What I would like out of the Philip Polkinghorne trial is access to the jury. 

This country has an archaic and sheltered view of certain aspects of justice. If you believe justice has to be seen to be done, it behoves us to fully understand the process. 

I have had virtually no interest in the trial. I have no real overarching interest in crime generally. 

I got fascinated by the David Bain business, but Polkinghorne has passed me by. He either did it or he didn’t. The jury is working that out as we speak. 

I have noticed a change this time and it confirms that my lack of interest in matters makes me part of a very, very small minority. It's the blogging that has gone on from court from the digital media. 

A criticism I have always had about media coverage of court is mainly they are cherry pickers and mainly formats, particularly in news bulletins, never gives fair insight into the day's proceedings. 

This time it has been no different. TV seems to have come and gone. On a slow day it's covered, on a busy one it's not. 

Having been in court enough times over the years, the tricky part is how slowly it all moves and therefore it is easy for media to miss a lot of detail, not to mention subtlety and nuance. 

If you can't cover it properly, don’t. 

The digital operators have been able to give you all the blow-by-blow detail you could ever want and from my inquires, it has been absorbed vociferously by most of the population. 

But back to the jury. In America you get to talk to them. 

Why not here? 

Surely in a trial of this detail and interest, knowing what they thought or didn’t think and what they made out as critical or of no consequence is not only fascinating, but vital to understanding as to how we got to where we are about to get. 

Seeing open justice work and getting the detail from those closest to it is good. Surely you can't argue that wouldn't improve the process, therefore our understanding? 

How, possibly, is that a bad thing?