Nikynoo
Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 4,710
- Reaction score
- 28,777
I believe the statement by the SW re sleeping with baby is an agreed set of facts as reported by The Argus in @Alyces first post. If the facts are agreed by both the prosecution and defence there is no need to interrogate the witness.Has the person who says they advised her against doing exactly or almost exactly what she herself says she later did taken the witness stand, so that the jury can get a view of their evidence and test it if they wish?
One question the defence, jury, or judge might wish to ask the person is why they gave that exact advice at that time. Not regarding the tent; the position of baby and falling asleep bit.
It would be quite interesting to know how she got identified at the hospital after the national hospital alert too. I've no idea what happened, but you'd have thought someone who changed her accent might have thought to change her hair colour for example. Was it just a photograph? Could have been a distinguishing physical characteristic I suppose, if not DNA - or a narrowing down using photographs, age, height, eye colour, eyebrow character*, voice timbre*, ethnicity, ethnicity of baby, followed by checking with someone who knew her.
* Police log these when they have arrested someone.
I have a feeling that there is a lot more to the children being taken into care besides this. I suspect that MGs past was also a factor but this cannot be disclosed to the jury.