Agreed and I hope the jury find out why. There was even a national alert.
On some other points...
1. DATE OF DEATH
After reading today's court reports, I get the feeling that much will turn on the date of death. Not the precise date, but whether the jury can be sure that the prosecution view that Victoria spent a month or more in a tent is true, or whether on the contrary the defence view - about which CM is being called a scheming liar - may possibly be true instead.
2. CAUSE OF DEATH
Then there is the physical cause of death.
John Femi-Ola for MG:
"'Importantly eminent pathologists were instructed by the crown to determine the cause of baby Victoria's death.
'They conclude that the cause of death was unascertained. It is correct that the body had decomposed to an extent but there is pathologically no evidence of any sign of violence, no sign of external or internal injuries.
'The circumstances leaves the prosecution to say that the baby must have died by reason of hypothermia or exposure or co-sleeping.
'There is we contend no medical diagnosis of death being caused by hypothermia or exposure."
This is an extraordinary case! It's reminiscent of the rare examples of a prosecution for murder without a dead body, when the state asserts that a defendant murdered someone but they don't know how.
The prosecution seem to accept that Victoria may have died as a result of co-sleeping. It's as if they're saying "whatever happened, CM and MG were responsible".
3. REASONS FOR RUNNING
Also from JF-O: "'As you listen to evidence you will want to ask yourself - were they driven off grid?'"
Indeed. If it's asserted by the defence that they were driven off grid, and driven by the SS, then the SS officers involved should welcome the charge to defend and explain their actions in court - all their actions from the very moment they opened their files on the defendants.
If the SS say they can't because that would violate child XYZ's privacy, well of course they can say that, but if the judge accepts it then that means the defendants can't receive a fair trial, which means an acquittal.
This is just how the criminal justice system works. Hard to see that evidence that goes to the reasons (both distal and proximal) for the defendants' actions wouldn't be probative, when there's no evidence other than from the defendants themselves regarding the physical causes of death. This isn't like saying oh she had a hard time in the cult, so let's hear some testimony about that. Why they were sought goes directly to why they went off radar, far more specifically and with much greater explanatory power. Personally I hope if the defence does want to hear from and cross-examine the SS then the judge requires the SS to take the stand.
Last edited:
