He's not a pheasant poacher, he's a pheasant poacher's grandson. Join us for trials, tribulations and tipsy tractor trips in Ambridge.

[PseudoBadger]

Will this thread see the end of The Trial? And SOC?

Anna fails miserably, max steps in and saves Helen on appeal. Also gets Kaz off. Kaz and Helen live together. Helen is furious with Tom for stealing her thunder re baby food. Shula leaves Alistair , and having been scorned by Docloc, wanders the streets of Ambridge in sackcloth and lives in a shed with he who must not be named. Or persuades vicar to wall her in and becomes Ambridge Anchorite.

Are Anchorites mute?

I think SOC's on the legal profession were formed entirely by This Life, so any female barrister has to be called Anna, drink too much and be obsessed with her disastrous live life, and not actually spend much time working.

Love life.

Views. SOC's views on the legal profession.

I'll give up now.

I still can't listen to the actual prog, so thanks for filling me in here and making me realise that atm, I've made the right decision to switch off

Jasper I think you've solved it!

I've listened a bit this week hoping it will build up to the trial. There hasn't been a build up at all. Anna seems to be getting nowhere. For all the talk of her being diligent and clever we've seen no sign of it. She just seems over emotional and incapable of asking the right people the right questions.
If Helen is to get off or Henry is to be removed from Rob then next week is going to be the trial from fantasy land when sleeping beauty has a dramatic awakening and there are lots of "Ta Daa" flourishes with SOC behaving like a magician. Ridiculous.

As with all legal drama, Anna will have a lightbulb moment the night before her big closing speech (do they do that in uk courts?) and deliver an impassioned speech about nasty rob and the all female jury will clear Helen

Ridiculously, I woke up in the middle of the night thinking about this. The key is the boarding school. Helen said she'd kill Rob when she heard that he intended to send Henry away. When in court they bring up the threat to kill, Helen will say it's just a turn of phrase, I was very angry about the boarding school
plan. Rob takes the stand and chuckles patronisingly, denying all knowledge of such a plan. Then Anna produces a surprise witness, the headmaster who says oh but Rob came to the school, and told me not to speak to his wife about his visit. Rob left exposed and stuttering. As are the listeners who didn't get to hear any of the background work, but must just gasp in awe at the amazing and surprising denouement ...

I imagine that you can't really produce new witnesses or statements out of thin air but that won't stop SOC.

If not this then Shula will confess all from the gallery, or Stefan's ghost will put in an appearance, or Charlie will Skype the court from Scotland ...

AntiBoop not really, I think it is frowned on if you get over emotional as a barrister in court. The theatrics are across the pond. When I've been in court it is more like a civilised chat apart from everyone being "my learned friend". I'm a civil lawyer, not a criminal one though.

And Amelie I still don't see how that is a defence to attempted murder.

Which is why they shouldn't have had her stab him, but had him on the stand. Ugh.

Its relevant because of the premeditation required for the murder charge. So if that can be thrown into sufficient doubt (the only evidence is the school fury, isnt it?) then it presumably falls back to the wounding charge. To be cleared of that they have to prove self-defence (of herself or Henry). My guess is that at the moment the evidence will not be strong enough for murder but not sufficient to clear Helen of the wounding - so the appeal would be to sort out that part.

Is there any possibility that even if Helen is convicted of the wounding that Rob could be charged with coercive control? That might be the only way to get the boys out of his custody.

I think this story could still have a long way to run - well, whatever happens it will because Rob doesn't seem likely to go away quietly any time soon.

I still don't see how that is a defence to attempted murder.

This is what I can't get past; he may be a horrible person but that's still no excuse for trying to kill him. And also "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."
You can't do a ta-dah! in RL.

Its relevant because of the premeditation required for the murder charge. So if that can be thrown into sufficient doubt (the only evidence is the school fury, isn't it?)

So, Mrs Titchener, I believe this is your second marriage? Tell me how the first one is alleged to have finished ...

Errol American law requires premeditation. UK law requires intention. It doesn't matter if you only formed the intention the second before you did it, it just had to be deliberate.

I guess the boarding school thing could be used to attack Rob's credibility. Therefore when he denies that he ever abused Helen, or that he was going to attack Henry, the Defence can say his evidence has to be discounted, which only leaves them with Helen's account of what happened and, at the very least, reasonable doubt?

I've forgotten, have they charged her with attempted murder AND wounding or just attempted murder?

Both, I think. Wouldn't that be the normal thing in a case like this where clearly enough she stabbed him but unclear why?

The boarding school is tangible evidence of Rob's manipulation and lies and Ursula's support. Helen wasn't disturbed - Rob was playing with her mind. Most of the other occasions are he says, she says. The boarding school/killing comment was the day of the 2nd rape and the day before Helen contacted the Helpline. That could go either way on intent.

Of course, the boarding school may read that Rob/Ursula denied the allegations in court and contact Anna/the police . That would diminish their credibility and evidence.

I'm not sure there will be a great reveal - the hour episode is surely the long tense wait for the jury meaning it could go either way.

Hasn't Helen told Anna about the boarding school?

I would have thought logically Anna must have asked Helen why she said she wanted to kill Rob, which would lead to a conversation about the boarding school proposal. But unfortunately everything has to have the caveat that we can't assume that SOC will necessarily run this storyline logically.

The thing is, evidence of Rob's coercive control, even if presented in court, isn't going to carry Helen very far. She needs to demonstrate that her actions in stabbing him were necessary in defence of herself or Henry and realistically that requires her to show that she perceived an immediate physical threat. A pre-existing pattern of controlling behaviour is of limited assistance when she needs to demonstrate she felt physically threatened.

Hasn't Helen told Anna about the boarding school?

I don't think so but why hasn't Tony? I assume she'll get the written form of Pat's statement too but perhaps not just yet so the prosecution can leave her scrambling to catch up?