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?

Oh yes, Jess could make a last minute, dramatic entrance.

It would be fantastic if the two women he has abused (that we know about) saved the say.

coldtea I think they did one to throw Nigel off the roof and have Henry's birth.

Presumably the characters talking over the courtroom is a necessary plot device. It is annoying, but otherwise they would have had to have aired much more of Henry's testimony and I doubt they could have recorded anything much more explicit. Anyway, we know from the Tom-Fallon at lunchtime conversation that he didn't say anything else helpful to Helen.

Henry's mentioning of not being allowed downstairs was particularly chilling to me because I was absolutely terrified of being put to bed upstairs alone when I was a child. It stopped when we moved out of that house but I remember it vividly.
In the context of Henry's evidence I do think it was scripted to show Rob being overly controlling.

Has anyone who is listening to the trial read this, and if so, what do you reckon?
Grauniad TA Court

(Apologies if there is a link to the article already, I couldn't find it.)

I must say, I could have done with less time devoted to Tony waving at Helen and more time on Rob's cross-examination.

Re the Guardian article, it seems unfair to write off Anna's cross examination of Rob on the basis of the two minutes (or less) that we were permitted to hear. But there are major questions about why she didn't advise on getting a psychiatrist in when she first became involved. I thought what the counsellor said was excellent, and I'm glad they've highlighted that an abused woman physically attacking her abuser is rare.

Isn't there an audiobook out soon?

It appeared on Amazon for release in September then swiftly disappeared.

Maybe it contains the entire case!

Judy, must admit, though I've not been listening, everything I've read here and in other places about the way the domestic abuse/coercive control storyline has been handled agrees with the Grauniad article. (And of course, is why I've stopped listening at this point!)

Another article about Anna Tregorran's failings as Helen's barrister:
www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/what-to-listen-to/helen-titcheners-barrister-is-making-a-terrible-mess-of-the-arch/

Re the Guardian article, it seems unfair to write off Anna's cross examination of Rob on the basis of the two minutes (or less) that we were permitted to hear.

She has been pretty useless in the run up to the trial. We've been forgiving because we thought that the trial would be her chance to shine. She's running out of time to convince us that she is a SHL.
All that business about how far in the knife went only talked about how much wounding Helen did. Shouldn't Anna be emphasising that it wasn't a wounding, IT WAS SELF DEFENCE!!!!! (ops, I'm sure Barristers don't shout, but you get my drift)

Congratulations Jessie he is absolutely gorgeous

And thank you Tuktuk for the v interesting link - confirms my suspicions that Anna is not quite such a SHL as her mother has led everyone to believe.

There are a couple of comments under the article saying that Hels will at least have grounds to appeal the verdict on the grounds of her incompetent barrister and/or scriptwriters

In the guardian article 84% of the public agree with us. Anna is a rubbish barrister!

Think I've reached peak-trial-article now.

Given the number of RL solicitors, barristers (and former barristers) as well as refuge and MH professionals we have amongst us on this thread, I don't see much possibility of reading, elsewhere, anything we haven't already written or read here.

But it's all so unsatisfactory! I've now watched Tim Stimpson (trial scriptwriter) being interviewed - he seemed relaxed. And of course it would be silly of me to say that no lay-person should ever write about a specialist subject. But Consultation, Evidence, Trial Procedure? How on earth could he get all or any of these right after one day in court?

So Anna looks incompetent.

Hopeless.

Jessie congratulations! what a lovely little fellow

But Fink can you think of any way in which the courtroom conversation has contributed at all to the story or supplied us with any information we don't have? We know Tom and Tony are there, and it would be silly if Bruce wasn't. We know it has been hard for Helen. Fallon could have had that conversation with Tom another time. We haven't been told anything we couldn't have guessed.

I particularly liked this bit in the article Mandolino (are you a delurker? If so, welcome!) linked

I would have gone for the more brutal approach with a first question such as:

“Have you ever hit your wife?”

Wish the writer of the article had been the sw.

Also wondering just how much damage Pat will do when she gives evidence? There is speculation elseweb that she will end up being banged up for contempt of court - I can just hear her "B-b b but Tony, they can't do this! I was only trying to help Hellin"

But Fink can you think of any way in which the courtroom conversation has contributed at all to the story or supplied us with any information we don't have? We know Tom and Tony are there, and it would be silly if Bruce wasn't. We know it has been hard for Helen. Fallon could have had that conversation with Tom another time. We haven't been told anything we couldn't have guessed.

Bore
That would cheer me up

Me too red

If Rob had directly been asked about the hit he might have outright denied it.

R4, I think the stuff about the wounds probably matters because even in self defence there's some 'reasonable force' criterion isn't there? eg you might knock out an intruder but you can't then kick his head when he's down.

I think what she was going for was to show that Helen either didn't intend to wound him per se, and also to show that maybe only the first wound was due to her own actions, the rest could have been him attacking and coming into contact with the knife by accident.

The argument that "he fell on the knife himself, m'lud" seemed like something a six year old might say. Shouldn't Anna have said something along the lines of "this is our version of events, could these wounds be compatible with that".
We still haven't heard what Helen's version of events, which is getting a bit tedious. Is Anna going to wait for the summing up to tell us?
The tension should not be 'what happened' but 'can we convince the jury'.

I found Henry and Kirsty's uninterrupted evidence compelling. It didn't need the chorus which I'm assuming is there to stop people with short attention spans getting bored. Once again, they're writing for TV and not radio. Fallon was uber annoying. Her ignorance, her willingness to accept Harrison's pov and ignore what she had seen in the tea room...

We're obviously just getting snapshots. Rob would have been taken through his evidence by Anna line by line? And if Henry's evidence is crucial, surely it needs to be tested a little bit by asking different questions. As always in TA there is a shortage of 'why'.

I thought the point of Anna cross examining the surgeon was that Helen may be allowed one stab in self defence and after that there is a greater chance of the offence being seen as intentional and malicious. Helen's case isn't helped by her failing to call 999, and Anna will be relying heavily on reasonable doubt. Don't they have forensic evidence in real life- couldn't Dr Locke talk to his pal Nikki Alexander?

Gruach, ISTR they said they'd got lots of advice from lawyers as well as relying on Tim Stimpson's one day in court - not that they've necessarily paid attention to it. I don't think they've got anything drastically wrong in the trial process so far, unlike the Broadchurch writers, but as frequently discussed the way they've implied that all the preparation would be done by the QC is just ridiculous.