Helen may not have known the blond at the bar was Trish.

It just occurred to me that Helen may not know what Trish looks like, and she may just have assumed that Nikki was hitting on some blond at the bar (you know, Nikki being sex deprived and all that).

The one time we saw Trish and Helen together was at the visiting room, when Trish gave Helen the look see, but Helen was wrapped up in work and totally oblivious.

There is no reason for us to assume Nikki ever showed Helen picture of Trish.

Helen knew exactly who Trish was. She looks up when Trish looks over to take a look at her, before the 'she's a babe' line. It's simply not something Helen would have missed. She may be oblivious by choice about her own emotional stuff, but she's very aware of what's going on to do with Nikki--right from the start. I'd in fact argue that's part of what this scene exists to show.

(Anyone else have suggestions abt where to move this thread, btw? I'm out of ideas, but know we've discussed this. --e)

Even if Helen didn't know who Trisha was, the look that Trisha gave her was enough to scare the living daylights out of anyone!

ekny, so I watched the scene again as I didn't remember Helen looking up, and in fact she did not look up at all, she didn't show any signs of hearing Trish.... and through the scen, not once did she even give Trish a look, all we ever saw was that Helen probably saw Nikki with a blond, but the blond she only saw from behind.... Helen was almost entirely focused on Monica and her son.

LOL!!!

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one! :) I see Helen cast her eyes towards Trish for at least several solid seconds. After Nikki says "...over by the desk", and the instant before Trish says, "Is that her?" there's a break; Helen's moved her head to speak to the guard beside her, and in looking back, pauses a beat; her eyes flick up (although because of the movement of her head, they're already higher than they were before she moved it); then as if finding her place in the conversation again, she resumes.

She doesn't lock eyes with Trish or anything that overt, but it's definitely there, like an exquisitely orchestrated beat in the middle of this complicated piece of music. I find it difficult to believe she's totally unaware of Nikki, much less Nikki's girlfriend, sitting 10 paces away. A woman who looks like Helen would be well-aware, too, when people were discussing her. Most people do have radar for that kind of thing. She'd be used to it. But not, perhaps, from two dykes.

I am making no claim as to what level it registers on: this is episode 2, before even the servery brush. But I am definitely arguing: Register, it does.

:lol1 I agree, it was a scary look! But I think Helen knew exactly who Trisha was.

Now I can't recall the details of the visiting room scene. Did we see Helen leave? For all we know, Helen may have seen Trisha on her way out.

ETA - Okay, I'll have to go and watch that scene again. I do remember there was an eye flicker but can't recall if Trisha had turned or not.

I can't quite remember now (shock, horror!) but wasn't Trish also visible on the TV when Nikki made her speech? She had her arm around Nikki at the time and I am fairly sure that there was a brief moment where she was also visible before the camera zoomed in on Nikki.

Helen was definitely aware of Trisha's existence, so even if she might not have known what Trisha looked like (which I doubt, in agreement with ekny), she would still assume that the blond at the bar was Trisha as opposed to a stranger that Nikki was hitting on.

For whatever reason this struck me terribly funny. Like, Hi, I just got outta jail after three-plus years of sexual frustration, wanna shag? Oh, but wait, this'd be Nikki saying that. Hm. Yes, that would work on a perfect stranger.

I don't know if Helen saw Trish leave during the visit because that was the Spencer incident and I'm sure Helen looked over Nikki's way and Trish was right behind her.

Nicki

:rofl

fun thread, for the visual clues I'll have to go and watch.

Ok, we know that Helen knew in the beginning the only person visiting Nikki was her partner Trisha. Helen got a chance to at least notice Trisha was a blonde. Then Helen finds out about the break up and Nikki doesn't get any more visits.

Even if you assume she didn't piece it together from visiting time, Helen had ample time to find out what Trish looks like, while she was reviewing Nikki's case. Nikki's case was tabloid friendly, in the wrong way, so I'm sure they would have jumped to put pictures of Nikki and Trish in the papers or at least those sketches. It's entirely possible that Helen had access to pictures of Trish, thanks to Nikki case related research.

Helen might have heard more about Trisha in reference to the appeal from Claire, giving her some feedback on Trisha. I'm sure there's probably a few things they didn't discuss, but not too much.

Series 3 Helen was hella Miss Marple. She's in Nikki's & Trish's club, she's got plenty of clues that Nikki and Trish are still friendly, she knows Trish is Blonde & possibly other details, she did "detective work" about the club, she saw Nikki sitting with Trish - there's no way she didn't put it together there and then who Nikki was celebrating with.
I know all this is speculative, but there's so much opportunity, even outside of what was shown.

Have to work on that show content evidence, I will.

Hahaha, that is funny, yes! But would the pick-up line still work if Nikki only had 6 months' worth of sexual frustration? (We shouldn't forget that she shagged Helen some six months ago...)

I think it would, given the fact that the "stranger" was blond afterall... :)

Another thing to consider is that Helen met Trish off-camera during the whole appeals process. I definitely agree Helen knew that is was Trish burning holes in her from the bar. And yes, Trish was standing next to Nikki outside the courthouse but I don't recall us ever seeing her "on camera" in that she was on the telly. We see it in the long shot but not on the telly that Helen is watching in the bar (I think...)

Do we actually know that for certain? I always assumed that it was Claire who met with Trisha during the appeals process. Yes, Helen was involved but I wouldn't have thought it was part of her role to meet with Trisha. I would have thought Helen would be trying to do everything by the book so as not to jeopardize the appeal.

I have often wondered whether Helen's involvement in the appeal would indeed jeopardize the process. I'm wondering about this because in S3E16 when the judge said "would the appellants please rise", both Jim and Di also stood up - and Nikki wasn't cuffed to them at this point. Could it be that HMP was the second appellant with Nikki being the first?

Nope, just speculation. I got the impression that Helen knew exactly who Trisha was when their eyes met. Whether she just put two and two together, had seen her at visiting or met her outside to discuss Nikki's appeal (from her Lifer's Liason position) we shall never know.

Helen had been aware of the Trisha's existence since S1e4 when she heard Nikki's gf had broken it off with her....Nikki had been able to sustain a long term relationship (S1e5). That's what Helen would have taken away from this information....She also would have found out at this time that Nikki and Trisha ran a business together as well as being personally involved. After the "it's about this" Helen tells Nikki to get back with Trisha (S1e6).....Throughout the whole slow burn of S2, one piece of information Helen has about Nikki is that she could sustain a long term relationship...ie now there's even if restricted. After the lifer's meeting in S2e11, Helen and Nikki talk about both Nikki having a successful business and keeping in touch with Trisha. The point I am trying to make is that even if Helen never personally met or talked to Trisha at any point before the end of S3, Helen was certainly aware of who Trisha was, is and would be in relation to Nikki.

After the lifer's meeting, Helen implies the success of an appeal is more than just legal wrangling, it it also a PR and that Trisha could be useful in that. Nikki's appeal lawyer, Claire, would likely (yes I know, it is never shown explicitly in the show) would have contacted Nikki allies on the outside. Trisha would have been one of those allies. Trisha was at the appeals hearing. Trisha walked out with Nikki to the news cameras...a flash of that light blue blouse might have been seen.

Helen tracks down where the after appeal win party is. Nikki had specifically said (white lie) to Helen that she had a life to move onto after she got out (S3e15)....Even if Helen had never met Trisha face to face; even if she had never talked to her on the telly....Helen was aware of Trisha, of who she "was" and who she "is" to Nikki. If nothing else, that blonde in the light blue blouse in the bar, was sure trying to exert her "territory" around Nikki when Helen and she met finally after Nikki being free. Helen caught one look of that woman and made her excuses to go.

Thank goodness that woman, Trisha, had a grasp of the reality of the situation.

Very clear run-through of the logical progression, solitasolano, thanks! --e

I agree. Very well done solitasolano! :clap

I'm a bit afraid that my question on the previous page is going to get lost, and since it is bugging me, I would love people's opinions on it. Therefore I'm going to quote myself, just this once!

Thoughts, anyone?

An interesting question, microsofty. However I don't see why HMP should be an appellant in this case. Yes they will have helped Nikki form her appeal. Not sure what that consisted of other than maybe help her get legal representation (and Helen already did that) and provide access to files, meeting rooms etc.

Is it possible that it is standard procedure for accompanying officers to stand up also. Maybe in case the defendent launches an attack or makes a run for it?

Since Nikki is under the control of HMP Larkhall the officers escort her through these proceedings, so naturally they rise with her.

That's what I thought at first, but why would Nikki launch an attack or try and make a run for it when this is the end of the ordeal - she is going to hear the judge's decision now. And she wouldn't get far in any case if she did decide to make a run for it.

Also, the first judge (or co-judge or whatever he's called) said: "Would the appellants please rise?" (plural) - not just the appellant (singular). So I'm thinking that HMP does have a role in the process, apart from just escorting her to court.

Yes, what I meant it is that they can't make one set of rules for Nikki and another for more violent prisoners. The accompanying officers would have to treat Nikki like any other prisoner and err on the side of caution. It probably is the same as for a court case.

I agree the use of appellants does seem a bit odd so this idea is worth considering further.

The appellant is the individual appealing against the conviction. It is impossible that HMP, Jim, Di, Helen or anyone else connected with Larkhall would also appeal against the conviction of a prisoner in their care. The prison system is the neutral administrator of punishment. It has almost nothing to do with the legal processes of conviction and appeal. Nikki is the appellant. I'm not sure why they used the word 'appellants'.

I doubt Helen's involvement would jeopardise the process. Legally, she has sod all to do with the process. Her affair with Nikki probably wouldn't reflect well on Nikki's character, and she'd obviously lose her job if it came out, but that's it.

As an ancillary issue, the prison system treats all prisoners as equally guilty. Traditionally, this meant that legal correspondence wasn't privileged, journalists trying to publish interviews with prisoners believed to be innocent weren't allowed to publish or broadcast those interviews, and prison officials certainly would not have got involved in the case of a prisoner protesting her innocence. Things are slowly changing (see cases Leech, Daly and Simms for further information) but I'm still sure the level of Helen's involvement in Nikki's case was quite rare.

Thanks Fanny for clearing that up for us so well. I was hoping someone knowledgeable on the subject was somewhere around. I'm assuming from your post that appellant only ever applies to the individual(s). Therefore it would not be used to describe Nikki and her defence team. So it does seem a bit strange unless it was the slip of the tongue that hadn't been picked up.

What involvement would a prison normally have in the appeals process? As you've said, legally they have nothing to do with the process. So I can't really think of anything other than providing access to files and meeting rooms for legal representation. I thought I'd pick your brains since you were around.

A prison would have no role in the legal appeal process. The responsibility of appealing lies with you and your legal team. A prison has responsibilities in accordance with fundamental rights not to impede access to legal representation, or interfere in correspondence and to provide access to files and so on.

Indirectly, they may have a role if a prison officer or governor is requested by the prosecution or defence to be a witness, but I have no idea how common this is.

Hope that helps. :)

Yep, that's great! Thanks Fanny.

Answered all my questions .... for now anyway! :D

I knew it was only a question of time before Fanny sniffed out the legal question amongst the threads! Thx for the clarification.

I had a little help this time. :D

Thanks for all the info Fanny.