The case against Helen, The case against Rob

[Longstocking2]

I wondered if we could have thread just for the evidence that could be used on either side for the murder and for demonstrating character.

Is there any chance that the mobile phone which Kirsty gave Helen recorded Rob's verbal attack on Helen and him giving her the knife? Presumably that's the first thing the police will have checked? Or could it be lurking on Kirsty's voicemail conveniently forgotten. Would Kirsty's phone have been handed in?

Presumably Jess is the most important witness on Helen's side to demonstrate coercive control and a witness to Helen having been hit.

Might the Helpline have recorded Helen's call or be able to provide supporting evidence?

If they get Charlie back , he could testify to Rob's blackmail?

If Adam and David remember the accusations of dyke stuffing by the Polish guy who was sent away. Would that be admissible?

Rob's Barrister: if he was such a monster why did you agree to parental responsibility? Why did you agree to job share with him? Didn't you agree with him that it was dangerous to drive? Did he lock you in the house?

Agree Jess will be a key witness.

This is from the Gov description of coercive control from
here

Types of behaviour
The types of behaviour associated with coercion or control may or may not constitute a criminal offence in their own right. It is important to remember that the presence of controlling or coercive behaviour does not mean that no other offence has been committed or cannot be charged. However, the perpetrator may limit space for action and exhibit a story of ownership and entitlement over the victim.

Such behaviours might include:
 isolating a person from their friends and family;
 depriving them of their basic needs;
 monitoring their time;
 monitoring a person via online communication tools or using spyware;
 taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they
can go, who they can see, what to wear and when they can sleep;
 depriving them of access to support services, such as specialist
support or medical services;
 repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless;
 enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise
the victim;
 forcing the victim to take part in criminal activity such as shoplifting,
neglect or abuse of children to encourage self-blame and prevent
disclosure to authorities;
 financial abuse including control of finances, such as only allowing a
person a punitive allowance;
 threats to hurt or kill;
 threats to a child;
 threats to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to ‘out’
someone).
 assault;
 criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods);
 rape;
 preventing a person from having access to transport or from working.
This is not an exhaustive list

Rob is guilty of almost all of this isn't he?
Expect criminal damage of property?

The tracker on the phone will also be important.

What could that show in Helen's favour?

Rob won't have a barrister though. He's not on trial and isn't defending himself.

All the evidence will be against Helen and will be brought by the prosecution. It will be for the defence to refute that evidence I.e. To bring a case of coercive control in order to justify Helen's actions.

So at the moment the evidence is that Helen had the knife and stabbed Rob three times. Henry was the witness. Additionally Ursula will testify that a week previous Helen had threatened to kill rob. And Pat may well need to testify that as well as she was a witness and Ursula named her as a witness. However, the cross examination of Ursula will question whether the outburst when Helen threatened to Kill Rob was because she found out he was planning to send Henry away to boarding school. Ursula will at this point testify that boarding school was just something they had talked about and that no of course they weren't going to send Henry away, but in light of Helen not coping, it was something she and rob had talked about. "Thank you Mrs Tichener, no further questions."

And then, at some point during the defence, the defence barrister will call, the head teacher of the boarding school, who will confirm that Ursula and Rob did in fact visit the school some weeks previously and had enrolled Henry to start there. Paperwork will be produced as evidence for the defence. and there will be outcry in the courtroom as Pat sees things clearly for the first time....

The boarding school is in fact the key piece of evidence, because everything else was hearsay. And any of the control over other people in the village is irrelevant to the case. But Helen had to threaten to kill rob so that could be used when she actually did stab him. And the boarding school holds the key piece of evidence that Helen had not in fact misunderstood anything.

Thank you Wannabe, awesome post that.

I suppose the prosecution would have only a limited interest in defending Rob anyway. If the defence do establish a case for abuse, the prosecution will take the line that she could have walked out perfectly safely before Rob got home.

But is it conceivable in feasible timescales for Rob to get better, get hold of Henry, move home, get custody of the baby once it's born, sell the house and move further away with both of the kids before the trial takes place?
Because I don't think Pat and I have the emotional strength for that narrative arc.

As you post from the legislation shows, part of coercive control is "monitoring a person via online communication or spyware" so as presumably Rob had put the tracker on her phone (mentioned by the police) they can use that in building a case against him.

wannabe thanks for the legal clarification - will the prosecuting legal person not be a barrister?

Yeah it would be a barrister but they wouldn't be representing Rob. The case is the state vs Helen. Rob is the victim but not the one prosecuting iyswim.

If Helen's team could prove coercive control that is not a defence. It would mitigate her sentence.

One thing that I don't understand is that, if Henry is the key witness, why Rob is allowed to see him either. After all he could 'help him' to remember things differently.

Re Henry visiting rob. If rob had stabbed Helen with Henry as a witness, we wouldn't be questioning that she should see Henry. So I suppose it's no different.

(Even though it obviously is).

Well, until it is clear that she did stab him my point still stands. Mind you, I can't believe that any child would be so happy to see anyone whom he may have stabbed.

I still think the lies about boarding school could be key; Pat can testify that Ursula & Rob insisted that they only meant private school, not boarding school which Helen knew Henry meant.

Boarding school staff could corroborate that R & U were very keen for Henry to start very soon.

(I think Rob was scared with the cop because he didn't know what lies to tell, that's another reason he was talking about Hell so much rather than actual events that evening; he was trying to get the cop to reveal something to suggest which lies would work best)

anna wanted them to think of incidences that point to wards coercive control.

one of the main ones would be helen appearing at the cafe and wanting to talk to kirsty and then being whisked away by rob and ursula when she did not want to.

agree that the baording school one has proof.

Helen needs to bloody talk.

Are we supposed to think that Rob knows what he's doing?

I mean I know he's a godforsaken psychotic bag'o'shite. But I sort of think he believes what he's saying. That he's slimy as hell but believes what he's saying. I think that if they push him in questioning and someone pushes his buttons he could suddenly take off the mask and then everyone will see the slavering beast underneath.
I think he is so defensive that it might not take much for the people around him to smell a rat.

Rob thinks he knows what he's doing. He also thinks he can manipulate everyone.
He is also doing it rather well --fucking bastard-
after all Henry is now back home with his father . . . . .
though my highlight of the week was Henry calling Grandma Arsula

But don't you think Helen's defence barrister might push and push and push him til he explodes like he did at Helen before she stabbed him?
That would be so lovely. I hate him.

I'm not sure the boarding school issue will be all that damaging, given the case he is making against Helen. If she really had been as unbalanced and dangerous towards Henry as Rob is trying to make out, a jury would probably be sympathetic with him wanting to keep Henry safe and not knowing any other way of going about it.

I know Rob is not a defendant, but it does seem a bit of a hole in the law, in a case where it is one person's word against another's, that one person has access to a key witness and the other doesn't. Maybe it will backfire. Maybe Rob will train Henry to say something, and Henry will reveal in court that 'Daddy told me I had to say this'

That'll be Rob's whole line of defence then, won't it? Assuming Helen does try to allege coercive control. Everything he did (even all the lines of deceipt) was done only to protect her or Henry.

I sometimes kind of wish the SL had been more typical, years of low grade stuff & the abused partner saying "If only I loved him more then he wouldn't be like this" which is probably more typical of EA situations. But maybe too much for any audience to bear.

JennyDear could have been like that with Brian, you know. Way back when.