Archers Addicts 4!!

It's up to the jury not the judge Jbf.

Helen is sounding so much stronger now she has admitted she was raped. She is standing up well to cross-examination. Much better than I expected.

Yes Graces, it's the Jury but they are assisted by the Judge who will summarise the evidence and guide them on points of law

True Iam. This is a summary of what kind of instruction the jury receives when all the evidence is in:

When all the evidence has been presented, the case will be submitted to the jury for its determination of guilt or innocence. Before the jury deliberates, the judge will give final instructions to the jury. These instructions include reminding jurors that the prosecutor must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every element of the crimes the defendant is charged with committing. The judge will define these elements and the meaning of the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. The judge will also identify and define any defenses that arise from the evidence submitted, any lesser offenses that may also be charged against the defendant, and the order and method of deliberations.

Jurors will be told that they should listen to one another’s views and try to reach agreement on the case, and that, in order to convict the defendant of any offense, their verdict must be unanimous. They will also be told how to complete the verdict forms. The judge will again emphasize that the jurors must: decide the case solely on the evidence lawfully admitted in the courtroom; deliberate on the facts and the law without sympathy, bias, or prejudice to either side; and respect one another’s views so that a thorough discussion of the facts and the law will occur and a reliable judgment will be reached.

It is worth repeating (re Jingl's comment) that Helen is innocent unless proved guilty and that the jury must believe that beyond reasonable doubt. If she is found not guilty I can see it being on a majority rather than unanimous.

Majority verdict is my husbands view Graces. Beyond reasonable doubt is a good base line. I don't believe the Jury can find that she attempted to murder Rob but she did wound him. Given her powerful evidence and the fact Jess seems likely to provide corroboration of his abusive behaviour, I wonder if the Jury will find she acted in self defence? She did wound him but the evidence seems to suggest the wrist wound could have happened when he tried to wrestle the knife from her and the 2nd wound to his body when he lunged towards her.

Yes, of course it is! Silly me!

Can the judge ask the jury to consider different charges? Say, not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of wounding with intent? How does it work?

The issue will be how many people are aware that women can behave very differently to men when threatened. The law has, until recently gone with the way men may react. Helen's "in the end all I could do is block it out and make myself numb" is exactly the reaction we could expect but there may well be members of the jury who ask "why didn't she leave after the first time?"

The very reason 'coercive-control' has been brought in is because we now recognise the differences. Men often react in the heat of the moment (not all or only men obviously) but women have been known to wait and even drug a man so they will be safe when they kill. We are now supposed to take both actions in the same way if they can be proved to be defensive. But we have had months talking about this and the jury haven't, nor will they have been listening to the programme or reading the many articles I think it would be unbelievable for all of them to go for not guilty.

Sorry Jbf, I think my comment came over as a bit abrupt; it wasn't meant to be harsh and I do apologise.

Helen has been charged with both Attempted Murder and Wounding with Intent. I think the judge can give some direction on these but I am not sure how or what he would say.

This trial is getting bloody good. Glad I came back!

That's a good question jingle, I'll have a google but my initial thought is that the judge can't direct the Jury to consider charges that the defendant isn't being tried for.

Can Rob be charged with rape after the proceedings are over?

What's happening to Henry while all this is going on?

The challenge of courtroom drama in The Archers

I found this interesting. In the last para about "If Helen is found guilty what will happen to Henry and Jack?" it says:

Irrespective of the verdict, we have a date at the Family Court on Wednesday 14 September for a hearing which will decide where Henry and Jack will live. If Helen is found not guilty, will they live with her or Rob? If she is found guilty, will the children live with Rob or Pat and Tony?

So is there really and hour long episode on Sunday and if so it must be about the trial. I am confused now.

I think the hour long episode will be about the end of the trial, the jury deliberation and the verdict.

The spoiler for the 14th Sept looks like it refers to the custody hearing.

I shall go and have a little look merlot but I agree, it looks like Sunday (Friday or Monday in Borsetshire?) is verdict day.

O idea what that expression means. Sound interesting and colourful 64. Please tell.

How about Rob raped Jess and that is why she got pregnant.? Not sure how he fixed the test yet.

Sorry No idea.

LD which bit do you have no idea about?

Just. Correcting my "O" idea from the post above. I must check posts more carefully. Just ignore me chuntering on.

Not at all LD. We all want to understand and the law is so complex. No reason why your chuntering shouldn't be answered

I am wondering what will happen to Rob re the rape accusations (I have to keep reminding myself he is not on trial) and also what is going in the newspapers. I can only think Jess reacted to a description of "poor" Rob with stick and tears as surely the papers have to be very careful what they print during a trial?

Sorry I am 64. I wasn't sure what a 'total head the ball 'was and lots of other posts were in between, so I didn't make sense. Nothing to do with Hen, just interested in language. Hence the chuntering.

The Archers, financial abuse and THAT storyline

LullyDully, I'm sorry for using a Manc expression. I apologised at the time because I realise some may find it offensive. 'head the ball' is a rather derogatory term, used to describe out of control behaviour (she said politely). I was expressing sympathy with Pat's character which I feel the script writers are treating badly. She isn't perfect, none of us are but the lack of control, loud weeping and wailing, shouting out in court to Helen is not helping anyone and suggests Pat is losing control of her emotions and sensibilities - i.e. behaving "like a head the ball".
I prefer the Real Pat, who was a bit of a lefti, quite sensible, keen on organics, long before it became so popular, a good farmer who managed to combine a busy working life with bringing up her children.
I recall she had a period of depression after John died so maybe her current falling apart is in character and I just wish it wasn't.

I'm bringing him with me tonight.....just in case!