How close to reality is The Archers trial? The domestic-abuse survivor: Zoe Dronfield The best friend: Jodi Waugh The expert: Polly Neate, chief executive of Women’s Aid

As the domestic violence storyline ends, asks for experts’ verdicts

Once again, trial has the nation glued to its radios. For the past week, almost five million listeners have been tuning in daily to find out whether Helen Titchener will receive justice – or if the ghastly Rob will have evaded justice once and for all. Hopefully, listeners will finally get a verdict tonight, as the jurors thrash out their decision.

No one can deny that the trial has made for gripping drama, but how accurate has it been?

Here, a survivor, her friend, a barrister and an expert give their verdicts on the trial of the Blossom Hill One. Some of the questions put by the barristers on the show have been extraordinary. They’ve asked leading questions, such as defence barrister Anna Tregorran asking Jessica, Rob’s ex-wife, if he had ever held her by her wrists and forced himself on her. This kind of witness questioning is a complete no-no.

For a barrister, Ms Tregorran’s cross-examination of Rob wasn’t very good, but it was moderately realistic, given the constraints of a 14-minute episode. But what isn’t realistic is the way she’s been seeing Helen two or three times a week for the past five months. That’s absurd because, in a case like this, a barrister is paid for just one conference in prison. Of course, people do things for free, but not that much – especially when none of her sessions achieved anything at all. The fact that Helen is in custody at all is inexplicable to me. In real life, a woman of impeccable character like her would have got bail and would probably be in Ambridge, possibly even looking after Henry. Apart from that, though, the judge seems to be on Helen’s side. All the legal arguments have gone the

I know how Helen feels, because my ex-partner emotionally abused me. He subtly stopped me seeing friends, he borrowed money from me, and when I tried to end things with him, he physically attacked me – leaving me with a bleed on the brain, a broken hand and lacerations to my neck.

The case went to trial and I had to give evidence. When you are in that situation, it’s very surreal – you don’t even feel as though you’re a real person, and it’s your life under a magnifying glass for all and sundry to pick to pieces.

Listeners have been frustrated with how long it has taken Helen to come forward with evidence against Rob, but that’s normal for a survivor. I also tried to detach myself from my own experiences – it was a kind of denial and sense of shame. You can’t believe it happened, that you allowed it to happen and that you didn’t see it coming. Not only do you not want to revisit the abuse because it’s so hard, but you feel embarrassed by it.

In my case, my ex-partner was eventually sentenced to 14 years in jail. However, during the trial, they tried to discredit me as a victim. Your defence is giving one story and the prosecution another. That’s what they have been doing to Helen.

But what I didn’t think was realistic was the judge allowing Rob’s exwife, Jessica, to come forward with evidence of him raping and abusing her. When my case hit the papers, a number of women came forward saying they were also victims. But the judge didn’t allow their evidence, and from what I’ve heard, that’s common. Prediction: Guilty Realistic rating: 4/5 I feel a bit like Helen’s friend Kirsty, in that I watched as my best friend, Zoe, ended up in a relationship with an abuser. When they first got together, he seemed like the most caring boyfriend she’d ever had. When he started to isolate her from her friends, I thought she was happy, so I didn’t say anything. I only knew he was abusive when he physically attacked her. It was absolutely horrendous. I didn’t recognise her in hospital. Her attacker was remanded but, like Rob, he denied everything and said he was acting in self-defence, so it had to go to trial.

When Zoe was on the stand, she was a shell of her former self, in the way that Helen is. She was absolutely terrified. She was heartbroken because she thought this man loved her.

Unlike Kirsty, I wasn’t called as a witness, but I can understand why she acted the way she did on the stand. When you’re friends with someone who is in an abusive relationship, your instinct is to protect them.

It was horrendous watching watching the trial because Zoe’s boyfriend showed no remorse. I was in the viewing gallery with his parents. They were deluded and didn’t believe it – just like Rob’s family. They were huffing at everything. I just wish I had had a chance to go up and speak for her on the stand, like Kirsty did for Helen. Prediction: Guilty Realistic rating: 3/5 I think there have been a lot of sudden, edge-of-the-seat things happening that aren’t necessarily common – like the juror who was found tweeting about the trial in Thursday’s episode. But what’s realistic is Rob’s manipulating and entitled behaviour, which is completely typical of an emotional abuser, as is Helen’s desperate attempt to hold herself together, and how it’s been so difficult for her to talk about the rape.

One of the most moving things about her evidence, for me, was when she talked about not wanting Jack, her baby son, to feel the sense of shame that she feels about the way he was conceived. It hadn’t occurred to anyone else involved.

The way that things were twisted against her by Rob’s barrister – such as the fact that she didn’t leave – is also still the way some professionals behave. It’s a lack of basic understanding of what it can be like for survivors of coercive control.

Rob’s ex-wife, Jessica, coming forward late in the day seemed dramatic, but we often have victims of the same perpetrator coming forward because they want to help them or stop it from happening again. I’m aware of cases where judges have allowed this evidence in – and cases where they haven’t.

‘All the legal arguments have gone the defence’s way, which is unusual’