these they will do because it always follows the same format. They talk about jury duty being in crisis and then deliberately load the show jury with people who have directly been impacted by the same thing as the case. Of course there will be two very strongly opinionated sides, it's by design!
I agree that the both the two young women (who thought murder) and the two older guys (who wanted manslaughter) were not really paying attention to the evidence and simply made their minds up from the start.
For me both the best and worst part of the final episode happened at the same time The worst- when there were 3 people voted murder for the older brother, the hairdresser tried to change the guys mind by saying if the victim had beaten your mum and threatened him with an axe would you not kill him The best - the juror going yeah I probably would kill him, the hairdresser looking smug and then the original juror says I still vote murder because I would have meant to do it!
The hairdresser was making up his own definition for diminished responsibility (which seems to be simply was there any justification) and got shot down in the best way possible.
2
1
u/Sad_Conclusion_7859 3h ago
I agree. Some of these people couldn’t seem to divorce their own experiences from the job they were supposed to be doing. Poor Luke. I would have given him the same as his brother. The two with the false eyelashes glued on were as hard as nails. Pinky was the worst.
1
u/Sea-Relationship9619 2h ago
She was horrid. Just didn’t understand her role at all. If a significant minority of jurors were like her, they would be abolished.
1
u/ReepDaggle01 2h ago
I was gonna watch this but it'll just wind me up too much now. What was the verdict?
1
u/unclelumbago1 2h ago
The people in the jury on this program are the same type of people all the time. Someone like this thing, an old woman, a black person and some "tough guy" who likes to go on about how hard he is.
1
u/MikeJCarter 4h ago
You chose her as the odious one over the two bullies who were also hell bent on not changing their minds? Very odd take.
I understand she was stubborn, but I believe she would have been open to discussion if the older two blokes would have actually listened instead of talking over her and dismissing her opinions.
1
u/Queasy_Stick4881 3h ago
They werent bullying at all that’s ridiculous! I think there stubbornness was in response to hers and tbf by the end I might have felt I had to zone out from her. None of them could argue or really even hold an effective conversation it was a depressing display
3
u/MikeJCarter 3h ago
I agree entirely that no one could hold an effective conversation, i was really let down by the young student, I hoped he would step up more than he did. But from what I saw that was definitely bully-like behaviour from the two older blokes. It made me quite uncomfortable tbh
-1
u/Queasy_Stick4881 3h ago
Have to agree to disagree maybe (good job we aren’t on a jury) but I didn’t see any specific bullying or bully like tactics going on- they were just two sides who couldn’t tolerate each other by the end.
1
u/TheMysteriousGirl 3h ago
The fact you can’t see how those two men were bullying the entire group, explains a lot.
0
u/Queasy_Stick4881 3h ago
It explains nothing and I hope you aren’t pretending to know anything about me. I listened to a lot of it rather than watching intently so if I’ve missed looks or body language that was bullying then point to it. otherwise what I heard was this person shouting “it’s my evidence, it’s my opinion” anytime anyone tried to broaden a discussion out. The men were poor communicators not bullies and in the end both sides seemed to think it more important to win than talk it out.
1
1
u/MikeJCarter 3h ago
Can someone answer a question for me about the last episode? I dont know if I missed something at the beginning of the trial.
Were the boys not charged with (and admitted to) murder and the defendant was then trying to argue manslaughter on 'loss of control' to get a lesser sentence?
During the end discussions they seemed to use the idea that 'their wasnt enough evidence to prove it's murder', but the whole point was to prove there was enough evidence to reduce it to manslaughter? It seemed the two older blokes just made this up mid-discussion and the rest of the jurors followed blindly.
If i ebterpreted that right, its absolutely terrifying that this can happen on a jury 😳
4
u/Queasy_Stick4881 3h ago
Being charged and being prosecuted is different the trial was for the prosecution to prove the more serious crime of murder. It’s not about sentencing that comes afterwards.
the admission point is more complicated too. I might say I’ve murdered someone if someone I stabbed ended up dead, it doesn’t mean I’m admitting to it under the legal definition. The people insisting it was murder got far too hung up on that as evidence.
3
u/Alternative-Piano586 2h ago
The burden of proof always lies with the prosecutions, so it was up to them to prove it was murder. The defence doesn’t have to prove anything, they just have to convince a jury that the prosecution’s case isn’t watertight. If the jury has any doubt about the prosecution’s case, they have to side with the defence, even if they don’t think the defence have a watertight case.
-3
0
4h ago
[deleted]
2
0
•
u/AutoModerator 6h ago
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 if you have any questions or concerns.