Elves have needs too - will there be a pheasants' revolt? Discuss The Archers here

[PseudoBadger]

I've just browsed Lowfield for the first time - they really don't like Pat do they!

I can't imagine what evidence could possibly emerge to mitigate the fact that she stabbed him twice......She has to go to prison, surely?

I am struggling with this too Bertrand. It's almost like it's being built up to Helen making a big reveal that will have the cps patting her on the back as she makes her way home.

I would hope he will be prosecuted for the rapes but we all know how that would likely end in rl. So we are reliant on him having committed some other crime to get his comeuppance (such as killing stefan!!)

Even if he is gound guilty of somethimg that does not make her innocent. Cannot really see how they can convincingly get out of this one

Yes - it just means Gideon has both parents in prison!!

Even if he is gound guilty of somethimg that does not make her innocent. Cannot really see how they can convincingly get out of this one

This of all the crappiness we have had to endure is the bit that gets me most. Helen is abused and ends up criminalised. Even worse, her children are effectively being abused by the system. How can that possibly send a positive message.

So we are reliant on him having committed some other crime to get his comeuppance

Coercive control is a crime now. There have been prosecutions. SOC (and TimStimpson) have apparently written 2 endings to the court case and are waiting until nearer September to see how the law develops.

Where did you get that from, Gumpendorf?

But I just can't see how she can be found not guilty. I can see how she can be convicted of a lesser crime and maybe have a sentence on the shorter end of the spectrum - but given what we heard she is guilty. They made the scene unambiguous in that respect.

I really wish they had gone down the route of him being in the dock

BYOS i have to disagree ( but in a pleasant village green/afternoon tea t grey gables type way obviously) I think the stabbing scene was very ambiguous...

we do not know , yet, what exactly Rob was doing to Henweee, whether he was actually physically attacking him , or whether for instance he was approaching Henwee with a fist raised etc...and we don't know who was holding the knife at exactly which point, we also do not know if Hellin stabbed Rob firstly to stop him attacking henwee and then rob turned as if to go for hellin and she stabbed him again...all of which could ( at a push) be made into a case for self defence ?????

When she stabbed him the second time he weakly said 'give me the knife helen'. Sure they can say he had Henry round the neck but why would she stab him if he was that close to her son. And why would Henry not mention any of that.

It's all just odd!!

I actually found that last scene where Helen named the baby very moving.

And I haven't listened for a while but may be about to get sucked back in.

ah yes...but if your sociopathic controlling husband whom you had just stabbed to stop them thumping your son approached you weakly saying 'give me the knive snow...' would you :

a. meekly hand it over
b. think fuck he is coming towards me but i don't think he is capable of harming me, so i will put the knife down and go calmly and call for help
c. blindly in panic stab him again

The double ending, Augusta?

It was mentioned in one of SOC's many interviews and confirmed by Tim Stimpson at the Coventry Story Fest last weekend.

If it can be proved that Rob has coerced Helen then perhaps it follows that the defence can assert that Henry has been coerced also.
I suppose much of it hinges on how the jury reacts to Rob as a witness, and Ursula. If Anna can get them to show their true colours in court then Helen might get off lightly and the time served on remand taken into account.

Perhaps d: grab my son and run off. Henry's lack of fear of rob can't be very helpful here.

The multiple stabbing is the bit that bothers me with all of this. Actually the criminalising of the victim is what really bothers me but there's no way around that now.

Maybe a lawyer could explain on what grounds someone who stabs someone 4 times can be found not guilty. I don't really know a lot about all this tbh!!

me neither ...
and i really should stop thinking about it and get on with my tax return !

did she stab him 4 times ?

Maybe a lawyer could explain on what grounds someone who stabs someone 4 times can be found not guilty

I'm not a criminal lawyer but self defence is only a defence if it is reasonable and proportionate to remove the immediate risk to oneself and others.

I didn't hear anything in the stabbing scene which would have justified Helen stabbing Rob once far less repeatedly.

Thanks lass!!

I'm sure history will be rewritten to fit socs desired end

1).i think they have been doing most of the plotwriting with a handful of dice.

2. i think they will reveal 'facts' we didn't hear abbout the stabbing. And it is very bad form because that's not the way TA is done.

I don't think anyone's suggested she stabbed four times, have they? Some of the injuries suggested they were inflicted in the same stabbing motion.

I wonder whether they really have written two endings to the trial? I really don't believe that this is going to end up in anything other than acquittal, so the only point in having a conviction would be to keep the tension going for another few months dealing with the appeal. But I strongly suspect that what SOC is planning is some completely unbelievable "revelation" at the trial, e.g. Henwee lisping that Daddy had his hands round his neck plus Jess turning up as a totally unexpected witness, and that would only work if Helen is triumphantly acquitted at the trial.

On checking with Lowfield, that seems to indicate Rob had two wounds to the torso and one to his arm. It seems likely that the knife hit his arm on the way to his body, therefore two wounds. It does also refer to Rob lunging "again" towards Helen - no idea where they get that from, but him lunging at her would suggest an attack which might justify self defence.

Been discussed before but I thought it was one accidental stabbing with possible additional defensive wound and one really quite deliberate stab.

I understood it was 3 wounds. One in the stomach, one in the lung and one in the arm which might have been 'accidental' - caused by one of the other stabs. So two proper stabs.

He was forcing a knife into her hand and telling her to kill herself. In that situation you wouldn't be sure he was not going to force the knife into her then call it suicide. Her life was in danger.

Maybe it's another reason to deny Helen bail - so that when she's found guilty on lesser grounds then they will use time spent in remand and she will effectively walk free.