I didn't think you could refuse to be cross examined?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
As long as they can string it out? Unless they are stopped from dictating proceedings.
Hopefully the new information will stymie further attempts to disrupt the trial.
Yes you can refuse to even give evidence at all
I wonder how it will work with the new evidence that’s come to light? Does the prosecution just get the chance to announce what it is, even if both of them refuse to answer questions on it? Will it rely on new expert witnesses or whatever to be called?
I'm wondering if it's something more to do with their previous children being removed or the DV allegations related to that. Possibly a social worker who was involved before. Be very interesting to see what it is. Mark and Connie are probably trying to get a Mongolian sheep herder to come and give evidence about the safety of sleeping in tents
They will have to disclose it to the defence and judge first I believe. Defence can argue to judge why it shouldn’t be admissible. These are the kind of things that go on with legal discussions that are not reported on. And Mark will have to do this himself with no legal representation!!
Witnesses will depend on what the evidence is but yes think there will need to be someone to talk the jury through it just like any other eg even when it’s cctv / phone evidence then the police staff who investigated it would talk through it for the jury.
I’m really hoping it’s something solid and simple - text messages/email/social media type communication, so we don’t have all manner of messing about.
I knew that but I thought once you chose to give evidence, you can't refuse cross examination?
I think the difficulty is, you can’t be made to talk. If you sit there and refuse there’s nothing they can do.
Edit - actually I think you would be held in contempt, but I doubt these two are bothered about that.
But they are allowed to refuse, and on the basis that what they say may incriminate them. So they can refuse, but it goes against them.
The longer these scumbags drag this on the better because even with a guilty verdict with time served would be out straight away or soon as then they are locked away stopping them From procreating
New evidence?? Assaulting female Police Officers.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...hester-police-wales-south-downs-b1229895.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...hester-police-wales-south-downs-b1229895.html
What a load of tit. He kicked off at police when his fake identity failed and he was cornered? we already know he is a convicted criminal and idiot. He’s already been found guilty on concealing the birth.
He gave his date of birth as 31st April 
Ok that bit was funnyHe gave his date of birth as 31st April
I’m no fan but they are scraping the barrel now aren’t they? What does that incident have to do with this trial?
My guess is that it’s because when he gave evidence for his own defence, he stood there claiming to be a decent, empathetic person who never would have done anything to hurt anyone if it wasn’t for the fact they were being chased….then he refused to let that evidence be tested by cross examination, so the prosecution were allowed to bring in this evidence of previous convictions/bad character as an alternative way to dispute what his claims?
I’m not sure if this jury were told about his grape conviction (I know the jury in the first trial were but haven’t seen it mentioned this time). But this is more recent evidence of his violent nature, and that his version of events can’t be trusted. Just a guess though.
I’m not sure if this jury were told about his grape conviction (I know the jury in the first trial were but haven’t seen it mentioned this time). But this is more recent evidence of his violent nature, and that his version of events can’t be trusted. Just a guess though.
It indicates that they were already hostile to the police before Victoria was born rather than their claim they were so worried about her being taken away they had no choice but to run away. It also reminds the jury that they have a history of lying about their identity and trying to evade authorities before their 5th child. This was their first baby when she claimed to be a Traveller and before any had been removed by social services but after a hospital alert had been raised
Attachments
Ridiculous that those 2 police officers needed one of the Dad’s in the ward to restrain him! Could have been a threat to other mums and babies.
It just shows he’s a liar 
but the gross negligence manslaughter defence is that she would be taken away, and she died when CM fell asleep. That’s incriminating by itself, why complicate it by saying that might not be true because he’s a liar?
but the gross negligence manslaughter defence is that she would be taken away, and she died when CM fell asleep. That’s incriminating by itself, why complicate it by saying that might not be true because he’s a liar?
- Status