• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Soaps
Is chrissie leaving Emmerdale?
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
Nico_D
10-08-2015
Originally Posted by WhatYouGonnaDo?:
“Car + Petrol + lighter + gas canisters = explosion

explosion + nearby family homes + nearby road + nearby people (Chrissie, Robert) = bad, very bad


what in the name of Christ did she think would happen if she set a car alight?

I find it hard to believe that she wouldn't get a prison sentence, Adam did and that was a fire with no fatalities. But soap law decrees all prison sentences will be short, unless the character is leaving and I don't see Chrissie going just yet.”

Exactly, this was the point I was trying to make

I'm not questioning the morality of it, or weather chrissie should stay as it's fairly obvious she is. My point was they should have either covered it up or had someone else cause it who was going to leave. There is no way a story of the magnitude it was alive news story within the world of Emmerdale that caused 3 innocent deaths, would not get a custodial sentence. Regardless of the intent or not, regardless weather chrissie is fundamentally a good person or not
WhatYouGonnaDo?
10-08-2015
Originally Posted by jlp95bwfc:
“I think it's somewhat debatable as to whether setting fire to the car was a direct cause of the deaths. Should the helicopter pilot have been flying directly above a fire so low to the ground? Also Robert thought he'd put out the fire which is also a crucial event as it shows that the fire wasn't deliberately left burning but it was an accident.”

What is accidental about dousing a car in petrol and throwing a lighter at it?

Of course setting fire to the car was a direct cause of the deaths. Had the car not been set on fire, there would have been no deaths. To try and blame the poor pilot who wasn't to know a gas canister was going to blow him out of the sky, is ridiculous. Unlike Chrissie who knew there were gas canisters close by but started a fire anyway.

and at least Robert attempted to put it out, meanwhile Chrissie, whose handy work it was stood there doing nothing and taunting him, I believe her words were "let it burn"
Danny_Francis
10-08-2015
Hope not, fantastic character
J-B
10-08-2015
Lady Tightjumper of house Largenorkington is a murderer. No two ways about that one.
hot.like.fire
10-08-2015
I love Chrissie. Wasn't keen at first but she's one of my favourites now
sheila blige
10-08-2015
Originally Posted by Hound of Love:
“Rakesh is bound to be involved in any trial.”

Well of course he will. He's the only brief in the village don't you know?!
craig_25
10-08-2015
Originally Posted by WhatYouGonnaDo?:
“What is accidental about dousing a car in petrol and throwing a lighter at it?

Of course setting fire to the car was a direct cause of the deaths. Had the car not been set on fire, there would have been no deaths. To try and blame the poor pilot who wasn't to know a gas canister was going to blow him out of the sky, is ridiculous. Unlike Chrissie who knew there were gas canisters close by but started a fire anyway.

and at least Robert attempted to put it out, meanwhile Chrissie, whose handy work it was stood there doing nothing and taunting him, I believe her words were "let it burn"”

Given her emotional state I would put money on it that Chrissie hadn't even noticed the gas canisters. She simply thought the car would burn out and be destroyed. Any normal person would realise that setting fire so close to gas bottles would cause an explosion endangering their own life and that of others, so I think it's fair to say that whilst her eyes may have seen the gas, she clearly didn't register when she started that fire. She didn't want the scrapyard to burn down, just Roberts precious car.
SULLA
11-08-2015
Originally Posted by Nico_D:
“Which caused an explosion resulting in three people dying.end of.”

Originally Posted by jlp95bwfc:
“I think it's somewhat debatable as to whether setting fire to the car was a direct cause of the deaths. Should the helicopter pilot have been flying directly above a fire so low to the ground? Also Robert thought he'd put out the fire which is also a crucial event as it shows that the fire wasn't deliberately left burning but it was an accident.”

It was an accident with tragic consequences.
ME1234567
11-08-2015
Deleted
ME1234567
11-08-2015
Originally Posted by Mark_Washingto1:
“Robert didn't tell her go pull a "Waiting to Exhale", Chrissy is a grown ass woman with a mind of her own and is responsible for her own actions.”

Exactly.
Nico_D
11-08-2015
Originally Posted by SULLA:
“It was an accident with tragic consequences.”

I'm not disputing that at al, but it was caused by an illegal and dangerous act which would realistically result in prison time.
margarite6666
11-08-2015
Originally Posted by Nico_D:
“I'm not disputing that at al, but it was caused by an illegal and dangerous act which would realistically result in prison time.”

In real life she would be done for involuntary manslaughter. It doesn't matter what her state of mind was because a reasonable person would know that setting a car on fire with petrol on and in it would be s reckless and dangerous act.

In soaps they do have leeway. Many actors have months off so they could send her to prison for a few months. That would also allow them to move forward with other storylines before her return. There is no way this could be deemed an accident. It is the same when a person is punched and hits his head and dies: cause and effect. It is good to see a character who knows that fact.
hypergreenfrog
11-08-2015
I think the actress is leaving for a short break (a few weeks, maybe a bit more), so the is a chance she could get a similar sentence like Adam last year.
Lady Voldemort
11-08-2015
Originally Posted by WhatYouGonnaDo?:
“I believe her words were "let it burn"”

Demonic possession by Peggy Mitchell is surely just cause for a plea of temporary insanity?

Joking aside, Chrissie is clearly legally responsible when applying causation and the "but for" rule. Unless the defence can prove that the helicopter had a fault that would have caused it to crash into the village hall in any event (unlikely, but this is a soap...), but for her actions, the chain of events that resulted in those deaths would never have happened.
Chiltons Cane
11-08-2015
I hope not. It clearly wasn't her fault it was a series of events she could not have forseen. Yes she set fire to a car that could have been dangerous in itself but how was she to know a gas cannister would explode at the EXACT same time a helicopter was flying over the village, and that out of all the space, the cannister would hit said copter that then falls on the ONE EXACT building where the whole of the village was congregating.
You could not get that unlucky! Poor Chrissie.
I hated Eric having a go at her.
If he hadn't of locked his wife in a building she'd still be alive.
be more pacific
11-08-2015
Originally Posted by Chiltons Cane:
“I hope not. It clearly wasn't her fault it was a series of events she could not have forseen. Yes she set fire to a car that could have been dangerous in itself but how was she to know a gas cannister would explode at the EXACT same time a helicopter was flying over the village, and that out of all the space, the cannister would hit said copter that then falls on the ONE EXACT building where the whole of the village was congregating.
You could not get that unlucky! Poor Chrissie.
I hated Eric having a go at her.
If he hadn't of locked his wife in a building she'd still be alive.”

Well, setting fire to a car is likely to cause an explosion. Chrissie knew she was endangering Robert's life, with or without gas cannisters nearby.

I'm not sure the huge improbability of the subsequent chain of events makes a difference. Chrissie deliberately started a fire which would be expected to cause an explosion in a scrapyard.
Pink_Smurf
11-08-2015
What about Adam in the other car? Chrissie, Robert and Adam could have all been killed plus do they still have the Rottweiler who was probably on a chain unable to run for safety? I think Chrissie will leave for a while but will return after a period of time. Without Chrissie what will happen with Robert's character? Lawrence won't want him at Home Farm especially if Chrissie leaves for a while.
jj-min
11-08-2015
If she is charged I'm sure the Judge will take into account her abnormal state of mind at the time and the unlikely circumstances of a passing helicopter being hit by a flying canister and sentence her lightly (if at all)
craig_25
11-08-2015
Poor Chrissie......she'll be savaged in prison. Poor little rich girl. She's a stunner too, wouldn't like to see her made someone's prison bitch, though it could turn her, and give the character a direction as Ally's new lover?!
Alleycat666
11-08-2015
I'm sure she's just signed a new contract, so won't be leaving permanently. I'm guessing she will go to prison, but because she is showing remorse and has admitted her actions, then probably the judge will show some leniency - previously of good character/couldn't have imagined the consequences of her actions/will have to live with those consequences etc etc.
mrs.deschanel
11-08-2015
Originally Posted by Nico_D:
“A factory owner in my local area just got 10 years because a machine caught an apprentice overalls and crashed him to death, manslaughter is when an accident causes death when someone is at fault. Of course she could not have forsaken what would happen but that is the difference between murder and manslaughter.

There are different degrees of manslaughter and this would count as involuntary, but with three counts of it, you would still be looking at a lengthy sentence.”

There was a bit more to it than a machine catching some oversized overalls. The factory was an accident waiting to happen and safety equipment on the machines had been removed. Apprentices weren't trained, health and safety didn't exist and the place was well known for being a disgrace and a danger hence recruitment agencies refusing to send anyone there to work. The owners were guilty of deliberately putting staff at risk - having kids out their hands in machines with the safety guards removed and then making excuses. A tad different to torching someone's car and causing a freak accident. Maybe she couldn't have foreseen the consequences but really who'd expect a canister to explode and hit a low flying helicopter especially seeing as those canisters wouldn't go up like that in real life 😉. I don't know the charges - arson resulting in death?
hypergreenfrog
11-08-2015
Originally Posted by jj-min:
“If she is charged I'm sure the Judge will take into account her abnormal state of mind at the time and the unlikely circumstances of a passing helicopter being hit by a flying canister and sentence her lightly (if at all)”

Unlikely circumstances yes, but abnormal state of mind? She found out her husband had an affair.
Sad as that may be, it is not an excuse to light a petrol fire near a residential area on someone else's business premises.

I fully understand that people question her responsibility for the helicopter crash, but the fire itself was not an accident by any stretch of the imagination.
She knew it was a crime, she knew it would wreck the car and likely cause it least some damage to the scrap yard, and she made no attempt to put it out, even when Robert asked her for help. Causing damage was her clear intent.
kwynne42
11-08-2015
Originally Posted by Oldnjaded:
“Irrespective of the legal side, common sense would show that it was ultimately an accident caused by her stupid but not planned actions. I doubt she'd get a prison sentence at all.”

Hmmm Oldnjaded this is Emmerdale we are taking about, if Belle can get sent to prison for not really killing Gemma the Chrissie will get 10 lefe sentences for what she did.
Chiltons Cane
11-08-2015
Originally Posted by be more pacific:
“Well, setting fire to a car is likely to cause an explosion. Chrissie knew she was endangering Robert's life, with or without gas cannisters nearby.

I'm not sure the huge improbability of the subsequent chain of events makes a difference. Chrissie deliberately started a fire which would be expected to cause an explosion in a scrapyard.”

Which for the most part Robert had put out. Chrissie wasn't exactly scouring the area to see if there just so happened to be gas cannisters near by!

If no copter had been flying over i wonder how much damage the cannisterwould have caused. Aside from Adumb being trapped it would not have affected the rest of the village.

I blame boring Pete and stupid Debbie, if he hadn't booked a copter for his miserable wife to be none of this would have happened
jj-min
11-08-2015
Originally Posted by hypergreenfrog:
“Unlikely circumstances yes, but abnormal state of mind? She found out her husband had an affair.
Sad as that may be, it is not an excuse to light a petrol fire near a residential area on someone else's business premises.”


Yes, she is responsible for starting the chain of events and will probably be charged. She's definitely culpable of criminal damage, but her state of mind was, I'd say, unbalanced.

Chrissie has been dogged by wretched personal circumstances over the past few months. She had her son put on the sex register, who was also responsible for endangering her father by tampering with his medicine. She found out not long ago that Robert had faked the robbery which also nearly killed Lawrence...and then to top it all found out about his affair with a man. All this built up and culminated in her blowing a fuse.

Don't think Chrissie would allow her lawyers to use that information in her defence, especially not the bit about Laughlin and the drug tampering, but Lawrence is rich and will fight tooth and nail to retain the best defence lawyers for his daughter.


(Editted to say, I have no legal knowledge. This is all just my opinion on the matter....and I'm probably totally wrong. )
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map