40:50 -- The writers have done a great job of making me absolutely loathe the father-in-law of the juror. His son-in-law is pathetic for giving in to him, of course, but the father-in-law really elicits a strong desire in me to jab a fork into the back of his hand. As hard as I can. At least twice.
Yeah, all three of them: the juror (son-in-law) himself, for giving in (and flagrantly breaking the rules), the father-in-law (who apparently doesn't think the rules apply to him), and the "No, it's fine" wife.
Through my life I have been a juror on a number of trials but fortunately most were civil but among the criminal there was never a murder trial. There are a great many similarities between the US and Great Britain but I was puzzled by the fact that the family of the murdered boy knew the address of the jurors. This information is never revealed in the proceedings and our name is mentioned (if I am remembering correctly) only in voir dire--(I am not sure as to the spelling) when both lawyers question the prospective jurors in an attempt to find what they consider them a wise choice. I am also surprised by the latitude the court allowed the family and friends to behave in court. The jurors which the film focused on certainly didn't take the judge's admonition to not discuss the case with family and friends. The two criminal cases that I did hear were rape and bank robbery. When asked I simply reminded the questioner that I could say nothing. End of subject. This was true of the civil cases I heard. The one juror who had to deal with his in-laws appeared to be spineless in the face of his father-in-law. Court trials on TV and movies make for good theatre and this series is just that; I was not suprised that the British adaptation of Law and Order did not mimic the success of the American series which ran for nearly 20 years although I enjoyed and was sorry to see it not succeed.
@@harryselwind I’m in Czech Republic and episodes 2 and 6 are blocked here. Does anybody know where to find them? I’m desperate to see the whole series :)
Is it only me or does Duvinder's testimony not ring true? I was with him up until he threw the sword away. That sword appeared to be a rather special piece of property. Would he just throw it away? Leaving it for anyone to pick up? It seems unlikely to me. I would think he would return it to where he got it from. And putting his uniform in a backpack, weighing it down with rocks and throwing it in the canal? That doesn't seem like something that would come to him on the spur of the moment. Even if he did hate the uniform and wanted to get rid of it, I would think he would just throw it into water to float away, or into some random other place. And if he had planned on doing it after the planned murder (which he claims he did not go through with), would he have followed through on throwing the uniform in the canal? That, plus the exchange between Duvinder and his lawyer sounds too rehearsed, too planned. I think it is the usual practice to plan and rehearse the true account of an innocent accused, but this just sounds too much like the lawyer's story rather than the defendant's. And it just doesn't ring true to me otherwise in any case. What do others think?
I agree with you 100%. He didn't need to throw his uniform away. And he wouldn't of just thrown the sword away. He would of returned it. I think was guilty.
Episode 2, for some reason, is nowhere to be found...so here is what happens to help you continue watching episode 3... Singh is abused by a prison warden; the prosecution argues that Singh stole a sword, killed Maher, threw the evidence into the river and fled; Rose and Johnny have lunch. Jeremy runs into Mark Waters who claims he would have saved Jeremy if he could. Elsie befriends Charles, and later learns she will need to undergo surgery. Charles meets his best friend, Sebastian (uncredited Darren Boyd) and learns Isobel has moved on from him. Rose's husband Len grows suspicious of her; Peter's in-laws investigate the evidence; and Marcia - angry that she has to keep her mother in her life - receives a phone call telling her that, for the sake of her family, she had better vote guilty.
MissCattitude not only has a great name, she is also right. This is, as labeled, episode 3. Episode 2 was the one before this. The one after episode 1. The one labeled "Episode 2." Hope that helps.
@@ssppeellll Your sarcasm may be misplaced. In some countries Episode 2 isn't the one before 3 because it's not available. Where I am, the series skips 2 and goes straight from 1 to 3. In other countries, it seems 2 is available. The confusion is understandable and not a result of anyone being stupid.
Very good cast exceptional actors all in one production thanks for posting
Fabulous series. Brilliant acting by all.👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
LOVE Gerard Butler in this tv series because in every single one of his movies and tv series he connects so deeply with all his character's
40:50 -- The writers have done a great job of making me absolutely loathe the father-in-law of the juror. His son-in-law is pathetic for giving in to him, of course, but the father-in-law really elicits a strong desire in me to jab a fork into the back of his hand. As hard as I can. At least twice.
The brilliant acting of the late great Peter Vaughan no less!
I have never, ever, seen a bad performance by David Jacoby, or disliked a film in which he acted.
OMG How could I have got that SO wrong, DEREK Jacoby. I know his name as well as my own, what was I thinking?!!
Derek Jacoby is the actor that brought me to this miniseries. I agree with you. Because of Jacobi, I have subscribed.
Top class actor Derek jacobi
Absolutely ..
When u realise King Leonitis, Polly Gray and Maester Aemon Targeryn are in the one show
Thank you so much for the upload! :)
Those two punks on spectator gallery should have been thrown out by the judge.
Several times they used bad language and the judge just looked at them.
Forreal they definitely would have been told off or asked to leave or put in contempt of court in real life
Where is episode 2?
Hopefully the father in law doesn't get emotional bout his car getting messed up lol...
Lawyers…like secondhand car salesman will find it hard to enter the narrow road that leads to eternity.
l could swing for those in-laws, especially the old geezer, arrgh! And the mrs, for 'not minding' when they barge in every waking hour, too btw..
Yeah, all three of them: the juror (son-in-law) himself, for giving in (and flagrantly breaking the rules), the father-in-law (who apparently doesn't think the rules apply to him), and the "No, it's fine" wife.
Where is full episodes 2 and 6? I loved watching this mini series.
The morons at ITV got them taken down for copyright.
Through my life I have been a juror on a number of trials but fortunately most were civil but among the criminal there was never a murder trial. There are a great many similarities between the US and Great Britain but I was puzzled by the fact that the family of the murdered boy knew the address of the jurors. This information is never revealed in the proceedings and our name is mentioned (if I am remembering correctly) only in voir dire--(I am not sure as to the spelling) when both lawyers question the prospective jurors in an attempt to find what they consider them a wise choice. I am also surprised by the latitude the court allowed the family and friends to behave in court.
The jurors which the film focused on certainly didn't take the judge's admonition to not discuss the case with family and friends. The two criminal cases that I did hear were rape and bank robbery. When asked I simply reminded the questioner that I could say nothing. End of subject. This was true of the civil cases I heard. The one juror who had to deal with his in-laws appeared to be spineless in the face of his father-in-law.
Court trials on TV and movies make for good theatre and this series is just that; I was not suprised that the British adaptation of Law and Order did not mimic the success of the American series which ran for nearly 20 years although I enjoyed and was sorry to see it not succeed.
Hey 😊 Guys I Love And Admire Mark Strong Gerald Butler
FFS episode 2 blocked in my country my country is where this was made . 😠
I'm a Brit currently in India. Episode 2 isn't available here either. Any one have any idea what the issue is with this episode?
Harry Selwind I really don’t know. I live in America so nothing ever works 😂
@@pasiphaeedits4985 Hi, Serena
You should try spending some time in India during a pandemic in the monsoon season!
Take care
Harry.
@@harryselwind I’m in Czech Republic and episodes 2 and 6 are blocked here. Does anybody know where to find them? I’m desperate to see the whole series :)
I'm in Kenya and it's blocked here as well ☹
Is it only me or does Duvinder's testimony not ring true? I was with him up until he threw the sword away.
That sword appeared to be a rather special piece of property. Would he just throw it away? Leaving it for anyone to pick up? It seems unlikely to me. I would think he would return it to where he got it from.
And putting his uniform in a backpack, weighing it down with rocks and throwing it in the canal? That doesn't seem like something that would come to him on the spur of the moment. Even if he did hate the uniform and wanted to get rid of it, I would think he would just throw it into water to float away, or into some random other place. And if he had planned on doing it after the planned murder (which he claims he did not go through with), would he have followed through on throwing the uniform in the canal?
That, plus the exchange between Duvinder and his lawyer sounds too rehearsed, too planned. I think it is the usual practice to plan and rehearse the true account of an innocent accused, but this just sounds too much like the lawyer's story rather than the defendant's. And it just doesn't ring true to me otherwise in any case.
What do others think?
I agree with you 100%. He didn't need to throw his uniform away. And he wouldn't of just thrown the sword away. He would of returned it. I think was guilty.
It skipped episode 2
Where is ep02
No episode 2...
larasita11 yeah it sucks
Episode 2, for some reason, is nowhere to be found...so here is what happens to help you continue watching episode 3...
Singh is abused by a prison warden; the prosecution argues that Singh stole a sword, killed Maher, threw the evidence into the river and fled; Rose and Johnny have lunch.
Jeremy runs into Mark Waters who claims he would have saved Jeremy if he could.
Elsie befriends Charles, and later learns she will need to undergo surgery. Charles meets his best friend, Sebastian (uncredited Darren Boyd) and learns Isobel has moved on from him.
Rose's husband Len grows suspicious of her; Peter's in-laws investigate the evidence; and Marcia - angry that she has to keep her mother in her life - receives a phone call telling her that, for the sake of her family, she had better vote guilty.
The direction is bad
THIS IS EPISODE 2! WTF!
No, it's not.
MissCattitude not only has a great name, she is also right. This is, as labeled, episode 3. Episode 2 was the one before this. The one after episode 1. The one labeled "Episode 2."
Hope that helps.
@@ssppeellll Your sarcasm may be misplaced. In some countries Episode 2 isn't the one before 3 because it's not available. Where I am, the series skips 2 and goes straight from 1 to 3. In other countries, it seems 2 is available. The confusion is understandable and not a result of anyone being stupid.