- This topic has 11 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hurrah! A collective cheer has gone up on Twitter! So Anna Louise Tregorran, b. 1969 and last heard of at Christmas, when her mother Carol had to go to her side to console her about a failed relationship, is a criminal barrister who specialises in women’s cases. Anna will obviously know all about the new law on coercive control and will wipe the floor with her opponents in court. Helen will be freed, and Rob, (if not dead), can be put on trial later and face 5 years in prison. OK, so maybe it’s all very convenient, a deus ex machina/ dramatic device but why not? After 2 years of Rob-inspired hell, we’ve been thrown a crumb of hope!
Yes, a collective cheer indeed. That damn solicitor appears to be less than useless. It is most convenient that Miss Treggoran specialises in these type of cases, but it’s wonderful news that we have a bit of hope that it’ll go right for Helen. Also hoping that Titchyknob will be locked away behind bars (please).
Would love to see Helen get out of trouble but deep down i cant shake the thought of Rob recovering and saying “I’ll drop the charges if you come back to me darling”
Katie, I’m reminded that the thing about the new law on coercive control is that it’s an offence that Rob could have been charged with – possibly still could be charged with – but it’s not a defence that Helen can rely on in response to a charge of attempted murder. Helen’s in the poop, I reckon, looking at a fairly long stretch in chokey if she’s not acquitted. I’m of the view that in the heat of the moment, there was nothing else she could do – but that might be a minority view … So many people who’ve heard this storyline have concluded that using the knife on Rob in defence of Henry was not her only choice. And two stabs don’t sound like self-defence in a short “frenzied” attack.
Anyway, who else knew that Anna Tregorran was a leading local advocate?! Apparently, Anna-Louise (known as Ann) moved to Cardiff in 2007: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thearchers/entries/3731f45d-6f18-34ce-b26f-9726a455849d
There had to be some justification for bringing Carol back because turning a few episodes of the show into “The Golden Girls” and running a non-story on euthanasia don’t seem quite enough of a reason.
And considering Jill is such a conscientious and dutiful kind of mother, grandmother, aunt and friend, I’d have thought she’d also be a conscientious and dutiful godmother and she might have mentioned her god daughter, super star advocate before now …
Is provocation, or something similar, a defence in the UK? ’cause he sure did provoke her! He even put the knife in her hand. She didn’t choose to do that.
On this occasion, I am happy that the Ambridge Fairies have been at work. I think it is the First sighting of the “lawyer fairy”, previously not required due to Usha’s brilliance at all aspects of law. I should also sya that lawyers of my acquaintance are generally supportive of Dominic’s performance to date; as I think was said on Dumteedum, establish what case is being made against you or your client (if any) before trying to mount a defence.
I thought it was odd that no one thought, until Jill brought it up, of pursuing a barrister who is a specialist in defending women who have been abused. I also was a bit taken aback when Pat expressed hesitation about the cost-wouldn’t she have vowed to mortgage the farm and all else to defend her daughter. And will Granny open up her pocket book?
Kirsty for the prosecution … ? I understand where my learned friend Ms Tregorran is coming from but Kirsty is either going to be a very neutral witness for the prosecution or one who is far too friendly and ends up helping the defence. She’s only going to be useful to the prosecution for describing the scene upon her arrival at Blossom Hill Cottage with Rob wounded on the floor, Helen with or near the knife and placing Henry somewhere in the vicinity and explaining that she called the emergency services, not Helen. In effect, Kirsty saved his life. The prosecution are probably going to limit anything else she has to say.
Because anything else Kirsty has to say about the victim and his behaviour or character, the defendant herself and her demeanour in the aftermath and the reason why she was at the cottage in the first place is not helpful evidence for the prosecution case.
Pat strikes me as a more useful prosecution witness. Witnessed Helen’s threat to kill Rob. Never noticed anything amiss in their relationship. Has previously described Helen as emotionally “fragile”.
Indeed, Miss Mid-City—but what will happen in court is (I believe) that Anna, having had no previous contact with Kirsty, will be allowed to cross-examine her and if she asks the right questions, (such as why were you there, why did you give Mrs Titchener the mobile etc.) the truth will emerge.
I concur, Marmaduke.
Pat would be a much more useful prosecution witness for all the reasons you say. And because she’s her mother, it would make much more impact and be much more damaging. There’s a whole history there of Helen getting special treatment from birth. And then, paradoxically, at a time when she was at her most vulnerable her parents were backing off and distancing themselves from her.
Pat is almost no use at all as a defence witness. She would totally undermine Helen. She can’t disagree with any questions put to her in cross examination by the prosecution that she approved of Rob; she thought he was taking excellent care of Helen and Henry; she had no concerns about him and actually took a step back and “gave them space”. Rob confided in her about Helen and spoke to her privately about Helen’s behaviour. She told him she was worried about Helen. That might help build a picture that Helen was unpredictable, unstable and out of control even before the night in question. That kind of testimony is a bit neutral in my view. It could be used to help either side of the argument. Either Helen was already going off the rails because she’s always been a bit like that (prosecution case) or she was going off the rails because of the abuse she was suffering (defence case).
But Helen didn’t confide in Pat about the abuse. Pat still doesn’t know anything about it really and knows absolutely nothing about the rape(s). She and Tony put the change in Helen’s behaviour down to her pregnancy. It’s not enough for her to rely on her maternal instinct and say she knows Helen isn’t capable of attacking Rob in anger without provocation – she knows nothing of the actual provocation – when this same maternal instinct didn’t alert her to there being any problem with her daughter’s behaviour over the last few months.
A mother who is close to her daughter, truly knows and understands her daughter and can “speak for” her wouldn’t have stood idly by and let Rob systematically destroy her daughter’s already “fragile” personality without seeing what was going on and questioning it.
When they’re through with Rob and Helen, Pat ought to be put on trial for neglect!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.