I can't see how he could be found guilty. There is only circumstantial evidence that was found in the garden but no evidence that he put it there. Yes his fingerprints are on it but he said he had handled it when Tracy found it so that casts doubt there.

If I were on the jury then I would be particularly listening to his aggrieved wife Carla who clearly stated her reasons for not believing him to be guilty. If his wife is convinced of his innocence then I would find it difficult to get past that.

And I think the judge was sort of guiding them to a not guilty verdict when he reminded the jury they had to be certain before they could find him guilty. And for me there is too much uncertainty for me to vote guilty.

So I think the verdict will be not guilty.

I'm certain he'll be found not guilty. They're clearly having Peter think Carla is still in love with him so that when he gets out, he'll attempt a reconciliation, and then leave the street when she knocks him back.

Also, if Rob goes on the run (as he'd have no reason to leave otherwise), whoever he confesses to would surely report the matter to the police, which would drag the whole thing up again.

We would also need some kind of closure on the Peter/Jim story if Peter was found guilty.

Peter being found not guilty and Rob being foubd out is the neatest way to resolve the story in the next few weeks.

I agree.

Someone just wrote this. His own words, not mine: "just watched the new trailer on itv. peter is found guilty, then comes tracey and robs wedding day. carla has found out that her brother rob killed tina and rob is angry, and asks sheepishly " your not going to tell anyone.. are you?". He could just be lying though.

How can a person be sheepish and angry at the same time? Sounds like your friend is yanking your chain.

Nah, he's not a friend lol. And it turns out the advert does exist since other people here are saying they've watched it.