Archers addicts 3!

Last time I looked at the research (about 4 years ago I think), the indication was that women return an average of 20 times before they finally manage to leave. My worry (I know it isn't RL but I'm gripped) is that Rob will tell Pat n Tony he plans to take Henry home to BHC with him when he's discharged from hospital. That will be the precursor to Rob assuming care of the baby, rather than leave the baby in HMP or on a psychiatric ward with Helen.
On what the professionals know to date, what's to stop this happening. Even if Pat n Tony seek legal advice and make an application to the court for say Special Guardianship, unless some evidence of Rob's abusive behaviour towards Henry comes to light I fear he'd get interim care as he's the only person with parental responsibility who is in a position to exercise it.

Just a thought but if Helen did say she didn't want Henry to see Rob because she believes Rob had been about to attack him wouldn't Social Services have to check into his background - I wonder what that would turn up? I thought - don't know anything about this - that they would not wait for it to be proved but would see him as currently safe with his grandparents if there was any question. Oh I do hope he will be OK. It probably all hangs or falls on Helen being able to give coherent evidence which, at the moment, even she doesn't totally believe.

As you can see I'm gripped too Iam64

We're away next week, I'm bound to miss the time slots and I don't know if the camp site has wi-fi for catch up. I'll have to wait until the omnibus on Sunday! Oh the agony!

Do you have a car radio ink?

Children's Services only know that Rob has been Henry's 'daddy' and shared his care for about two years with no concerns raised by anyone about that to date. The only way he can be prevented from picking Henry up from Bridge Farm is by either Pat n Tony making an application to the court for a Residence Order. That could trigger the District Judge to order an investigation into Henry's best interests. Unless Helen begins to talk about Rob's abusive behaviour towards her and Henry I don't know where the evidence to oppose him caring for Henry will come from. We could all get up a petition for Borcestshire children's services maybe?

I have a feeling we are in for an interesting view of how social services work Iam. Trying to find out more I found another forum where a lawyer (I assume) said that Helen could loose the children as social services will take action to actually protect the children from her (on the basis that she cannot adequately protect them – not that she’s a danger to them) as well as from Rob when the evidence of Rob's behaviour comes to light.

We will all be more knowledgeable when this is over

How do you think Rob will respond to questioning by the police. Will it be the women who questioned Helen? (Oh do let it be a women) They will ask why he thinks she was leaving and why he tracked her phone, etc. That could be an interesting episode.

8 Things we know about Anna Tregorran

Oh dear, I clicked that link and it has a very interesting thread. Had to slap myself and come away or I'll never get anything done.

(There should be internet at the campsite next week - so I can use catch up. I really like to hear all the episodes in the right order and get upset if I miss one. Late Onset OCD?)

So, Lilian is planning to take Justin "in hand"! Let's just hope it isn't in the bed department of Underwoods, or she might be the next one to be arrested!

I'm not sure where that story line is going are you phoenix? I just had to smile when I heard that though

I think Lilian story is supposed to be a bit of light relief. Don't you just love her laugh?

Absolutely! Like dirty water going down a drain!

Oh I do. [Grin]

Iam how many interviews with a five yr old child witness would normally be done? Surely they would try and do more than one?
However we don't know what went on in the first interview and what may have gone on then.

Gracesgran Wed 20-Apr-16 23:55:17 s
I see what you mean with that one Helen has mentioned that so the police should at some point consider why Helen might have thought that Rob might present a danger to her or Henry. .

Lillian is being the comic act to lessen the tension after the evil deed. As in the porters speech after the murder of Duncan in the Scottish Play!
I do know people who laugh like a braying donkey.

Well I do hope the detective could see through that OTT performance by Rob.

He was so smarmy. Horrible horrible horrible. Feel disheartened now he is back.

Nellie - I'm not up to date with Best Evidence guidance but under the previous memo of good practice, we were told 1 - 3 interviews with young children were possible. Practice however developed that only one interview was conducted, another attempt to avoid being accused of leading child witnesses or interviewing children who'd been influenced by their carers between interviews. It's unusual for a 5 year old to give evidence in court - more likely to be children around age 7 upwards. As you said, we don't know what Henry did say during his interview. I suspect the police will be insisting he isn't offered any play therapy or direct work for fear of contaminating his evidence. It's infuriating isn't it. I'm not having a go at the Police, I understand the process but still feel it doesn't give children the best opportunity to talk.

I'm with others here - let's hope the detective's natural suspicion and desire to find out what really happened at BHC was sharpened by Rob's dramatic performance. Also the fact he lied and embellished can't have helped his case

That's it, I am giving up on The Archers. There is only so much shouting a kitchen radio can take so I shall be boycotting it until I get reassurance that Rob Titchener is indeed due to get his comeuppance.
My BP might return to normal too.

I think controlling people do make you feel like that LullyDully.

She may feel sorry for him merlotgran but when the two police women were talking previously they commented on Kirsty mentioning that she was defending herself. You would think it would at least give her (police person) pause for thought that he needed to get all the "back story" in - too much for someone who has obviously been knifed and obviously by his wife but I am not sure what the police can do. I would think that all they can do is gather the evidence - including Rob's statement - and forward it to the CPS. Do you think they would be able to say they think there is more to this than meets the eye? They know Kirsty gave Helen a phone because - she said - Rob checked Helen's (we know it's true but they don't but it all adds to the picture) They know she had packed to leave so there had to be something to trigger the "attack". If Helen was talking they could put more questions to Rob but that may not be what Helen is advised to do.

I think it is all going to take time

Just another thought. It will be the Crown versus Helen Titchener. Rob is just a prosecution witness and I don't think he will like the lack of control.

Surely he shot himself in the foot by saying that Helen was clingy and needed to be with him all the time?

Most of Ambridge knows that Helen was always at home 'resting her hormones' while Rob was out and about. She'd given up the shop and was rarely seen by anyone.

If given the chance will Pat contradict that statement or remain in her brainwashed state?

Where's Jess? Surely she will come forward, she had that meeting with Helen also Bictims support would have a record of Helen contacting them.

It 's all going to take time Luckylegs. Who knows about the meeting with Jess? The police will probably not see it as relevant and Helen hasn't told Anna and Anna can't talk to Kirsty (witness for the prosecution) who is the only other person who knows. The mention of this is unlikely to be in Kirsty's statement as that would just concern the incident so Anna is unlikely to have any knowledge.

Helen hasn't told Anna about ringing Victims Support either and even Kirsty doesn't even know Helen actually rang them. We will need to be very patient while they find out things we are already aware of.

Merlotgran I think this is a form of brainwashing - people using coercive control will work on the needs of he people concerned and Pat wanted Helen to be safe so Rob convinced her he was making her safe. I don't think Pat could be expected to understand it all yet. I don't think the "clingy" bit will have gone into statement which, I would have thought, would be very factual. Most of what Rob said was not even being taken down. He seemed a bit miffed that he could not continue blackening Helen's character and you could hear that he was not controlling the detective.

Perhaps we should keep a list of what they actually know as it is very little so far.

I don't know about you but the more I think about it the more I feel that Rob will not react well to feeling a loss of control.

The story was in the national press so surely the police should have heard from Women's Aid (Helen definitely gave them her name) and Jess who is actually witholding evidence given that Helen arranged to meet her and revealed that not only was she being abused but that Rob had started on Henry.