The Jury

[Dee-M-See]

Last episode tomorrow, is he guilty or not guilty?

[Kassee]

I think there's gonna be an unexpected twist to the story line.

[craft1948]

I think he seems guilty but as there is no hard and fast evidence I don't think it's been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[zebo]

I think they'll have to abandon the retrial with all the shennanigans in the jury! Can't imagine a more disfunctional group of people.

[chelle7272]

I think he's innocent and that the woman claiming to have been on the 1st jury is lying, but when Paul? tells the others they will find him guilty.

[cupid04]

Him , not guilty, but the jury as bent as hell!

[trt]

I think he will be found not guilty because Julie Walters is a brilliant actress and the nations sweetheart!

[Groupie]

Agree with Zebo after all it is about the jury not about the verdict

[jackthehat]

Taking the facts as presented so far, I'd have to find him Not Guilty.
The prosecution hasn't been able to persuade me of his guilt.
And the Defence Barrister has presented sufficient evidence (Thomas Dent?) to prevent me from finding him guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
Quite how The Jury will interpret this information, however, and given the characters of some of the Jurors........remains to be seen.

[tiggerblue10]

I've been watching it on Catch Up and I've still got last nights episode to watch. I think they're going to find him not guilty and then it will turn out that it was him after all.

[cupid04]

What did you all think of the last episode then, after all the hype and build-up?

[Dodger666]

I think the guilty person is the scriptwriter for fabricating events in an English Crown Court that would never happen. For example, the jury would not be allowed to go walk about at lunchtime while they were deliberating the verdict. Lunch is supplied in the jury room. The accused was charged with three murders and he was the only witness for the defence. The witnesses for the prosecution were the dating agency manageress and two policemen.

I don't think there was enough evidence on either side to enable any jury to reach a decision. The case should never have been brought to court.