I have been watching The Verdict on BBC2. I have found it very interesting to watch. I have always been interested in the legal process and have to watched programmes like Crown Court which is making a comeback on LegalTV. At least once a year I go to the Old Bailey to watch the Courts working. I would recommend this to anyone who wants to see how real life court compares to TV.

It is this difference that is making The Verdict so interesting to watch. It is not scripted and the barristers are real. They are doing their job, their way, but with cameras present. It is also interesting to hear the behind the scenes discussions with the jury. Although they are 12 famous people, I feel their bias and views would be no different to any other 12 strangers pushed together to become a jury. Stan Collymore has been very strong on his view that you must weigh up the case on the evidence you are told, but on the emotions of the witnesses. This is a very noble thought, but is it really possible to do that?

The victim was in great distress while giving her evidence and Stan said we must ignore that. That may be true, but I have this question. If she had been calm, not cried, would that have been used by the jury to show that she was lying and made it all up?

The show continues and I am looking forward to seeing what happens next.