A very good episode to watch. This series should be watched by everyone. Thank you for uploading these episode's. They are very interesting to watch. PC. 10. 04. 2023.
A classic case of the defence throwing dust into the jurors' eyes. I normally err on the side of caution - 'reasonable doubt' etc - but not here: there are far too many coincidences forming a chain. She threatens arson, and lo - it happens. The window is broken - and her hands are cut. The fire is started with paraffin - and she has an empty can in the car. Coincidence will stretch only so far. The defence didn't have a leg to stand on but still succeeded in confusing the jurors. And that is how British justice works.
I recall Mr Bates as the emperor Gaius Caligula in Philip Mackie's mini series 'The Caesars'. Caroline Blakiston (the defence counsel here) played his mother.
Great stuff!! At 1:48 I originally misheard "she'll be in prison" to my ears as "you should be in prison". Completely changed my interpretation of who the real culprit was. Made me root for the defendant from the outset and was pleased with the verdict. But then, playing that bit back, I most likely would have sided with the prosecution.
The defence lawyer seemed totally unconcerned about the nature of an adulterous guilty, lying husband and a guilty mistress who knew he was a married man.
Not guilty??? I thought it all over and found her guilty. 🤷🏻♀️ She set the house on fire out of despair.. she’s had this beautiful image of a family with Lynn’s husband and refused to allow any damage to what she put effort to building. She aggressively defended what she saw were her rights and so when she felt threatened and made feel like too easy to be put behind she got hurt and hated the underestimation. She burnt the house and was later to persuade the father of her child to get back on her page leaving behind the painful fruitless past. Anyone agreeing to that? 😅
No way ! That verdict was impossible to agree with - the defendant's testimony came over as flimsy and based mostly around the fact she couldn't remember anything because she was so drunk. She's an expert on car maintenance too apparently - which the prosecution failed to challenge or question her about. A very enjoyable episode to watch even so.
There was one point that the defense did not bring up. The officer that investigated the fire said that there was broken glass outside of the window. The broken glass should have been inside the garage if the window had been broken from the outside. Ms. Blackley also states that she hasn't cleaned her car out in ages. The paraffin can may or may not have actually been hers. There was ample time and opportunity for the can to be placed in her car by someone else. The cut hand certainly seemed damning but her boss said when he saw her at about 5:30 that Ms. Blackley had no bandages on her hand. Being able to remove a distributor cap and drying the points doesn't take a master mechanic.
@@katiedotson704 On your last point, prosecuting counsel would have been remiss if it had not challenged this basic knowledge of car maintenance with at least a couple of questions to ascertain the likelihood of whether the defendant's testimony was factual or not. As far as I can remember it was just accepted as fact.
Why do so many comments say they think her guilty? The only physical evidence is the paraffin container and she had a plausible explanation. Her threat to burn down the house was also plausibly no more than a taunt. There could well have been another distraught mistress out there. The wife could have set fire to the house after hearing the taunt in order to implicate the mistress. The local boys could have made good on their threat. There are too many uncertainties to convict without eye witnesses.
Hi, Christopher. I've gone through all the episodes recorded of Crown Court and I don't have "Two in the Mind of One", I'm afraid. I do have "Inside Story" though and it's been uploaded for you. Do let me know how you get on with the book. Good luck!
Wasn’t there a movie like that? That one jury member who refused to agree.. caused tremendous delay if my memory is not playing tricks on me! 😅 Count me in. Update: 12 Angry Men - Following the closing arguments in a murder trial, the 12 members of the jury must deliberate, with a guilty verdict meaning death for the accused, an inner-city teen. As the dozen men try to reach a unanimous decision while sequestered in a room, one juror (Henry Fonda) casts considerable doubt on elements of the case. Personal issues soon rise to the surface, and conflict threatens to derail the delicate process that will decide one boy's fate. 😀 But thought it was a comedy the one I watched.. and not very old!!
Me too. OK the evidence was circumstantial, but there was lots of it and some of it, like the parafin can and her fingerprints in a house she claims never to have been inside, was fairly compelling. Also, even if one dismisses the prosecution's motive of resentment of the house, she still came across as a bit of a bunny boiler. A bunny boiler with an occasional drinking problem.
And surprisingly a 12-0 decision. I think that in quite a few of the ones I've seen, the jury have treated it as simply "his word against hers" and not given enough weight to the evidence.
It was the guy from the club who swung it. Once he'd shot down the accusation that he was blind drunk, the prosecution had lost it. The Prosecuting QC should have said "No questions for this witness m'lord,"
If she had done it and cut herself in the process, then she would hardly have gone round to the club (or to the office first) with bloody or bandaged hands which would later have incriminated her. Also why no fingerprints by the broken window? Enough there certainly to acquit, but in that case who did do it? I can't believe that some casually vandalising children would have committed such a calculated arson and, moreover, happened to have done so just at the very moment when a person with an even bigger motive was prowling around. Perhaps the dialogue at the very beginning is meant to make us think that it was a husband-wife conspiracy.
Also had his own sitcom a few years before his death, playing a much put upon schoolteacher. My favourite scene is when a prudish fellow teacher rushes up to Bates and tells him someone wrote the worm "bum" on his blackboard, to which he replies," At least no one's written the word "blackboard" on my bum!" . . . And explains the last class was German, and the word is "Baum" or tree.
@@s.andrewchandler-byrne4611 Always cast as villainesses, though! Tessa Joan Alexandra Blackley - known as T-Jab on the rap circuit - wrote the song credited to The Prodigy, Firestarter!
Anyone notice the DC refer to the 31st of April in her evidence. I wonder who a Court or jury would consider such a fundamental mistake…. Or more importantly how the scriptwriters missed it.
If I were the British court, I would have given the pregnant lover a very stiff sentence than this stupid verdict which she did not deserve. There was absolutely no doubt that her actions was nothing more than a murder attempt, pure and simple. 😒😒😒😒😒
I had that Cherie Lunghi in the back of my Uber once. Now, when I say ‘had’ I am not talking in the biblical sense, although ‘coffee’ was mentioned as I recall … 🧔🏼♂️
The key lies in the fingerprints. If the defendant started the fire but was careful enough not to leave fingerprints on the window frame where the fire started, why did she leave fingerprints on the door and letterbox? She would have worn gloves all the time, not just when she started the fire. Besides, the cuts on her hands prove she wasn't wearing gloves when the window was theoretically broken by her, so where are those fingerprints? Furthermore, there was no evidence stating that any blood had been found at the crime scene, yet we know that the defendant was bleeding (after cutting them on milk bottles). That then means the fire must have been started by either the teenagers or the wife, and given that we know the defendant had publicly said she would burn the house down - and that the wife knew the car was in the lane - it seems most likely that the wife decided to capitalise on the opportunity i.e. by framing her pregnant rival. (The Police & court really should have asked whether paraffin was used or kept at the house.)
These shows are absurd. Mybe the law was really differemt back in the 70s. The judge keeps saying that they can find the accused guilty by "preponderance of evidence". What happened to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Plus the way evidence is used makes no sense in today's terms. Being drunk is an excuse, instead of a contributing factor. Defence attorney attacks victims mercilessly, including minors who were sexually assualted (in other episodes). This is actually one of the better ones. There is almost no credible evidence, which is largely because of what looks like a piss poor investigation. Frankly, it could have been the wife just as easily as the mistress.
And where’s is this casanova that two women are fighting over him giving him the fullest satisfaction? I’m dying to see him! ha ha Still watching only 20 minutes through.
Hi, I'm writing an authorized bio on Ralph Bates so it is great to finally see this episode. Do you also have the Crown Court episodes Two in the Mind of One parts 1-3 and Inside Story part 3?
Hi, Christopher, glad you enjoyed ITHOTM and Ralph Bates' performance. I'll take a look for the stories you mention and get back to you. It may take a while as I didn't label the episodes as I recorded them, but if I come across either of them, I'll get them uploaded for you. Please subscribe to my channel and then you should get notified if I happen to find them. :)
(Spolier)......................................Swore she was goin' daaaaaahnn ;-). This another one not on the DVD's & with different cast!! Love Blakiston's performance with La Divina Hickson in Bertrams's, but it's my least favourite Miss Marple. Ta Jez xx.
A pleasure! It was the last one to star Richard Wilson, I believe. (SPOILER) I was hoping at the end the wife goes up to the defendant and says “he’s yours, I’ve finished with him.” She then turns to the husband and says “find somewhere else to sleep tonight, because you’re out. Oh, and get a solicitor, because I’m going to take you for every penny.” She exits with a flourish. Well, that’s what I would have done, haha! Hope all’s well! :)
@@jezt42 Sounds like you've been watching too much Dynasty, I can imagine Joan doing that 😀. I've got this on in the background keeping me company whilst I repaint the kitchen ceiling, don't know what happened to it, only did it 2019. Still awaiting your latest ouvre!
Prosecution had a strong case but the verdict was right. I thought the defence should have made more of the local boys with a history of arson and vandalism. And also of the final witness, who would surely have noticed if his colleague's hand had been bandaged.
30 days hath September, April, June etc. How did Detective Constable Banks get away with visiting the accused on 31st April as she stated (under oath)?
A very good episode to watch. This series should be watched by everyone. Thank you for uploading these episode's. They are very interesting to watch. PC. 10. 04. 2023.
Nice to see the pregnant Miss Blakley having a quick smoke after the verdict! Thanks for the upload - another terrific story. I'm addicted to these.
Worse was the binge drinking!
I think that irony was to show Tessa lighting the match, casting a subtle doubt on the verdict
It was 1978 Before these PC Times.
Those of us damaged by prenatal smoking are less amused
No pun intended of course .
english acting of the highest standard throughout all roles in this courtroom..this was a very fine and exciting episode!
Richard Wilson is SCOTTISH.
A refreshing absence of "diversity".
A classic case of the defence throwing dust into the jurors' eyes. I normally err on the side of caution - 'reasonable doubt' etc - but not here: there are far too many coincidences forming a chain. She threatens arson, and lo - it happens. The window is broken - and her hands are cut. The fire is started with paraffin - and she has an empty can in the car. Coincidence will stretch only so far. The defence didn't have a leg to stand on but still succeeded in confusing the jurors. And that is how British justice works.
What an incompetent jury. Of course she was guilty as charged.
Ralph Bates was such a fine actor and what a fine head of hair he had, He died too young.
Yes, sad. But never one of my favourites.
I recall Mr Bates as the emperor Gaius Caligula in Philip Mackie's mini series 'The Caesars'. Caroline Blakiston (the defence counsel here) played his mother.
A hell of a head of hair.
He was great.
He was great.
you ny friend are a legend,ive got all the episodes on dvd but in the uk cant watch the others thankyou i love this program.
Cheers, Bruce! Glad you're enjoying them. I'm sorting out the loft, so if I discover any more, I'll get them up on RUclips.
Great stuff!! At 1:48 I originally misheard "she'll be in prison" to my ears as "you should be in prison". Completely changed my interpretation of who the real culprit was. Made me root for the defendant from the outset and was pleased with the verdict. But then, playing that bit back, I most likely would have sided with the prosecution.
The defence lawyer seemed totally unconcerned about the nature of an adulterous guilty, lying husband and a guilty mistress who knew he was a married man.
Jez
,good episode again,cheers
The poor wife on the stand, having mud slung at her by the defence.
Not guilty???
I thought it all over and found her guilty. 🤷🏻♀️
She set the house on fire out of despair.. she’s had this beautiful image of a family with Lynn’s husband and refused to allow any damage to what she put effort to building. She aggressively defended what she saw were her rights and so when she felt threatened and made feel like too easy to be put behind she got hurt and hated the underestimation. She burnt the house and was later to persuade the father of her child to get back on her page leaving behind the painful fruitless past.
Anyone agreeing to that? 😅
No way ! That verdict was impossible to agree with - the defendant's testimony came over as flimsy and based mostly around the fact she couldn't remember anything because she was so drunk. She's an expert on car maintenance too apparently - which the prosecution failed to challenge or question her about. A very enjoyable episode to watch even so.
There was one point that the defense did not bring up. The officer that investigated the fire said that there was broken glass outside of the window. The broken glass should have been inside the garage if the window had been broken from the outside.
Ms. Blackley also states that she hasn't cleaned her car out in ages. The paraffin can may or may not have actually been hers. There was ample time and opportunity for the can to be placed in her car by someone else.
The cut hand certainly seemed damning but her boss said when he saw her at about 5:30 that Ms. Blackley had no bandages on her hand.
Being able to remove a distributor cap and drying the points doesn't take a master mechanic.
@@katiedotson704 On your last point, prosecuting counsel would have been remiss if it had not challenged this basic knowledge of car maintenance with at least a couple of questions to ascertain the likelihood of whether the defendant's testimony was factual or not. As far as I can remember it was just accepted as fact.
@@davidpollard4051 Would you challenge the person's mechanical ability if the defendant had been male?
@@katiedotson704 Yes, if I thought it would help my client's case.
*SPOILER ALERT*
Cherie Lunghi who played in the title role of the football drama The Manageress.
And she did the voiceover for Who Do You Think You Are.
She has had a long and distinguished career … see her in ‘The Brief’ as Cleo Steyn … ❤️🧔🏼♂️
carol blakiston lovley beatiful performance crown court are so brillant casters it means success telivision
I didn’t immediately recognise her until you mentioned her name, and then I remembered seeing her an episode of Miss Marple alongside Joan Hickson
Why do so many comments say they think her guilty? The only physical evidence is the paraffin container and she had a plausible explanation. Her threat to burn down the house was also plausibly no more than a taunt.
There could well have been another distraught mistress out there. The wife could have set fire to the house after hearing the taunt in order to implicate the mistress. The local boys could have made good on their threat. There are too many uncertainties to convict without eye witnesses.
Thanks Jez!
Hi, Christopher. I've gone through all the episodes recorded of Crown Court and I don't have "Two in the Mind of One", I'm afraid. I do have "Inside Story" though and it's been uploaded for you. Do let me know how you get on with the book. Good luck!
SPOILER ALERT: Don't read the comments if you don't want the verdict revealed. I'm moving on to the next episode.
And dont read the comments before you have watched it this time !
Bye
Had I been on the jury this would not have been a unanimous decision!
I agree!
Wasn’t there a movie like that? That one jury member who refused to agree.. caused tremendous delay if my memory is not playing tricks on me! 😅 Count me in.
Update: 12 Angry Men - Following the closing arguments in a murder trial, the 12 members of the jury must deliberate, with a guilty verdict meaning death for the accused, an inner-city teen. As the dozen men try to reach a unanimous decision while sequestered in a room, one juror (Henry Fonda) casts considerable doubt on elements of the case. Personal issues soon rise to the surface, and conflict threatens to derail the delicate process that will decide one boy's fate. 😀
But thought it was a comedy the one I watched.. and not very old!!
Agreed
I was on the jury … most of them were inebriated … or was that just me?
Guilty.
A bit surprised at the verdict.
Me too. OK the evidence was circumstantial, but there was lots of it and some of it, like the parafin can and her fingerprints in a house she claims never to have been inside, was fairly compelling. Also, even if one dismisses the prosecution's motive of resentment of the house, she still came across as a bit of a bunny boiler. A bunny boiler with an occasional drinking problem.
@@tiberfoaming4191 A bunny boiler who carries matches and defiantly strikes one at the end of the verdict.
Miscarriage of justice.
I agree!
And surprisingly a 12-0 decision. I think that in quite a few of the ones I've seen, the jury have treated it as simply "his word against hers" and not given enough weight to the evidence.
As soon as I set eyes on Cherie Lunghi I knew she was innocent.
How do you you know it was a 12-0 decision if i may ask ?
It was the guy from the club who swung it. Once he'd shot down the accusation that he was blind drunk, the prosecution had lost it. The Prosecuting QC should have said "No questions for this witness m'lord,"
Thank you I wondered what swayed The jury
They should have made enquires with the bar man at the club.
If she had done it and cut herself in the process, then she would hardly have gone round to the club (or to the office first) with bloody or bandaged hands which would later have incriminated her. Also why no fingerprints by the broken window? Enough there certainly to acquit, but in that case who did do it? I can't believe that some casually vandalising children would have committed such a calculated arson and, moreover, happened to have done so just at the very moment when a person with an even bigger motive was prowling around. Perhaps the dialogue at the very beginning is meant to make us think that it was a husband-wife conspiracy.
Yes i wondered that too. Was it the only way they could think of to dismantle the triangle
Drying the points and cleaning the distributor cap. Remember that 😂 god I'm old!
Never heard of WD40?
WD 4O!
@@charlesachurch7265 exactly
SHE WAS GUILTY !!!!!!!!!
All the stupid husband's fault. Weak, unfaithful... not worth either woman's caring about him. Either woman's going crazy.
Lovely hair though, I'd forgive him lol.
The husband belongs in the garbage - I feel badly for both the lover and the wife, they were both victims in this.
I was expecting the prosecutor to say "I don't believeeeeeee it! :)
victor madrow; before retirement, state prosecutor !
😂😂😂😂😂
I do too,nor Gooood Grief!
44:00.....Defence counsel appears to still be eating her lunch.
I think it was a cough sweet ;-).
Ralph Bates who played George Warleggan in Poldark and Dear John. Died of cancer,gone too soon.
He was also a defence witness in the Crown Court story Inside Story, the events of which revolve around life in a prison!
Also had his own sitcom a few years before his death, playing a much put upon schoolteacher.
My favourite scene is when a prudish fellow teacher rushes up to Bates and tells him someone wrote the worm "bum" on his blackboard, to which he replies," At least no one's written the word "blackboard" on my bum!" . . . And explains the last class was German, and the word is "Baum" or tree.
Cherie Lunghi (Excalibur, The Manageress) as Tessa Blackley. Lovely.
She was and still is a very beautiful woman.
She's 'The Devil' in Apparitions!
@@s.andrewchandler-byrne4611 Always cast as villainesses, though!
Tessa Joan Alexandra Blackley - known as T-Jab on the rap circuit - wrote the song credited to The Prodigy, Firestarter!
Don't agree with the verdict! Second episode I've seen with the wonderful Ralph Bates what a versatile actor he was!!!
Blimey, you’re rattling through these! Glad you’re enjoying them, and I agree with you about the verdict! 😊👍
Lol true! It’s so nice to watch such good TV for a change! But I might start limiting myself to one a day to make them last longer!
.there is no 31st of April. Lady copper says that.
There’s definitely a 31st of May - either that or my parents lied!
Anyone notice the DC refer to the 31st of April in her evidence. I wonder who a Court or jury would consider such a fundamental mistake…. Or more importantly how the scriptwriters missed it.
If I were the British court, I would have given the pregnant lover a very stiff sentence than this stupid verdict which she did not deserve. There was absolutely no doubt that her actions was nothing more than a murder attempt, pure and simple. 😒😒😒😒😒
But she is 100% guilty
Caroline Blakiston was incredible in Brass.
Who wasn't great in that, though?
I had that Cherie Lunghi in the back of my Uber once. Now, when I say ‘had’ I am not talking in the biblical sense, although ‘coffee’ was mentioned as I recall … 🧔🏼♂️
The key lies in the fingerprints. If the defendant started the fire but was careful enough not to leave fingerprints on the window frame where the fire started, why did she leave fingerprints on the door and letterbox? She would have worn gloves all the time, not just when she started the fire. Besides, the cuts on her hands prove she wasn't wearing gloves when the window was theoretically broken by her, so where are those fingerprints? Furthermore, there was no evidence stating that any blood had been found at the crime scene, yet we know that the defendant was bleeding (after cutting them on milk bottles). That then means the fire must have been started by either the teenagers or the wife, and given that we know the defendant had publicly said she would burn the house down - and that the wife knew the car was in the lane - it seems most likely that the wife decided to capitalise on the opportunity i.e. by framing her pregnant rival. (The Police & court really should have asked whether paraffin was used or kept at the house.)
These shows are absurd. Mybe the law was really differemt back in the 70s. The judge keeps saying that they can find the accused guilty by "preponderance of evidence". What happened to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Plus the way evidence is used makes no sense in today's terms. Being drunk is an excuse, instead of a contributing factor. Defence attorney attacks victims mercilessly, including minors who were sexually assualted (in other episodes). This is actually one of the better ones. There is almost no credible evidence, which is largely because of what looks like a piss poor investigation. Frankly, it could have been the wife just as easily as the mistress.
Russell Dixon as court reporter... That makes 5 I know of now
And where’s is this casanova that two women are fighting over him giving him the fullest satisfaction? I’m dying to see him! ha ha
Still watching only 20 minutes through.
No wonder he ended up at the One-to one Club with Kirk….
Haha, quite! 😂
Guilty as hell
The question remains who did set fire to the house?
Hi, I'm writing an authorized bio on Ralph Bates so it is great to finally see this episode. Do you also have the Crown Court episodes Two in the Mind of One parts 1-3 and Inside Story part 3?
Hi, Christopher, glad you enjoyed ITHOTM and Ralph Bates' performance. I'll take a look for the stories you mention and get back to you. It may take a while as I didn't label the episodes as I recorded them, but if I come across either of them, I'll get them uploaded for you. Please subscribe to my channel and then you should get notified if I happen to find them. :)
Look forward to reading the book Christopher.
Inside Story - revolving around a prison riot - is on here!
The judge stated the standard of proof wrongly.
Many Bothans died to bring us this criminal defence. (This is the only other thing I've seen her in.)
IMO - wrong verdict!
I agree!
(Spolier)......................................Swore she was goin' daaaaaahnn ;-). This another one not on the DVD's & with different cast!! Love Blakiston's performance with La Divina Hickson in Bertrams's, but it's my least favourite Miss Marple. Ta Jez xx.
A pleasure! It was the last one to star Richard Wilson, I believe. (SPOILER) I was hoping at the end the wife goes up to the defendant and says “he’s yours, I’ve finished with him.” She then turns to the husband and says “find somewhere else to sleep tonight, because you’re out. Oh, and get a solicitor, because I’m going to take you for every penny.” She exits with a flourish.
Well, that’s what I would have done, haha!
Hope all’s well! :)
@@jezt42 Sounds like you've been watching too much Dynasty, I can imagine Joan doing that 😀. I've got this on in the background keeping me company whilst I repaint the kitchen ceiling, don't know what happened to it, only did it 2019. Still awaiting your latest ouvre!
@@Chillmax Don't strike any matches around the white spirit! 😂
Guilty as sin.
Victor Meldrew QC
Prosecution had a strong case but the verdict was right. I thought the defence should have made more of the local boys with a history of arson and vandalism. And also of the final witness, who would surely have noticed if his colleague's hand had been bandaged.
Keith Clifford as foreman in this one.
Was she guilty or not guilty
What?
it is not real so who cares
Excuse my phone
Tessa does a deadly smolder.
Why is there an air stewardess 👩✈️ in the dock?
To make sure everyone's seat backs are in the upright position.
Gripping episode.
Tessa was in Hornblower.
So was I!
Mon Mothma prosecuting 👍
Many Bothan's died to get on Crown Court!
Defending, but yes
what a simply appalling pretentious accent prosecutor Meldew has - i don't believe it!
Takes all sorts, I found it interesting, a kind of throwback.
I DON"T believe it!
Watch the necks.
40 25 " " Twenty three " !!! , more like 53 .
Bet the wife did it!
it was the butler
@@PetroicaRodinogaster264 I should've known !
THE JURY IS ACTORS TOO.
Only the foreman is an actor. The rest of the Jury are members of the public!
@@elizabethgalligan1805 Party on...
30 days hath September, April, June etc. How did Detective Constable Banks get away with visiting the accused on 31st April as she stated (under oath)?