No Comment?

[kiwi_listenerer]

To the lawyers out there – Given the mound of actual evidences against her, is Helen’s No Comment stance (on advice from the lawyer) the best policy.

At some point, I assume, she will get to tell her side of the story – when is that likely to be?

[Sarah Passingham]

Sorry, Kiwi_listenerer, I don’t have an answer for you, but that is such an interesting question and one I’ve been mulling over for the last few days too. Was ‘no comment’ her lawyer’s advice? I’ve listened twice now, but I didn’t pick up on that. Look forward to seeing some informed answers here.

[Miss Mid-City]

This is something I’d like to ask a criminal defence practitioner, too.

It’s hard to know the answer. The question of when it is in a defendant’s best interest to keep quiet and when exercising the right to silence could potentially do more harm is a finely balanced thing.

I imagine the way the solicitor has been portrayed, he seems to think Helen is still to fragile and vulnerable to be able to give a coherent account of what happened. I can’t be sure that even he has heard what she has to say about the dramatic events. Maybe I’d be advising her to exercise her right to silence, too. I wouldn’t want the police attacking her any more than they have already. You can hear the unsympathetic comments the officers have been making – even though they’ve been alerted to the allegations of domestic abuse thanks to Kirsty’s evidence. I’m not sure she’d make a good witness in her own defence right now. She might talk herself into more problems. On the other hand, maybe the solicitor has heard Helen’s version of events and thinks it’s not believable so he’d rather the police didn’t hear it yet.

It’s a shame that the barrister Roifield spoke to in the recent podcast didn’t seem to have much knowledge of Rob. He didn’t sound like someone who’s been listening to The Archers regularly for the duration of this storyline – I can’t fault his knowledge of criminal procedure. I’d have thought he’d have expressed a view on this aspect of the developing story.

[lexi bee]

I thought one of the most interesting parts of her no comment spiel was when they threw out offhand that they knew he’d been”tracking her movements through her phone” (I need to relisten to that bit to be sure of the phrasing). I probably would have lost my cool at that point and shouted “what?!”, aghast.

But I have no doubt that he had looked at her text messages the morning of the aborted train holiday and timed his confrontation with her to maximise her humiliation at the school. He did not simply “drive by” that day. He wanted to break her down publicly for going behind his back.

[kiwi_listenerer]

I think you’re right Miss MC, that Helen is too fragile to be able to give a coherent account of what happened. Assuming that the lawyer has spoken to Kirsty and understands what is going on, I think that he has to try and get the story told from the beginning, not just what happened on That Night.

[Tom Williams]

Everytime she says
“No comment” i cringe a little
The police need to hear first hand what Rob has done before it is considered a “Ploy by the defence to Pile dirt on the Victim”

[Author]

Posts