Original subtitles

This programme contains strong language and discussions of murder.

This heavy industrial hammer

was aimed directly at the forehead.

So, by deliberately hitting her in this way,

you are intentionally causing her death.

I don't ever remember wanting to hurt my wife.

Was he so blinded,

he could've actually not realised what he was doing?

I can't stand here and say I'm going to listen to

the man that's just bumped off his wife.

She was wild. There was something in her eyes

and on her face that really frightened me,

and I thought this was much more dramatic than a few broken plates.

He's got to boiling point.

I don't think he's a bad person, but he has to pay,

because the bad deed was very, very bad.

Can we trust our justice system?

To find out, we're re-enacting an entire real murder trial.

You chose to use this hammer.

Yes.

Word for word, with actors.

To aim the shots, and basically bash her brains in.

She's still shouting, and I go to put my hand over her mouth,

but I don't know, I don't know why I put my hands round her throat instead.

But just as in a real court, the jurors are ordinary people.

God, I just feel so sorry for her.

I believe that there are two sides to every story.

I don't care what she said.

And in this ground-breaking experiment,

there is a key difference.

There isn't just one jury.

There's two.

Both unaware of each other.

I wanted to give him a hug. Is it crocodile tears or not?

I don't wanna do this any more.

They'll watch the same trial,

but will they reach the same verdict?

Do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty of murder?

Brace yourselves. Yeah.

Today, both juries will start deliberations.

They must each decide if John Reisdale is guilty

of murder or manslaughter.

Right. Good morning, everybody.

Well, we're now...

But first are the closing speeches.

Right. Over to you, Mr Thomas.

Starting with the Prosecution.

Ladies and gentlemen, our argument is very simple.

At the time of the killing

the defendant had not lost his self-control.

He was angry, and he was really angry.

He put his hands around her throat

and started to strangle her. What did he do then?

Because this is the crucial issue in this case.

He stopped. Why did he stop?

Had he continued strangling her and killed her,

you may think that he would have had

a better argument for at least at this point,

not acting under control.

But he didn't.

Why would this defendant walk out to the foundry

and then come back?

He's going to get the hammer.

To bring it back, go into the house,

Helen is on the floor, semiconscious or unconscious,

and then he inflicts the mortal blows.

Not once, not twice.

But three times.

Very controlled actions.

That is why, ladies and gentlemen,

we say that at the time of the killing,

he hadn't lost self-control.

And if he hadn't,

then he must be guilty of murder.

Your honour, thank you.

Members of the jury,

John Reisdale, we say, lost control of himself that day,

becoming so overwhelmed by emotion or passion,

so engulfed by the circumstances in which he found himself,

that what occurred then is not properly

to be categorised as murder,

but is rightly to be described as manslaughter.

He repeatedly told his friends of his love for Helen.

What caused such a person to react

in such a catastrophic way, as you know he did?

He said this.

"A cloud of something I don't recognise came over me."

"I had no control. I grabbed the hammer,

and I hit her in the face with it."

I ask you to look inside the man,

and to bring some proper, decent understanding

to their relationship.

John Reisdale, with his simply unswerving blind love for her.

And on his behalf, I only ask for justice to be done.

Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen,

what I'm going to do now is to ask you to retire

to consider your verdicts. It's your decision.

And you have to make the decision without any emotion,

and I say without any emotion.

Your verdict has to be a decision which all 12 of you are agreed.

You are adjourned, thank you.

The juries retire to deliberate.

Legal experts will watch

to see how they reach their verdicts.

I've never seen what goes on behind closed doors in a jury, no-one has.

Laws around secrecy

means real juries can never be observed,

or reveal how they reached their decisions.

It's strangely thrilling.

It is exciting to be able to see

something that I've not been able to see

in three decades of being in the justice system.

I'm really fascinated to know

how they're going to try to convince one another.

Hey, this is serious.

Now is the moment of truth, and we have to get it right,

because this person's life is basically in your hands.

There's a lot of responsibility on our shoulders.

I want my glasses.

Both juries have selected a foreperson to manage

the discussions during the deliberations.

Is everybody ready?

In the blue jury, Emily has been elected.

Oh, my gosh. Right.

And in the red jury, it's Neil.

This is more serious.

The jurors will discuss the case in private,

without any outside interference.

This is a bit scary.

It will be up to them alone to come to a verdict.

We actually have to make a decision now.

Yeah, shit's got real.

Do you want to do an initial vote first?

Get a starting point, and then see how far we've got to go.

There's two victims in this case, all right?

You've got Helen, but he's also a victim, all right?

So, the first day, I changed from murder to manslaughter

and I haven't looked back from that day. Not once.

He's not at any point denied what he did.

He seems such an honest guy.

So for me, there is just no doubt it's manslaughter.

If I followed my heart, it would be murder.

But at the end of the day, we cannot prove it.

You got to separate your emotions from the fact.

I'm definitely manslaughter.

With stopping the strangulation and then going onto the hammer,

to me he is obviously trying to seriously hurt her.

I think it's murder.

I can't say that I would go and pick something up

and then use excessive force.

That's the part for me.

So I still really believe that it's murder.

I don't think anything's going to change my mind.

When you lose your temper, you know what you're doing.

So I think he knew what he was doing.

I'm feeling adamant it's murder.

I've been on the murder side for a few days.

Um...

Nothing that I heard today changed my mind.

I was absolutely committed to the idea that it was a murder.

I would probably go more murder.

I'm on the fence.

You must be leaning towards one or the other?

No. Because there are a couple of things

I want to listen to, and then that will make up my mind.

But you said that yesterday and you said it Friday,

so we haven't moved on anywhere.

I'm still not sure,

because it is very difficult to not be emotional about it.

It's as clear as mud, as I'm concerned.

I don't believe there isn't anyone sitting in this room that doesn't

have a bending towards one or the other. I'm sorry.

Right, so we've got three for manslaughter,

six for murder and three for don't know.

Interesting, OK.

How on earth are we going to come to a consensus?

We've got a long way to go.

I'm frustrated that, with everything we've heard,

there are still individuals that believe

and are adamant that this is murder.

I'm on the back foot,

and that gives me even more determination to fight.

He's put up with so much shit.

That build-up of all of the abuse

and nasty treatment even on the day would be considered almost revenge,

even if he hasn't gone out to plan it in that moment.

So, my question to you, Chris, is,

could you honestly say that the events that

led up to him doing his act was revenge

from what anything that we've read or seen?

Mm.

I don't think he pre-planned it. So it's not revenge. No, but...

I think in the moment you can have revenge.

Revenge has to be pre-planned.

No, it doesn't. OK, but revenge to what?

Because you've just fucked my life up.

You've psychologically abused me.

You spoke shit to my kids, you spoke shit to me,

you've ruined my life, you're unconscious...

Is that revenge or loss of control? Revenge.

I have no evidence in front of me that says,

here is a man that thought, "Do you know what?

"You fucker, I'm going to come out and I'm going to gun you down."

At no point have I seen that in any statements.

It's getting quite serious now.

People sort of talk at you a lot, and that's quite annoying.

Everyone is respectful of each other, but

I can see it turning sour.

They do argue a lot, this isn't out of the ordinary.

Why is it in this moment he lost the control?

Does it not actually support the fact that he's lost control,

the fact that he's previously always walked away,

and now the bugger ain't walked away, and he's killed her?

So it actually makes me think more, he's lost his shit.

I'm trying to talk and I'm having, "Oh, no, no."

I'm just saying how I feel.

In that moment, he wanted revenge on her.

"I'm sick of you doing this, I'm going to get you."

It's your opinion, and you are entitled to that, Rosie.

I think it's important to understand

that debates are different to arguments.

I will express myself in a forthright way,

that is just the way I am and I ain't changed,

I'm not going to change now.

I'm not worried what people think of me.

If I feel passionately about something I will go gung-ho,

because that's how I feel about it.

It's not a joke.

This is a man's life.

There is definitely an opportunity for this to go the wrong way.

In the trial of John Reisdale...

Let's go round in a circle, yeah?

..the blue jury are also taking an early vote.

As it's gone on,

there's nothing that's shown me that it is manslaughter.

Like, he remembers hitting her with the hammer.

So, yeah, as far as I'm concerned, murder.

Definitely still thinking it is murder.

I'm just sat at murder, I've done my best to look at

the possible ways in which it can be manslaughter,

but I just can't see it.

My first day I was definitely saying murder,

then I started getting more information

and I was leaning towards manslaughter.

Aaron? I've been manslaughter from the beginning.

Yeah, but why? Yeah, go on. We'll get into that.

That name murderer, or that label murderer, is a very strong label.

And when I look at that man, I don't see a murderer. That's right.

There is...only so much someone can take,

but was it enough?

I don't know.

So right now, I'm manslaughter.

And now I'm on the fence again.

Undecided.

HE CHUFFS PENSIVELY

Can I say undecided? Yeah.

If undecided is an option, I'm undecided.

I think I'm back to unsure again.

The act itself was so severe,

but I'm really still unsure.

Well, we all know I'm a bit of a yo-yo

in this case, aren't I,

with the old verdict,

and I've gone back to "Don't know", so...

Hmmm. Mm-hm.

After the vote,

half the jurors have yet to come to a verdict.

It'll be unanimous undecided then, won't it?

Better get a new jury in.

LAUGHTER

We need the undecided people to decide.

To be decided.

To me, it's as clear as day that John did murder Helen.

But people need to start making a decision.

In that minute, he hated her, you know,

because the thing is, someone you love,

you're not just gonna pick up a hammer

and start hitting them in the head.

Yeah, but...he doesn't hate her at all.

This sounds horrendous,

but I think you can physically harm someone

and he still had an element of love,

I don't think he hated her.

I've lived with an angry person

that other people would think was a lovely person,

so what I'm saying to you is

you can't judge a book by the cover.

I've been in relationships where everybody's seeing that

white picket fence, they're not seeing what's behind.

I think John left strangling her,

went and got the hammer

and he remembers the first strike.

I just want to keep reminding people of that.

As far as I'm concerned, it seemed like he actually

knew what he was doing.

She wasn't fighting back, she was on the floor,

there were no marks on him.

I'm always, in my head, sort of making an excuse for the crime

that was committed...

As much as I empathise for John, he...

..made that choice to stand up, pick up the hammer, and...

..you know commit that act of violence.

I think he intended to cause serious bodily harm

and unfortunately, that first strike alone, they've said,

from the outset, she wouldn't have survived that.

When I look at the evidence, it leads me to murder.

Well done, Emily.

Liberty, what do you think?

I think it's murder.

He was in control when he got the hammer

and did the first hit, that's what I think.

Aaron, what's your response to that?

Anybody pushed to boiling point can do anything.

What's to say he didn't just spiral

and just keep going?

I definitely identify with John.

They're not looking at him as a person,

as a human being,

they're not understanding that

anybody can get to that point, even I could get to that point.

Here we go.

Correct me if I'm wrong,

or if anyone thinks differently,

this is the point where

she is throwing stuff at him, right?

Now, the evidence we have is that

he knew that she was a violent person.

I don't think that he was truly at fear

of serious violence. She'd spat at him,

she's thrown things at him, it was escalating.

But she hasn't hit him, she hasn't strangled him,

she hasn't gone to stab him, I don't think,

that he was fearing for his life at that time.

It would be a trigger point, for me,

the spitting.

There are some that have been 100% murder,

from a very early stage.

And there are a few that are just sitting on fence.

And we've got to focus on those individuals,

and get them thinking

outside of their box.

I think being spat at is, like,

the worst... I would rather...take a smack

to the face

than get spat at. That's just like...

..disgusting, yeah.

I don't think any of us can say,

"I would definitely not kill someone."

It could be, someone spits at ya,

you find something on the floor, so you throw it,

it hits them on the head, they fall back, whack their head

and now you've got someone that's dead.

Whatever happens,

the guy going to prison, right? Yeah. Yeah.

He's paying for this. Yeah.

I actually feel very sorry for him.

At the beginning of the week,

everyone was like, "Murder, murder, murder."

Now people are, like, shifting.

Our jury had some really strong characters

trying to persuade a lot of people.

It's critical...

Ricky is adamant on manslaughter

and he's made us realise that John was actually...

..a good lad.

Yeah, I think John lost control,

so taking everything into consideration,

manslaughter for me.

WHISPERS: This guy...

He caused the death...

Did he do it on purpose?

Or did he do it in a fit of temper?

But there are some people that lose their shit

and do something, and things happens.

I agree.

Some of the jurors helped me making up my mind,

you can only push people so far before they break,

and Helen pushed and pushed, and John broke.

I've listened

and I cannot, unless I was standing there,

say that he knew what he was doing,

so I've gotta say manslaughter.

Well done, Gary.

It's definitely taken a more serious turn.

If somebody is a very persuasive character,

who can get other people around to their way of thinking,

it doesn't mean their way is the right way.

I don't want to be blaming her.

I kind of feel like from what we've heard,

he did more to her, that day, to trigger her

than the other way round.

Based on the facts of what we've got here,

based on what people have said,

he could have feared that she was gonna do

something nasty.

Can we all just agree something here?

Because this has been doing my head in for a few days.

At the moment, we're basing fact

on...his story and he could be lying,

so how can we say the fact is he can't remember,

that's not a fucking fact.

But we have to take them as facts cos that's

what we've been directed to do. Yeah.

We've been given them, these are the facts of the case.

Let's go...for a break

because otherwise someone is going to end up... Go on a break?

Yeah, yeah, yup.

There are some people in life,

who are just difficult to people.

There's probably two other people that are dictating what we can

and can't use as... To make our decisions.

We can do what we want. They don't fucking know.

We can, we can, we can! They don't know any more than us.

If there's no right or wrong,

we are all going to have difference of opinion.

I get annoyed when people, like,

think that they're the puppet masters,

who think that they're leading your decision

when it has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

Wind your neck in.

I don't want to, like...bend,

change my opinion,

just because I feel like I'm being pressured to do it.

Yeah. Absolutely.

This is the thing, I think it is now

turned into, like egos, straight up.

Can you see yourself, any of you at the minute,

being 100% in your verdict? I can't.

I can, yeah.

And I believe it was...murder.

It's day two of deliberations

and to declare a verdict,

the juries must reach a unanimous decision.

I don't think I'm going to budge ever, I don't think it'll change...

So you're on manslaughter, innit?

I reckon Oli will always be murder

and he'll always be manslaughter,

and we'll have a problem, innit!

Time to deliberate, guys.

Oh, stress, back to stress.

There's a lot of work to do, to get everyone on the same page.

The other jurors can be very emotional,

but the judge has been very clear in his instructions,

and we need to come up with a verdict.

To decide a defendant "lost control",

a jury must be sure that a reasonable person

in the same circumstances might have committed the same act.

You have to show that a person of the same sex

and age as you,

a person with normal tolerance,

normal self-restraint,

would have acted in the same way as you.

LAUGHTER ECHOES

In shorthand, a reasonable person

would have done what you did, given what you were going through.

If a jury is sure that a reasonable person would not have acted

like the defendant,

the defendant must be guilty of murder.

Is John a reasonable guy? And my answer's "Yes"

He had, obviously, emotional abuse,

there was financial abuse, there was mental abuse,

he had physical abuse.

Could these things collectively make a man

have a loss of control?

For me, that's a tick.

I don't think John's a reasonable man.

A reasonable man wouldn't have strangled his wife

and then, you know, killed her with a hammer

in such a brutal fashion.

People can definitely be persuaded, so...

My approach is to keep reminding people

what John actually did on that day.

A reasonable man would not have

smashed her brains in with a hammer.

He might have had a loss of control,

but as a reasonable person, it's a possibility.

And hit someone in the head with a hammer?

If anybody pushes me too far,

I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing.

Is your point

that none of us have gone through

the same abuse that John went through?

I have, not the same, but similar.

I've had it where I'm provoking my ex.

And I'm telling him like, "What, you gonna hit me?"

And he's not hit me, he's hit a wall.

Helen would prod and poke in her relationships

and it took me back to a time

where I would have arguments with my ex

and I would goad him.

I've taken myself into these experiences,

yeah, she's doing that,

but I've done that

and I'm still here.

I haven't been killed.

Do you think the reasonable man

would've done what John did? No.

So then your answer must be murder. Exactly.

Yeah, I'm seeing murder.

We all know what men are capable of,

with them triggers.

But I feel like I wouldn't deal with that

in this way.

I've gone back and forth every single day,

and I think I'm murder now so...

Yeah...

Although he was a reasonable man on paper,

he didn't, on that day, behave, to me...

BOTH: ..as a reasonable man... ..would've done.

A reasonable man would walk away.

With a gun to the head, then,

I'm going to have to go with murder.

To be unanimous,

the blue jury still need three jurors

to turn to a verdict of murder -

Junior,

Aaron and Lurelle.

It just don't sit right to me,

that that one question determines him

to be a murderer.

My head is all over the place.

I don't feel like the best juror.

I don't feel like the best juror because...I'm not certain.

And I feel like to be a juror,

you need to be certain on what you think.

I'm literally fighting with myself.

If we're still at this split, are you three

going to go with murder, then?

Or are we still gonna stay...? We'll talk about that in a bit.

Cos he said he wanted a unanimous decision.

Human emotions are very complicated. Yes.

I feel like we're gonna be here a while.

Yeah, so... I just couldn't articulate it...

..if everyone...can shush a little

and we can keep on going through...

In the red jury,

the verdict is evenly split

between murder and manslaughter.

I think it would be good to get rid of

the undecideds at some point. Yeah, I agree.

It's like super intense,

it's a real battleground experience.

But I think Ricky's having a huge influence on the jury.

Ricky moves discussions onto reasonable doubt.

If you feel strongly

that you think there is no way this man

lost control and he murdered,

you have grounds to say that. Yeah.

You have every right to, yeah. Oh, yeah!

But if...

If we're saying, "I'm not sure",

then we have to say we're not beyond reasonable doubt.

I... For me, and this is just talking for me,

that I can completely see why he would lose self-control

and he would just go bananas

after all those things that happened.

I think it's manslaughter.

Well done, Neil.

I was 70/30 murder. Was you?

See what I'm saying?

My hands are tied.

I think it might be manslaughter.

I don't feel happy about it though. No, no, no,

I don't think anyone does,

don't think anyone does.

I'm not sure he lost his temper. I'm not sure.

And I'm really not happy about it,

but I have to say that

that's why I moved to manslaughter.

Can I just ask Chris, what do you feel?

It's kind of telling that you could take each one of us

individually to give a timeline of what happened on that day,

and we'd probably all give a different answer.

I don't know if I can be 100% sure.

I don't think anybody in this room thinks, 100%,

that's right, that's wrong.

I think we're all adults and we're trying to get the job done

that we've been asked to do, which is get to a point where...

..we don't feel comfortable with it,

but that is more comfortable than that.

I want to make my own decision, but if I was to just be stubborn

and say "No, it's murder,

"I'm not changing my mind," it wouldn't be fair,

it wouldn't be a fair trial at all,

because it ain't about pride,

it's not about who's right and who's wrong,

it's about making it fair for them and their families.

I feel in my heart it's murder, I do. Yeah?

I feel like he did it. But...

legally, and I don't agree with it,

but, legally, I can't prove it. Yes!

I don't like the cheering though,

that's going to make us feel away now

cos it feels like you guys are trying to put pressure on us.

Not at all!

I think that, given the circumstances

that we've heard about,

I don't think any of us

can truly answer that and be sure...

Be beyond reasonable doubt.

The facts are only really based on John's word...

..and I don't think that everything he's said can be taken as fact.

But there's just no way that with 100% certainty,

I could answer some of those questions.

I was already, like, wobbling

and then when we talked about it more,

I was already coming round to manslaughter.

Like the others, it is frustrating,

I don't know, yeah, it's just...

It's terrible, it's a horrible feeling, innit?

Horrible feeling.

How does anyone get convicted of murder?!

Cos you can't be sure of anything, can you?

I don't feel great, to be honest.

I felt a lot of eyes on me,

and a couple of other people,

just waiting for us to change our minds.

After two days of deliberation,

only one juror remains on a verdict of murder.

Are we saying that,

because Helen was abusive to him,

she deserves...? No! No...

EMPHATIC PROTESTATIONS

A part of me feels like, that like,

she isn't being heard, she's the one that's dead,

and that's the part that I...

Why I keep going to murder

because I'm like, "No-one is backing Helen."

You have to separate that emotion from the fact.

I don't want to do that, OK? You just can't prove it, Kel.

I really want to say murder,

but in the law's eyes I can't.

It's fucking pissing me off. It really, really is.

I do believe that he knew what he was doing in that...

In that moment, but I can't prove that,

If we take the day itself, none of us will ever know,

in that moment whether he intended to kill her.

None of us is going to know that.

I want to write murder, but in the law's eyes, manslaughter!

But that's not going to... That's how you feel.

You might walk out of here and say,

"I've help convict this man of manslaughter

"but in my heart, he's a murderer." Yeah...

There's nothing wrong with that.

We're all gonna to walk out knowing he killed someone.

That doesn't change what we have to do... Yeah. ..in law.

Can we have a show of hands,

who thinks that it's manslaughter by loss of control?

I don't think it, but...

So that's a unanimous verdict...

What's the point in having a jury, then,

if we still have to do what the law says?

I just don't understand that - we can't do what we feel,

we have to go on the law's guidelines.

Fuck the system, can you hear this?

Fuck the system!

Get in there!

It's horrible. It's absolutely...

..horrid, just so horrible, and I just feel like I'm letting her down.

Have we done her justice? I don't know.

It's really tough.

SHE SNIFFLES Sorry, I just can't. Sorry.

As the red jury come to a unanimous verdict...

I'm not changing my mind, I'm good.

..the blue jury have reached a stalemate.

Junior, are you unsure or are you manslaughter?

I'm manslaughter. You're manslaughter, yeah, yeah. No-one's convinced me otherwise. OK.

How can I say when I'm really not sure?

We're not unanimous. We know.

We are going round and round in circles,

saying the same thing over and over again.

And so that does feel like failure.

It feels devastating that we haven't done the job we were supposed to do.

I'm so stressed.

Really, really stressed.

See ya. Thanks.

If a jury can't reach a decision,

the entire trial will have to be re-run

with a brand-new jury.

A hung jury is the worst of all outcomes

because it means that we have

to do it again.

Goodness me.

It means that justice is served to nobody.

And so it's really, really crucial

that the jury come to a decision

during that first trial.

I'm told you are as yet unable to come to a verdict.

To be frank, my preference is always for a unanimous decision,

but the law permits me to accept a majority of ten.

You are adjourned. Thank you.

I actually feel sick.

I do. I really do as well.

To reach a 10-2 majority and to avoid a hung jury,

one of the jurors on manslaughter will need to change their verdict.

You and Aaron are, like, set, aren't you?

It's literally just on Lurelle to make a decision. Oh, yeah.

Technically, yeah. Cos she's the one who is undecided.

Yeah, that is pressure, that is pressure.

Not having justice would be really unfair for Helen's children,

her family, and I don't think that's right,

so I feel the pressure.

I need to come up with an answer.

So, sorry, Lurelle, where are you stuck?

This is why I'm stuck, right,

if it was murder, that means he chose

to pick up that hammer and do what he done.

I'm struggling to see that he chose to do that.

This is really too much.

I just need to be strong in my decision and go for it.

The fact is that he killed her...

..and when I look at it like that, he's a murderer.

Can we go round and just say where we're at

with our verdict, one by one?

Murder. Murder.

Murder. Murder.

Murder. Murder.

Murder. Murder.

Murder.

Lurelle?

Apparently murder.

Have I given the right decision?

Did you do it because you felt under pressure?

I don't know.

I had no choice but to come to a decision.

You cool?

So that's our verdict.

I can't believe we actually did it, though.

It's done.

Both juries are ready to give their verdicts,

but before they return to court, the forepersons receive a note.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you know,

"you have been taking part in a social experiment

"to see how the jury system works.

"In order to understand how the verdict of every jury

"is influenced by the people in them,

"we have also been filming another jury observing this trial."

Oh, my God.

This is crazy.

What? "They have seen all the same evidence

"and all been sitting in the courtroom,

"just the other side of the room."

No way!

"You will shortly be invited to deliver your verdict.

"The other jury will also give theirs at the same time."

What the fuck?! THEY EXCLAIM

In the trial of John Reisdale,

the two juries are now aware of each other,

and they are both about to deliver their verdicts.

I'm nervous going down there now.

Oh, my God.

What's going to happen next?

We've come to a conclusion.

Surely they've got to come to manslaughter.

For the first time in the trial,

the barrier between the juries has been removed.

This is a twist to the plot.

It's obvious to me it's going to be murder,

but now is the moment of truth.

I really did not think it was going to affect me like this.

Have we done her justice?

I don't know.

What if they've got different verdicts from us?

Will the forepersons for both juries please stand?

Madam forewoman,

do you find the defendant,

John Reisdale, guilty or not guilty of murder?

Guilty.

That's crazy.

Told you.

Mr Foreman, do you find the defendant,

John Reisdale, guilty or not guilty of murder?

Not guilty.

Thank you very much.

Sit down. Bullshit.

Ladies and gentlemen of both juries,

your jury finds the defendant guilty of murder,

your jury finds defendant guilty of manslaughter,

by reason of loss of control.

I thank you once again for your concentration, time and effort.

You are dismissed.

I feel a bit emotional. You all right?

No! Come on, you're all right. You've done the right thing.

That was crazy.

Having watched these two juries

come to different decisions,

it leaves me really scared.

When you think about miscarriages of justice

and fairness and transparency.

How did they come to a different conclusion to us?

That's literally what I was just saying to Diana, I don't understand.

Life experience really impacted

on some of the decisions.

Did I go with the crowd?

Is that what I did?

I don't understand.

The cliques ganged up on each other

and it became a real power play.

That was surprising.

Now I'm starting to think,

did they get me to change my mind

because they were all screaming at me?

You OK? Yeah. I didn't think I'd be that emotional.

Do you want a cuddle? Come here.

It's OK.

Did we put our points across enough

or did we not push as hard as we maybe should have pushed?

Maybe if there was a bigger character saying something,

it might have completely changed the whole dynamics of the room.

Maybe I should have pushed harder.

Maybe I should have.

You know, at the end of the day,

who's right or who's wrong,

will we ever know?

Now that I've had this experience,

I don't know whether I would want to be tried by a jury.

So, how do we fix the system?

Firstly, there's a need for greater transparency in jury decisions

by having reasoned jury decisions as opposed to

just guilty or not guilty.

I think the second way we can improve

is by giving jurors better training.

We know that there are other systems available across

the world that we could look at, that we could think about,

how juries could be fit for the future.

I like the Danish system,

where jurors are, in effect,

paid for 12 months,

they'll be trained and they will sit through as many cases as possible.

Being a juror is a job.

We should be looking at what works around the world,

rather than simply thinking our system is the Holy Grail

and nobody should touch it.

There is so much at stake.

Every time I hear the name Helen,

I'm going to think about this.

This will stay with me.

And I know it shouldn't, I know I should just put it

in the back of my mind.

I mean, I will try, but it's always going to be there.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media