Is Rhona GUILTY or NOT GUILTY? | Emmerdale
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Subscribe now for more! bit.ly/1Kyx8Ja
Rhona stands up in court and receives her verdict.
From episode 9967 broadcast on 12.04.2024
Like, follow and subscribe to the official Emmerdale TH-cam channel!
Website: bit.ly/1E5Pc8w
Facebook: on. 1IPeasP
Twitter: bit.ly/1PahlPe
Instagram: bit.ly/2fjDejU
Get all the latest news from the Emmerdale village on the official TH-cam channel and ITV website. You can also watch clips from the show and get previews on new episodes! We'll also have exclusive interviews from the Emmerdale cast, behind the scenes videos and more! Subscribe and make sure you don't miss out.
www.itv.com
www.stv.tv
#emmerdale
I am very surprised of this outcome. This goes to show that you can never be 100% sure on how a jury will rule because Rhona should have been found guilty. She illegally took a child that was not legally hers. Her embryos being stolen is a separate matter. Her emotional and biological attachment to the child does not matter. She took a child that was not legally hers; therefore, she is guilty of kidnapping or child abduction.
Do the words “jury nullification” mean anything to you? It might if you ever happen to be the victim of a crime and the jury acquits the defendant for reasons they are not permitted to consider.
Go and get your little girl Rhona
Yeah she’s going to be her mummy as long as the judge agrees that she can have legal rights to ivy
Rhona has the personality of a used tea bag...... Kym Tate is FIT ❤❤❤❤
What a joke, she kidnaps the baby and she's found not guilty, i wonder does rhona have any guilt for going to gus's house, causing a big scene, and causing gus's wife to go into early labour resulting in her dying giving birth to the baby
You really weren’t listening were you. Lucy had an underlying health condition that caused her to haemorrhage. Having stress wouldn’t have prevented this happening. Gus and Lucy committed fraud by stealing the embryo that was 50% Rhonas and stole her passport. She didn’t give her consent.
She was guilty. If it had been left up to her, that baby would never have been given a chance of life. She wanted her embryos destroyed. The other women gave life to the baby. Rhona SHOULD NOT be allowed custody.
What Total CODSWALLOP you speak @anncosten3222 - and if I have to explain that to you, you're a worse head-case than I thought! lol
It was so obvious that rhona was always going to be found not guilty but i bet if it was the other way around and a man did what rhona did then he would be found guilty especially in this era
Plz can u stop leaving these comments it’s abt the 5th one I’ve seen and there all the same
I hope Ivy comes back
I am done with this show. I suffered through it a few months ago on Amazon, starting with some kid’s fatal New Year’s joyride and ending with (due, in part I admit, to some of those annoying accents) that Rhona whackjob’s kidnapping of behbey Ivy. However, I returned to it today out of sheer boredom and was soon reminded why I swore earlier to endure it never again.
Part of the reason people watch serials and what makes Eastenders so fabulous and fun to watch is that (1) people who deserve it actually do get what’s coming to them and (2) any message-based plot line, however transparent, doesn’t come across as one-sided and driven primarily by agenda.
Not on Emmerdale, though! What that crazy Rhona woman did (in addition to attempted witness tampering, intimidation and perverting the course of justice) amounts to textbook kidnapping. She had no legal authority whatsoever over that baby whom she readily admitted to having taken without lawful parental consent. That is statutory kidnapping, regardless of biology, genetics and whatever else her “feelings” may have been at the time, and anyone with half a brain knows it.
Therefore, that ridiculous acquittal, also known as jury nullification, *is not only unlawful, it should have been overturned immediately by the judge*, but he, along with possibly the lame prosecutor that issued the jury instructions, is obviously just as big an idiot as those jury members. And so, Crazy Rhona gets away with committing a crime for which there really is no viable defense-at least not in her particular circumstances. Nice.
Which leads me to the second reason you’d have pay me to watch this garbage show again: The viewer may recall Rhona’s “defense” was based on the notion of her DNA connection with Behbey Ivy. Specifically, she argued that their shared DNA is more than a mere fact; it is an immutable fact, so much so that she could neither ignore nor deny it, and to try otherwise would cruelly force poor Rhona to deny important and obvious truths about the nature of DNA and its irrevocable presence in both her and the kid. That argument was trotted out, despite the fact that it should have had zero bearing on her culpability. Nonetheless, the writers of this muck and the show’s brain dead legal consultant obviously thought it sound enough of an argument to get past a judge and for a jury to buy it.
ISN’T IT FUNNY, THEN, how that same DNA argument, when presented by the old lady in objection to a church-based trans wedding involving what she regarded as two women, landed her as the resident ignoramus in need of a gentle scold about the -surprise!-irrelevance of DNA as a determining presence in our bodies, along with some patronizing lecture implying her need to keep up with the times? Because that’s exactly what happened: The lady dared to point out that chest hair and state certification or not, Matty is, was and forever will be comprised of human mitochondrial DNA-an immutable fact, if you will, which makes Matty irrevocably a genetic female and validates the lady’s religious-based arguments against a church/hall wedding.
So, while the veracity of DNA as a permanent fixture was regarded in Rhona’s case as important enough a factor to be used as mitigating and reasonable enough an argument for consideration by a jury, no less, that same argument when used by the old lady didn’t even receive an acknowledgement, let alone a minute’s consideration. None. At. All. Instead, she got a slew of one sided shame-lecturing by a bunch of intellectually lazy people until she was sufficiently indoctrina-oops, I mean, chastened-to run around apologizing for having stated the obvious by way of certain facts which, although clearly rejected at the time she made them, would, days later, be considered obvious enough to be permitted, presented and considered as a valid defense in a criminal court of law. Curious that…
Sorry/not sorry if you think I’m being “mean” or sound like a “hater”. I’m not here to suggest that anyone should be mistreated, nor is such conduct to be condoned. If a person needs to live their life in a certain way, that’s their business, but please don't go insulting people’s intelligence by a selective, hypocritical and frankly, an obviously agenda-driven use of facts, made in response to those inevitable occasions when it’s not smooth sailing-especially when it’s because someone with half a brain dared to point out the obvious. That which is annoyingly and inconveniently the truth doesn’t become any less so when ignored. Finally, seeing that manipulative whack job get away with kidnapping when she so obviously would be serving what is an automatic life sentence-even in fake tv land-is just too big a stretch and even more irritating than the accents. Cheers and thank you! 😊
This was so typical. Of course she was going to be found not guilty. Even a blind man could have seen this. The writers and the network always play things safe and predictable. Who wants to bet Gus will be found guilty and Rhona gets custody. Well done Enmerdale. Showing no or little vision except to play it safe.
It’s not obvious in the car crash back in new year well thought Cathy was driving the car than she said Angle was doing it so people split between who did it also emmerdale is abt Waht to do in those situations but also to entertain people and it is quite difficult not to be predictable also we’ve had some very big twist so I don’t agree with u in anyway
@@PinksummersunsetI'm sorry but the car crash was SUPER obvious. The way it played out it was beyond obvious that Angelica was going to be revealed as the driver. They show us Cathy driving, they show is the discussion about switching drivers but then don't show us the actual crash. The only reason they did that was so they could reveal Angelica as the driver as a '' twist '' . I immediately called it that Angelica was driving simply by how they presented it to us, for my money it was beyond obvious who was driving .
I’ve lost track a bit, did they do a dna test to determine that Rona is the biological mother?
She is the biological mother but as she didn't gestate the baby or birth the baby those legal rights remain with the deceased woman Lily who died giving birth to Ivy
They may not ha e found Rhona guilty of kidnap but the custody of the child is a different matter
@@angelicafigueroa0221 She was called Lucy not Lilly
@@Pinksummersunset Anyways...
As I was saying, she has no legal rights and being judged not guilty in the kidnapping of a child that legally isn't hers doesn't look good
If Gus wanted to play dirty he can bring in how many times she came to the hospital, that she encouraged him to keep away for 'his mental health' and at the first sign of not being in total control of Ivy s life she ran off.
That's not a reason to give her custody the writers are being beyond stupid of how the law works
@@angelicafigueroa0221 yeh I was aware that the law says the mum is whoever gave birth.
@@angelicafigueroa0221yeah but she’s still rhonas daughter flesh and blood and she deserves to have custody of Ivy Gus is a criminal he stole her passport and used it forge consent to get the embryos
1:33 not getting what she wants yet it was gus who got angry that rhona rejected him
Your comment makes no sense but as you're a west sham fan I guess that's only to be expected.
@@CB-xr1eg gus wanted rhona eggs but rhona said no
@@Hammermantv I know, she needed them to make on omelette for Marlon's lunch.
I thought cameras weren't allowed in court ?
I think how Gus will get revenge on Rhona. Rhona isn't out of the fire yet
Gus don't get revenge on Rhona
Wooo! Yes! Not guilty! The look on Gus’s face.
When Rhona and Marlon found out that Gus and his wife had stolen Rhona's embryos, why didn't Rhona and Marlon take Gus to court back then?
Yes...... Absolutely brilliant, now to put the icing & the cherry on the cake, hope we get to see Gus sent to prison..
I couldn’t care less. Haven’t watched Emmerdale all week, it’s gone really boring.
Knew that Rhona wasn't guilty after all. Congratulations 🎉🎉
Oh thank god now she can try and get legal rights to Ivy
@@joshcoyle3804 Oh yeah. She's certainly going to do it!
@@MediaCentUKyeah anyone agrees that Rhona should be ivys mummy said aye
Rhona was always going to be found not guilty but I bet if it was the other way around and a man did what rhona did then he would be found guilty especially in this era
@@joshcoyle3804 - aye
Ms who?
She hasnt won, Gus will come for her!
Of course she's found not guilty. No matter what Gus did, she was still wrong.
This is just as bad as Cathy getting off for Heath's death.
Gus is horrible nearly as bad a Tom
Did gus go to prison
No not yet but his trial is coming up and I hope he goes to prison for what he did to Rhona he stole ivy away from her
She didn't win though theres still the custody battle to go through
No there's not, Gus has signed full parental care over to Rhona.
Ok Nothing to do with this but how kong until cain kills tom
Cain doesn't know what Tom is up to yet. It will be interesting when he finds out.
Bit of a boring storyline if you ask me
Congratulations
Rhona kidnapped ivy that's illegal, but gus stealing rhona eggs is legale
Gus really was cocky enough to believe this would go in his favor. The way he kept nodding as the prosecutor was making his final statement against Rhona was the behavior of a self-centered prick.
@OneGuardian - "self-centred prick" YES that about sums him up lol
now get custody!
Yeah go and get your little girl Rhona
Yes well done Rhona
Not guilty of course
They did say they are going to do a special episode revolving around not just Belle and Tom, but also Marlon and Rhona. My prediction is that Rhona finds out that Gus committed suicide due to his overwhelming guilt of his actions s and she and Marlon take full custody of Ivy.
I reckon this was the right decision because of the complicated situation
Wow
Good to see common sense prevail.
And very good acting by all those involved in this storyline.
Thank god that's over with. Tedious.
OBVIOUSLY NOT
At last Rhona found not guilty whoohoo ❤❤❤
it was so good that she was not Guilty now she can fight too get her beautiful little baby girl back just hope she can get her. 🤗
Horray 😊
So predictable 🙄 😴 💤 what a load of 💩 💩 💩 these storyline are.
Story has been a yawn fest
I love Emmerdale it's the only soap I watch. But this storyline had me bored to death!
Yay Rhona isn’t found guilty serves him right
Finally someone with some sense
If Gus does not go to jail for stealing her passport and embryo I will never watch this show again. At some point in time a show has to present the correct result as it would be in the real world
The show can’t just predict people’s opinions
He needs to please don’t let him get away with this he committed fraud
Well done Rhona you did right thing Gus need to be looked up
Locked**
Yeah he’s the real criminal he conived with Lucy to steel Rhonas passport and fraudently make his baby
@@emmaallan6255 Locked* Only one asterisk is necessary.
that is the right decision
Now get custody rhona
go on rhona! get your little girl ❤
I so glad the Rona won the case as she’s a great mum and with Marlon ,but I hope that Guss gets charged even in true life too many that should be seat down and not Guss was so wrong to steal Rona’s ebmo I don’t trust Guss his trouble
Vanessa looked gorgeous in last night's episode with the tights and boots. 😍😍😍😍😍
She travels on the other bus mate, no use fantasising about her. And she's slept with Charity which should be a big turn off for anyone.
@@CB-xr1eg Yes, but she also slept with that young lad Kirin years ago - remember that?
@@CrispsBoy Oh yes, Johnny's dad. She must have got on the wrong bus that night.
😂
No such thing as kidnap if it’s your own child
Not her child. She didn't want to validate the embryo. Left to her, that child would not be alive.
@@anncosten3222 oh ok ive missed on so many episodes and its confusing me im trying to catch up
@@jordanjones7172 - Well don't listen to ANN because her head's not screwed on right
Oh yes there is, you need to brush up on the law before making statements like that.
"Child abduction is a serious offence that can have devastating consequences for both the child and the abductor. It is a criminal offence that can result in imprisonment, fines, and a criminal record. Parents cannot legally abduct their own child, and doing so can lead to criminal charges and civil legal action."
@@CB-xr1eg well that’s stupid if it was up to me there would be not such thing as kidnap if it’s your own child