GUILTY UK - Robert Trigg and the deaths of sleeping women

[Alyce]

Should have started 10am today but so far, looking a bit quiet. I do wish we had a Tara, or similar, at the courthouse.



Lewes Crown Court 1

T20177023

robert henry trigg


Details: - No Information To Display -


http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/Lewes-Crown-Court.php

 

[Tortoise]

From the article jessie linked to -

[FONT=&quot]Defence barrister Sally Howes QC argued that Dr Cary’s evidence could not prove Trigg’s guilt and that Miss Devlin suffered from high blood pressure – a major cause of brain aneurysms.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Read more at: http://www.littlehamptongazette.co....ies-similar-to-hillsborough-victims-1-8026836

I'm just noting that Caroline Devlin's death is alleged to be manslaughter. I'm not sure this evidence will cut it for the state. I don't think they've done enough to prove murder of Susan Nicholson either.

I'll be very surprised, even with his violent history. Sadly.[/FONT]

 

[Alyce]

From the article jessie linked to -

[FONT="]Defence barrister Sally Howes QC argued that Dr Cary’s evidence could not prove Trigg’s guilt and that Miss Devlin suffered from high blood pressure – a major cause of brain aneurysms.[/FONT][/I]

[FONT="]Read more at: http://www.littlehamptongazette.co....ies-similar-to-hillsborough-victims-1-8026836

I'm just noting that Caroline Devlin's death is alleged to be manslaughter. I'm not sure this evidence will cut it for the state. I don't think they've done enough to prove murder of Susan Nicholson either.

I'll be very surprised, even with his violent history. Sadly.[/FONT]

I agree.

I can see the Jury feeling that it has not been proven, beyond reasonable doubt.
Given Trigg's track record for violence, they may well feel he did commit murder/manslaughter - but the decisions reached by the original investigations - plus the high BP and the alcoholism factor - may weigh heavily with them.

Am thinking they may not be able to reach even a majority verdict.

 

[jessie]

What is the likelihood of Trigg giving evidence?

 

[Tortoise]

The one thing that might sway the jury is the evidence about the blood pooling in the face post-mortem (presumably livor mortis), and I'm also presuming the DM made a mistake and that Dr Cary was referring to Susan Nicholson who was found face up (and not Caroline Devlin who was found face down).

I think it shows that Susan Nicholson was originally lying face down when she died, and was left in that position for quite some while indicated by the blood pooling, before she was turned over. It doesn't fit with his story about waking up and discovering he was lying over her face, and turning her over would also seem to be an attempt to hide the fact that she had died in exactly the same position as Caroline Devlin had died - with her face pressed into the bed.

So I see a possible conviction for murder of Susan Nicholson, but not enough evidence for Caroline Devlin.

 

[Alyce]

What is the likelihood of Trigg giving evidence?

I'm thinking 50/50 at the moment.
Does he hope that the Pros have not provided enough compelling info to convince the Jury - and therefore he would be better to stay quiet. Or does he work on the basis that - as an innocent person - he is better to speak up and confirm his innocence.

I think Tortoise point re the blood pooling and not fitting with RTs story for Susan Nicholson, is compelling. It would seem likely that she was killed on her bed and then later moved to the sofa when RT realised that it would not look good, for him, to have her die in the same place as Caroline. I wonder is this why the Pros have gone for murder in her case, feeling more positive about getting the conviction.

 

[Alyce]

Today's Court info

Lewes Crown Court 1

T20177023

robert henry trigg

Details: - No Information To Display -
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 18 Sworn - 10:39
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:37
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 12:15 - 12:06
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 19 Sworn - 12:26
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 14:15 - 13:13
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 14:17
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 19 Continues - 14:18
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 14:35
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 20 Sworn - 14:44
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 15:35 - 15:25
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 15:38
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 15:41

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/Lewes-Crown-Court.php

 

[Squamous]

It's so hard with these snippet reports where we get the bits that someone else deems important. Like Shana Grice's case where the evidence seemed really bitty but from the sentencing remarks I think actually it was complete and compelling. We need better sleuthing journalists!!

 

[Tortoise]

Dr Ashley Fegan-Earl, a Home Office pathologist from the Royal College of Medicine, reviewed the evidence at the request of the defence.
He told jurors: 'The absence of an aneurysm doesn't rule out natural causes as a plausible explanation...


(More to read at link)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-mother-murder-trial-hears.html#ixzz4lFHvbZTA


It's not looking good for the state at all. I'm even wondering if it will get thrown out.

 

[Alyce]

This line, from the article above,posted by Tortoise


Dr Ashley Fegan-Earl,
'There was no history of assault, no disturbance at the scene to suggest anything untoward had gone on, no signs any injuries present. So natural causes is the most likely.'



I thought it was on record that Caroline had been assaulted by RT and that she had in fact said she did not believe she would live to see her 40th birthday, due to these attacks

 

[Alyce]

Again, from the same article, talking about the death of Susan Nicholson.


There's nothing to suggest a vigorous struggle or someone trying to get a weight off them. This lady had a degree of heart disease and emphysema in the lungs, possibly caused by smoking.

'If she was conscious and rendered unconscious by alcohol through drink an attempted reaction would be to fight back to relieve the obstruction to push somebody off.

'He finger nails were 3mm long, so if there was flailing out of hands had those nails come into contact with skin that individual might have sustained scratch marks.

'To my knowledge such scratch marks were not found on the defendant.


If Susan was heavily intoxicated, then wouldnt she be too far gone to have any fight back reaction ?
Plus, as the death was thought, at the time, to be accidental, then why would anyone be checking RT for signs of injury marks.

 

[Tortoise]

Jurors were told that both women had been subjected to violence during their relationships with Trigg.

Read more at: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/re...former-girlfriends-five-years-apart-1-8015865

(just a further extract from above linked article)

That's what it says here Alyce.

 

[Tortoise]

More information to confuse the jury IMO -

[FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]A[/FONT] row between police and the coroner over a £4,000 bill has emerged at the trial of a chef accused of killing his girlfriend.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Police investigating the death of the mother refused to pay for a Home Office pathologist because they only wanted a "routine" examination done, a murder and manslaughter trial heard.

more to read here .. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...merges-trial-chef-accused-killing-girlfriend/[/FONT]

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&amp]Simon Poole agreed with fellow pathologist Nathaniel Cary that there may have been evidence of “enforced airway obstruction”.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Dr Poole said the cause of Ms Nicholson’s death was “consistent with smothering or overlaying” and he agreed with Dr Cary in his assessment there may be evidence of “enforced airway obstruction”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Dr Poole said: “I agree that his assessment may be correct, however I don’t necessarily favour this over the accidental scenario.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“I don’t particularly prefer the word enforced but it may be considered as a possibility.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Jurors were told there were marks on Ms Nicholson’s mouth that “would support the idea that compression had caused this” as though the “upper lip had been trapped”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Dr Poole said: “The marks on her mouth could have been the result of a reflex to try and help herself breath. I found no evidence of any impact.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“There could have been a sustained pressure on the chest for around 15 to 20 seconds.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“A pathological answer is very difficult to reach.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“It doesn’t necessarily show that it was either accidental or intentional.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Both Dr Poole and Dr Cary suggested that despite Ms Nicholson being more than twice the drink-driving limit when she died, they didn’t believe she was rendered unconscious.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15376377.Woman___s_death_consistent_with_being_smothered__court_told/
[/FONT]

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]Jurors were sent home yesterday to return on Monday morning....

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...He weighed almost twice as much as her, Lewes Crown Court has heard.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The prosecution finished its evidence in court yesterday after hearing the accounts of pathologists tasked with reviewing the post mortems carried out on both women.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15378407.Defence_due_to_start_in_trial_over_deaths_of_two_women/
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Legally Bland]

He's not giving evidence.

Justice Ingrid Simler asked if the defendant had been made aware that if he chose not to do so “without good cause” or refused to answer the questions that the jury “may draw such conclusions”.

To which Sally Howes, defending, responded: “Yes, he has.”


Directing the jury on how they should approach their deliberations, the judge told them: “The facts are for you to decide and no-one can tell you what to accept.


“You are entitled to draw inferences based on the evidence but you may not speculate about what evidence there may have been.


“It is for the prosecution to prove the case that [the defendant] is guilty. The defendant does not have to prove he is innocent or guilty.


“The prosecution has to make you sure. If you are not sure, your verdict will be not guilty.”


Duncan Atkinson QC, prosecuting, is expected to sum up the case against Trigg shortly.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1538...girlfriends__refuses_to_take_stand__at_trial/

 

[Alyce]

Looks like he ( and/or his barrister ) thinks the Pros case is not strong enough to convict. Hope the Jury prove otherwise.

 

[Squamous]

Looks like he ( and/or his barrister ) thinks the Pros case is not strong enough to convict. Hope the Jury prove otherwise.

Me too. I don't envy them. I absolutely think he did it but what we've seen of the evidence doesn't seem very compelling.

 

[Tortoise]

Anyone else get no results in a google search? Yet the Argus has that report. Strange.

 

[Legally Bland]

Bit from yesterday.

A CHEF’S account of how his ex-girlfriend came to die is a series of “dramatic inconsistencies” because he was trying to remember the lies he told after murdering her, a court heard.

This was the accusation of prosecutor Duncan Atkinson QC as he summed up the case against Robert Trigg yesterday.


Trigg is standing trial accused of killing two of his former partners five years apart in Worthing. He is charged with the murder of Susan Nicholson and the manslaughter of Caroline Devlin.


Mr Atkinson said there was an “inherent unlikeliness” of Trigg’s account of Ms Nicholson’s death after the statements he made to witnesses at the time of the incident, during her inquest and later when questioned by police differed.


The court heard how expert opinions were “in dispute” over the causes of deaths and there were “significant similarities” between them. Both women were said to have died in their sleep with Trigg waking to the discovery. He did not call emergency services on both occasions – leading to a delay of “at least” 45 minutes after her body was found, jurors heard. The court was also told of a history of drink-fuelled violence against his partners.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15387719.___Man___s_lies_led_to_story_over_lover___s_death_change___/

Now on defence closing speech.

Court 1 T20177023ROBERT HENRY TRIGG
Trial (Part Heard) - ROBERT HENRY TRIGG; Defence Closing Speech - 10:03

http://xhibit.justice.gov.uk/lewes.htm