Carroll520
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 335
- Reaction score
- 1,915
I think she knew full well she was slowly killing him with the salt
I wondered if it would come out after the trial? Along with any other shocking facts the jury haven't been told so as not to prejudice the case?What are the chances the Judge will give the reason for the last few days ?
I wondered if it would come out after the trial? Along with any other shocking facts the jury haven't been told so as not to prejudice the case?
Yes.I think the judge should get this show on the road. He has the authority to continue the trial in her absence. She was present when her counsel closed cross-examination of TH.
I agree, if she's not woman enough to attend they can't delay forever. Her manipulation of the court process should be put to a stop. With or without her.I think the judge should get this show on the road. He has the authority to continue the trial in her absence. She was present when her counsel closed cross-examination of TH.
House of Lords - Regina v Jones (On Appeal From The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))
Exactly! I got the impression the QCs weren't far off from their closing statements. She can go and f*** off!I don’t understand why she even needs to be present? She’s been released from the stand, her participation is over in a sense. It’s not like she hasn’t been able to give her defence and answer the cross examination. Frustrating beyond belief!!
I’m expecting a lot to come out after the trial is concluded.
If only this much consideration was given by the system to this suffering boy!She’s gone from abusing Arthur to abusing the system…
Although social services and the police have questions to answer over how they dealt with this. The system didn't kill him.If only this much consideration was given by the system to this suffering boy!
I'm so desperately sorry for Arthur’s family. I hope they're not having to hear all this harrowing evidence for the first time in court - would they have been warned in advance do you think, or would that be deemed to prejudice the trial?
Thanks
And yet the child is dead although there is a system to prevent such cases.Although social services and the police have questions to answer over how they dealt with this. The system didn't kill him.
I understand what you're saying. But, ET coached the children what to say. And TH wasn't man enough to put that right. The system is flawed, and SWs are trained that coercion can occur. They didn't follow the correct process. But they didn't salt poison Arthur, and they didn't smash and shake his head against a hard surface.And yet the child is dead although there is a system to prevent such cases.
I am writing about systems generally, you know![]()
They would be warned to a certain extent that it would be horrific and they would have dedicated family liaison officers to help guide them through and support them. But the wouldn’t be made aware of the evidence, nor the ins and outs and the details, they were prosecution witnesses, therefore they wouldn’t be allowed to know everything because of subjudice.