This discussion has been closed.
Posted by al-in-a-field (U3325483) on Thursday, 13th December 2007
There seems to be quite a lot of speculation and disagreement about this in DiscussTA.
Can anyone with legal experience, or from the SW team (Keri) clarify this.
Given that she is distraught over it, though it was pretty clear that her evidence was pointing in that direction, could she just refuse? Or indicate that she herself is convinced that Kathy speaks the truth and so would be hostile to the defendent?
I am now seriously curious.
Thanks,
Al...
I am fairly sure the answer is no. Obviously we know that Owen is guilty but there is a presumption of innocence and everyone is entitled to a defence. If she didn'tgo she would be in contempt of court and face prosecution herself.
, in reply to message 2.
Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Thursday, 13th December 2007
If she didn'tgo she would be in contempt of court and face prosecution herself.Â
Well, that might be tough, but perhaps she should take a stand - whatever the consequences. Obviously it would be tough for all of us - not to mention Nigel - to be without her for weeks or months as she languished in HMP Felpersham, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made and I am sure we would all cope.
I call to mind the jury (in the 17th century?) that refused to follow a judge's direction to find someone guilty (I have a feeling Quakers were involved somewhere) and were jailed by the judge for doing so.
VH
As the child of an erstwhile Crown Prosecutor, I was raised to have a great respect for the English Legal system.... however I have toay that is a splendid idea.... (sorry Dad). The idea of Lizzie coping in clink after the stately home would be fab.. yes Lizzie..take a stand... think "What would Uncle Rupert do?"
Maybe not.
Think what happened to Uncle Rupert.
bob
, in reply to message 5.
Posted by al-in-a-field (U3325483) on Thursday, 13th December 2007
thanks for the responses. I didn't mean to suggest that Lizzie should she knows better than the courts and therefore decide on the guilty verdict (we know, but that is clearly a dramatic license situation).
However, I was wondering whether there was an option to say "No." - and then possibly another option for the legal team to decide that (a) if the witness is unwilling, it will be unhelpful - must sometimes be the case, or (b) to issue a more binding "invitation".
Al...
A witness who is unwilling to testify are deemed to be "hostile" witnesses as I recall which means they get roughed up verbally by all the barristers. Of course strictly speaking Lizzie can't testify.
"Of course strictly speaking Lizzie can't testify."
Do you mean to the act? She can testify as to character and general behaviour can't she? In burglaries they don't only have witnesses who saw the act but circumstantial ones. The fact of course that she's got it all wrong is another question.
Is subpoenaing witnesses something that only happens in detective stories?
Was fieldplace being very learned indeed and thinking of the origin of the word "testify" (which I believe if described would get one modded...)
VH
I don't know what you are thinking of but "In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter. "
Reply to Peggy.
No it doesn't jut happen in stories. I was subpoenaed over twenty years ago as prosecution witness.- Yes, the word subpoena was quoted on the letter and I was ordered to await instructions.
The tone was very severe and 'order-like' not 'request-like'.
I still have it, but was never called, the other witnesses were high profile and their expenses would have been astronomical.
I saw the policeman who took the statements in a town one day and asked him what was going on.
The case had been heard and the culprit imprisoned.
I still have not heard from the Crown Court to have the subpoena lifted.
Technically, I think I am still not allowed to leave the country without permission from the court.
I think we could probably risk it, VH. One possible reason why testicles are called testicles is because men giving evidence in a Roman court allegedly held onto this part of their anatomy while swearing an oath. The Roman word for witness is testis, from which we get the English words testimony, testament and testify. As far as I can make out from a quick look on Google, this story about testicles may be balls.
Drogonfly
my 15 year-old daughter happily told me that origin of the word yesterday - nothing to do with this storyline! I think she got it from her Latin teacher, but like you I wouldn't know whether it was balls or not
10/10 Dragonfly
Mussolini allegedly did it too, so not just an ancient practice.
Still Kathy knows what Lizzie is going to say in Court so she should ensure she gets her point across: we were colleagues; I was sorry for the man I knew as "Owen" & tried to get him involved in Village activities as a way to widen his social circle*.
* apart from dating Tracy Horrobin & thus having been scrutinised by the whole Horrobin Clan especially Ivy. Amazing Susan & Emma haven't discussed this on air.
Lizzie MUST DIE. She's so awful. Self-absorbed, mean, greedy cow.
, in reply to message 1.
Posted by Kind Mrs Van Rentl (U2315000) on Monday, 17th December 2007
Oh I see .... well are you sure? We know that Lizzie wears the trousers in teh Pargeter marriage
Yes, I can't understand why Tracey hasn't been mentioned. Not only by the 'Horrobin' connections but did not Owen take her to The Bull as his fiancee?
We know now that Lizzie has to go or will be whatever the new term for subpoenaed is according to Usha.
Anyway, there undoubtedtly would have been gossip about Kathy and Owen as was so Lizzie was actually telling the truth. She must do that in court or be in contempt.
, in reply to message 19.
Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Monday, 24th December 2007
Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:25 GMT, in reply to DOLLYCATCH in message 19
We don't really know - Lizzie was vague (in fact, dishonest) in what she said to Usha and drew inferences not necessarily based on what Usha said. If Lizzie wants a proper answer she should set out the facts properly.
VH
, in reply to message 19.
Posted by Keri Davies (U2219620) ** on Friday, 28th December 2007
>whatever the new term for subpoenaed
Witness summons.
, in reply to message 19.
Posted by stolenkisses (U6230663) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
We know now that Lizzie has to go or will be whatever the new term for subpoenaed is according to Usha.Â
When did Lizzie speak to Usha? I have LA'd to all this week's programmes, and I can't remember missing any before that....
sk
, in reply to message 22.
Posted by al-in-a-field (U3325483) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
I think it was the week before. Lizzie rang Usha.
She was very coy and did not tell Usha what it was really about (unlike when she was talking to Shula).
Had Lizzie had any sort of sense she would h ave booked a professional session with a solicitor so that they could NOT blab to anyone else, or gone to the CAB, so she could lay her cards on the table and get proper advice.
Usha said that "as Lizzie had only been called as a character witness" she could make it clear she would give a bad reference. As Lizzie has clearly not been called for that, the advice was useless to her.
I still can't understand why she has not rung up Owen/Taylor's team to get it all clarified, particularly given the mess it is causing and that Lizzie apparently can't take it. Silly mare!
Asking the wrong question of a lawyer is the best way to get a misleading answer...
Al...
, in reply to message 23.
Posted by stolenkisses (U6230663) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
Thanks, al-in-a-field.
I must have been doing more Christmas shopping than I thought and missed an episode!
It's true that in RL a competent professional person could sort all this out without getting into a tizzy, but this SL has reminded me that without misunderstandings - particularly those that lead to family conflict - soaps would just be boring documentaries!
sk
, in reply to message 21.
Posted by DOLLYCATCH (U1737479) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
Thank you for jogging my memory! And, much as the Law loves Latin it's easier to remember than 'subpoena'. Even if I forgot it within a week!
, in reply to message 25.
Posted by al-in-a-field (U3325483) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
Thing is, it seems she would still have to appear, but to call the local all-round solicitor/lawyer who knows EVERYONE involved, is plain silly.
Much as I don't like lizzie and enjoy her discomfiture, if I were as bothered by it as her, I would take serious advice, and pay for it if necessary. I believe the CAB would help, personally I would probably go there first.
But Lizzie must have a family/business lawyer as well....
I still think that given that I just about believe Lizzie when she says she believes Kathy, surely she would be a rubbish witness for the defence????
Ah well, I'd make a very poor defence lawyer clearly. Funny how TA makes you wonder about these things....
Al...
, in reply to message 26.
Posted by Orla Quiver (U2488949) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
I still think that given that I just about believe Lizzie when she says she believes Kathy, surely she would be a rubbish witness for the defence????Â
Ah, but, as a witness, Lizzie will have to stick to answering specific questions, and the defence brief will presumably be quoting back at her selected parts of her interview with the police and simply asking her to confirm them. The relevant time frame will be the time of the offence, and her opinion of whether or not, years after the event, Lizzie believes Kathy or not will be irrelevant. The defence team are not likely to start asking questions helpful to the prosecution. The object of the exercise will simply be to cloud the issue and suggest a deeper relationship between Kathy and Owen than there really was. Lizzie's words to the police, as I recall, could be very useful from that point of view.
Orla, could Lizzy then be questioned about her evidence by the prosecution?
She can (and almost certainly will) be cross-examined by the prosecution.
So Orla's point about Lizzie not having the opportunity to amend her statement is not quite as bad for the prosecution? The prosecuting barrister can presumably draw out other things that dilute the effect of that statement.
, in reply to message 30.
Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:44 GMT, in reply to Dragonfly in message 30
Can't Lizzie simply withdraw her statement? One hears about this happening (when for example prosecution witnesses are reasoned with by powerfully built friends of the defendant!) so presumably it is legally an option to do so?
Or she too ill to testify (not at all unlikely I would have thought).
VH
So Orla's point about Lizzie not having the opportunity to amend her statement is not quite as bad for the prosecution? The prosecuting barrister can presumably draw out other things that dilute the effect of that statement.Â
The point I was trying to make is that the relevant time frame is the time of the rape. Lizzie made a statement about the perception of a close and friendly relationship between Kathy and Owen at that time, which in a way would be hard to refute. And Lizzie was saying this without the knowledge that Owen had been charged with any crime at all. Of course, with the subsequent information that Owen was being accused of attacking both Kathy and another woman, then Lizzie would naturally have a different view, but if the prosecution were to try to introduce this in cross examination, it is likely to be ruled out of order since it would not be relevant to establishing the situation at the time of the alleged offence.
Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:49 GMT, in reply to Orla Quiver in message 32
This is not true - Kathy told Lizzie and Nigel that Owen had raped her on 30th September.
The police came to interview Lizzie and Nigel for the 2nd time on October 10th (this is when Lizzie made the remarks about other staff memners gossiping about Kathy and Owen).
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.