It’s definitely a bit of a reach.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Don’t most babies get their legs jammed in the cot at that kind of age? Mine did! That’s why cots have to be made to certain standards with the bars a set distance apart so they can’t get their head stuck.
I’m sure SB also said she hadn’t seen Frankie and Star for about a week before the day she died. I don’t remember the CCTV showing they saw her on the 18th before? Edited to add, I might be ‘mistaken’ on this, getting dates muddled.
I’m sure SB also said she hadn’t seen Frankie and Star for about a week before the day she died. I don’t remember the CCTV showing they saw her on the 18th before? Edited to add, I might be ‘mistaken’ on this, getting dates muddled.
Last edited:
Ahhh why didn’t she ask about the sanitary pad and there being no bin.
I’ve done jury service on a kidnap, torture & execution trial several years ago. It was overseen by a high court judge from the old Bailey. They do take a lot of breaks, but we didn’t have as much as this! The jury will have a bundle of lever arch files with all the evidence in & new evidence added daily. At the end we had 3 files. We were kept separate from other jurors, which I’m presuming they will be here as the court is local to the crime & there will most definitely be someone who knows someone or something about the defendants or even if they frequented the sun pub. You are asked this before they allow you to sit on the case. It makes me wonder if that’s why it’s a jury made up mainly of men. I would think they will be in the deliberation room for a good few days as they go over the files & follow the process JL will have set out to them in the closing speeches
That’s really interesting, thanks for your insight.
That must have been a difficult trial, I hope you’re okay now.
None of the barristers or defence dug into this ‘inconsistency’. We are only seeing the transcript, not the evidence, so I suspect there is no inconsistency here as far as they are concerned and that’s why this point has not been raised by any legal teams. Lots of things on this thread we don’t understand because we don’t have access to all the evidence, fat folders with all the evidence.
Today in court has gone so differently to my expectations. My sense of the day has been that I’ve had even more opportunity to hear about the domestic violence in this situation.
I think sometimes there are slight errors or bits missed out of the transcripts so that might explain the sanitary towel thing as they haven’t addressed it.
I think FS is getting an easy time of it, she’s def not getting “mauled”.
Maybe the evidence against SB is so damning, alongside her attitude and demeanour in court that KG has given up on trying to get her off on a lesser charge and is concentrating instead on getting FS for allowing or causing
Maybe the evidence against SB is so damning, alongside her attitude and demeanour in court that KG has given up on trying to get her off on a lesser charge and is concentrating instead on getting FS for allowing or causing
hmmmmm
I’m not really sure where KG is going with this right now ? Kinda feels like she blaming Frankie for not realising SB hurt her child - which is just incriminating SB I’m abit lost.
I think KG is trying to get the jury to doubt the honesty of FS by bringing up any perceived inconsistencies and changes to what she has said. I think she is trying to stop SB getting the murder charge by creating doubts in their minds.
I think this is a fair point, but surely she’d still have to do her best by SB or there could be grounds for an appeal in the event that she’s found guilty?
There will be a lot going on that we won’t be able to see. Jury members will be accessing their files, making notes & WILL have to start at the beginning going over all the evidence again & comparing notes, some jury members will have a clear decision made in their head over the charge they wish to apply. Others won’t, others minds will change based on someone else’s interpretation or notes. Some may not be too interested & just want to go back to work! Luckily I served on a jury where we all took onboard the responsibility to the victim & his family. But it was also a young man who was going to be put away for a long time & that also plays on your mind as to if you have to get it right to the best of your knowledge. JL will give them a clear diagram of almost yes & no questions to find them guilty or not guilty of each charge. I’m absolutely fine, can still hear certain things I wish I hadn’t had to see but that’s the way it is. We got a leaflet re Counciling then left to go on our way. The victims family waited for us to say thank you which was tough & emotional but also scary that the accused now guilty family could also be in the immediate area! It’s a minefield I won’t lie!
I guess that is an explanation - but it’s not really working from my perspective. I am just getting confirmation that SB is guilty and did cause that injury to star and FS is abit dim for not realising.
I still don’t think, as yet, they have enough to convict SB on a murder charge. There’s no forensic evidence to prove exactly who dealt the fatal blow.
I’m not sure Frankie saying SB was already in the room will be enough. It’s literally words. They aren’t there on cruelty charges, it’s murder and causing or allowing.
I’m not law expert but there’s no proof beyond reasonable doubt that SB killed Star, just that someone did.
This is why ‘the causing or allowing’ charge came into place in 2004 I think. To close the loophole. Before that murderers got fully away with it because they couldn’t prove it forensically when 2 suspects blamed eachother or claimed to be none the wiser
That's just it though - the reasonable doubt? SB hasn't blamed FS. But FS has now said that SB asked her to lie. Giving huge doubt over what SB was doing. It's all very complex but I would have thought that given the bigger, much more damning picture, it would be beyond reasonable doubt that SB got the murder charge?
Because people are entitled to their own opinions?
SB hasn’t directly blamed her but every thing she said in court and her witnesses insinuate that it was Frankie.
Indirectly but at the same time directly.
I think there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt. I’ve said before this is less about the individual pieces of evidence but more about what it looks like when you put the information together. The boxing history, the violence to FS, the timing of bruises, the dating of the pathologist, the brain expert and the bone expert, the CCTV, the translation. All points to the 11-14 Sept being a violent attack on Star.
There’s nothing that points to FS suddenly becoming so viciously and suddenly violent to her daughter that would result in death.
It has to be one of them. The fact I can fairly confidently rule out FS makes the weight even heavier on SB. It is not reasonable, in my mind, to assume it was F, or both together. Any “doubts” I have would have to mean believing SBs far fetched story.
Beyond reasonable doubt is not “100% certain”.
There’s nothing that points to FS suddenly becoming so viciously and suddenly violent to her daughter that would result in death.
It has to be one of them. The fact I can fairly confidently rule out FS makes the weight even heavier on SB. It is not reasonable, in my mind, to assume it was F, or both together. Any “doubts” I have would have to mean believing SBs far fetched story.
Beyond reasonable doubt is not “100% certain”.
- Status