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

[PseudoBadger]

What day is it again?

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.

I get you. Two things. First, the prosecution is trying to paint a different picture- that Helen was unstable etc, and they did have witnesses to that effect: Rob, Ursula and Pat. Second, the prosecution may be allowed to recall prosecution witnesses to attempt to rebut claims made by the defence, such as the rape allegation. So we heard the judge, and the barristers discussing the possibility of recalling Rob in the light of the rape allegation. That just hasn't happened yet because the defence hasn't finished presenting its case.

In a way, Knob as the victim is his own character witness. He takes the stand first and the first account the jury hears is his. He sets the tone if you like. They can see him, make a judgement about him - he did the whole dramatic stick thing and played the uncomprehending loving husband, but he also admitted given his wife a slap - as if this were something perfectly reasonable. They will be weighing up all the evidence that comes afterwards against their initial impression of him. They will be asking themselves whether they believe him - and whether they are sure beyond reasonable doubt - that is to say whether they are absolutely sure - that what he is saying is true.

Lillian - your post re Ian sums up my feelings exactly! I think his reactions to Julian 's ( I can't remember his surname! ) questions sounded very natural. And surely it has to be significant that Julian changed his mind about posing the question regarding Adam. It sounds as if he wants to show Rob as he really is to the jury?

Surely Jess will tell the court that Rob tried to stop her testifying. That'll be another bomb shell that will show what a controlling man he is

FWIW I think Ursula was a very convincing witness. Just the right amount of hurt and bewilderment in her tone. It's a shame Anna didn't get a chance to prove she's a liar (eg school enrolment forms).

Oh, Vango, you really love Ian, don't you? In Hellin's shoes, I"d have pointed out that confiding in your significant other about a dilemma concerning a best friend's happiness does not constitute 'gossip', which is what Ian accused her of. Also, that I'd (speaking here as Hellin) bet a pound to a pinch of shit that, were the the situation reversed, he (Ian) would have talked to Adam about what to do had he seen Knob kissing someone else. Ian's need to blame Hellin and reject her so comprehensively is motivated not least by his cowardice/fear of losing his relationship with Adam. He'd rather put up with the knowledge of Adam's weaknesses and hope the 'affair', if that's what it is, won't escalate. Very Jennydarling. Very Lillian too, actually. God, do they all live in the 50s?

Of course, Hellin couldn't challenge Ian at this point because she herself is so beaten down by then, and both frightened of Knob and of losing him. Ironic, really, that the point where Ian and Hellin's situations have reciprical echoes is also the point they fall out.

JM discussing the trial on Woman's Hour now!

Barrister is saying how rubbish Anna Tregorran is

Legal expert says on evidence so far she thinks 99% chance Helen will be acquitted

I agree Ian's reaction was completely credible but, it was a big risk for Julian to take. He can't have known that Ian and Adam hadn't resolved things and Ian seen through Rob entirely. Which on the whole he has and always did, except that he hasn't worked through how much of what Rob told him about Adam was fact and how much conjecture.

Ian could - should? - have been prepared by Anna to have any dislike of Rob, on his own account, brought up.

But, what interested me was that Julian appeared to go against his own better judgement to placate Rob. He said he wasn't going to bring up Rs statement on Ian, he almost didn't, paused, then, after the judge prompted him to question Isn or move on, he did.

I'm sure that really he was evaluating exactly how to phrase his questions but, it sounded like a 'what the hell, let's see where doing what R wants takes us'.

Guilty Cromwell. 😁 Remember that when Helen told Rob she immediately had to promise him to say nothing. Given that she suspected that he probably would mention it, I think it's only fair that she should have spoken to Ian herself. Ian's hurt was more about that than anything else. Kirsty accused her of doing the same thing, ending that friendship too.

More to convince the jury that Ian has a grudge against Rob I'd say.

I don't really understand the point of that. After all, the jury isn't exactly going to be surprised that Helen's good friend doesn't like the man who she says abused her for years and raped her repeatedly, irrespective of any other motivation.

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

It would be near-impossible to refute that. Even if there is a queue of witnesses saying that whenever they saw Rob and Helen together he was a living saint of a husband, it still doesn't tell us anything about what went on when no-one else was around.

Ooh, the Woman's Hour piece was really interesting - will be listening again.

But Judy, nobody knew about the rapes until the trial and Ian wasn't friends with Helen during her marriage. He can feel angry with Rob now but that's not the same as knowing what was going on at the time, which he didn't, though he could / should have joined some dots and asked questions, had he not become absorbed by his own woes.

It's very relevant that Ian had formed a strong dislike of Rob - strong enough to hit him - before R even got together with Helen. That could easily suggest that he is motivated by wanting to damage Rob, rather than support Helen - especially since he'd blithely abandoned her friendship, making no attempt to keep in touch while she was married, which he easily could have done, despite Rob's disapproval.

The CPS counsel was v sharp picking up in the witness intimidation issue. I really hope this comes out but from what I recall it was v subtly done by Rob so could be explained as just bumping into her in a playground. Might throw more doubt on him though. I wonder if Shula will get roped into acting as a character witness for Rob won't be clear enough in saying no and the whole sorry tale will come out in the witness box. Rob is after all a bit short on potential character witnesses.

What upsets me about Bruce and Rob that abusive people like them are often well-liked in the community and put on a great show for outsiders. I think Rob's behaviour to people outside the family verged on caricature, Ursula is veering towards cartoonish but even she looks credible compared to Bruce. The thing about abusers and criminals as that they are normal people like us for the most part. You can't usually point out "there's a wrong 'un" and I'm pretty sure there is research on that with juries.

But Vango, no-one's disputing Hellin's piss-poor judgement! That's how she's in this position in the first place! Of course, we're all rooting for her now, but remember the months of shouting at the radio??? It's possible for her to have poor judgement about when to keep her mouth shut and when not, AND for Ian to be wrong in his angry, defensive and misplaced reaction to Adam's, ahem, little slip. That's why the drama, when it gets it right, really gets it right.

But, Lottie, Ian certainly knew about the abuse before the trial. I think my point is that saying "You don't like Mr Titchenor, do you" isn't exactly going to provide a startling revelation to the jury.

I hope we'll hear Neil's evidence - if Rob gets the prosecution to try to undermine him, it'll change Susan's views overnight.

I can't see how Shula could get roped in as a character witness for Rob against her will. It would be fun if she deliberately decides to string the prosecution along and then spill the beans in the witness box, but that's unlikely to occur to her.

AND for Ian to be wrong in his angry, defensive and misplaced reaction to Adam's, ahem, little slip

Ian still has my sympathy. It was all about the timing really. Right before the wedding (which didn't really make a huge difference since they were already civil partners). Finding out that R and Helen were 'gossiping' about something that could have a huge impact on his relationship was the straw that broke the camel's back. He was reacting more to the fact that he felt he didn't know or trust her any more. At that point Ian only knew Helen as a headstrong, independent person, capable of doing and getting what she wanted, so I'm not surprised that he felt let down. How could he have made sense of the fact that she hadn't spoken to him about Charlie? He was clearly mortified if I remember rightly. If Helen had told him what she had seen, instead of Rob's exaggerated version, they would have remained friends.

But Helen couldn't tell Ian what she had seen because it was either far too difficult for her to escape from BHC, or on the rare occasions she did, Ian refused to listen.

This is something that has puzzled me. I know phone trackers allow you to pinpoint where the phone is, but do they also track the fact you've rung or texted someone?

I was just wondering about Shula as she seems so ridiculously dithery atm can just imagine Bruce and Rob railroading her while she fails to decline politely. I doubt she'd think of doing that deliberately but it might put Anna in and interesting position of she did. After all she knows about the perjury wouldn't she have to declare what she knew to the CPS in the interests of fairness? They are then very unlikely to use Shula.

Wasn't there something about Rob putting pressure on Helen to ask Ian to be Godfather? Or have I completely misremembered? That doesn't seem to make any sense now.

Toomuch Helen caught A & C on New Year's Eve in 2014! She had ample time to tell Ian. She still had a job, wasn't yet married and could still see her friends. I know the control had already started by then but she wasn't completely cut off at that point. I don't remember her ever trying to tell Ian or him refusing to listen until he came back from honeymoon. And at that meeting he was still reeling from Rob's version.

Establishing that Ian didn't like Rob even before he got together with Helen, and independently of R's behaviour towards her, is extremely relevant. If it can be suggested that he's acting as a witness to further his own grudge against Rob, then anything he has to say about Helen becomes irrelevant.

If it can be suggested that he's acting as a witness to further his own grudge against Rob, then anything he has to say about Helen becomes irrelevant.

I agree.