Archers spoilers or Archers spoiled? You decide. Thread the Second

[BoreOfWhabylon]

And so it continues. We still have one long-term prediction from the start of the last thread that has not yet come to pass - the burning down of Lower Loxley.

But there is still time...

Oooh!

Heard Mr Seed.

What possible twist could there be?

Now two of his wives have said in court that he physically restrained them I should think it would be investigated whatever the verdict but I suppose one or both women would have to report it officially.
I hope that is what will happen.

He could spend a lot of time in legal mire from now on. He could be charged separately with rape, intimidation of witnesses, coercive control....

The jury will be unable to decide and there will have to be a retrial....

On the rapes, I assume that the first thing the police will want to do is take a statement from Helen and Jess, and see what evidence there is, before deciding to question Rob.

Surely since they both testified in court under oath that he raped them and that the police would be hard pushed to find any evidence apart from their word against his I would have thought the police had grounds to charge him.
I don't think there will be a retrial, not after they have got all these extra actors in to play the jury on Sunday. Catherine Tate and Nigel Havers wouldn't come to end up with a retrial.

Ruhrpott - I no next to nothing about police procedures but my sense is that the police will want a bit more that "he raped me" even if stated under oath. They will want to sit down with the victim and establish dates and circumstances, and follow standard procedures to obtain any physical evidence and presumably establish how the victim indicated to Rob that there was no consent. I presume they'd also want to interview Rob. Only then would they consider charges (ie because they think a conviction is possible).

Maybe the twist is guilty but recommended to mercy?

?

I missed that lecture Judy.

Usha in the cast list, hooray for Usha!

I can't believe I write no instead of know. I feel dirty.

Judy Graham said he felt "shock and horror" when he looked at the last page of the script. Sounds less like a hung jury and more like a guilty verdict to me. Maybe that's why Kirsty is 'supporting the Bridge Farm Archers' on Monday. Who knows.

The twist could simply be that Helen is found guilty. Anna being 'hopeful' might refer to the chances of Pat and Tony getting Henry back following Jess's revelations in court?

Anna might be 'hoping' to escape a lynch mob!

Vango His words screamed 'guilty verdict' to me too. He then hurriedly added: 'excitement'. So, possibly guilty to WWI but a suspended sentence? Is that even possible?? Either way, he sounded slightly abashed bless him.

Haven't heard the GS interview, but I bet that's a choreographed bit of misdirection to keep us all on tenterhooks to the last. Maybe Helen collapses on hearing the verdict (but will be fine on Monday)? I wouldn't quite bet the house on a Not Guilty verdict on the attempted murder charge, but I'd venture a quid or so. Not sure about the wounding charge, but I'd risk 50p* on an immediate released, either because she's found Not Guilty, or because she's Guilty but released immediately because the sentence is suspended/wiped out by the time on remand.

*last of the high rollers, me

Ooh, 50p sounds a bit risky for me. I mean, I think it will happen, but a whole 50p?! Better not, just in case. I'll put twopence-halfpenny on her being out sometime in the next year.

I'm working tomorrow & the rest of my family are off to watch the Tour of Britain. I'm begging them to eat out up there, knowing I can listen in peace. Under no circumstances are they allowed to get a train arriving home before 8.30 (to let my adrenaline levels drop).

I suppose "shock and horror" could be something to do with Knob's and Bruce's reaction to the verdict. Clinging to hope, here.

Is the shock and horror that the jury found Helen guilty and she got a long sentence? The sentence may be longer because she didn't plead guilty and dragged Rob's name through the mud in the process. The ultimate act of misogyny from SOC. We don't know how the judge directed the jury to interpret the evidence in relation to the charges.

Would there be grounds for appeal given the rape etc came out in the trial?

In yesterday's Guardian interview LP said her mother had advised her to start looking for other jobs and she would love to work with Sean again 😳

I'm hoping it's your version Judy. Rob might start shouting that they're his children and no-one's ever going to take them away from him. Bruce will start insulting Helen, screaming that she's welcome to her brats, they'll have a massive punch up in court and both be arrested. Marvellous.

So ... Who was it on Broadcasting House who interjected with

She didn't stab him

• and was quickly hushed up by Paddy O'Connell?

I only heard bits of the conversation.

What could they possibly mean? If Helen didn't stab him then either there was a silent other in the house, or it was Henry, or Rob stabbed himself. None of those possibilities seem terribly likely.

Ha ha! I was only half listening but my allegedly non-Archers-listening DH started talking about the whole incident turning out to have been a dream on Helen's part.

That would not be good ...

I think that might have been Jacob Rees-Mogg