BBC have new episode up and The Trial put another up yesterday
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Thanks! I'm not sure if I'm up to any more Constance and Mark at present but I'll have a look either later or Saturday/Sunday
Well, thats certainly changed my mind about barristers *notallbarristers
anyone got any on-topic updates from pods they’d be kind enough to share?
anyone got any on-topic updates from pods they’d be kind enough to share?
So many podcasts! I can't keep sending Mr SpellyB to the pub. Although perhaps I coiuld suggest he goes to visit his maman for a couple of weeks while the jury is deliberating
so are we expecting the jury to go out next week? How long has this trial been going on now?
I’ve just caught up on the last couple of days’ posts and reporting. Can see I didn’t miss much in the way of defence from MG. Absolutely infuriating that this has become the Constance trial, and he’s just quietly bumbling along without any focus on him whatsoever.
They are equally responsible for that baby’s death. It could be argued that he would be able to think more rationally without the hormones and should have stepped up to get help. But no, he just lets her make the worst possible case for herself (which is actually a good thing, in terms of her being found guilty) while there is absolutely zero said about his part in it.
He’s played a game and I hope he loses.
They are both guilty.
They are equally responsible for that baby’s death. It could be argued that he would be able to think more rationally without the hormones and should have stepped up to get help. But no, he just lets her make the worst possible case for herself (which is actually a good thing, in terms of her being found guilty) while there is absolutely zero said about his part in it.
He’s played a game and I hope he loses.
They are both guilty.
Can any legal eagles make sense of why the defence is bringing up that MG was the first defendant listed , they go on to say that is was CM that had the baby in her arms when she died, it’s something to do with the Police misleading MG in his interviews around the time of death ? This is why he didn’t give evidence? I can’t make sense of it?
As far as I'm aware judge does summation on Wednesday then the jury are out
From my perspective, the older children being removed makes it WORSE and LESS justified. If this was their first baby I would be more likely to believe they genuinely didn’t know the baby was at risk, but it’s been proven they definitely did know they were risking her life “co-sleeping”/suffocating her in the coat, and it’s been proven that they knew they were not safe parents 4 times over.
---
On one podcast it said, and I assume this was a quote from court, that CM bought the petrol for a fire to “cremate” their baby- they didn’t use the petrol as they didn’t do this so it proves that was the intended use of the petrol apparently. And therefore proves date of death.
Why couldn’t the petrol have been to start a fire for warmth? She gets back to the tent and Mark says “Don’t be stupid, that’s a bad accelerant/ that will stink and draw attention to us/ a fire itself will draw too much attention?”
This is just speculation isn’t it? If it does “prove” something can someone let me know please but I will assume not x
Last edited:
Me neither. It could sorta, maybe, possibly explain him not telling the police anything. I would have thought that he’d have read her statements etc before trial tho as part of the evidence. His lawyers definitely would have. So it doesn’t add up. I think it’s more like the prosecution said - if he went first, she’d then have contradicted anything he said cos she was flying by the seat of her pants with her own tale and liable to go off-piste. Then they’d both absolutely look guilty. You don’t have to have your story together if you’re telling “nothing but the truth” so it’s all obfuscation.
They couldn’t start a fire because it would draw attention to them whilst they were hiding.
I’m curious- the people on this thread who say they’re INFURIATED by the description of co sleeping, the use of the word cremate etc…. You don’t mean you’re really furious do you?
I’m curious- the people on this thread who say they’re INFURIATED by the description of co sleeping, the use of the word cremate etc…. You don’t mean you’re really furious do you?
Yes that's a good point about why they didn't want to start a fire. However CM buying petrol for a camp fire then changing her mind makes more sense then her buying it to burn/cremate her baby who had only just died.
Also, why would it be her that went to buy it? She’s pretty much immediately post partum and has had a terrible accident causing the death of her baby (going off their story). Why wouldn’t Mark go, and leave her to grieve and rest?
I read back but I can't see people using those words.
Speaking for myself, I don't like the way they describe their actions, but definitely not furious or INFURIATED. Just object to them using language to sanitise things that are actually horrific.
If jury get sent out next week I'll miss the verdict as I'll be on holiday. I stay away from the news on holiday so I can stay in a nice bubble. Will have to catch up when I'm back.
I think his defence barrister thinks if he throws the whole focus on CM and her mothering, the jury might forget that MG was there. He is as guilty as she is, he could have handed Victoria in at any point.
And CM won’t mind because she’ll see it as sacrificing herself for Daddy Bear.
If either of them get a lesser sentence than the other something is really wrong.