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?

Yes, it's entirely usual to bring the main witness out first. Also at this stage Rob isn't trying to "get off" as he's not the accused.

I don't see how we can say that Anna has missed any trick as we've only heard less than two minutes of a cross-examination that would take at least an hour in RL.

I would say Rob's 'all I did was try to love you' schtick is a good way in for Anna to ask him what exactly that entailed and how much he felt he was doing for her own good against her wishes

So the way it works is that each witness gives a statement, which is their evidence in chief. They are then examined in chief on the statement and then the other side's barrister cross examines. Rob will be the main witness for the prosecution because he was there. So in a roundabout way, it is usual, yes.

Also most courtroom dramas are murder cases so obviously the victim isn't there as a witness - which is why this feels odd I think.

FGS how ANNOYING was Tony?
Like a keen parent at the nativity
OVER HERE HELEN!

V good listening though. Am enjoying.

Tom and a lot of legal dramas feature the most "important" witness coming forward at the last second with important evidence which changes the case entirely, so they are brought on last.

And agreed, Olivia. I was listening absentmindedly and thinking exactly the same sort of thoughts as I do about people who rustle crisp packets during films or talk loudly on the phone on the quiet carriage or in the library....

Yes that's what I meant Cecile; the long-lost son and heir is suddenly unmasked or the will is found at the 11th hour.

Exactly, Gherkinsmummy, makes for a good story but incredibly inconvenient for the court and the lawyers...

I listened to a very good interview on radio 4...might have been saturday morning..with a rl barrister who was commentating on trials in tv and radioland and how they usually go for 'hammy' type productions because rl trials are very boring and long..often. he explained really well how things like Rob's tearful self proclaiming grandstanding at the end of yesterday's episode just would not be allowed in rl..i think anna did try to get it stopped but the judge over ruled which is ridiculous because Rob would be told to just answer the questions and nothing else.
My money is on Henweee being the the character that produces the sensationalist evidence that puts Helen in the clear and confirms a self defence motive, she will get a suspended sentence and Rob will go mad with anger and leap accross the court room assaulting police officers etc to try to get to Helen and then will be arrested...it will all be very Eastenders/ days of their lives type stuff...
don't thinl i can bear to listen

I'm hoping that Rob's credibility is destroyed by Ursula innocently confirming his adoration for tuna in any form. (Am I right in thinking that witnesses don't hear the other evidence?) That simple thing would expose his calculated manipulation (ooh, and how about a perjury charge?)

I am one of those annoying de-lurkers who is back for the trial. I was here at the beginning though I always read this thread!

I particularly enjoyed hearing Anna say it like it was to Rob. One of the worst bits of this storyline has been the frustration of Rob getting away with the most blatant inconsistency/hypocrisy and NO ONE SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT! Ian did it well the other day too. I breathed a sigh of relief.

I've been assuming that something will come out in Henry's evidence but I'm confused as to how they'll do this. I wouldn't have thought his evidence can be very graphic because it wouldn't be appropriate for the actor, would it? Though I guess he could say something along the lines of 'daddy was shouting lots and I was very scared and thought he might hurt me'.

I was wondering about that, I think some of that will have to be conveyed via adults discussing it afterwards, assuming that he does have anything shocking to say.

Did I dream Rob telling the police he thought Helen and Kirsty were lovers?

No, you didn't. (Though he was less concise.)

Perhaps that will form part of Hard-Faced Policewoman's evidence?

Would Anna not have seen a transcript of that interview?

Any bets on when this week Rob furiously mutters (or shouts) "I'm not the one on trial here". Which of course he isn't.

Yes Rob definitely implied that Kirsty wanted Helen and had been encouraging her to leave him because she wanted H for herself. Will be interesting if that comes up in court!

I suppose the prosecution might bring it up when cross-examining Kirsty or Helen, but not if they've any sense.

Rob might be stupid enough to bring it up himself

I doubt that the interview with Rob was recorded. I suppose it got written up into a witness statement, so it will depend whether the policewoman thought it worth including his suspicions about Helen and Kirsty - she might not have as it's not really relevant to the charges, plus showing Rob as a bit of a git.

De-lurking (again). Catching odd episodes, not LA to missed ones, reading all on here - but it takes me sooo long to catch up with you lot (see - I do prioritise this thread). Going to LA to last night though so's I can join in properly.

How come SOC is still here?? Or are we supposed to have forgotten all about that? in true SOC style-ee

Rob was insinuating that Helen and Kirsty cooked it up between them and the over-zealous police officer seemed to give it some credence but all the sympathy has so far been weighted towards Rob in the way the story line has been constructed.
I think it will continue to appear to go all Rob's way for a couple more episodes at least, leading up to The Big Revelation whatever that might be,

Nice line of questioning, Anna.