Verdict

Heard someone's experience as a member of the Jury. The case was a brutal murder. It was terrible to only hear it. Our narrator gave a lot of details which was great. She also had the good sense to cut out the gore, leave out the sensational part and tell us the story of what the jury went through.

The Judge had told them that she (the judge) will read into the legal aspects of the case - the testimony of witnesses, the pleas of the defence & prosecution and of course the legalities of the argument. In contrast, the jurers had to judge the facts of the case & give their verdict, whether guilty or not.

This particular case had no eye witnesses. The available evidence was either circumstantial or forensic. There was a single fingerprint in blood of the defendent and a few boot marks.

The defendents account of the story was proved false on two counts. He had lied about his whereabouts at the time of the murder. He had lied about the shoes / boots he was wearing on the day of the murder. Another thing that went against him, was that he was found dumping a garbage bag wearing only his shorts (on a freezing cold November dawn around 4.30 a.m.).

Along with those things, what the jury thought as clinching evidence was the fact that the defendent kept calling the victim until just before the murder (around 30 calls in 2 hours) and suddenly stopped making any calls altogether right after the time of the death.

The person who told us this story believed him to be guilty. But she also thought that there was a 0.01% chance he was not. And my heart goes out to her. I would never want to be asked to send someone for life imprisonment based on such indirect evidence. The shear stress & trauma associated with making such a decision could be too much for me to take.

There are two things that struck me (the narrator emphasised them): Men couldn't handle the stress. During the jury selection process there were some 25 or 30 contenders. When asked to volunteer, most men declined. So the final panel of 12, had only 5 men. She also said that initially (until the defendent's lies were not caught)the only members of the jury that were prepared to give him the benefit of doubt were old ladies (4 of them - our narrator among them).

300

Saw 300 today. It's an exaggerated account of how 300 Spartan warriors held a million strong persian army. As expected this film is a testosterone ride into blood & gore of special effects. It presumably has some historical basis.

However, it falls flat as it tries to prove how western 'democracy & freedom' prevailed in face of barbaric asian invasions. Well, thats so 'ku klux clan'esque. So Xerxes kills because he is evil. Leonides kills for freedom.

The one thing I did like about the film was the camera work. The angles, the movements, the filters, the speed & everything about the camera was truly remarkable.

It's a good time-pass for the lovers of war films. But a complete let down for others.