Silence in court! Discuss The Archers and shout from the gallery here. Send him down.

[PseudoBadger]

What day is it again?

I'm really cross that there hasn't been a social worker involved at all seemingly. The stabbing would have triggered a section 47 investigation, the social worker would have spoken to Helen and Henry and the CAFCASS officer and any decent social worker would have domestic abuse and control at the front of their mind. There would be regular network meetings with Henry's school and any other professional involved.
The complete absence of a social worker is infuriating and completely unrealistic.

Vair good, Roses.

Did anyone else think that Rob 'did a Rob' on Julian? Which was odd, for a barrister to capitulate. R asked if Julian was going to use anything from his statement about Ian. J said it wouldn't be helpful. Then changed his mind in court.

It worked better than it might have done. Ian could have said 'that's what Rob said to me at my stag party but it's not true and I had no idea why he would be so horrible - of course now I know he was trying to drive me away from Helen. I'm sad to say it worked for a while, I was hurt that H hadn't told me about something she'd seen - but it was nothing, just a drunken kiss.'

It was more than likely to show Rob up as manipulative and trying to drive away Helen's friends. It was luck that Ian has done nothing to address the issue and still takes what Rob told him as unexamined truth.

lottie I would imagine Robs version was to expose Ian as gay.

... which his lawyer realised would expose Rob as homophobic

I know there will be men like Bruce but I am afraid his character is just not believable. It's like a pantomime, and takes away from the rest of the storyline. On the whole their portrayal of Rob has been subtle, slow burn stuff, surely they could have used the same method to convey his relationship with his dad. This way it's like being hit with a sledgehammer 'it's his dad's fault, it's his dad's fault' . Ok we get it.

If the tweet was along the lines of "blimey, some old tosser's kicking off in court #RvsTitchener". After all, Rebekah Brooks' was live tweeted by a journo who crowd funded his expenses. If however the juror commented on the guilt or otherwise of the defendant then that would be different.

The portrayal of Bruce is a perfect example of the contempt the producers and scriptwriters have for most of their listeners. He is a completely unbelievable character. A caricature. But "oh, the plebs'll buy it"

I agree - Bruce way overplayed as a character. They could have been much more subtle with it and it would have been more powerful. Him not remembering Henry's name was a good touch though.

Is it normal for the prosecution not to have, or require, any character witnesses? I know Rob's not on trial but the jury don't know anything about him without them.

The portrayal of Bruce is a perfect example of the contempt the producers and scriptwriters have for most of their listeners. He is a completely unbelievable character.

Couldn't agree more. A character with Bruce's beliefs is credible. A character with Bruce's behaviour is not. The shouting in court was utterly ridiculous. Also agree with grumpy that a more subtle characterisation would have been more powerful.

I suspect they've thought 'We can't have Bruce speaking very often - better make the most of his few appearances and hammer home what he's like'. However, they really didn't need to do that. Rob and Ursula have had plenty of time to talk and drop hints about what Bruce is like.

I do agree that his apparent inability to remember Henry's difficult and outlandiish name was a good touch, though - and subtle.

I would imagine Robs version was to expose Ian as gay.

More to convince the jury that Ian has a grudge against Rob I'd say. After all, Ian's married!

Yes, am sick of pantomime villain Bruce. It's ridiculous. And I notice that when Rob is talking to him, I tend to forget that Rob is a cunt, because Bruce is being a cunt to him, and he sounds slightly down-trodden. Which is crap.

I would have expected a Bruce to be an authoritarian who would stick to the 'silence in court' rule, bottling up his ire for an explosion outside - grandstanding to journos maybe.

Vango I think that is what his barrister wanted to show. The barrister didn't like whatever it was Rob had come up with.

Bruce sounds like he's delivering a documentary on Rome but as an academic on 1960's tv

And where is Miles?

Is it normal for the prosecution not to have, or require, any character witnesses? I know Rob's not on trial but the jury don't know anything about him without them.

Vango The prosecution doesn't need character witnesses. Remember that they represent the Crown not the victim. Rob is himself simply a witness for the prosecution and his character is of limited relevance: he's been the victim of a stabbing. His character has no bearing on his ability to be a victim of a crime: in that sense, the jury don't need to know anything about him. His character could only be relevant to his reliability as a witness, but it's for Anna (as defence barrister) to cast doubt on his reliability as a witness (in much the same way as prosecution barrister did with Ian yesterday).

Everything's muddied in this particular case because we know that Rob is a nasty piece of work and should himself be the one on trial. But in practice he's just one piece of the prosecution's case.

I think Ian's reaction in the witness box was pretty true to life. Like most people, he has probably never seen the inside of a court, had gone there with his statement all prepared thinking he was going to be asked about Helen's character and was completely blindsided by the questions from the prosecution. He knew about Adam's infidelity, but has been prepared to let it pass - never even challenging Adam about it. I'm sure in hindsight he will wishes he had said all the things lottie suggests - I don't doubt he will be going over and over what happened in his mind - but I think his reaction in the heat of the moment was entirely realistic. Like Pat, it's easy to think about what he should have said and how he should have played it if he'd known what form the questioning would take, but much more difficult when you are put on the spot in the witness box.

Yes indeed. Where is Miles and what is his story?

Bruce sounds like he's delivering a documentary on Rome but as an academic on 1960's tv Which reminds me - where is Jim??????? Now he is some Shula needs to have a word with - he would have been an excellent witness to Knob's bullying nastiness.

Thanks Furry. So presumably there's no prosecution difference between a random stabbing of a stranger in the street and this type of case? I'm trying to listen objectively but as you say, with all we know it's difficult! So far all I've heard is a queue of people lining up to support Helen's evidence and no witnesses (other than his mother) supporting the prosecution case. I don't know if I'm even making sense now!

I think what I mean is; why did she do it? The defence say self-defence. They have witnesses able to testify that he was a frightening bully and that she probably did fear for her life, or Henry's. There's no-one yet refuting those claims.

Well having listened of the reverse school run my questions/comments are:
Where did Rob go to Uni? I'm assuming he studied Agriculture, and most UK unis got rid of those in the 80s. Especially since Jess didn't "get the grades" to go there?
What degree did Jess do? How can she work as a Social Worker if she was just a stay at home wife for years?
What was going on for all those years if he kept changing jobs?