Also this wasn't an actual proven event nor conviction was it?
Only an actual conviction and only (this is the theory) as an attack on the witness's reputation for truthfulness. Its a bogus theory imo, but its what I learned in evidence.
I am glad that the affair has come out and glad that it was uncomfortable for Nancy and coming out in front of everyone was great, but that shock ending made it seem like that was the focus of the episode and JPs statement was just apart of the process, when JP should have been the focus. It's a JP and Finn story.
I hope Darren finally ends it with Nancy. They can't fix them, time for them to go their separate ways, it could lead to new stories for both of them.
Glad annoying Nancy got exposed, but really disappointing that they made JP's testimony an afterthought and Blessing gets absolutely no attention at all.
Why was it necessary to quiz Nancy on her sex life? On DNA found on her? Surely we all have DNA on us from hugs etc. She isn't saying Finn actually raped her so if the dna was found in her intimate areas then why is it even an issue?
Again, this is the reason why so many women, in particular, don't come forward because their sex life is used as evidence against them. Shame on Hollyoaks for going along with that when it wasn't even necessary to do so. He better be found guilty on friday or Hollyoaks will have made it a lot harder for victims to come forward.
Glad annoying Nancy got exposed, but really disappointing that they made JP's testimony an afterthought and Blessing gets absolutely no attention at all.
I really hate St. Nancy in this storyline. I sound like a broken record, but it is really annoying.
Why was it necessary to quiz Nancy on her sex life? On DNA found on her? Surely we all have DNA on us from hugs etc. She isn't saying Finn actually raped her so if the dna was found in her intimate areas then why is it even an issue?
Again, this is the reason why so many women, in particular, don't come forward because their sex life is used as evidence against them. Shame on Hollyoaks for going along with that when it wasn't even necessary to do so. He better be found guilty on friday or Hollyoaks will have made it a lot harder for victims to come forward.
I agree. I find Nancy extremely annoying and do not like her character, but agree that it is abomination that women are treated that way after being victims of this sort of attack.
Why was it necessary to quiz Nancy on her sex life? On DNA found on her? Surely we all have DNA on us from hugs etc. She isn't saying Finn actually raped her so if the dna was found in her intimate areas then why is it even an issue?
Again, this is the reason why so many women, in particular, don't come forward because their sex life is used as evidence against them. Shame on Hollyoaks for going along with that when it wasn't even necessary to do so. He better be found guilty on friday or Hollyoaks will have made it a lot harder for victims to come forward.
Unfortunately I believe it's quite realistic for the prosecution to ask the victim very person, intimate questions, making it very difficult for men and women to report.
I agree. I find Nancy extremely annoying and do not like her character, but agree that it is abomination that women are treated that way after being victims of this sort of attack.
Although her identification of Finn is really weak in this case. They were always going to suggest it might have been someone else.
I seriously hate court scenes >:( Most of the time the guilty one always stands there grinning like a idiot while the victim is getting lots of abuse and unnecessary questions and is made to look like the guilty one. How come barristers don't treat the guilty the same as the victims? >:(:(
Sadly Hollyoaks never really follows real life protocol when it comes to court cases and police stuff. Did anyone really expect anything different from totally uneducated, crap script writers? People are getting paid to write these episodes - hope they are proud of their rubbish. People on here could write far better scripts!
Was looking forward to tonights episode but I don't think I'll watch it now after reading about it know here. Sounds rubbish.
I thought John Paul was sympathetic in what little we saw of his testimony, but too much time spent on other things and I think they treated him like an afterthought. Disappointing episode.
Unfortunately I believe it's quite realistic for the prosecution to ask the victim very person, intimate questions, making it very difficult for men and women to report.
Yes, it is realistic but I don't see why it was necessary at all. The conversation oddly went from does your husband wear aftershave to whose dna did you have on you? In what way was that relevent to the accusation against Finn?
I suppose my confusion is because it is never actually relevent that women are put on trial when they are the victim of the crime.
Did anybody else love Mercedes reaction to finding out that Nancy had slept with someone else? I'm getting increasingly worried that Finn will be found innocent. Ignoring any content the performances were really good from JP and Nancy.
Did anybody else love Mercedes reaction to finding out that Nancy had slept with someone else? I'm getting increasingly worried that Finn will be found innocent. Ignoring any content the performances were really good from JP and Nancy.
Yep, i'm really going to miss Mercy - if I keep watching, that is :cool:
Do you remember when she over-heard Dodger and Texas talking about their affair before Tex and Will's wedding? It's a shame they didn't do more comedy with Mercedes because she's capable of being much more funny than half of the 'comedy' characters.
Comments
Only an actual conviction and only (this is the theory) as an attack on the witness's reputation for truthfulness. Its a bogus theory imo, but its what I learned in evidence.
I know >:(>:(
And Darren getting a heart attack.
I hope Darren finally ends it with Nancy. They can't fix them, time for them to go their separate ways, it could lead to new stories for both of them.
Again, this is the reason why so many women, in particular, don't come forward because their sex life is used as evidence against them. Shame on Hollyoaks for going along with that when it wasn't even necessary to do so. He better be found guilty on friday or Hollyoaks will have made it a lot harder for victims to come forward.
I really hate St. Nancy in this storyline. I sound like a broken record, but it is really annoying.
I know! It's seriously annoying me how no one in the courtroom can notice that. It's as clear as day >:(>:(
I agree. I find Nancy extremely annoying and do not like her character, but agree that it is abomination that women are treated that way after being victims of this sort of attack.
Although her identification of Finn is really weak in this case. They were always going to suggest it might have been someone else.
I thought John Paul was sympathetic in what little we saw of his testimony, but too much time spent on other things and I think they treated him like an afterthought. Disappointing episode.
Yes, it is realistic but I don't see why it was necessary at all. The conversation oddly went from does your husband wear aftershave to whose dna did you have on you? In what way was that relevent to the accusation against Finn?
I suppose my confusion is because it is never actually relevent that women are put on trial when they are the victim of the crime.
We have to agree to disagree but I am looking forward to seeing this episode later.
Yep, i'm really going to miss Mercy - if I keep watching, that is :cool:
Do you remember when she over-heard Dodger and Texas talking about their affair before Tex and Will's wedding? It's a shame they didn't do more comedy with Mercedes because she's capable of being much more funny than half of the 'comedy' characters.