I thought previously that Rob might be a family annihilator, and try to kill Helen, the children and himself if he felt he'd lost control. I can see him luring Helen somewhere now with the intention of offing the whole family. He'd be unsuccessful of course, and carted off to prison, which would mean he'd be out of Helen's life for the foreseeable future.

Helen keeping quiet about his latest threats, instead of telling everyone in a loud voice, will play into Rob's hands if he does have anything sinister in mind

[quote=An Thropologist;83913121]

I listened whilst driving today and it was the one hour episode (Sunday) from start to finish. Actually although I was shocked yesterday, I enjoyed listening today and I picked up many of the nuances and subtleties that I missed in yesterday's broadcast. It really is worth a second listen.

I think that the idea of leaving us hanging to the end was the reason that they cut abruptly from the jury discussion back to the court. At that moment surely we all thought it was a guilty verdict!

I'm a new listener, dipped in and out previously but really enjoyed last night. I don't normally listen to the radio but it was nice to relax without having to look at the screen. Can't wait for tonight!.

[quote=cika;83912750]
^^This seems very likely and a rich seam to be mined over the coming months.

[quote=An Thropologist;83913121]
2-3pm was the brain fart/mental aberration ep. Although tbf, on listening to it a second time it made a bit more sense once I could differentiate better between the jurors; first time through all I could really process was Catherine Tate & Eileen Atkins.

[quote=Anne_Cameron;83913597]
I came to a similar conclusion as you.

I just finished listening a 2nd time too, and it does improve.
Also listening at a lower volume helped - not so much of a cacophony.
Lots of subtle little things like the way Nigel Havers moved Lisa to sit in Jakcie's old seat so she'd be the first to announce her decision (and thereby possibly colouring the others' decisions).
Lots and lots of politics, prejudices etc.

I've wondered about that but I think it might be going too far for TPTB - if the coercive control storyline turned some people off that would be far too sensationalist. Although I do think at least attempting to make off with one or more of them is likely.

I agree- although such tragic things as killings and kidnappings do indeed happen, one storyline "ripped from the headlines" is enough to be going on with. The inevitable subtle -and not-so-subtle- fall-out is quite enough to fill months of future episodes.

I didn't as it was just as Rob2 had been unmasked as the nasty piece of work he really was and driven any waverers firmly into the Not Guilty camp.

I wasn't totally convinced with the verdict, but glad of the outcome all the same and just hoping Helen won't suffer in silence and be taken in by Rob again.
Also found it strange that Helen didn't once mention Henry (that I recall anyway).

My friends I am about to be the voice of dissent. This is a major about face because yesterday I too found the 'special' infuriating and contrived and agreed with most of the critical comments on here. But I fear I may have done Tim Stimpson a disservice on a piece of playwriting that was actually rather clever.

Yesterday I had my full Archer's head on and was on tenterhooks for Helen to be vindicated and for Rob to be humiliated, scorned and worse. So the progress was irritatingly slow in getting us to the outcome, yet rushed in terms of considering all the points that we needed thrashed out and underscored, the bigotted (in many cases) jury were infuriating and the outcome didn't fit the flow of the deliberations to that point.

But today I wanted to check a detail so I tuned into listen again. I got to the bit I wanted and found I was actually listening a new way. So I listened again from the beginning and actually really enjoyed it.

If you listen to it as if it were the afternoon play it was really quite good. In fact I would go so far to say very good. There was character development, jeapoardy, conflict, pride, prejudice, dramatic climaxes and believe it or not two moment of comedy that today made me laugh out loud, all packed into 45 minutes. After that we moved out of the jury room.

If I were to criticise it as a stand alone drama it would be on the basis of trying to pack in too much. It was as if the writer had many creative ideas that he was itching to turn inot a play and getting the opportunity chucked them all in at once.

I know we have condemned it but in my opinion it is worth revisiting sans the Archer's tinted spectacles.

ETA Well bugger me. I am running behind the curve here. I listened again at about 5pm and wrote a post out in draft to post when I got home. Seems I am not alone in finding the 'special' imporved with age.

It's almost as if we considered the evidence, overcame our initial prejudices and gave a not guilty verdict after a dramatic turnaround happened off-stage. *surprised hands

Indeed.

Jury Tampering!!

Wonderful depiction of Helen's awkward transition to home life.
She feels happy and peaceful but also on edge and still incomplete without Henwee.

Delicious interaction between Pat and Rob

'May I just see the baby'
'I'm afraid that's quite out of he question'
'Can I just...'
'No. Thank you - goodbye' <slam>

... and Rob whimpering aww diddums.

He and Arsula going through the newspapers in futile despair was also very gratifying

We've got the further angst of Family Court on Wednesday. Rob is going to bring up all the unsafe practices of Henry living on the farm - Tony's encounter with Otto etc. He's going to bring into court the Tom/Kirsty debacle. It's going to be grisly for all concerned, but I remain a glass half full

I know . Surely they have to consider the jury's decision i.e that Helen was acquitted based upon her belief Rob was going to hurt Henry?
Who represents Helen in the family court? Ive forgotten.

I think that maybe Anna will. Hope she's a bit more forceful than during the murder trial. I just know that Helen will get custody of both her boys, but Rob is too valuable a cast member to be written out, so visitation rights are on the cards - and - listening to tonight's episode, I rather think that Helen will change her surname and that of the boys back to Archer, by deed poll Cue colostomy bag bursting.

. Jack is already Anthony Jack Archer; she is currently Helen Titchener. Did they change Henry to Henry Titchener?

Does that mean a reappearance from Stephen the solicitor? He always struck me as a rather nasty piece of work with slicked-back hair and teeth that dazzle you if you look directly at them.

Pat's finally getting a backbone!

Rob exhibits many symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. He seems to be convinced that he is innocent of any wrongdoing - and Arsula cannot contemplate her precious son is anything other than perfect (possibly so she doesn't have to acknowledge her part in making him what he is).

You're right, I think that Henry is still an Archer. All she needs to do is change her name back to Archer to cut Rob out entirely.

WHAT? Someone actually said NO to Rob? He was reduced to begging? OOpsi!

This should be the turning point. I think the SL has to now either have Rob reconsidering his position, maybe showing some contrition OR he regroups and goes for an all-out assault (to try and get his ‘boys’). I’d say the former, going on previous form, is unlikely. So, I think things might get interesting.

I would say the former is highly unlikely, actually I'm changing that to will not happen. "A woman scorned" pales into insignificance set against a controller not being able to control. It will be interesting but highly uncomfortable listening, I see nothing else but a tragic conclusion, with the likes Rob there is no such thing as a compromise or a meeting of minds.

Henry's reaction to seeing his mum again after so many months didn't ring true. He showed no emotion whatsoever.