Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

casperon

Chatty Member
One thing that concerns me, will prosecution be able to prove manslaughter and not that the baby died of other causes e.g. a pre-existing condition?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

casperon

Chatty Member
It could be anything from 1 year up to life for GNM. It looks quite complex with determining culpability

My guess would be probably very high culpability (category A) and almost certainly cat B, so starting point would be 8 or 12 years, then prosecution and defence will put forward aggravating and mitigating factors.

How does it work if there’s other charges also? I read online that sentences over 10 years for manslaughter are rare
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

sebanna

VIP Member
I did feel for Victoria being kept in a cold tent with no proper nappies, no clean, dry clothes and no wipes. I wouldn't put it past CM and MG to leave her in a dirty nappy for days until she got really bad nappy rash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

HotesTilaire

VIP Member
Would there be any public serious case review of Victoria by Social Services? I’m not sure there would, but I’d be really interested to read one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

neroli

VIP Member
But what if you get jury members who are persuaded by her father's comments about the toxic influence of the cult and her behaviour changes.Also her psychiatrist will seek to emphasise the family history of erratic mental health/acting out of character etc/trauma. I wouldn't be swayed by this but it's possible that there are jury members who would be receptive to these factors?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
People will refuse to listen to any thoughts that don’t involve deliberately murdering her.

It’s still gross negligence manslaughter if she was poisoned by CO in a tent or shed. It doesn’t mean they were doing the right thing or should have had her there in those conditions.
Has this been mentioned in court about having gas heaters in their tent? They're on for manslaughter not murder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

superhanscrack

Active member
The initials she used to identify them are random. I'm sure there was a V and a Y. Can't think of any name that starts with a Y.
Not sure of MGs heritage. Might be traditional names.
Just checked. BTY, COF, DAV.
I think B and C are boys, D is a girl.
Aaah is that why they are using double initials in the trial, because thr kids initials are actually B, C and D in real life.
while thinking up names beginning with with y… I thought Yasmin .. but then weirdly remembered another case about a couple of mental religious “parents” who got caught abusing their son for 2 years plus in the name of a cult called “Yah” .. anyway sorry if off topic but here
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: 1
Who speculated they were scared loving parents on this thread? Who? You’re seeing something that isn’t there. Something you want to see.
Post the links if it happened.

You haven’t worked with many sociopaths. You wouldn’t be talking about evil in such an uneducated way if you have. Don’t believe it for a second.

anyway, post the evidence.
Uneducated . Lol!
---
They most definitely are. In the ED of the hospital where I work they routinely substitute for junior doctors on the medical rota.
There are so frighteningly clueless people on this thread I’ve got to say
---
They most definitely are. In the ED of the hospital where I work they routinely substitute for junior doctors on the medical rota.
There are some frighteningly clueless people on this thread I’ve got to say
---
My comment still stands. They are not diagnosticians.
Have you only ever experienced third world health care?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

Haveyouanywool

VIP Member
We eat raw carrots a lot but they wouldn’t be the first thing I’d choose in their situation! Unless maybe they wanted something fresh and carrots are cheap, keep better for longer than (eg) fruit. Something like apples is more expensive than a bag of carrots 🤷🏼‍♀️
Maybe CM was trying to introduce something healthy for MG in response to his injured foot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

MmmB777

VIP Member
I didn’t say - or mean - that you stopped anyone having an opinion. I actually said that it’s fine to have an opinion.
The reason I did was you were replying to a post which was replying to/about my post, so I read it as part of the chain.

I was just trying to say that no one has to / is expected to believe anything


because I thought this ^ part of your post was in relation to my saying I think there’s a reason they kept her close - if I’m wrong then I apologise. I was literally just clarifying what I’d said was only my opinion.
Yeah you were wrong 👍
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1