Silence in court! Discuss The Archers and shout from the gallery here. Send him down.(1000 Posts)
Is it Jess who has appeared in the foyer of the court? does she want to give evidence? Oh, please, let this torture be over and Hellin acquitted. I hope that the good people of Ambridge then form a circle around Knob and chant 'You're a cunt', while throwing dog-shit. That's what I'd do, anyway.
Whether Helen is acquitted or not, this story may still have many years to run.
If I was on the jury I'm not sure I'd believe Jess's testimony.
Thanks for the new thread, Pseudo! Another great title. As to what day it is, well, in Borsetshire who knows, now that SOC is playing so fast and loose with time.
If Rob were on trial and I were a juror I might suspect Jess giving evidence was just the bitter actions of a former wife. But as Helen is the one on trial, I might be more inclined to credit someone who was prepared to testify in support of the woman who effectively ended her (Jess's) marriage.
Oh, it will, Errol. But the tide will have turned against Knob and I shall be able to start listening again without having to pounce on the radio and turn it off
Thanks for the new thread, pseudo. At least the trial has got us talking: last thread averaged 90 posts per day - rate had been bumbling along around half that since May.
But so far, no-one has been able to prove that Rob has any reason to lie, or indeed form for lying. Helen is a serial liar (drink-driving, jewellery classes whilst conducting her affair). She's also in the past been headstrong and determined to get what she wants, regardless (a baby, Rob). With her own mother and her best friend as witnesses for the prosecution I think the jury have little reason to believe her.
But they were hostile witnesses and Kirsty made no bones about being on Helen's side.
They testified that she did stab him, that she was emotionally fragile but Kirsty also gave the jury a reason why.
I'm hoping Anna has also called an expert in domestic violence to explain to the jury what this looks like and how it can make women behave/look to the outside world.
DadDadDad Could go either way. She's the vengeful wife who tried and failed to win him back so wants him to suffer or what you say!
I hope the hospital psychiatrist is also called to testify about Helen's mental health (if that's allowed). We never heard what happened at that appointment.
I like the thread title a lot.
Just listening again to the repeat. Is it wrong that I want to kill Ursula?
thankyou for the new thread
I am still not listening - may tune in Sun morning for the film but not sure, so thankyou for keeping me updated!
Buttered There's something about that whole family that makes one just want to.........
Maybe brother Miles is the white sheep of the family and will turn up somehow with evidence of Rob's behaviour from a young age (there's clearly history between them). But maybe he won't appear till Rob's rape/CC trial.
Any legal bods ... do the allegations about Rob in this case in any way mean that he can claim he won't get a fair trial if/when he is prosecuted?
I had retreated back into lurkdom for the trial but just to say:
1. Thanks to Pseudo for the new thread and excellent title.
2. Totally agree about the talking over the top of evidence - just STOP IT.
3. Wouldn't Knob be the type to have a LinkedIn profile with his old boarding school (and all the other glittering prizes of his, erm, stellar career) prominently listed for maximum boasting potential? Surely even dim Barista Anna would have the wit to be able to check this out.
Catching up on the previous thread:
All the evidence against Rob won't change the outcome. this isn't about proving Helen's innocence, because the fact is she did stab Rob. this is just about mitigation in terms of which charge and what sentence.
But bear in mind that this is a jury trial. It's not unknown for juries to acquit someone who is blatantly guilty because they don't approve of the charge or the likely sentence.
Would it be ok for the victim of a crime currently being tried to be accused of a crime in evidence? I don't think the court would just carry on with the proceedings as it has here, I think the proceedings would have been interrupted so the court could determine whether (and how) to deal with the new allegations?
We don't know that the court has carried on, given that yesterday's episode finished with the big revelation. However, accusations against the victim are not necessarily that uncommon - after all, the defence of self defence of necessity involves an allegation that the other person was assaulting you. With a totally new revelation such as this, I suspect there would be an adjournment to allow the prosecution to talk to Rob, and they would be allowed to re-call him to give evidence to refute the allegation.
Presumably Rob's wounds were photographed by the police so why didn't Anna get a forensic pathologist to review them and go on the stand
Being picky here but, again, we don't know that she hasn't. We're still only on the first defence witness.
Also does Rob have any character witnesses??
The prosecution doesn't call character witnesses for the victim. After all, attempted murder is attempted murder no matter how evil the victim is.
They'll surely argue that (Jess's) testimony that he raped her too doesn't tally with her desperate attempts to have him acknowledge his paternity after she'd 'successfully escaped the clutches of such an evil abuser'?
You can want nothing to do with a rapist whilst still wanting him to pay maintenance for his child, surely? But I agree the fact that she apparently forgot about the possibility of another father doesn't help her potential credibility.
But the boarding school isn't in doubt - Ursula didn't deny it and the prosecution argues it was just because Helen was already unstable and dangerous.
Re the school: as we discovered previously, there are very few schools in the country that will contemplate taking 6 year olds as boarders. I would have thought the defence could contact all of them without too much difficulty.
What's in doubt about the boarding school is whether it was just a vague plan for the future, which seems to be the Knob/Arsula line, or the much more definite proposal which Helen believed to be the case. Tracking it down will sort that one out and also prove Knob/Arsula to be liars.
Do we know where Knob is now? Is he in the public gallery as he's given his evidence, or is he waiting to be called back later?
Or perhaps he's hobbled off, him and his stick, for a lie down as he's an injured man you know.
So the woman who arrived last night could be Jess saying Rob had previously raped her, or the WA volunteer saying Helen had called about being raped, or an unknown such as a Canadian woman saying he'd tried to rape her and she'd stabbed him. (we know he has a scar and previous dubious history, as he didn't want to adopt Henry and undergo the necessary scrutiny into his record). Fallon or Emma remembering Helen's last visit to the "mismatched tat" Tea Room. The head of the boarding school. Bridge Farm's (or Berrow Farm's) forensic accountant... Charlotte if things have already gone terribly wrong for her... Oh dear I seem to be getting carried away. I'm supposed to be working! Far too invested
'Tracking it down will sort that one out and also prove Knob/Arsula to be liars.' Perjurers!
And how about Ian testifying that Rob has dined off tuna Nicoise at GG, just to overegg the custard?
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.