I just wonder if they hurt their other kid too. The nights are mon to thurs 7-5.40
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
There was no previous signs of abuse, severe mental health issues etc hence why they got so far along in the process. I don't think they physically hurt their own biological children.
***
I just don't believe that a person who has this longing desire to have a baby (enough to want to adopt) would go on to abuse/kill a baby in such a short space of time.
Alot of women suffer with depression and don't go on to abuse/kill children...so her defence that she was frustrated just doesn't cut it. She had family and she had a social worker. She was abusive to that little boy and she knew it and yet she continued to punish him. This wasn't a 'snap decision'.
My gut feeling is that there is more to this case than what we are hearing about.
I only have experience from Woodford which closed years back. Alot of the fitters/shop floor did their usual long shift + overtime. But as I said,that was a good few years back.
I just looked at the defence summing up. Day ten. They make her look even more guilty.
Don’t think so. Reading the closing speeches now even her barrister seems to have thrown in the towel.
I know what you mean. He was only there 4 months.
I suspect the trial is lacking coverage partly because there may be an element of ‘compassion fatigue’ with all the recent cases, partly because it’s in a remote place that doesn’t get much coverage and is quite uneventful so the reporters are inexperienced.
Also (and I feel a bit bad for saying it) because Leiland was a looked after child. There’s something about parents killing their own children that has a morbid fascination for the press and possibly they value looked after children too.
Star Hobson, Logan Mwangi & Arthur Labinjo were all exceptionally photogenic, cute children whose faces would sell papers or get lots of clicks. While a beautiful baby Leiland doesn’t quite have the ‘wow’ factor they did which I think means the press aren’t quite as enthusiastic. That’s incredibly cynical but - the press are cynical sadly.
I think you’re right there is a lot we’re not hearing which may come out after sentencing.
It’s not uncommon for parents to have one child who isn’t abused and one who is. It’s called Golden Child/Scapegoat. That dynamic happened in my own family.
Reading between the lines it sounds like Leiland’s older sibling wanted a brother or sister and adored Leiland when he arrived. Possibly there was an element that Leiland was almost a ‘toy’ for her in her parents’ view which might explain their lack of enthusiasm for parenting him.
Last edited:
So her defence are trying to really paint a picture of a flustered mum who just wanted the cries to stop. Noooo, she was frustrated not flustered. Yes she wanted him to stop, but she knew fine well what she was doing. She wasn't in a manic state of mind 'the poor dear' , as the defence is suggesting. Even if she was. She was known for slapping a 1yo in response to 'bad' behaviour. Hard.
She knew that would cause harm to someone so vulnerable and small compared to her.
So no, imo she knew, what shaking would do and she didn't care. She was armed with information & advice, she wasn't as alone as many new mums might be. She had a choice and selfishly kept a baby she hated and admitted "leathering"
she knew hitting him would obviously hurt him. She knew NOT to shake a baby. How to discipline properly if needs be, by social services etc.
She could have walked away. Said no more. But she was violent to him (again) and he lost his life.
I know defence is there for a reason, the importance of a fair trial, and to line their pockets they must defend these people. But I don't like how leading their closing statements can be at times. They're trying for sympathy imo, for LC. that she snapped and deeply regrets it. But we know she snapped far more times than that incident. She had a disgusting temper.
As for SC.... I fail to see how he should escape justice. Language used such as 'leathering' in messages - she was admitting to him what she'd done. He knew what that word meant, most in the UK do. He himself smacked A BABY. He should have cruelty charges against him and for sure found guilty of Causing / Allowing. He would've been aware that this wasn't just venting between two parents. He should've known like anyone else that you don't hit a baby. I mean they are so small and completely defenceless in comparison to an adults strength, especially rage filled strength, what do you think is going to happen when you continually whack a baby, you and your wife, she describes doing him in, sadly it was inevitable/easy for it to go that far.
She knew that would cause harm to someone so vulnerable and small compared to her.
So no, imo she knew, what shaking would do and she didn't care. She was armed with information & advice, she wasn't as alone as many new mums might be. She had a choice and selfishly kept a baby she hated and admitted "leathering"
she knew hitting him would obviously hurt him. She knew NOT to shake a baby. How to discipline properly if needs be, by social services etc.She could have walked away. Said no more. But she was violent to him (again) and he lost his life.
I know defence is there for a reason, the importance of a fair trial, and to line their pockets they must defend these people. But I don't like how leading their closing statements can be at times. They're trying for sympathy imo, for LC. that she snapped and deeply regrets it. But we know she snapped far more times than that incident. She had a disgusting temper.
As for SC.... I fail to see how he should escape justice. Language used such as 'leathering' in messages - she was admitting to him what she'd done. He knew what that word meant, most in the UK do. He himself smacked A BABY. He should have cruelty charges against him and for sure found guilty of Causing / Allowing. He would've been aware that this wasn't just venting between two parents. He should've known like anyone else that you don't hit a baby. I mean they are so small and completely defenceless in comparison to an adults strength, especially rage filled strength, what do you think is going to happen when you continually whack a baby, you and your wife, she describes doing him in, sadly it was inevitable/easy for it to go that far.
I wonder how long the jury will take to reach a verdict. I didnt think there was another child living with them as they spoke about not being able to have children of their own thus applying to adopt. Unless they have another adopted child. Heaven forbid. Surely not.
No, they spoke about difficulties conceiving and infertility. Being infertile doesn’t necessarily mean never having a child. They have a biological time but it took a long time to have her, via fertility treatment. It’s unusual for baby adoption to be with first time parents and a child like Leiland who had a 50% of ADHD would never have gone to first time parents.
@thaliamay that’s a great post. I agree with everything you say. TBH I think their lawyers (especially hers) must have tried very, very hard to get them to plead guilty to all charges. The prosecution hasn’t even put forwards much evidence because what they have is so damning. The texts, the medical evidence, the screaming the neighbours heard are damning. It wasn’t a momentary loss of control, it was a pattern of sustained abuse.
Just the text ‘his head met the coffee table again today’ just ducked her because she initially said he’d accidentally hit his head on the coffee table. Obviously when she couldn’t be bothered to deal with Leiland she was in the habit of knocking him out by whacking his head on the coffee table. Presumably one of the reasons no bruises were seen by others was because she was careful to keep them hidden under his hair or nappy.
The thing that gets me is that they had plenty of support around. Friends, family, social services. They’d had several nights off where he stayed elsewhere. He’d only been there for 4 months FFS! It’s not like it had been relentless with no break. As a looked after child they could have given him up within hours or days in a way birth parents usually can’t.
I was expecting the defence to be constant screaming, breaking things, biting, hitting for those 4 months. Instead it turned out to be normal baby behaviour like spitting out food and throwing toys. I’ll be astounded if she doesn’t get murder.
(NB, my previous post was mixed up, I meant bio child and 50% chance. That’ll teach me to post on the school run.)
Just the text ‘his head met the coffee table again today’ just ducked her because she initially said he’d accidentally hit his head on the coffee table. Obviously when she couldn’t be bothered to deal with Leiland she was in the habit of knocking him out by whacking his head on the coffee table. Presumably one of the reasons no bruises were seen by others was because she was careful to keep them hidden under his hair or nappy.
The thing that gets me is that they had plenty of support around. Friends, family, social services. They’d had several nights off where he stayed elsewhere. He’d only been there for 4 months FFS! It’s not like it had been relentless with no break. As a looked after child they could have given him up within hours or days in a way birth parents usually can’t.
I was expecting the defence to be constant screaming, breaking things, biting, hitting for those 4 months. Instead it turned out to be normal baby behaviour like spitting out food and throwing toys. I’ll be astounded if she doesn’t get murder.
(NB, my previous post was mixed up, I meant bio child and 50% chance. That’ll teach me to post on the school run.)
Poor little soul would have been better off with a pair of rattlesnakes than those two. All those lies they've told. Like leathering means a tap on the hand. Even their own barrister didn't buy that. I agree it does need to be a murder conviction.
The judge’s summing up went on for 2.5 hours but the only report was that he ‘reminded jurors of the post-mortem report’. Either the reporting is woefully dire or there’s a load we’re not being allowed to hear.
GUILTY
(husband not guilty)
(husband not guilty)
And there is was refreshing the LIVE feed expecting it to be the first place to see the verdicts!
Right result for her but extremely disappointed he was cleared on all charges.
Dan Taylor ‘chief reporter’ didn’t bother updating the live reporting but did a separate article half an hour ago. Very poor reporting really.
www.nwemail.co.uk
Right result for her but extremely disappointed he was cleared on all charges.
Dan Taylor ‘chief reporter’ didn’t bother updating the live reporting but did a separate article half an hour ago. Very poor reporting really.
Laura Castle GUILTY of murdering baby Leiland-James Corkill
LAURA Castle has been found guilty of murdering one-year-old Leiland-James Corkill.
I'm so glad she's been found guilty.
However gutted that SC gets off scot free, imo he's guilty of causing and allowing however at the very least I felt certain he'd be found guilty of the child cruelty charges against him. And he was cleared of those too? If it isn't child cruelty to admit to whacking a baby several times a week, I don't know what is.
However gutted that SC gets off scot free, imo he's guilty of causing and allowing however at the very least I felt certain he'd be found guilty of the child cruelty charges against him. And he was cleared of those too? If it isn't child cruelty to admit to whacking a baby several times a week, I don't know what is.
He even backtracked on how often he would ‘smack’ him when he was giving evidence compared to his original statement, I assume to play down the severity. I know reporting has been shocking and we won’t have seen all the evidence but I’m really surprised that what we did see wasn’t enough to convict him.
I'm relieved she was guilty of murder. But how he got away with it when he knew she was leathering the child on a regular basis. Lets hope she gets a very long sentence. Anything less than twenty years would be shameful.
Agree. He admitted to smacking and his wife sent him a message saying one day she might start hitting him and not stop. He did nothing. I suspect he benefited from her coming across so badly.
Almost certainly. I doubt they live together and if they do there will be SS involvement and probably other relatives living there too. Given what’s been said about the wider family I would guess she’s with a grandparent.