Crown Court - The Crown of Life (1978)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Violet Hibberd is charged with two counts of causing Actual Bodily Harm to her paralysed husband.
John Woodnutt, famous for his appearances in Jeeves & Wooster and Doctor Who, stars as the Judge. Neil Stacy, best known for his part of Robert in Duty Free, plays the prosecuting counsel. (He also appeared in the film "Murder Most Foul" with Margaret Rutherford). William Simons, known for starring in Heartbeat, plays counsel for the defence.
I can easily imagine a mentally beaten down wife who stayed with her abusive husband mistaking the caustic powder for the bath salts. Her poor eyesight along with her wandering mind (you put yourself out of yourself when dealing with an abusive individual; yes, he's paralyzed and can't abuse you anymore but he's wielded his power for decades)...
I agree with you in sympathy to what amounts to an abusive husband however, I cannot see how she could have mistaken a box of bath salts with a round tin of caustic soda.
I thought this was excellent and very provocative with our sympathies swinging one way and then the other. Many thanks for the upload Jez.
I still remember this episode when I saw it back in 1978, it left a lasting impression. The performance of Gabrielle Day was particularly moving. A very strong story
Crown Court is a television MASTERPIECE:
The acting is magnificent..... very natural.
Thanks again , Jez....what a sorry tale this case was !!
What a thoroughly depressing story. Though I dare say these things are fairly common.
Michael Ripper!!!
Appeared in more Hammer Films than anybody else!
Appropriate name for a horror movie actor - more so if he portrayed one of his relatives, Jack The!
A very good episode. Really had me on the edge of my seat.
Those were the days my friend we thought they'd never end lol
One of the things this fine story helps to show is that there can be a huge difference between the public person and the private person - what they are like behind closed doors. The seemingly decent even admirable person who colleagues, the community and even friends know might be vile in their family life but it's often hard for the victims to come forward and testify against someone everyone else thinks is so good. Of course sometimes the opposite is true and the person hated by the wider world is very decent and kind in private. We might think we really know someone, not aware of how much we don't know.
Thanks Jez. Good episode, I felt sorry for the husband at first..
I didn't later
Lovely to see Hammer's wonderful Michael Ripper in a more substantial role.
Great performances by Gabrielle Daye and Gillian Lewis! Thanks for posting!
Michael Ripper if I'm not mistaken. Veteran of many a Hammer horror.
And Worzel Gummidge! :)
and a baddie in freewheelers
Micheal Ripper was great! He worked with William Simons in the Sgt Cribb series!
Yes. It is.
@@jezt42 Classic children's tele'! 👍
Fabulous acting and a great episode. Thanks.
Thanks Jez. Another gem for me to watch :)
John Woodnutt scared a generation of schoolchildren as 'The Thin Space Man' in the Look And Read story 'The Boy From Space'
I was one of them
The Boy From Space
He also played both Merlin & Modread in the kids game show Knightmare.
Also the scary butler in Children of the Stones.
Neil Stacy, who played the prosecuting attorney here, starred in the sitcom "Duty Free" with Keith Barron!👍
I found this an extremely good play. Very good acting by the actress playing the wife, as well as the other actors, I will add.
But this actress playing the part of the timid wife needs a special mention here, as her perfect acting was very obvious during her part. One could not help believing her and at the same time, feeling sorry for the way the husband had treated her.
This is a story that even if she had purposely injured the husband, which would have been given a guilty verdict in the case, I believe most of the audience would have forgiven her, thinking that the husband deserved every bad thing he received.
Others would say that God was paying him back for how he had treated her all this time. But the Christian way would be to forgive, which she had, even though she had committed adultery, which was condemned by God in one of his commandments.
I have actually seen similar cases in real life. Thank you for this most interesting play in this series.
Never seen an episode where the judge made quite so many interventions as this one! Odd verdict - all the evidence was on a "if this wasn't the case, then what was the case" basis and so I can't agree with the jury's verdict and I'm not at all sure how they arrived at it. Especially if it was unanimous. Ah well, an interesting offbeat episode.
A pot of Robinson's Strawberry Jam - _the pleasures of Life!_
Then it was .
These cases are quite realistic. Thanks for uploading.
The Jury probably suspected that she was covering up for her daughter who understandably wasn’t in a forgiving mood !
Gabrielle Daye playing Violet Hibberd here. Anyone else remember in 1971 she played a smaller role as Tim Evans Auntie Vi in the film '10 Rillington Place'.
Very creepy film .
Of course! I knew I'd seen her before but couldn't place her.
I just remember her as Albert Tatlock's daughter Beattie in Coronation St.
Thanks, I really enjoyed that episode.
And it’s taken to 2022 before there are laws about coercion being included as domestic violence. Mr Hibbard gave his wife a hellish life
Wonderfully naturalistic acting, so much so that you forget you're watching actors at all. The verdict confirmed a growing suspicion in my own mind....
Q
I would have found her NOT guilty of the first count due to lack of evidence but i would have found her Guilty of the second count.
Yes, me too. The prosecution proved their case on the second count. There is no way anyone could mistake the two containers unless, as the prosecution barrister said, they are an idiot.
Maybe the daughter switched the ingredients out of the containers and then switched them back. Caustic soda needs to be added to the water not the other way and becomes scalding.
Michael Ripper - Awesome!!
Rumpole wouldn't have liked the judge butting in so much.
Thanks jez this one i thought was gona be a guilty verdict and wasnt thats why i love crown court you never can second guess joe public.Have a happy christmas and new year you bring many lots of pleasure.
I would dare to say that the daughter was the one who committed the crimes and that the mother was in some way covering up for her in order that the daughter’s life might not be ruined any further.
Really Solomon .
Maybe - that doubt swung it for me
Women getting revenge
Having heard what this poor woman and her daughter went through all her life with him, I would have found her not guilty also. Even though the lack of convincing evidence pertaining to the caustic soda and bath salts incident demonstrating that it was indeed an accident was lacking. Violet was clearly a God fearing woman and people of that generation would have had tremendous guilt at committing adultery and explains why she would accept her husband's punishment and rejection, but more so that she found release through the comforting words of the vicar and I therefore believe that she had decided to forgive and that both incidents were likely accidents.
Yep , the world are full of reprobates now " Church " included.
Wow..this is a really good episode.. was very intrigued to find out who did it at the end 😊💯👌🏽
Odd gestation period for the son, late September to a 3rd September birthday?
John McGregor as Court Reporter - bringing the total to 4 that I'm aware of.
Crown Court and the wonderful Michael Ripper - JOY !
Great episode! Thanks Jez!
***Spoiler alert***
I would have found her not guilty of the scalding and guilty of the caustic soda in the bath - then given her an absolute discharge. Possibly they found her not guilty of the second charge because they may have thought that the daughter did it and mother was trying to protect her. There was me thinking she was a dragon at the beginning and cheering at the end when she was acquitted! Just goes to show that things aren't always what they seem.
I am very surprised by the verdict. The fact he treated her so badly is what gave her a strong motive. I would have found her guilty on both counts.
The first I knew of Neil Stacy was in the excellent 'To Serve Them All My Days'.
nakedmambo
The daughter looks stuffy dowdy, a trip to glastonbury will surely sort her out 😂
isn't that first witness Thomas who was Leonard's driver in Butterflies?
Yes. That's him. Michael Ripper.
He was also employed at the ministry in as the liftman in three St. Trinian’s films. Delightful performances.
The judge might as well of sentenced her 1st day.defiantly on the prosecution side.he still thinks he's a barrister.
I guess you mean would have and definitely
Judicial bias can often backfire though. Real life juries do not like being told what to do, and it appears the ones on Crown Court don't either.
Interesting how Crown Court typifies the class system in the UK, with public-school educated barristers and judges presiding over the lives of the commoners.
There's always a few familiar faces in these shows, in this case Michael Ripper, who was in many classic Hammer horror films.
What an absolute ogre the husband was. The wife should have ran him a bath of caustic soda on their honeymoon....!
The right and fitting verdict. Even if the daughter committed the assaults, the provocation was extreme. Men who call women evil things deserve what they get. Michael Ripper played the old git in Worzel Gummidge! Here, he was far mellower.
A verdict based on sympathy.
Now I did not recognise either John Woodnutt or Neil Stacy til I saw the credits!
Gabrielle Day is absolutely fXXXing AMAZING
A sterling performance by Ernie Tommaso.
What a bastard he was, 😥
Michael Ripper a character actor who appeared on Hammer Horror films.
Was someone receiving a couple of lashes at 1.02.12?
This sounds exactly like my father, who was also very violent and a drunk. But god never saw fit to punish him with a stroke...mores the pity. My poor mother lead a very miserable life & died before she reached 60.
This might be a fictitious story but it is more real than many can imagine.
That horrible judge, I would like to have punched his face in. The prosecutor too. Most men, even the good ones, are rotten bastards.
The juries at home seem to be very forgiving .Yes there may be mitigating circumstances and whilst the hot water COULD easily have been an accident cannot believe the caustic soda was so rather feel that in spite of the awful. history she became dissociative BUT certainly knew what she was doing subconsciously. Even his character has to have been affected when he discovered the extra maritial conduct within the early part of the marriage. While divorce was not at that time an easy path BOTH parties seem.guilty in this case of being ostritchies. However this cannot belie the differences of those containers think the jury as in.a couple of other cases let their sympathies overide the truth Understand it BUT !!!!!!!!! BUT !!!!!!
Emotional abuse is now accepted as criminal behaviour and thanks to womens lib, subservient, passive women such as Mrs Hibberd are now much more few and far between. It's easy to question things when your life experience has encouraged this and where your sense of self-worth and knowledge of the world has allowed it, but not everyone is so fortunate. Mrs Hibberd had clearly never experienced any kind of independence and was deliberately prevented from consulting with the vicar, her one trusted outlet for advice. She knew adultery was wrong and she expected punishment for it, but had no measure to judge the rightfulness of her husband's response. That neither her or her daughter questioned why they had to look after him or recognised the issue with the caustic soda is not that surprising after so many years of emotional abuse, but that is also why they probably would not have done it deliberately.
Justice was done .
Caustic soda was more than likely the daughter, in my opinion.
just decision... the actual victim was the accused
It doesnt give her the right to torture him
Great case
READING BETEEEN THE LINES IT WAS OBVIOUS THE DAUGHTER LEFT HOME BECAUSE OF THE FATHERS SEXUAL ABUSE IN HER TESTIMONY ONE OF HER COMMENTS POINTED TO THAT FRANKLY THE FATHER WAS A TOTAL SADIST
Do juries sometimes make up their minds through feeling sorry for the defendant? #SPOILER ALERT!!!#
With all the hatred around, no impartial witnesses and the pathetic story about confusing the containers, I could understand giving the benefit of the doubt about the scalding, but the bath? Did they feel sorry for her, as if she'd suffered enough, or something? If they'd have found her guilty, she would have got some treatment or therapy, got out of the house, he would have been put back into care - the whole outcome would have been beneficial for them all in the long run! Or perhaps they really thought she was guilty but said not guilty so the punishment would continue?! Very odd...
I wouldnt. It tells me WHY she did it !!
#SpoilerAlert!!
I think her explanation about the bathing "accident" coupled with her stress provided enough reasonable doubt for the jury. So their verdict didn't have to be based on sympathy only. Just because the guidance from the vicar convinced her to forgive doesn't mean she was not still under enormous mental and emotional stress.
As for jurors making up their mind based on emotion: yes indeed!. I was once on a jury where a young woman sued a tire company over an accident. There was much testimony and evidence, including the actual tire brought into court, showing that the tire didn't cause the accident as much as the driver's panicky response. But a few jurors wanted to award her the money. When asked why, they said "she's a nice girl." (She lost her case.) The trial lasted for three weeks, the young lady always conducted herself very well. There was ample time for people to like her. I was surprised more people didn't go her way. (I did not.)
My grandmother was on a jury for a household burglar where the case was really tight. But she said they felt such pity for the burglar (and his family) they let him go. That was in the 50's, but human nature hasn't changed much since then.
A very good episode. Two people who were married. He was very frugal to say the least. Then she goes off with another man. I could not stop laughing at this episode due to the fact they were as bad as each other. Thank's for uploading this. PC. 13. 04. 2023.
.good move by the prosecution.bringing Mr hibbitt in.did you see the jury's faces.this cnt be another not guilty.
.in to another one Jez.may get a guilty in this one.
.surprise not guilty again
Clearly guilty. She needed a tool to get the lid off the stuff !!! lol
There was no evidence.
@@kathleencampbell1138 Theres overwhelming evidence. The fact that he was abusive to her after she cheating on him and had another mans child. The fact that she burned him with boiling water on a previous occasion. The fact that she needed a tool to open the soda container. She was abusing HIM and him now being disabled was her chance to get her own back on him !! Shes guilty !!
You again , yawn .
@@haywardsdave3353 Justice was done you clown .
Her giving the back ground info of how terrible her marriage was just convinces me more that she burned him deliberately, and I bet it wasnt the first time either. The lid needs a spoon or tool to remove (like a tin of golden syrup) Her resentment is well hidden and just to twist it more, she ended up having to look after him after two strokes. She should have divorced him and left !!
I don't know if she did, she was probably suffering from mental health issues. He was evil, the poor woman was abused all her life,
@@kathleencampbell1138 It doesnt matter if she had mental health issues or that she was abused. Nether have been proved anyway. Besides, many people develop mental health problems and build up their fear AFTER being accused of something while they await trial but did not have mental illness at the time of the offence. A guilty verdict would have given the judge the right to refer her for assessment before sentencing. The ONLY fact the jury has to decide here is, did she bath her husband in caustic soda (after scalding him with boiling water on a previous occasion) deliberately or not. If he really did abuse her for years after she cheated on him just throws weight behind her being guilty and doing it deliberately. She needed a tool to open the container and she wanted to get back at him now that hes vulnerable and disabled. !! She put on a good act of being scared to gain the jury's sympathy. it worked too but in my book, SHES GUILTY and I would have found her so !!
Ripper
What a FANTASTIC EPISODE:
The politeness and etiquette is so attractive:
Typical ENGLISH decorum.
What a nasty little cripple. But well played by the actor, I wonder if he had to stay in character totally emotionless for the whole of the 3 episodes or if he was allowed to leave the studio when the camera wouldn't be on him.
If I was Mr Hibberd's carer I'd be in the dock too - what a nasty old b******d! Mrs Hibberd had a terrible life as she was the daughter of that constant miserable old moaning misery - Albert Tatlock! What a wonderful actress. Granada Television was supreme in delivering pure quality drama. As fior the verdict viewers will have to find out. It could be a justfiable decision or a terrible miscarriage of justice! No clues here, AGAIN huge thanks to Jez T, If I had my way it would be Jez T OBE :)
Bollox
"I don't think it was a happy marriage from the start."
Just like a 🚺
I would definitely of hand a roll in the hay with Hibbert's missus, such finery.