The Archers - It's so much more than just a soap. It's a bloody drama!

[PseudoBadger]

Will it still be Sunday tonight?

On defences:

If he lives - self defence. He would have to be going for her or Henry at the time and her force would have to be reasonable. Difficult to argue with three wounds, difficult to argue when he wasn't armed, difficult to argue when she doesn't have a mark on her.

If he dies - loss of control. Can be argued after a drip drip of domestic violence, however is quite a new defence so possibly Helen might be a bit of a test case. I don't know whether there's much case law around yet.

I think the school thing is totally relevant if the defence says that Rob was using coercive control - surely that is a prime example.

Yes, it's relevant to the defence, Mrs C-B. My point was that it has no relevance for the prosecution, and they have no incentive to go seeking out evidence of this unless they reach a point where they think about prosecuting Rob. On the face of it that seems unlikely given everything that has happened - unless, of course, they get evidence of his other criminal activities.

A good defence barrister will use statistics and scenarios and what ifs. Can Knob's patents afford the same level of prosecution expertise as the combined Archers can afford? £10k Peggy, £30k Pat and Tony, £50k Brian, £15k David and Ruth, ££10k Shula (yes she's skint but her halo is worth that), Caroline and Oliver £30k, Berrow Farm when they realise the extent of the fraud. The Ar hers don't exactly need crowd funding. Ahem, and who was going to fund Henwee's school fees - I don't think it was going to be Rob. Who had the money in this relationship; who was spending it? That counts for something I'd have thought. What and who is Wob the Knob without Helen's money and connections?

Again there is no need for Rob to be cross examined unless he is on trial.

Case can go like this
Mrs Titchener did you stab your husband
Yes. But....
So you admit you stabbed him.
He was abusive...
Do you have any evidence of this.
Brings forth feeble evidence.

Evidence may be mirigaying in sentencing but does not stop her being guilty.

The prosecution has no need to call Rob. They can use police and medical evidence as they are ONLY interested in showing she stabbed him (on purpose).

And he'd be a hostile witness for the defence.

So if I were writing this farce soap I wouldn't even put him in the stand. I'd claim he was too traumatised.

Also as far as the loss of control defence is concerned, his abuse hadn't been going on for 20 odd years, there's no documentation of it, no hospital admissions of Helen, no previous convictions of rob, no witnesses, nothing firm at all.

Even if Jess comes forward and is believed, just because he abused her doesn't mean he abused Helen. If he can be proved to have thrown a punch at the sab, so what? Plenty of guys get in fights but that doesn't mean they beat their wives at home. I don't think Helen has anything solid to go on at all.

The more I think about it the more I think it'll be a travesty if she gets off

She did have a mark on her: on her wrist and that was seen by the police doctor.

It will be interesting to see how SOC has planned for it to play out over the next few months/years.

No proof how it got there and hardly proof of ongoing and serious abuse

No but it will fit with her story that he grabbed her wrist and forced the knife into her hand

If he dies - loss of control.

But again this doesn't bring a not guilty verdict does it? Just a reduced charge of manslaughter so she is still guilty. No longer a victim but a criminal.

Mirigaying=mitigating

Wow, lots of posts. I haven't listened yet tonight, but on a lighter note, I have just managed to get the non-sleeping toddler to sleep by recounting the story of the Brookfield cows.

"Well I reckon if both Jess and Helen tell the police that Rob is a rapist they would hopefully listen."

Yep. But that doesn't mean that Helen can get off from stabbing him 3 times. There is no evidence against Rob.

No Small, absolutely and I did mean to say that - she's still guilty of manslaughter.

Actually I don't think I want to discuss the issues around Helen and Rob any more. It's been too badly done, in my opinion, to try to unpick the legalities. As sticker has said (and I'd forgotten I admit), Rob's not on trial for anything. Helen's admitted stabbing him, to Kirsty at least. Would he even have to appear in court?

So I'm not going to risk upsetting anyone by making the mistake of thinking that what the sws are presenting us with will be dealt with as though it were a real-life experience. Because obviously they aren't bothered. And this is where the waters are muddied.

We don't know if there are previous convictions years ago weren't Shula and Caroline or Debbie duped and walloped by an arse. There's some empathy in there I'd say x

Actually, am thinkng Knob might well de, not least becase those more knowledgeable n these matters than I am seem to think that would be best for Helln from a legal point of view.

And also because Knob is the third Ambridgeite recently to have hung at death's door in Felpersham ICU - Chris Carter and Tony recovered. Will it be third time lucky? (or unlucky, depending on your viewpoint)

I agree EnglishFern. I think SOC intends her to get off but I think it is badly written as it has insufficient backstory to merit it.

In the jordache case or little mo case or denise (seeing as soaplaw precedents apply) they arrived in the soap already fleeing an aggressive, relentless, stalking abuser whom they had tried to escape repeatedly and they were frequently seen with severe injuries. It was a 'last resort'.

Knob might well DIE - sorry, is ipad!

You can't stab someone three times for once raping you, even if you really really don't like them.

But rob could be prosecuted for the abuse

Agree it doesn't change the fact she is guilty of the stabbing - it really comes down to what the judgement is

Bruce had a really weird delivery. Is the actor famous or will I not know him?

You can't be prosecuted for "domestic abuse"

You can be prosecuted for assault, or harassment, or threatening behaviour. There just isn't any evidence against rob at all.

More than that from David and Ruth surely Beaufort! Hasn't Ruth just become an heiress? Maybe that's what the whole Road/Heather plot was leading up to all along? (Not)

Btw EF that was for SOC and his unhelpful sl where he could have kept it simple
Rob= abusive arse = criminal under new law
Helen = innocent (if annoying) victim who has done nothing wrong

But oh no. That wasn't good enough.

Since Uraula married Bruce and since the Jordache man slithered under the patio life has moved on a little.

Well that's kind of what I meant fern.