> Personally I doubt the accuracy of the program. If we were to believe the
> Channel 4 perspective, McDonald's lawyer, one of the formost libal lawyers
> in the UK, is an incompitant fool, and the two "anachists", are forthright
> and practced lawyers. I really cannot believe this to be the case, and
> therefore think that the reason for this is purely in Channel 4's
> dramatisation, and the exerts chosen to be in the "drama". If you'd been in court much you would have known that actually Rampton (McDonald's lawyer) was shown in a pretty good light in the drama. In real life he was snorting and muttering under his breath for much of the trial, and not remotely the calm and unflustered professional that was portrayed in the programme. Well, at least that's true for the days I went along to court anyway. One time Rampton answered a question for one of McDonald's witnesses, who was being cross-examined, and was told off by the judge who said that if he wanted to give evidence himself he should take off his wig and get in the witness box!
The programme was most innaccurate for Dave Morris, it seemed to portray him as really gormless, when as Simon S. has pointed out, would he really have held it together for 313 days if he was like that? On the days I went to court he was nothing like that, and in fact asked a lot of totally coherent and sensible questions.
Also Channel 4 put the defendants over like they were shouting and stomping most of the time which seems to be just stereotyping. I did see some shouting in real life, but only on the odd occasion when an argument had been going some time and frustrations rose too high. I don't suppose that the Judge would have let them get away with shouting all the time either.
Other than that I thought the programme was fairly good, shame there aren't more episodes though, it would be interesting to watch all the bits that are in the trial news sections on McSpotlight!
None.
