Hi Michelle, thanks for the welcome
Court is usually quite intimidating, even as a reporter in there every day! Most people are well behaved. Emotion can run high though for family etc must be hard to keep a lid on that.
I'm not sure what you mean about the star not being around?
However, I can answer the next bit. Firstly, none of the younger child's evidence was before the court that I can recall. I only knew there was one because of bad cropping of the family photo and mentions here. There may have been an unreportable direction from the judge not to identify her. None of her video evidence was put before the jury. That video was made and uploaded to influence the jury and persuade them the younger child had witnessed Ellie jumping and banging her head (ie exactly BB's defence).
Attempting to influence the outcome of a trial is a criminal offence of contempt of court. If the jury had seen that video and it swayed their decision and acquitted BB, he likely couldn't be retried and he'd have walked free. It's the same offence if you find out where the jury live and co-erce, bribe or threaten them into a decision. It's the same offence if you stand up in the public gallery and call the judge rude names
The 2014 judgment was made in the family court, they urgently needed to decide if the younger child should be taken into care for her own safety. That decision couldn't wait for the criminal proceedings to end. The burden of proof there is lower than in a criminal court. ie the judge alone can consider the facts and make a decision based on probability, whereas in a criminal trial a 12-person jury must hear all the evidence and (usually unanimously) decide "beyond a reasonable doubt" guilt or innocence.
Criminal courts decide if a defendant should be remanded. After being charged with an offence, you are brought before the next available sitting of the magistrates court (so if you punch someone on Friday night down the pub you're going to be in a cell all weekend waiting for court to open on Monday!). In serious charges like murder, the defendant is almost always remanded in custody by the magistrates straight away. Serious offences are always then sent to the crown court (or high court in very serious like murder) to be heard by a judge and jury.
An appeal court is just judges, no jury, and they can decide to quash a conviction which then leaves the crown prosecution service to decide whether to prosecute the person again.
If there's a proper lawyer here who spots errors in my blatherings please say
Im guessing that becuz BB had such a violent past. That he somehow. Always managed to charm himself out of. Even the armed robbery he onky served part sentence. It was clear from his criminal record that violence and intimidation was indicative of his moral behaviour. He was very much a Jekyll and Hyde character. Albeit he can change within a heartbeat or a moment or breath. Into a foam spitting black eyed venomous tongued animal. And Judge Wilkie would of had all that information at his hands. BB had to go down. He had to terminate his despicable rage. And the only way Judge Wilkie saw fit was to sentence him for the long haul. With hope he might never walk the streets again!
Ive grown up knowing most of it. But the midwife who delivered me asked me how my brother was.... i was huh? Lol. She swore it was i that had the twin as we were early. The other 2 were late. :/
Just know I understand more than you might imagine. Being an undiagnosed Asperger's probably didn't help my case as a kid, us fossils didn't get diagnoses back then we got the strap!Thanks for the heads up on the evidence malarkey. Its so much better when a Judge can review the 'accused's' criminal history. Okay if its not relevant to the case then fine. If the accused has a custodial then hopefully they can get 'help' against reoffending whilst there. If not same scenario but on civvy street.Very sorry for not quoting everyone here, only got a brief amount of browsing time this morning
I think the "prior convictions" in evidence law may have changed since I was a reporter. I know I covered a few cases where the jury found out after acquittal that the defendant had previous for similar offences and you could see them visibly sickened that they got the *wrong* verdict.
The judge does prepare his judgment in advance. I've seen them sentence immediately after conviction with no time to go away and prepare, especially for murder where the sentence is always life.
The press also prepares in advance - one story for an acquittal and another for guilty, just phone the boss and tell them which one to run after the verdict, throw in some of the judge's sentencing comments and away it goes.
Gigi sending you massive hugs. Even knowing all your life doesn't necessarily make it easier to deal with. I won't share my story here, I don't want to look like I'm being competitive on the bad childhood stories
Giant hugs to all the strong wonderful ladies here *advertiser censored*
