- This topic has 28 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What do you think of the trial so far?
Will Anna win the case by somehow bringing sandwiches for a court snack break, offering Rob a tuna one thereby catching his lie. Or presenting footage of him prancing around the cricket field last week sans walking stick?Also, it’s been pointed out many times before that Helen has been in need of psycological help and assessment but which she hasn’t received and no one has even mentioned the possibility of sorting it. Especially now when Rob is basing his case/lies on behing a poor husband looking after a mentally ill wife, it would have been more than helpful to have evidence to back up Helen being traumatised by mental abuse by Rob rather than clinical depression.
There now appears to be a giant opening for Jess to testify regarding how Rob treated her during their marriage. How many times did Rob perjure himself in the first five minutes of his testimony?
Yes, that would be beautiful but is that even possible, even if Jess was willing? They are in the middle of the trial, are you allowed to throw in surprise witnesses?
Barely anything he said was true. However, if I was a jury member and only went on what I had seen in court I would be on his side. Seems like something very drastic needs to happen if this is to swing in Helen’s favour. Neither Henry nor Kirsty helped her with their statements.Actually I think that Henry did help Helen’s case as he testified that Daddy was angry and shouted at him which is a contradiction of Rob’s account. Also Kirsty’s outburst will have planted some doubt in the jury’s minds about Robs character. They can’t un-hear what she said.
All I want to do is bloody cheer after yesterday’s episode. Helen finally saying that she had been raped on more than one occasion was a massive step.
But the pushing by Anna about to the call to the helpline was a massive risk. It paid off but it could have gone hideously wrong. I said this on the FB page but I don’t think I could cope with listening to the prosecution cross examining Helen. Makes me feel ill at the thought of it.
I also think Henry helped Helen. The fact he confirmed that they were arguing and he wanted them to stop help. Did we hear the whole of his testimony?
magic_at_mungos – Yes! It was brilliant, finally Helen opened up, and her appologies to her parents were heartbreaking.
Henry’s evidence could help Helen if Anna points out to the jury that it contradicts Rob’s statement that he displayed no anger. Henry was supposed to be interviewed via video link (which is the whole reason for why Helen has been allowed no contact with him at all for five months) but we didn’t get to hear that. Worried about the cross-examination of Helen though, they could claim that she has made up the rape accusations or that she tried to kill him as revenge.
And who is the “she” who is “with him now”? Surprise witness? Could we hope for Jess?
Well it was always going to be his word against hers to a certain extent. It comes down to who the jury believe. Having done jury services three times ? I can say with a little authority that closing arguments will have a huge impact so I hope we hear those. I wonder if we will be allowed in the jury room on Sunday?
As a piece of drama, the trial is standard, procedural stuff with over-the-top performances from the usual suspects. It almost goes without saying that it strikes me as also being procedurally inaccurate even though I’ve not conducted a criminal trial for many years.
Ibn Battuta, you’re quite right: Helen’s psychological state at the material time and since then has been highly questionable. The prosecution case is based almost entirely on her being unstable, unpredictable and dangerous and yet she’s not had a psychiatric or psychological assessment. Henry said, “Mummy gets upset and cries sometimes …” Ursula said she and Rob were “genuinely scared Henry wasn’t safe around Helen …” All of which is bull-doody but where’s the actual scientific evidence to prove either that she was volatile or that she wasn’t?
And you’re also right to say you’re not supposed to throw in surprise witnesses.
Anna’s big failing for me, is that despite all the work she’s supposed to have done the essential thing she had to do was put Helen’s case to Rob. It’s one of the four objectives of cross-examination: (i) you lay the foundation for the comments you want to make to the jury at then end of the trial; (ii) you put your case; (iii) you try and get any useful facts you can that will support your case; and (iv) you try and discredit the evidence against your client. The rape allegation should have been put to Rob. It’s regarded as completely unfair if you don’t give him an opportunity to have respond to this allegation. Now, he can be recalled to give evidence but that looks amateurish and clumsy. It also looks as though the defence didn’t actually do their job properly, they forgot to ask him the questions or Helen’s inventing this allegation in the witness box. Assuming the lawyers are not negligent (!), the implication is that Helen’s lying.
It’s obvious that we’re not hearing all the evidence because these sorts of trials go on for days and there are often interruptions because “points of law” arise which mean the jury is sent out of the courtroom and the judge listens to the lawyers’ legal argument in their absence. There would also be a number of witnesses whose evidence is not contested and can be read to the jury. So far nothing has been said about Helen’s “no comment” interview. I imagine the prosecution barrister will deal with that.
I also wonder at the order of witnesses with the suggestion that the on duty police doctor will be called to give live testimony. That’s a statement that would ordinarily just be read out to the jury unless he has something really interesting to say …
Basically Miss_Mid_City … I love you. This is just the stuff we need to read. We get told it is realistic and we are reminded that it is drama. Its more the latter. Also when is someone going to tell PatunTony to shut the flip up or they will be sent out? Dx
Love you, too, Dusty!
It was a mistake to go down this procedural path and not do it properly. Maybe the legal consultants and the scriptwriters fell out with each other. But the BBC could have asked Clive Coleman their legal affairs correspondent to help them on this: he used to be one of my lecturers at Bar School and he’s a writer, too (admittedly, he wrote a sit-com – not drama – for BBC radio (“Chambers”, occasionally still broadcast on Radio 4 Extra), so I think he knows what he’s doing!
Help me Miss Mid City ….you are my only hope
So are social services in court in any way? Are alarm bells ringing? Would Henry be taken away from Rob now? Can Pat-in-Tony make some sort of emergency appeal to take care of him? Arrgghhh.
(It has not escaped me that I am confusing reality and TA)So after Thursday, the tweeting day.
The trail will be abandoned.
CPS will drop the charges against Helen.
Charges will be bought against Rob for coercive control.
Helen gets custody of the children.Which one of you was on the jury and was live tweeting?
What now? Will the whole thing need redoing, or will we be able to carry on?Thank you Miss Mid City – love reading your professional input.
Poor Ian! Why hadn’t Anna prepared him at all for cross-examination? He was stumped as soon as Mr Bywater asked him about why he hadn’t seen Helen for ages. Surely they should have prepared for this. And Ian should have forseen evil Rob bringing up the infidelity.
And can’t Pat & Tony request some kind of emergency custody hearing to ensure Henry’s safety and get him out of Bloody Hell Cottage?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.