I’ve never heard of a child, yet alone a baby having bruises inside their mouths, by their tonsils?! What on earth caused that?! Forcible spoon feeding? No wonder the poor baby “didn’t like them”….he picked up on their resentment as babies do! Poor Leiland being hit every day at that age and talked about in such a derogatory manner by those who were supposed to care for him and nurture him!
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I wouldn’t be so sure that it wasn’t a “forced” adoption. I don’t think any mother relinquishes a child anymore, the days of giving up a baby to give them a better life are long gone on this country (although it’s still a thing in conservative, religious parts of the US).
My guess is that she had a history of neglecting children, probably mental health and/or drug issues, and had children removed in the past. So when she got pregnant with Leiland, it was made clear that he would have to be removed at birth. The fact she was called to the hospital before he died was just the right thing to do. Poor woman.
Not one I'm going to dispute because I dont know much about the case or adoption figures.
I do know foster care is a much more commonplace than forced adoption. Forced adoption is extreme.
But as I said, regardless of whether this was her choice, Leiland was still removed from her to be protected by a trusted person.
Leilands birth mum has posted many pictures since his birth. She clearly loved and thought about him very much despite him not being in her care.
The prosecution case is already over. Seems quick and not very thorough.
Has her FB gone now?
What?! Wow...I've not seen today's trial yet as working but how can it be over already?! That does seem quick.
Her FB is very much open, search Leiland's grandma and then go from there...on FB the mum is under a different name.
Found her, not much on it but lots of memes and quotes about both recovery and toxic relationships/men so would hazard a guess as to that’s why her children her removed!
Lots of photos of her kids on there from before Leiland was killed.
Foster care is not unusual for children whose parents are in toxic relationships/ex drug users/mental health. Forced adoption is the extreme end. There is every possibly that this was part of a care plan and adoption was strongly recommended to the mother as opposed to her going through the courts for forced removal. We don't know. For example, look at JC and the Youth during Logan's case...the mind boggles.
However the point I was making was that this woman's children was placed into someone else's care for their own protection EITHER by the birth mum or by SS. The birth mother went to sleep each night thinking that her children were safe.
We do not know the circumstances behind it but judging by the plenty of pictures on FB, you can see she is getting updates about her children and she's proud about that.
She *may* have neglected her children but my God, she didn't kill any of her kids.
And *if* it was forced adoption, then this makes it even more awful for the mum.
Attachments
Just realised no DMs!
He was so beautiful and so precious 
My heart breaks for his poor biological mum, his first foster parents and all of those who loved him. I even feel sad for the extended family of those two monsters who apparently loved him.
Who could harm a hair on a child - a defenceless baby’s; head?! It hurts my heart and makes me feel ill.
They had so many chances to hand him back! I can’t comprehend it
My heart breaks for his poor biological mum, his first foster parents and all of those who loved him. I even feel sad for the extended family of those two monsters who apparently loved him.
Who could harm a hair on a child - a defenceless baby’s; head?! It hurts my heart and makes me feel ill.
They had so many chances to hand him back! I can’t comprehend it
11:55am
Why would you need to smack a nine, ten, 11 month old child?
"To show right and wrong."
I can’t believe there are people in this day and age that still believe smacking a child (any age, never mind a baby!!) is appropriate. The irony that it’s meant to show right and wrong yet one of the most wrongful things you can do is hurt a child!
It’s really infuriating me that she keeps referring to him as ‘my boy’. I don’t know if pre-adoption he still technically was but I don’t care, i don’t think she derserves to keep referring to him in that way.
Why would you need to smack a nine, ten, 11 month old child?
"To show right and wrong."
I can’t believe there are people in this day and age that still believe smacking a child (any age, never mind a baby!!) is appropriate. The irony that it’s meant to show right and wrong yet one of the most wrongful things you can do is hurt a child!
It’s really infuriating me that she keeps referring to him as ‘my boy’. I don’t know if pre-adoption he still technically was but I don’t care, i don’t think she derserves to keep referring to him in that way.
Laura Castle appears to be emulating Angharad Williamson. Saying she wants ‘justice for my beautiful boy’ referring to him in the present tense. Didn’t work out well for AW and is even less convincing in this case when she was open about not loving him, had only had him for a few months and used abusive language about him extensively. I’d be very shocked if she isn’t convicted of murder. Her account of Logan banging his head accidentally on the sofa while being shaken is unconvincing when she’d previously texted her husband ‘his head met the coffee table again today’.
I wonder if she made the comment about right & wrong to make herself look too thick to understand what shaking did?
At that age hitting is just done to scare a baby into being afraid of crying.
What she describes about Leiland crying if she went out of his sight is separation anxiety and extremely common in adopted babies who’ve left a long term foster home. She would have been warned about and trained in how to cope so that’s absolutely no excuse for hurting him.
Neither do I. I don’t think it is going to help her at all, given the evidence she didn’t love him, was hurting him, using abusive language, shouting - it makes her look like a liar.
I wonder if she made the comment about right & wrong to make herself look too thick to understand what shaking did?
At that age hitting is just done to scare a baby into being afraid of crying.
What she describes about Leiland crying if she went out of his sight is separation anxiety and extremely common in adopted babies who’ve left a long term foster home. She would have been warned about and trained in how to cope so that’s absolutely no excuse for hurting him.
Last edited:
Like I have said I have known him most of my life he will of been amazed a girl wanted to come near him he was so desperate to be seen as cool and interesting like every single time he had a beer it had to be posted on Facebook like oh look at me having a drink. Weird as hell but you would never of guessed this from all the multiple happy family pics from all their holidays and days out
Exactly. Crocodile tears and a pathetic attempt to appear like a loving mum who suddenly snapped when the text messages show the true story.
the fact she has lied and lied to such an extent and has only now started come clean shows she’s only interested in getting g off the hook. If she was truly sorry and wanted justice for Leiland then she should have been honest from the start (and of course never have done what she did in the first place)
the fact she has lied and lied to such an extent and has only now started come clean shows she’s only interested in getting g off the hook. If she was truly sorry and wanted justice for Leiland then she should have been honest from the start (and of course never have done what she did in the first place)
Reading 'my boy' coming out her mouth made my blood boil, wasn't your boy when you were slagging him off or when you couldn't cope, was he?!
He wouldn't have been her child legally, there would have been a placement order made but the final adoption order wouldn't, especially as the SW didn't support placement until further work was done.
He would have been a LAC, so the LA would hold PR, and possibly the birth mother (as adoption order wasn't made).
It says on DM that she only changed her plea to guilty to manslaughter a week ago, which kind of makes a mockery of her "getting justice for my boy" BS.
It sounds like she realised the evidence against her was overwhelming so changed her story hoping to get the lesser charge.
Why are there so many people out there admitting their actions killed someone but denying murdering them? Laura Castle included. I'm seeing this alot in the news right now and can't get my head round it, if your actions killed that person then yes you bloody well are guilty of their murder. Pre meditated or not pre meditated.
And especially so in this case where the victim is a one year old baby. So vulnerable and small, so dependant, I don't buy her bull about not realising full on shaking this poor child would result in his death. Your huge compared to that little guy. Of course your actions would hurt him! No excuses for how she behaved time and time again. I've never heard of anyone so bloody stupid that they think you could slap a baby. Turns my stomach even typing the words.
I hope she is done for murder not manslaughter.
And especially so in this case where the victim is a one year old baby. So vulnerable and small, so dependant, I don't buy her bull about not realising full on shaking this poor child would result in his death. Your huge compared to that little guy. Of course your actions would hurt him! No excuses for how she behaved time and time again. I've never heard of anyone so bloody stupid that they think you could slap a baby. Turns my stomach even typing the words.
I hope she is done for murder not manslaughter.
I agree with all the above points.
Laura Castle is just playing mind games with the jury. I think she knew all along that she was going to wait until now to admit to killing him (after she saw the overwhelming evidence against her).
She wanted it to look like she was feeling guilty and that she's finally cracked under pressure. Making the jury think that the pressure of court has brought out 'the truth'.
All she is doing is trying to clear her name of murder, opting to 'admit' manslaughter for a much lesser sentence and then return home to her husband.
Her saying that she 'wanted the crying to stop' appears to me that she is attempting to go down the 'mental health route'. Trying to make the jury think, it wasn't intentional and that 'she just snapped'.
Laura Castle had no attachment to Leiland, she didn't love him...he meant nothing to her. She doesn't care about justice for that little boy. She cares about herself.
And by not throwing SC under the bus, making it appear that abuse was minimal and that they 'hadn't hatched a plan'.
I think she knew what she was doing by shaking Leiland and I think she intended to cause harm. She wasn't stupid.
She had MORE support than many mums who are left struggling.
Unfortunately, if the court case is as scanty as the reporting, it's highly likely that Laura Castle will get manslaughter over murder.
Laura Castle is just playing mind games with the jury. I think she knew all along that she was going to wait until now to admit to killing him (after she saw the overwhelming evidence against her).
She wanted it to look like she was feeling guilty and that she's finally cracked under pressure. Making the jury think that the pressure of court has brought out 'the truth'.
All she is doing is trying to clear her name of murder, opting to 'admit' manslaughter for a much lesser sentence and then return home to her husband.
Her saying that she 'wanted the crying to stop' appears to me that she is attempting to go down the 'mental health route'. Trying to make the jury think, it wasn't intentional and that 'she just snapped'.
Laura Castle had no attachment to Leiland, she didn't love him...he meant nothing to her. She doesn't care about justice for that little boy. She cares about herself.
And by not throwing SC under the bus, making it appear that abuse was minimal and that they 'hadn't hatched a plan'.
I think she knew what she was doing by shaking Leiland and I think she intended to cause harm. She wasn't stupid.
She had MORE support than many mums who are left struggling.
Unfortunately, if the court case is as scanty as the reporting, it's highly likely that Laura Castle will get manslaughter over murder.
Completely agree with all that you've said.
I too was hoping the jury don't believe her blatant lies, I had a horrible thought that maybe she'd try to pull the MH route in her own favour, sounding like she was any other desperate mum who was struggling with a baby's consistent crying. And didn't know the harm or wrong in what she was doing, she certainly did. She thought nothing of slapping him so hard across the face that neighbours heard it. She's a vile piece of
and I hope those jury members don't feel pressure or obligation to give her a lesser charge (manslaughter as opposed to murder) from the postpartum point of view, as we are all aware of how terrible and common PPD/PPP(?) is among new mums with babies. Laura Castle is trying to make it sound like she's someone similar to a new mum struggling badly with either postpartum depression or psychosis. But she wasn't, she was short tempered and callous, and not even his birth mother. The reporting is awful honestly there must be so many details missed out, I understand its a smaller news outlet but that doesn't stop the court reporters in other cases reporting for other local papers.