Biggest mystery in ‘The Jury: Death on the Staircase’ trial revealed

The answer to the jury’s biggest question in a manslaughter trial has been revealed in an explosive scene of a new true crime series.

Expert testimony in a manslaughter trial against a man whose partner was found dead at the bottom of a staircase in the couple’s Sydney home has answered one of the most burning questions the jury had about the case.

The Jury: Death on the Staircase is an Australian-first true crime series airing on SBS in which a real trial is re-enacted word-for-word by paid actors, for a jury of 12 selected people.

Names have been changed so that neither the participants nor the viewers at home are able to google details of the case and discover the original verdict, in the hopes of preserving the integrity of the experiment.

The 12 volunteers in the series experience the trial as the original jury did, being presented with the same evidence, to discover the answer to one of the most pressing questions experts have about the jury model: does it actually work to deliver justice?

Read our recap of The Jury: Death on the Staircase episode two

Jury members were finally given one piece of information they had been desperate for. Picture: SBS

Before that overarching question can be answered, there has been one within the trial plaguing members of the jury since it commenced.

Shaun*, the accused, is on trial for manslaughter, meaning the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused the death of his partner, Carlo*.

But three episodes in, while the jury has heard from a slew of experts, first responders and witnesses close to the couple, the cause of Carlo’s death has until now yet to be revealed.

In last night’s episode, one of the biggest mysteries of the case - how Carlo died - was revealed.

The pathologist who examined Carlo’s body was called to the stand to testify on his findings, which included evidence that a gash to Carlo’s chin was consistent with being hit with part of a juicer that had been found on the floor of the couple’s kitchen, stained with blood.

The accused had previously given evidence that he had been making carrot juice prior to Carlo’s death.

Under questioning from the prosecution, the pathologist then revealed that his finding was that Carlo’s cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head and neck, though crucially, he found it “possible but unlikely” that those injuries were caused from falling down the stairs.

“You would expect more injuries on parts of the body that were more likely to come into contact with the steps or other structures on the way down,” he said.

“The only facts we have,” Mishelle, a jury member, observed during deliberation. “Are the injuries. How he got them, we don’t know.”

“That’s where we come in, I guess,” responded another jury member. “That’s what we have to decide.”

Under cross-examination, during which the defence barrister for the accused questioned the pathologist on whether or not certain bruising could have been caused by vigorous resuscitation attempts from first responders, the expert witness was then offered a chance to comment on any of the other injuries sustained by the deceased.

The series’ judge pictured in the courtroom. Picture: SBS

“I am unable to say that I have ever seen a case of a natural death with such extensive injuries involving the neck and the head,” the witness responded.

“I cannot say with certainty whether it is the neck injury alone, the head injury alone, or a combination of both. It is most likely to be a combination of both (that caused the death in this case).

“But it does include the combination of falling down the stairs and misguided resuscitation,” countered the defence barrister.”

The expert continued, looking directly at the jury: “It would be an extraordinary fall to result in that degree of injury. And it would be an extraordinary degree of misguided resuscitation. But I can’t exclude that combination might explain the injuries.”

Back in the deliberation room, despite receiving the information they’d been desperate for, things weren’t any clearer for some jury members - though for others, the evidence had crystallised their decisions.

In the deliberation room, speculation remained rife. Picture: SBS

The reveal led to more questions, rather than answers, for some jurors. Picture: SBS

Inexplicably, the presentation of scientific evidence seemed to spur some very unscientific speculation from certain members of the jury.

“For me, it’s about - ‘what would Jesus do,’” explained Van, a children’s entertainer who used his martial arts background to argue to the group that all 14 injuries on the deceased’s body were the result of blows from the accused.

“You’ve got the 10 commandments, right? And you’ve got ‘thou shalt not kill’. That one really rings home for me,” he confessed to the camera.

“It’s about reasonable doubt,” said sex therapist Anya, speaking to her fellow jury members. “He (the prosecutor) has in no way convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that Shaun is guilty.”

“Visiting the home today,” countered Guy, referencing the group excursion the jury took to the home where the death occurred. “That was when I really started to believe that he could have done it.”

With two episodes remaining in the series, it remains to be seen how the jury will find in the case, and whether it will align with the verdict handed down in the original trial.

One thing, however, seems to have been proven already, and that is this: there is always doubt in the deliberation room.

The Jury: Death on the Staircase. Stream Free now on SBS On Demand.

* Names, dates, location and images have been changed to protect identities in the original trial

Originally published as Biggest mystery in ‘The Jury: Death on the Staircase’ trial revealed