Isabelle Rose Welsh

New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I cal
I actually don’t think she’s half as thick as the defence is making out. Also, plenty of thick af (in certain ways) people do well in our education system and go on to do scientific degrees.
I especially think this as someone who did very badly in school, but is (I like to think) not totally stupid but is autistic 😅

Any road, it depends on the uni, but she’s not intellectually challenged or severely uneducated/isolated.

I agree. She doesn't come across as stupid at all. stupid. Actually seems quite conniving. Just an opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
Yes, I think she told family and friends that she was checking up on Isabelle during the morning and she didn’t know she was being abused.
It’s all come out in court now and makes her look like complete utter liar who’s abused or allowed someone to abuse her daughter to death.
Her step dad actually looked like he was from a half decent family, not like the rum HS family came from. AW mum isn’t on Facebook so can’t comment.

HS dad, the posts that people have posted about his dad after his death, seemed like he was a well liked guy. They are open to the public and I’m surprised not one person in the wider community has mentioned his son in the comments. I wonder if he distanced himself from him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5
If he had pr no he wouldnt be arrested
Unless the child was sitting somewhere public, completely unsupervised, he’d have to get into the private bathroom property of someone else, physically get to her, fend off the attempts of her mother or anyone else to protect her and take the child. In this case with the DV allegations he’d probably have been arrested just for being outside the house, even if he managed to get in he would have been arrested for breaking in, he’d be arrested for whatever he did to fend off the mother. And it would all have been on TV. Plus he had absolutely no idea Isabelle was being abused. People always say ‘oh I would just have gone and taken the child if it was me’, but no, they wouldn’t. Otherwise we’d have thousands of Dads kidnapping their kids because the mothers had got new boyfriends.

Given how manipulative AW has been shown to be and the repeated false allegations she made, there’s a distinct possibility the DV didn’t even happen. But even if it did, he never harmed Isabelle, he’s her bereaved parent, it’s not his fault.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 15
t
Yes, I think she told family and friends that she was checking up on Isabelle during the morning and she didn’t know she was being abused.
It’s all come out in court now and makes her look like complete utter liar who’s abused or allowed someone to abuse her daughter to death.
Her step dad actually looked like he was from a half decent family, not like the rum HS family came from. AW mum isn’t on Facebook so can’t comment.

HS dad, the posts that people have posted about his dad after his death, seemed like he was a well liked guy. They are open to the public and I’m surprised not one person in the wider community has mentioned his son in the comments. I wonder if he distanced himself from him.
Judging from the type of person his Dad was and the type of person HS is, I’d say there’s a pretty strong chance his Dad had very little to do with him as he was growing up. The Dad did a long prison sentence and wasn’t in a relationship with the Mum, it’s quite unusual in that situation for a Dad to keep up contact with his kid/s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
t

Judging from the type of person his Dad was and the type of person HS is, I’d say there’s a pretty strong chance his Dad had very little to do with him as he was growing up. The Dad did a long prison sentence and wasn’t in a relationship with the Mum, it’s quite unusual in that situation for a Dad to keep up contact with his kid/s.
HS has got pictures of his son and pictures of him with his dad when he was younger saying can’t wait for you to meet your grandson, hang in there dad etc
on FB. I think he was in contact with his son but whether he distanced himself after these allegations… not sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Unless the child was sitting somewhere public, completely unsupervised, he’d have to get into the private bathroom property of someone else, physically get to her, fend off the attempts of her mother or anyone else to protect her and take the child. In this case with the DV allegations he’d probably have been arrested just for being outside the house, even if he managed to get in he would have been arrested for breaking in, he’d be arrested for whatever he did to fend off the mother. And it would all have been on TV. Plus he had absolutely no idea Isabelle was being abused. People always say ‘oh I would just have gone and taken the child if it was me’, but no, they wouldn’t. Otherwise we’d have thousands of Dads kidnapping their kids because the mothers had got new boyfriends.

Given how manipulative AW has been shown to be and the repeated false allegations she made, there’s a distinct possibility the DV didn’t even happen. But even if it did, he never harmed Isabelle, he’s her bereaved parent, it’s not his fault.
I think we all agree that Isabelle's death is not JWs fault. He didn't smash her head in, sexually abused her and leave her alone whilst she was in cardiac arrest.
Most of us are frustrated as he did nothing for the baby whilst she was alive because sHe WoNt lEt Me SeE mY kID whilst he ignores the fact that there were many ways he could have seen his kid and he choose not to do so and as it turns out, the poor baby needed him more than ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 15
No live reporting today however there is a recap.

A mother has admitted she was worried her new boyfriend was a paedophile in the weeks leading up to her daughter’s ‘murder’.

Alexandra Walker searched the internet to try to discover whether Harrison Simpson was a convicted sex offender when she thought he had an unhealthy interest in her two-year-old.

The 26-year-old told Teesside Crown Court how, despite her concerns, she left Isabelle Welsh in her sole care just days after the internet search.

The toddler suffered fatal head injuries after enduring weeks of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of Alexandra Walker and Harrison Simpson, a jury heard.

Richard Wright, prosecuting, continued to cross-examine Walker about her evidence about her daughter's wellbeing in the weeks leading up to her death last September.

Walker admitted that she asked Simpson whether he was a paedophile as she had concerns about his ‘unhealthy’ interest in Isabelle after he bathed the toddler without her mother's permission.

Jurors had heard how the toddler was the victim of serious sexual assault in the days leading up to her death and traces of blood were recovered in her nappy when paramedics were called to her home.

The barrister also took the defendant through the catalogue of injuries her daughter suffered, including 21 broken bones.

He said: “In the weeks before she was killed somebody broke nearly all of the vertebrae in her back and her thigh and her knee and her foot.

“Where were the bruises reported in the weeks before she died?”

Walker replied: “There were some bruises on the Thursday but nothing compared to what she looked like on the day she died – it didn’t look like abuse.”

He continued: “She was being abused for weeks, you accept that don’t you?” Walker replied: “Yes.”

He asked: “And you never saw bruises on her body?” She replied: “Yes, but I didn’t think it was abuse.”

Mr Wright challenged Walker about conversations she had with her own mother after she visited the toddler at her Thornaby home.

He said: “Your mum said ‘I hope Isabelle picks up tomorrow – it’s the worst I have ever seen her. It’s heartbreaking to see, I’m seriously worried about her’.

“You could see that as well, couldn’t you? And you did nothing.”

Walker replied: “I tried my best to make Isabelle better, but I thought she had a viral infection.”

Dealing with a head injury inflicted days before Isabelle suffered her fatal bleed on the brain, the barrister asked Walker if she had caused the large bump on her daughter’s head.

She replied: “No, I did not.”

The jury heard how Walker had a cigarette in her kitchen after seeing her daughter gravely ill on the day the fatal head injuries were inflicted.

She accepted it was a frightening moment as she thought Isabelle was going to die.

Earlier in the trial, Dr Daniel Duplessis, a consultant neuropathologist who studied the damage to Isabelle's brain and spinal cord, said there was clear evidence that she suffered traumatic injury due to the multiple bleeds.

Concluding his evidence, he said Isabelle suffered a major impact to the skull, evident from the fracture, but there must have also been very excessive motion of the spine and the head on the spine.

Earlier, jurors had looked at computer-generated images cataloguing the bruising and scratching covering the toddler’s entire body.

Dr Sam Hoggard, a Home Office pathologist, said that the vast majority of the injuries would have been clearly visible to the naked eye during weeks of abuse.

He concluded: “This has resulted in her skull fracture and bleeding within the skull which ultimately resulted in fatal head injuries despite medical staff being able to restart her heart.”

Simpson, 22, of Greenham Close in Thorntree, Middlesbrough, and 26-year-old Walker, of Hartington Close in Thornaby, both deny murder.

The pair also deny four other charges involving Isabelle, including: causing or allowing the death of a child on September 14; two counts of assault by penetration between September 10 and September 14 last year; and cruelty to a person under 16.

The trial continues.
 
  • Sad
  • Sick
  • Angry
Reactions: 17
In his closing speech, prosecutor Richard Wright KC told jurors the couple were the "only two candidates" and there was "no doubt Isabelle was murdered".

The jury has heard Walker called 999 on 13 September, with paramedics finding Isabelle collapsed at the foot of the stairs without a pulse.
She died in hospital the following day.

Isabelle was found to have a fractured skull and catastrophic brain injury, Wright said, and there was "incontrovertible proof" she had been sexually assaulted.

She was "covered in bruises" and it was discovered she had suffered 21 broken bones including in both legs, her arm and "just about every vertebrae in her spine" in the weeks before her death, the court heard.

Walker began a relationship with Simpson last summer and "became a facilitator" of his "sexual abuse of her daughter", the prosecutor said.
Wright said a video on 7 June showed Isabelle as a "happy, healthy and mischievous two-year-old", but 99 days later she was dead.
"This was no accident," the prosecutor said, with her final fatal head injury akin to a multi-storey fall or a high-speed car crash.

He said Isabelle's plethora of injuries went back weeks showing it was not a case of "just one less of temper" from a "frazzled and exhausted parent who lashes out and regrets it".

It was a "persistent and wicked campaign of serious violence being done to a completely defenceless child", Wright said.

There was "no doubt Isabelle was murdered" as those "waging that campaign of violence against her" could only have been intending to harm her, the court heard.

"That little girl was murdered, sexually assaulted, subjected to cruelty and neglect," the prosecutor said, adding there were "only two candidates".

"The thing that changed, that set in train this calamitous decline from a happy healthy child to [a victim of] sexual abuse, gross and repetitive violence and murder was the introduction by Alexandra Walker into her life, and that of her child, of Harrison Simpson," Wright said.

Their relationship "created the conditions in which that little girl could be abused so terribly" and in a "final cruel and savage attack" be murdered, jurors were told.

Isabelle's world was "turned completely on its head" with the final weeks of her short life spent in pain, fear and "bewilderment", the prosecutor said.

Wright said the couple, who were cannabis dealers, were drinking and taking drugs the night Isabelle was fatally injured, and the attack "can only have happened when both of them were in that tiny house together".

Walker was an "attention-seeker" who "barely knew Simpson from Adam" but "decided the relationship was more important than the safety of her daughter", the jury heard.

He said it "must have been completely obvious from an early stage" Isabelle was being seriously injured but Walker delayed getting medical treatment to avoid having to answer questions.

Walker had expressed suspicions Simpson was sexually interested in her daughter, as evidenced by her searching online to see if was on a child abuse register, and yet she still left her two-year-old alone with him, the court heard.
There was also "good evidence" each of the two defendants had injured Isabelle in the weeks before her death, Wright said.

The "failure to intervene" and seek treatment for Isabelle's "obvious" injuries "demonstrates they were in this together", the prosecutor said.

When Walker did eventually take her daughter to doctors, she complained NHS staff "doing the job she should have been of protecting" Isabelle were unfairly persecuting her, the prosecutor said.

He also said Simpson's refusal to give evidence at the trial was "plain evidence he did murder Isabelle" and thought by remaining silent he "might just get away with he did".
 
  • Angry
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: 26
21 broken bones. Abused for weeks. They both deserve to rot. I hope they never have anything that makes them smile or feel happiness again.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 25
Not to sound dumb but how were they able to break 21 bones? What did they do to her and how did the neighbours not hear screaming?
 
  • Sad
Reactions: 2
No Live report again today, only a recap from Northern Echo!

The trial of a mum and her new boyfriend accused of murdering her two-year-old daughter is entering its final stages.

Alexandra Walker and Harrison Simpson were charged with murder and serious sexual offences after Isabelle Welsh endured weeks of alleged abuse.

The toddler suffered 21 fractured bones and around 100 bruises or cuts on her body before she suffered a catastrophic bleed on the brain.
Richard Wright KC, prosecuting, gave his closing speech to the jury at Teesside Crown Court as he laid out the key arguments of their case.

He said: “Watching the two-year-old girl running backwards and forwards having fun and it is difficult to conceive that just 99 days later that little girl would be dead.

“Not from a tragic accident, not from some undiagnosed childhood illness but from a massive head injury.

“One that involved her skull being broken, suffering a massive bleed on the brain, nerve fibres being damaged – this was no accident.

“The force required to cause those injuries to the brain is really very severe. The equivalent of the fall onto your head from a great height or the sort of force seen in a high-speed car crash or a child’s head is crushed by a massive force.”

The barrister told the jury that Isabelle had endured significant sexual abuse in the weeks leading up to her death with the toddler suffering injures to her genitals and bottom.

Mr Wright reminded the jury Walker was the one who made the decision to allow her new boyfriend stay at her Thornaby home and have sole access to her daughter.

He said she admitted that she was an attention-seeker who lied about her university studies and how she suffered knife wounds.

During her evidence, Walker admitted she was worried her new boyfriend was a paedophile in the weeks leading up to her daughter’s ‘murder’.

The 26-year-old searched the internet to try to discover whether Simpson was a convicted sex offender when she thought he had an unhealthy interest in her daughter.

Dealing with Simpson, Mr Wright said: “What did he have to fear by giving evidence.

“He chose to not give evidence because he thought that way, he could get away with what he did.”

Earlier in the trial, Dr Daniel Duplessis, a consultant neuropathologist who studied the damage to Isabelle's brain and spinal cord, said there was clear evidence that she suffered traumatic injury due to the multiple bleeds.

Concluding his evidence, he said Isabelle suffered a major impact to the skull, evident from the fracture, but there must have also been very excessive motion of the spine and the head on the spine.

Earlier, jurors had looked at computer-generated images cataloguing the bruising and scratching covering the toddler’s entire body.

Dr Sam Hoggard, a Home Office pathologist, said that the vast majority of the injuries would have been clearly visible to the naked eye during weeks of abuse.

Simpson, 22, of Greenham Close in Thorntree, Middlesbrough, and 26-year-old Walker, of Hartington Close in Thornaby, both deny murder.

The pair also deny four other charges involving Isabelle, including: causing or allowing the death of a child on September 14; two counts of assault by penetration between September 10 and September 14 last year; and cruelty to a person under 16.

The defence barristers will give their closing speeches tomorrow before the judge, The Honourable Ms Justice Norton, will sum up the evidence.

The trial continues.
 
  • Sad
  • Like
  • Sick
Reactions: 10
I understand him not giving evidence, in a lot of trials like this (including Jamie Varley who killed Preston Davey) when they give evidence and are cross examined it ends up helping the prosecution. I suspect AW has done the same because she’s claiming ignorance of any abuse whilst the forensics show Isabelle would have been very badly injured for a long period before she died. AW’s claims of ignorance weren’t plausible and she made herself look like a liar.

But what I can’t understand is why his lawyer isn’t making an argument for his innocence instead. There’s quite convincing evidence that AW committed the final attack which killed Isabelle when the neighbour heard a bang, I would have expected them to capitalise on that and argue AW was abusing Isabelle l, not him.

I’m quite convinced both of them were involved in inflicting injuries on Isabelle which all caused her death, even if AW struck the final blow. But from the point of view of the defence, they’re putting nothing at all forward. It’s weird. It worries me, because if he isn’t given a proper defence, he can argue the conviction is unsafe. If he’s got no defence, why isn’t he pleading guilty?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11
It's stupid isn't it? Arguably, you don't have to prove innocence, the prosecution has to prove guilt, so technically, you could sit there and say nothing.
Butttt why would you do that in a jury trial! The jury is human, and they will automatically think no defense, guilt as that's how humans work.
I wouldn't worry about anyone launching an appeal though, there are loads of reasons why someone can appeal and these lot will always find a loophole. Appeals don't mean that someone will be set free, it just wastes taxpayer money and holds up the court system, they rarely get out on appeal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I understand him not giving evidence, in a lot of trials like this (including Jamie Varley who killed Preston Davey) when they give evidence and are cross examined it ends up helping the prosecution. I suspect AW has done the same because she’s claiming ignorance of any abuse whilst the forensics show Isabelle would have been very badly injured for a long period before she died. AW’s claims of ignorance weren’t plausible and she made herself look like a liar.

But what I can’t understand is why his lawyer isn’t making an argument for his innocence instead. There’s quite convincing evidence that AW committed the final attack which killed Isabelle when the neighbour heard a bang, I would have expected them to capitalise on that and argue AW was abusing Isabelle l, not him.

I’m quite convinced both of them were involved in inflicting injuries on Isabelle which all caused her death, even if AW struck the final blow. But from the point of view of the defence, they’re putting nothing at all forward. It’s weird. It worries me, because if he isn’t given a proper defence, he can argue the conviction is unsafe. If he’s got no defence, why isn’t he pleading guilty?
Maybe he thinks if he didn't plead guilty he won't get attacked in prison or his family might still believe he didn't do it. I don't think I have ever heard of someone giving 0 defence though - why even have a barrister (that i am sure we are paying for).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
The trial when I did jury service offered no defence. The barrister did her job cross examining the prosecution witnesses and didn’t feel any more needed to be added.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2