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?

Helen's told Anna a few things which, as someone who specialises in DV, she would recognise and presumably follow up where she can. From Anna's comments about Helen not opening up we are expected to assume that Anna hasn't made the connections. In a normal storytelling there would not be these huge gaps in action but this is SOC and I think he may be saving the work that has been done for the trial.

However, using my legal knowledge from TV and detective novels , Anna can only use this research to challenge prosecution evidence or provide supporting evidence. Helen's defence is self defence so she has to open up and be clear in her own mind about what happened and be prepared to defend that under cross examination. There is absolutely no indication that Helen is ready for that.

Sure, Errol, I just don't want to assume they have done the normal, sensible thing. In that case, surely the wounding charge will stand unless Helen can prove that at that moment she was in fear for her and Henry's life?

Also Gumpendorf in my personal experience having your mind played with does tend to disturb you a bit. It hasn't been going on all that long with Helen but with Henry, if he starts treating him the same way, it will be during his formative years and could affect him quite a lot :(

TBH from what we heard in the stabbing episode I find it hard to see that Helen can make a convincing case for self-defence. So, Rob was egging her on to kill herself, but she could have put the knife down. There was no indication that he wanted to kill her himself -she was carrying his child and she was his 'loved' possession (he didn't really think she'd use the knife on herself let alone him). So, was he about to strike out at Henry when he came downstairs? No-one has said so, and Henry isn't terrified of Rob.

If the rapes come up - no evidence, and Rob would 100% believe his own innocence ( 'No....' ... 'I love you so much' ... one of the most chilling exchanges in the whole story)

How does the 'balance of mind disturbed' type of thing work? Is it a mitigation/psych evaluation type thing? Because while not 'mad' her mind had certainly been disturbed.

I would have thought the information about the boarding school must be in the paperwork, because it would be necessary to describe what led up to the purported threat to kill. I suspect Rob would take great delight in describing in massive detail how Helen jumped to totally unworthy conclusions and/or was fantasising, hence this completely unjust accusation she made against him.

I wonder if Arsula will put her foot in it - at the very least, it's bound to be Bruce's week for the teeth so possibly nobody will be able to make her out. Whatever she says, it'll cause a massive schism with Knob who won't be able to cope with 2 young and distressed children without the adoring attention of his ma - so, further down the line concerns (I fervently hope not too far), will be raised by neighbours (Emma for example), the Archers GPs, Shula, the school. Then Justin will contact Charlie - and once star GD is off to Oxford, JD will have time to think, remember Stefan, talk to David, etc etc. I'm just making it all up -but isn't that what the script team do too. Oh, and Oliver, with help from Caroline and Shula, will join some dots too. Anyway, Knob will be run out of town. Possibly with Toby's egg on his face.

BTW, I've been meaning to say how much i love the thread title. Well done, whoever.

Re- the trial, won't all sides so soon before the trial date have received all the statements and so forth by now? (if this were RL)

I'm lost really. I would have thought that all this evidence about what a monster Rob is would make it more likely that she intended to harm him, not less.

Arf at "Bruce's week for the teeth"

I think the defence would have received all the statements ages ago. People who are just witnesses like Rob presumably don't have any entitlement to copies.

I agree Cecile. TA brought my memories of being manipulated as a much younger person flooding back. It made me realise how much influenced it had had on my life.

at the very least, it's bound to be Bruce's week for the teeth

Topaz

Wouldn't the defence be able to interview witnesses? Like Henry or Kirsty? Has Henry actually been interviewed by a specialist

On a different matter, have Oliver and Caroline ever mentioned any concerns about the impact of Brexit on their plans to move to Tuscany?

But at this stage Helen has no defence because she hasn't said anything.
That's what is soooo annoying.
Topaz

Well quite Random.

Hi all, been lurking and loving your insights but thought I'd have my 2penith. What about Knob's other injuries? If I remember rightly, Helen ONLY stabbed him once but somehow Knob ended up with sliced wrist as well as a couple of body shots? Surely this will come out at trial?

Absolutely loving the thread, still chortling over the 'commemorative cheese' 👍🏻

No, sure it was two stabs from Helen and the wrists would be defence injuries

I'm pretty sure the defence wouldn't be able to interview Henry: there would be all sorts of concerns around the effect on him of making him keep reliving the attack, and the danger of someone influencing his recollection. I don't know about adult witnesses - Anna seems to be taking the line that she can't talk to any prosecution witness. I guess they might be able to if they are upfront with the prosecution, and it might be necessary for a prosecution representative to be present?

I'm pretty sure the defence can't interview prosecution witnesses or have any contact with them outside the court. The defence can only cross examine them on the evidence they have provided for the prosecution.

While I can understand why prosecution witnesses shouldn't be in contact with the accused, I don't get why the prosecution can 'claim' a witness who may have important defence evidence. Does it only work that way round? what happens if the defence lawyer has already been talking to someone, eg for the role of a character witness and then the prosecution decides that the person should be a prosecution witness? Is it 'first dibs'? If not, it seems that it could be very unfair. Sure, the defence barrister gets to cross-examine but she doesn't know all that Kirsty knows except from very indirect sources.

'and the danger of someone influencing his recollection'
whereas living with Rob is absolutely fine....lets hope that Rob's stern warnings to be honest and not have secrets leads to ... ah yes, a 'surprise' for him.

What astonishes me (well, one of the many astonishing things about all this) is that Hels does not appear to have had a psychiatric report. Surely routine when a pregnant and previously mild mannered cheesemaker apparently flips and stabs her devoted husband?

On a separate note, am loving the thought of Alan walling up Shula and turning her into St Smugula the Ambridge Anchorite

Errol you're right, it is strange - but presumably the goal will just be to pick holes in the evidence that Kirsty does give so as to introduce reasonable doubt...