|
||||||||
The Archers! |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#3926 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,147
|
I enjoyed that, I thought it was pretty well done for a soap.
I knew Jess would turn up. What was the Shula stuff about, other than making her dislike Bruce? Please make it not be that Helen is going to be found guilty and they're saving Shula for a retrial. We already know her evidence isn't admissible, don't we? I can't believe that after finding a backbone Pat lost it again so quickly. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#3927 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 10,657
|
I wish the court storyline had been done over 2 weeks. So much was missed (we've all picked up on that), such as Anna scoring points for Rob using the cane, the fact that Henry's 'adoption' was engineered entirely by Rob.
It would have been nice to hear views of the other characters in the village too. It just seemed a little too rushed to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3928 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,124
|
I would have been happy for it to be dragged out a bit but as a one room drama I think it was well done. I really enjoyed the episode and even though I heard a couple of episodes during the week feel when listened to as a single piece it hung together much better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3929 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,727
|
Quote:
There is NO clique in this thread, just a lot of Archers addicts. Some might think us sad but, we are certainly not a clique and Welsh lad is not our leader.
I have been an Archers fan since the early fifties so am now deemed a wrinkly, but none the less a big fan although Have hated this storyline. And hope it ends up with SHelen acquitted .my big fear is she won't be and the nasty Rob will be free to carry on his reign of terror. Maybe he will rape the new nanny, why has she been brought in now I wonder?Then finally his comeuppance will come.I am a terrible pessimist ! Hello Fredster, agree there is no clique, and if there were one I would not follow, no-one is my leader, too daft to laugh at really. I have been an Archers fan for donkeys years, first thing I remember is Grace Archers death, and I don't know when that was......I only listen to the omnibus, which has not long finished today, and I do hope Rob does not get off. How many women get turned off reporting or prosecuting rape because of juries who have released these rapist bullies back into society. However, I would not put it past the storywriters to make a meal of it, and as you say, release the dreadful Rob to finally get his comeuppance at a much later date. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3930 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,124
|
Quote:
Hello Fredster, agree there is no clique, and if there were one I would not follow, no-one is my leader, too daft to laugh at really. I have been an Archers fan for donkeys years, first thing I remember is Grace Archers death, and I don't know when that was......I only listen to the omnibus, which has not long finished today, and I do hope Rob does not get off. How many women get turned off reporting or prosecuting rape because of juries who have released these rapist bullies back into society. However, I would not put it past the storywriters to make a meal of it, and as you say, release the dreadful Rob to finally get his comeuppance at a much later date.
Grace Archer's death was something like 1955 wasn't it? Same night that ITV started or so they say. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3931 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 915
|
Quote:
No jury would convict on that much evidence surely. Bearing in mind the bar is set high for criminal cases. Surely all of them must have some sort of reasonable doubt. For me the fact that Rob called his son Gideon during the trial, despite the fact that he has been registered as Jack is enough reasonable doubt about his narcisissm.
Grace Archer's death was something like 1955 wasn't it? Same night that ITV started or so they say. I was a bit worried about the multiple stabs! It is all very touch and go if you ask me! |
|
|
|
|
|
#3932 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,727
|
Quote:
We all know that the baby is registered Jack, but do the jury know that? It all hinges on whether or not Anna and the witnesses have said enough to put Rob's story in doubt. The fact that Helen and Jess gave very last minute confessions of Rob's coercive behaviour is understandable to the listeners but not necessarily to the jury who may see it as a ploy to blacken Rob's character and release Helen from further imprisonment.
I was a bit worried about the multiple stabs! It is all very touch and go if you ask me! |
|
|
|
|
|
#3933 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 8,282
|
Quote:
I was worried about the evidence of multiple stabs as well and I did hope that Henry's evidence would be a bit more startling and true to what happened I did hope that the jury picked up on Rob's sudden change from a frightened wilting wet blanket to a loud vindictive bully that he is.
Do we know the split of men/women on the jury? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3934 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,124
|
Real life question to those of you who have done jury service. Do you get any documentation in the jury room? I am thinking of witness statements. Do you get to see them in full?
I am thinking in this special tonight we may hear the jury talk about content that we didn't hear during the courtroom scenes. I hope Nigel Havers is on Heleh's side. I have alwasy liked him and wouldn't want to have to fall out with him!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3935 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 8,282
|
Quote:
Real life question to those of you who have done jury service. Do you get any documentation in the jury room? I am thinking of witness statements. Do you get to see them in full?
I am thinking in this special tonight we may hear the jury talk about content that we didn't hear during the courtroom scenes. I hope Nigel Havers is on Heleh's side. I have alwasy liked him and wouldn't want to have to fall out with him! ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#3936 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,534
|
Quote:
My other half is going to be down so I won't be able to listen live
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#3937 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,124
|
Quote:
It was a long time ago I did jury service but I seem to remember we were provided with a jury bundle [and whether that is different from the judge's bundle I know not]. A jury can always send a request to the Judge asking for any additional clarification on points of law, indeed anything they are not quite sure about.
When we got to court all three 'judges' had copies of both bundles. It was a First Tier Tribunal hearing. Plus there was a copy on the witness stand. So when a reference was made to a particualr item it was the same page for everyone and everyone had the same information. In our case the matter was settled out of court half way through the first day. But one assumes the tribunal 'judges' would have taken their bundles into the deliberation room with them. Back to the Archers. This means tonight we may hear that information was introduced that we haven't heard before. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3938 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 8,282
|
Quote:
OK that makes sense. 'The bundle' is what is exchanged before the trial. I have some recent experience in civil law. As claimants we had to put together 3 copies of our bundle. One for the defendants, one for the court/tribunal and one for us. They had to be identical and numbered the same. We got a copy of the defence bundles several weeks before the hearing.
When we got to court all three 'judges' had copies of both bundles. It was a First Tier Tribunal hearing. Plus there was a copy on the witness stand. So when a reference was made to a particualr item it was the same page for everyone and everyone had the same information. In our case the matter was settled out of court half way through the first day. But one assumes the tribunal 'judges' would have taken their bundles into the deliberation room with them. Back to the Archers. This means tonight we may hear that information was introduced that we haven't heard before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3939 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,124
|
Quote:
Quite right about the bundles, the person(s) who prepare them must always ensure that their paginator is in good working order, if a page number gets missed all sorts of problems can ensue
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#3940 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 5,738
|
Quote:
the fact that Henry's 'adoption' was engineered entirely by Rob.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3941 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Trained to the bun
Posts: 95
|
Quote:
OK that makes sense. 'The bundle' is what is exchanged before the trial. I have some recent experience in civil law. As claimants we had to put together 3 copies of our bundle. One for the defendants, one for the court/tribunal and one for us. They had to be identical and numbered the same. We got a copy of the defence bundles several weeks before the hearing.
When we got to court all three 'judges' had copies of both bundles. It was a First Tier Tribunal hearing. Plus there was a copy on the witness stand. So when a reference was made to a particualr item it was the same page for everyone and everyone had the same information. In our case the matter was settled out of court half way through the first day. But one assumes the tribunal 'judges' would have taken their bundles into the deliberation room with them. The evidence that the jury makes its decision on is the evidence that has been introduced in the actual trial and no more or less. Some evidence is legally necessary but uncontraversial (like a statement from a person who owns the stolen property and identifies it when recoered) so the parties can agree to have the statement read out or make an admission about the relevant fact without having to have the witness in court. Otherwise witnesses have to give their evidence first "in chief" and then it is challenged in cross examination. The jury bases its decision on the WHOLE of that witnesses' evidence on the day of trial but do not see the statement. Just because someone is CONSISTENT in their account doesn't prove that their account is truthful. INCONSISTENT statements are different and a witness will be challenged as to why their account has changed. There will be a bundle of statements and paper exhibits that the Judge, the Prosecutor and the Defence will have. They will know what is inconsistent and what isn't so they will be able to make a decision to make a challenge or not. These bundles are not the same as a Jury bundle. Ordinarily, a JB (at the beeginning of a trial) will contain a copy of the indictment (the charge) and, various pre-agreed documents (if any). As the trial progresses the JB will grow as copies of various exhibits are added to it. In many trials (like Helen's) there would be little in the JBs even by the end of the case because all the evidence is what has come live from the witnesses' mouths. In others (like frauds) there would be tons and tons of stuff for the jurors to take into the jury room because witnesses would have been producing lots of paper and would be pointing out relevant entries. ETA sorry about using capitals. Not shouting but this machine is a bit tempremental about letting me bold or italicise stuff for emphasis. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3942 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 915
|
Quote:
Very different situation in CRMINAL TRIALS. In Criminal cases before a Judge and Jury, the roles are entirely separate the Judge is the sole...........machine is a bit tempremental about letting me bold or italicise stuff for emphasis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3943 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 22,733
|
Quote:
I enjoyed that, I thought it was pretty well done for a soap.
I knew Jess would turn up. What was the Shula stuff about, other than making her dislike Bruce? Please make it not be that Helen is going to be found guilty and they're saving Shula for a retrial. We already know her evidence isn't admissible, don't we? I can't believe that after finding a backbone Pat lost it again so quickly. and all of his and Bruce's shenanigans made her walk out. It was all a bit odd and random but as is the case in all soaps nothing is wasted so her actions must mean something but what ![]() I really cannot bear Pat. I just want her to go away. Quote:
I was worried about the evidence of multiple stabs as well and I did hope that Henry's evidence would be a bit more startling and true to what happened I did hope that the jury picked up on Rob's sudden change from a frightened wilting wet blanket to a loud vindictive bully that he is.
A significant bit for me is that Henry said that Rob was angry with him when he came down stairs that night so this combined with him apparently lunging towards Henry seems to explain why Helen could have reasonably felt he was a physical threat to Henry and therefore her self defense claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3944 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,124
|
Quote:
Very different situation in CRMINAL TRIALS. In Criminal cases before a Judge and Jury, the roles are entirely separate the Judge is the sole arbiter of the law in the case, the Jury are the arbiters of fact.
The evidence that the jury makes its decision on is the evidence that has been introduced in the actual trial and no more or less. Some evidence is legally necessary but uncontraversial (like a statement from a person who owns the stolen property and identifies it when recoered) so the parties can agree to have the statement read out or make an admission about the relevant fact without having to have the witness in court. Otherwise witnesses have to give their evidence first "in chief" and then it is challenged in cross examination. The jury bases its decision on the WHOLE of that witnesses' evidence on the day of trial but do not see the statement. Just because someone is CONSISTENT in their account doesn't prove that their account is truthful. INCONSISTENT statements are different and a witness will be challenged as to why their account has changed. There will be a bundle of statements and paper exhibits that the Judge, the Prosecutor and the Defence will have. They will know what is inconsistent and what isn't so they will be able to make a decision to make a challenge or not. These bundles are not the same as a Jury bundle. Ordinarily, a JB (at the beeginning of a trial) will contain a copy of the indictment (the charge) and, various pre-agreed documents (if any). As the trial progresses the JB will grow as copies of various exhibits are added to it. In many trials (like Helen's) there would be little in the JBs even by the end of the case because all the evidence is what has come live from the witnesses' mouths. In others (like frauds) there would be tons and tons of stuff for the jurors to take into the jury room because witnesses would have been producing lots of paper and would be pointing out relevant entries. ETA sorry about using capitals. Not shouting but this machine is a bit tempremental about letting me bold or italicise stuff for emphasis. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3945 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Trained to the bun
Posts: 95
|
Quote:
So to cut to the chase. The jury would only hear or see what say Kirsty had actually uttered in court. They would not get to read the statement she gave at the time? So if neither counsel touched on part of her statement it would never be know to the jury?
![]() The jury might well start to wonder how come every woman this innocent hard-done-to man is, on his account, mad or malicious. Just how unlucky can one man be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3946 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,464
|
Will the writers have stuck rigidly to proper court proceedings and the way jurors are instructed?
Some of their actions have been a little suspicious. Personally, I don't think Helen was given a fair trial. We didn't hear many witnesses for her.did we really hear what Henry said. Will Kirsty's outburst be allowed to stand. Hope all this comes out. If we are left with a cliff hanger this forum will explode. I do hope she is acquitted .And gets her boys back and lives happily ever after.And Rob is chased from the village by pitchfork chasing locals. Including Ian and Adam. What is going to happen between them? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3947 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,481
|
Eeeeeek! Squeaky bum time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3948 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 388
|
Long time lurker here. Feeling very nervous for Helen. Think she'll be found guilty of the wounding with intent and then we will have to wait and hope the judge gives her a suspended sentence
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3949 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,481
|
Ugh I can't stand any of these already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3950 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,124
|
Quote:
Eeeeeek! Squeaky bum time!
![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:50.






