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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

If I was on the jury I [think] I would have. It's a very recognisible trait in a bully/coward/narcissist (and Rob is all three) that they just cannot shut up when someone (shock horror) challenges the fact that they may be in the wrong. I think this would provide a bright green light regarding Rob's behaviour and character to the jury?

Do we know the split of men/women on the jury?

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!

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.

I normally listen to the daily podcast usually available soon after the evening broadcast but this evening I think listening live may be the way to go. Nothing on the telly until 9pm to clash.

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. (And they ours)

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.

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

Yes we discovered that because on our first morning, our first witness took the stand and it was soon discovered the witness stand bundle was defective. A very flustered clerk had to get it sorted before we could go on.

I suspect the wedding was too. I can just imagine him nagging/bullying her into getting married.

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.

Thanks for that, it was really interesting and helped to clarify a few points re tonight's deliberations of the jury!

I didn't get that but wondered if she was being called as a character witness for Rob 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.


I've been reading "The trial of Helen Titchener" on the The Archers site on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/arti...tchenerwebsite and it's been very helpful in explaining lots of things but also what actually happened on the night and so an explanation of the many stab wounds. Like people are saying on here I'm assuming the jury will be working with all of this evidence.

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.

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?

True. But the impression of HOW she said what she said will have/may have a big effect on the jury. Just because the prosecution and the judge were trying to shut her up doesn't make what she said unsaid

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?

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?

Eeeeeek! Squeaky bum time!

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

Ugh I can't stand any of these already.

I know. I have a litre of red wine on stand by. Which is ambitous because I normally fall asleep on two glasses. Nigel sound just like... well... Nigel..