Archers thread #169: Denise rocks the boat in more than one way! Will Chris find a message in a cider bottle? Discuss The Archers here.

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Thank you, @PseudoBadger, for kicking off this long, long series of Archers threads.

All views on The Archers welcome here! New blood welcomed, and of course we are always delighted to welcome back former or occasional listeners/posters. We don't all agree on all points, although we do mostly try to be civil about it. Most of us are posting tongue in cheek a lot of the time, so don't worry about revealing that you'd have liked to have Harrison's behbe, or other unusual views.

Spoilers: not on this thread, please! We don't wait for the omnibus to discuss the weeknight episodes, but we do try our best to avoid cross-contamination from https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/radio_addicts/4636789-the-archers-spoilers-thread-7-cant-wait-for-702pm-join-us-here, where spoilers are positively welcomed!

For newer listeners, lurkers or those who just have no idea what we're talking about, @DadDadDad has created this useful thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/3557323-For-Archers-fans-a-guide-to-acronyms-on-the-long-running-discussion-threads-and-any-other-meta-thread-questions-you-may-have - BOOP point for him! (See thread for explanation.)

Thanks to @LikeTalkingToLassie and @BrightYellowDaffodil for title inspiration. Is this the end for Denise and John? It does seem odd to introduce John now if he's going to disappear. He has a lovely voice.

Over to you!

I am shocked for the lack of love for Lotus biscuits. SHOCKED.

LU are the most glorious biscuits on this planet!
Plain but very buttery and slightly sweet. Simply delicious. Lifesaver when I was stuck in hospital for two weeks and the food was inedible!

They’re a bit too… gritty for me.

As pointed out on previous threads, George can simply say: I came across Alice whilst walking home, carrying the cider. I went into the car to check on her and put the cider down. I realised there was another car in the river so ran to the rescue. After the rescue I went back to Alice.

This would be logical and in keeping with George disappearing after rescuing Fallon and then rushing off to Alice. It would make sense for him to say he suddenly remembered he’d left her alone in the car and went to check on her.

The only thing that will save Alice is a confession from George, someone (who hasn’t come forward yet) spotting him driving the car or a camera of some kind catching him at the wheel. I don’t think an Alice flashback alone will work. Who, apart from Chris, would believe her?

Yes I agree that it’s easily explained. We don’t know if George was in a logical place or if it starts to make the whole thing crumble and he breaks.

I've never been convinced that the bottle is any sort of evidence

tbh this sl is starting to drag and I’m losing interest! Either get it over with now or have Alice go to prison and George be found out in 15-20 years and it’s Martha who has suffered too and will take revenge. Bit dark but would at least be a good hit of drama!

Probably repeating myself from the thread at the time, but George’s fingerprints would be all over the key fob - which Alice knows was inside the glove compartment. There’d have been no reason for him to search for or touch the keys in @Eastie77Returns‘ scenario, surely?

Can only hope the car and keys have been preserved untouched since the accident.

I can’t imagine the police bothered to dust for fingerprints or preserve the car as a crime scene - no one died and it seemed an open and shut case

Still not sure if the car has been used / cleaned since. If not evidence fingerprints etc. may be still present for defence to have checked if any indication someone else was driving or Alice / Chris continues to question what went on.

I would assume the car was cleaned as she must have partially vomited in it. The vomit on the passenger side should have been an indication something wasn’t right though!!

Good point but not sure she was actually sick, even though she seemed desperate to be sick. As you say you would have thought vomit on passenger side would have raised questions even by Alice herself or the family. It is true the police would just have seen it as a fait accompli, but perhaps had to preserve some evidence in case she took it to court.

Why would it raise questions? She might have just leaned to the side rather than be sick on her feet.

“Alice still had the keys in her hands when I found her so I took them in case she regained consciousness and tried to drive”

There are a dozen ways George could explain fingerprints on the keys, not that they would ever be dusted for them at this stage.

I think it’s all going to end with a tearful confession. Perhaps he’ll tell Alice and she’ll resolve to help him🤷🏽‍♀️

If she was trying to open the door to vomit it would be on the far side. Of course they could assume she vomited before driving when she was sitting g in passenger seat

I've been having an Archers break and am just reorienting myself - please can you tell me if Pip and Stella are an item now?

Yes. They don't live together. There are signs that Stella finds it problematic that Pip treats her as Rosie's stepmum and takes it for granted that Stella will find Rosie as adorable as she does.

I recall Alice was not driving after the accident (which presumably she would be entitled to do until convicted) because Chris offered her a lift. I fancy her self loathing at seemingly having driven and caused the accident, combined with her ongoing drinking mean the car is just languishing untouched since the accident, She didn’t want anyone else round, then went to London, then driven by Adam (over the bridge) to the clinic.

@Bruisername that is what I was thinking too, the vomit (if any) would likely be down the inside of the passenger door and possibly on the seatbelt as I remember George fastened her in (that alone would raise questions - she might have sat in the passenger seat but would not have fastened herself in).

As for George having handled the keys for safety, depends on any statement he gave and as presumably the police were immediately involved they would have noted the keys presumably still in the ignition. Again required evidence. So that would be difficult for George’s to get round.

it is the defence that will be able to build all these bits and pieces up if they investigate it carefully, given both Chris and Alice have serious questions and she will have to defend her not guilty plea in court, unless she changes it.

I hope the shop has CCTV of George getting in the drivers seat.

It poses an interesting question as to the level of investigation the police are/will undertake for a non-fatal drunk drive accident.

I assume she’s had her licence temporarily revoked?

Why would the shop have it on CCTV? The car was nowhere near the shop (or anywhere else) when George got to it.

Re. Speculoos biscuits: I agree that they're decent as a cheesecake base. The spread is far superior to the actual biscuits though.

Also, reverting to biscuits, nobody has mentioned shorbread yet. Lovely stuff.

This is from Jennifer Aldridge's Archers cookbook, written by Angela Piper (who she? ). Not tried the recipe. I think this text is absolutely spot on and I can hear Jennifer saying it.

Why would the shop have it on CCTV? The car was nowhere near the shop (or anywhere else) when George got to it.

I agree that the shop wouldn't have caught the car on CCTV but I'm still maintain that either Robert Snell's Ring doorbell footage campaign or someone's dashcam will bear useful fruit.

From what I understand they can only do that once convicted (innocent until proven guilty). As she has pleaded not guilty it will have to wait for the court case, so normally entitled to drive until convicted.

Ah ok. But concerning in some cases!!

George got in the drivers seat in the woods.

I imagine the police would do very little investigation if it seemed obvious what had happened, but I assume they would have to keep certain accident data in case of it going to court. I would have thought statements would be taken, position of cars, measurements, skid marks etc. and given there was a drunk, seemingly driving then I presume they would need to establish the position of the car keys, or exactly where they were what had happened to them, if anyone had moved them. Probably would note anything else of interest in the car (like the bottles we already know about).

I don’t think they would be doing what they would see as unnecessary tests, like fingerprints, but the defence certainly can, for any evidence still available.

My extensive research (watching American cop shows) leads me to believe that if they still have the bottles from the car they will be able to get not just fingerprints but - if that result shows two individuals - the DNA of the person who drank from each of them.