It's in all likelihood just legal discussion or the judge or solicitors have had to attend to another case this morning.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Just got to the end and they've said JV is still in the witness box as they speak 
The fact that there's absolutely nothing anywhere makes me think it's something of significance, such as a ban on reporting or a plea change. I know the LL trial had a ban on anyone reporting that some verdicts had come in as much as a week (?) early.
If there's a change in plea to only some of the charges, such as the GBH charges or cruelty, etc, would I wonder how this would affect the rest of the trial, as the evidence is put together to cover and create a case beyond resonable doubt for all the charges?
(I'm just pondering as I hide from the heat here to be honest! I know it could be nothing of importance too)
If there's a change in plea to only some of the charges, such as the GBH charges or cruelty, etc, would I wonder how this would affect the rest of the trial, as the evidence is put together to cover and create a case beyond resonable doubt for all the charges?
(I'm just pondering as I hide from the heat here to be honest! I know it could be nothing of importance too)
I remember Emma Tustin pleading guilty to cruelty during the trial but it didn't affect anything it just continued as normal
Definitely something going on today.
I find it very strange that nothing has been reported. Not even MEN updating to say there’s nothing to report today.
I suppose one of them could have changed their plea
I suppose one of them could have changed their plea
I feel like this happened a lot during the Letby trial and it was alway legal arguments or they just didn’t live report every so often.
I’ve just finished the pod. I think the focus on vomiting is simply because it is something they can link to a condition Preston had, the reflux. They want to paint him as a poorly clumsy baby whilst also saying he was always happy and cheeky. Just like they want to claim they lived in domestic bliss and were coping brilliantly when the texts and reports from neighbours say otherwise.
I think they went with all the sick stuff as they thought it was plausible and could try to claim it caused Preston to choke/stop breathing. But it’s not plausible at all because at the time they say Preston was doing all this sick, we know his bloods at the hospital showed he had been dead.
I don’t think Preston was wearing those trousers. I think they’re just a grotty old pair and unluckily for them they still had sperm on from a previous episode of abuse.
I’ve just finished the pod. I think the focus on vomiting is simply because it is something they can link to a condition Preston had, the reflux. They want to paint him as a poorly clumsy baby whilst also saying he was always happy and cheeky. Just like they want to claim they lived in domestic bliss and were coping brilliantly when the texts and reports from neighbours say otherwise.
I think they went with all the sick stuff as they thought it was plausible and could try to claim it caused Preston to choke/stop breathing. But it’s not plausible at all because at the time they say Preston was doing all this sick, we know his bloods at the hospital showed he had been dead.
I don’t think Preston was wearing those trousers. I think they’re just a grotty old pair and unluckily for them they still had sperm on from a previous episode of abuse.
I also think he’s trying to push the vomiting story because he claims he put his fingers inside Preston’s mouth to “clear sick out”, suggesting that’s how he maybe got the injuries to his throat. Also, the bath story - he’s saying he was rubbing his stomach to “get the water up”… I think that’s how he’s going to claim the injuries to his abdomen and bladder happened. The whole story just sounded so ridiculous and I expect the jury will also see through it
Last edited:
I've been catching up on the podcast. All that "no comment" about the hot tub. What the duck?
Prison forever for JV. I'm not 100% convinced how much JMF knew or did but we haven't really heard the case against him yet.
Prison forever for JV. I'm not 100% convinced how much JMF knew or did but we haven't really heard the case against him yet.
I genuinely cannot see how the jury could find JV not guilty.
I can add a tiny bit of context if that’s helpful? This won’t be their only cases. The barristers will have other cases rumbling on in the background and it could be one of those cases might have advanced to a plea deal and that requires victim impact statements and the barristers need to sort paperwork (through the clerks)
DH is a judge and he often sits on trials that are days long and then they have things that need ironing out with another trial, like let’s say the barrister has 2 trials and has spoken to his client (let’s call it trial B) on the morning of another trial because they are there for a 15 min instructions hearing and at that hearing the client on case B lies in court. That is a procedural night mare because the barrister knows it’s a lie and you can’t mislead the court. So murder trial A is vacated (postponed) whilst the barristers come off the case of trial B and the entire trial is discharged and new legal representation must be found for trial B, whilst trial A is now waiting for the procedure to be completed on trial B so they can resume trial A
I hope this makes sense! I’m paraphrasing
DH is a judge and he often sits on trials that are days long and then they have things that need ironing out with another trial, like let’s say the barrister has 2 trials and has spoken to his client (let’s call it trial B) on the morning of another trial because they are there for a 15 min instructions hearing and at that hearing the client on case B lies in court. That is a procedural night mare because the barrister knows it’s a lie and you can’t mislead the court. So murder trial A is vacated (postponed) whilst the barristers come off the case of trial B and the entire trial is discharged and new legal representation must be found for trial B, whilst trial A is now waiting for the procedure to be completed on trial B so they can resume trial A
I hope this makes sense! I’m paraphrasing
There is a residual chance he’s coughed in the cells but I doubt it.
I fear he will maintain his innocence throughout.
I fear he will maintain his innocence throughout.
I work for a council in an education role and have managed staff for a decade. I absolutely drill into them that if it doesn't look or feel right they need to refer to the MASH team. Not that they always make the right call but you can build evidence if multiple people report things over time. I also remind them that they don't want to be in front of either a jury of safeguarding panel to explain why they didn't question what was happening. They're really hot on it and we very rarely meet the young people and children we are dealing with as cases. We deal with children who are not in school and so very vulnerable to exploitation or abuse within the household. I never want look back at my career and think I should have done this for that child and make my team develop the same attitude. Safeguarding is every one's responsibility
It’s still listed for tomorrow.
I find it odd they must not have had a baby monitor otherwise there would be footage from that. Ours was always left on in the baby’s room pretty much all the time so would record everything and pick up conversations elsewhere in the house. It’s strange not to have one for a baby that age
That does seem strange. We definitely had one when ours was that age...do they all "store" footage or do some just record?
- Status