The prosecution will probably want the jury to hear about why the children were removed, as it should stop the jury believing they were good parents taking the only action to keep their baby. The defence probably don't want the information given out as their only hope is a sympathetic juror. Then there's the matter of the privacy of the children. Could it be possible courts gone ahead but there's reporting restrictions?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Things will come up as evidence and cross examination of witnesses go on. It could even be that an expert witness, or a juror, is not able to attend for some reason last minute.
It may well be continuing but no one from The Argus is there and no one else is doing live reporting.
---
To the jury maybe, if relevant, but not to be reported on publicly.
I mean, it's probably not reassuring, but I remember following the Lucy Letby case daily last year and there were so many delays, with legal arguments, jury absences and they would sit at such weird times and have long breaks.
So I know these kinds of delays aren't that unusual. I know it's similar where I live and courts cases have had lots of occasions of rescheduling dates because there is a huge backlog.
So I know these kinds of delays aren't that unusual. I know it's similar where I live and courts cases have had lots of occasions of rescheduling dates because there is a huge backlog.
I think it is inefficiency in part, wasn’t there at least one day where the judge was also listed on various other cases with this slotted in between? @InTheDollsHouse had the screenshot I think.
Inefficient because you’re never going to be able to make any serious progress in a case like this if you’re slotting in in an hour between other things, it’s not a simple he nicked the £100 worth of meat from Tesco and here’s the cctv to prove it. The judge should surely be dedicated only to this or at least say this will only be M W F and the other cases in between.
They first said the Letby case would last six months and it ended up being ten!!
I don't see how it wouldn't be relevant?
---
I don't see how it wouldn't be relevant?
Without knowing what happened with the other children there might be some that is and some that isn’t - to the case and for the jury - and that’s possibly what’s being argued over. The defence will try and keep as much out of evidence as possible.
There are bound to be gaps in reporting when anything which could be identifying to the older children is involved, though.
Constance Marten warned of sleep risk before baby’s death, court told
Marten and her partner Mark Gordon deny manslaughter by gross negligence.
Update of today from the Argus.
Last edited:
Well. That’s enough for beyond reasonable doubt.Constance Marten warned of sleep risk before baby’s death, court told
Marten and her partner Mark Gordon deny manslaughter by gross negligence.www.theargus.co.uk
Update of today from the Argus.
I agree. I don't see how their defence can be that they were forced into the situation because the authorities were after them, when they'd done exactly the same thing before by choice... Grim
I’m sure I’m in the minority but after reading that.. imo I find it more likely that she got the idea to say baby died on her chest from these conversations with SS than it by chance happening despite her saying she knew and understood the risk previously. I still think it’s much more likely baby succumbed to inhabitable conditions and got hypothermia which I don’t think would take long for such a small baby being carted round outside in a baby grow. They would have had plenty of opportunities to act and save her. They were determined to live this type of lifestyle no matter what. I think they think the dying on her chest thing sounds better and more “accidental”.
So the discussions earlier were to agree the facts re previous SS advice?
Really interesting I must admit that until now I’d thought of her as a boho alternative lifestyle person- SS simply treated her as a homeless person. As she was. I guess we don’t need to second guess why they had involvement anymore- not the window falling, not carpets (
) but the obvious answer- they were homeless and having a baby.
Really interesting I must admit that until now I’d thought of her as a boho alternative lifestyle person- SS simply treated her as a homeless person. As she was. I guess we don’t need to second guess why they had involvement anymore- not the window falling, not carpets (
) but the obvious answer- they were homeless and having a baby.
I suspect this too. That poor wee girl had no defence against the weather, and on a probability scale I'd think hypothermia or pneumonia are more likely than the sleeping story. They were in a tent, so no chair/sofa/pillow etc - who falls asleep bolt upright long enough to smother a baby?
---
Their whole situation is dodgy as duck. Right from the first pregnancy she was hiding and lying, before any SS involvement or anything. And blaming her family doesn't wash, because she's an adult so the NHS would have no reason to inform them that she was pregnant.
Last edited:
Letbys case was no where near as bad as this delay wise
So the discussions earlier were to agree the facts re previous SS advice?
Really interesting I must admit that until now I’d thought of her as a boho alternative lifestyle person- SS simply treated her as a homeless person. As she was. I guess we don’t need to second guess why they had involvement anymore- not the window falling, not carpets (
It's very interesting that despite the trust, which would have allowed her to live a relatively comfortable, boho, alternative lifestyle; they were in fact living like homeless people.
How easy would it have been to have spent money on a good tent, a small heater and a moses basket or lived on a managed site with bathroom facilities and "complied". Or lived in the camper they owned somewhere cheap. Or rented a very remote property etc etc.
She had no need to be homeless whatsoever. As a mother with a newborn (or about to have a newborn) she would have been offered safe (indoor!) housing. 100%. She chose her 'freedom' and lifestyle over her child, much as she did when she refused to take a covid test or wear a mask to be with her baby in hospital. She's a spoilt, entitled cat who won't be told no.
although I don’t actually believe her version of events - I don’t think it’s unbelievable that the baby would have been suffocated in those circumstances. You only have the look at how she was held in the coat when up and about to see how little care and attention CM paid to her safety. I can imagine she would have had her coat zipped up against the cold.
That's what I was just pondering. If they wanted to live an off grid lifestyle, fine. But why when they had the means to properly equip themselves for that, didn't they? This isn't just parenting they didn't have a clue about, they seem totally inept when it comes to managing their own basic needs. No wonder their children had no chance with them.
- Status