I honestly wonder if it was pre-med then. Refused visits, face paint, Ellie being glared at..
GUILTY UK - Ellie Butler, 6, brutally murdered, Sutton, 28 Oct 2013 #2
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
I honestly wonder if it was pre-med then. Refused visits, face paint, Ellie being glared at..
I think Judge Wilkie's sentencing of JG should/would have gone further, if Neal Gray's testimony had been considered. I don't think it was put to the jury. Face paint covering bruises? 23 denied visits/phone calls? That was JG's doing. She was far more complicit in this than being BB's victim, IMO.
Sorry if this has been covered already, trying to read news articles and posts on here amongst other things
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/21/ben-butler-violent-posed-doting-family-man
BBM. He saw he 5 times in 4 years. Why on why were they so desperate to get her back? They literally didn't give a flying F about the poor kids and tore them away from loving homes
BBM. Poor, sweet girl. I really hope that Services for Children are investigated after this.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/21/ben-butler-violent-posed-doting-family-man
BBM. He saw he 5 times in 4 years. Why on why were they so desperate to get her back? They literally didn't give a flying F about the poor kids and tore them away from loving homes
BBM. Poor, sweet girl. I really hope that Services for Children are investigated after this.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 886
I noticed that too. I put it down to inarticulacy due to Butler's spluttering incoherent rage, i.e lumping in the threat to seek out other relatives [whose addresses may not have been know to JG] with the grandparents, but other interpretations - such as the one you suggest - are possible.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2015
- Messages
- 8,843
- Reaction score
- 44,051
I haven't read the SCR, but they were talking about it on 5 Live.
Basically blaming family court (Hogg) for giving them a clean slate and free ride. The council was pretty much blameless.
Basically blaming family court (Hogg) for giving them a clean slate and free ride. The council was pretty much blameless.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Wow, missed that .
What about the total cancellations except the day before she died - don't you think that is suspicious T?
Anyway, on the other... strange, S waited patiently until a conviction and hasn't named another party. Don't get it.
S, if you're still here, I hope you do come back.
Always best to have a policy explanation IMO, otherwise how does anybody know, such as a newbie who joins now & wants to post. I always find clarity helpful
I looked at TOS, can't work it out.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2015
- Messages
- 8,843
- Reaction score
- 44,051
Press statement re. the Serious Case Review:
__________
Sutton Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB)
Issued on day of the verdict
SSCB publishes serious case review
report in relation to Ellie Butler
The Sutton Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB) has today published the serious
case review report relating to the tragic death of Ellie Butler.
The 58 page report was commissioned by the SSCB and was independently
authored by Marion Davis CBE, former President of the Association of Directors of
Children’s Services. The report covers the period between January 2000 and
October 2013.
Highlights of the report include the following timeline of events and key findings:
Timeline of Events
February 2007: Whilst in the sole care of her father, Ellie (aged 6 weeks old), was
found to be ‘suddenly soft and limp’ and scans found that she had suffered injuries
including subdural haematomas, retinal haemorrhages and seizures.
March 2007: Ellie became subject to an interim care order and was placed in foster
care. In June 2007, Ellie was placed in the care of her grandparents.
January 2008: The Family Court found that, on the balance of probability, Ben
Butler caused the February 2007 injury and Jennie Gray failed to protect Ellie.
March 2009: Ben Butler was convicted of grievous bodily harm on Ellie and was
sentenced to 18 months in prison. He had a history of offending and violence.
June 2010: Ben Butler’s criminal conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on
the basis of new medical evidence.
May 2012 to July 2012: The Family Court overturned the previous Finding of Fact
(when Sutton Council secured an interim care order to protect Ellie from her
parents). It decided that there was insufficient evidence, on the balance of
probability, that Ben Butler had injured Ellie in February 2007.
The Family Court also went much further than the Appeal Court ruling and stated
that ‘any injury caused was purely accidental’. It also found that Ben Butler should be
exonerated and that he had been a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Sutton Council strongly contested the Family Court’s subsequent decision to have
Ellie and her younger sibling placed in her parents’ care. The Judge appointed an
independent social work agency called Services for Children to assess and oversee
the children moving to their parents’ care. Services for Children were accountable to
the Family Court.
The children were not subject to any court orders. As a result, agencies were
effectively prevented by the Family Court from having any further involvement with
the placement of the children with Ben Butler and Jennie Gray.
The Family Court also directed Sutton Council to send a letter to all agencies to
inform them of Ben Butler’s exoneration. The Family Court directed that this letter
should be prominently referenced in each agency’s file. Agencies included were all
professional, educational, medical and social care bodies.
The Judge concluded that not only was she satisfied that Ben Butler had never
caused harm to his daughter, in fact there was an innocent explanation for his
daughter’s injuries. In reaching this conclusion, the Judge had Ben Butler’s previous
convictions before her.
October/November 2012​: Both children were placed in their parents’ care, with Ellie
placed with them one month after her younger sibling.
March 2013: Services for Children concluded their work with the family and filed
their final report to the court in April 2013.
October 2013: ​Ellie died and her younger sibling was placed in care.
Key Findings
This was an exceptionally unusual case because of factors which include the
following:
1. The extreme level of avoidance, deception and resistance from the parents,
who were often evasive, contradictory and aggressive and who regularly
resorted to complaints and threats.
2. The use of an independent social work agency in the assessment and the
management of the reunification of the children with their parents, and the
exclusion of the Local Authority (Sutton Council) from this role.
3. Despite a significant range of concerns and worrying incidents (albeit below
the threshold for statutory intervention) being documented by agencies before
and after Ellie went to live with her parents, the effect of the court judgement
and exoneration, combined with the parents’ refusal of any voluntary
engagement with support services, meant that no intervention that might have
made a difference was possible.
In line with statutory guidance, all agencies were asked to provide an independent
management review (IMR) of their involvement in this case. However, two IMRs
were not provided.
The Judiciary declined to provide an IMR and supplied the Family Court judgements.
Services for Children did not provide an IMR and instead supplied a management
review they carried out themselves.
Christine Davies CBE, Independent Chair of the Sutton Safeguarding Children
Board, said:
‘We are all deeply saddened by the death of Ellie Butler. The death of any child is
always tragic but more so in these circumstances. Ellie was harmed by her parents,
the very people who were supposed to protect her and keep her safe.
The serious case review concluded that the Family Court’s decision to exonerate
Ben Butler of harming Ellie in 2007, combined with its subsequent order for agencies
to be sent a letter to that effect, had a very significant impact on how agencies could
protect his children from that point in time onwards.
Ben Butler’s exoneration and the Judge’s statement about him being a victim of a
miscarriage of justice had the effect of handing all the power to the parents. This
coupled with the assessment made by Services for Children to support Ellie and her
sibling to be cared for by their parents were critical factors.
It was not possible for the serious case review to gain greater insight into the
decisions of the Family Court, as the Judiciary did not provide an independent
management review of its involvement. Similarly, although Services for Children
contributed to the serious case review, they were unable to produce an independent
management review in line with statutory guidance.’
Notes to Editors
Christine Davies CBE, Independent Chair of the Sutton Safeguarding Children
Board, and Marion Davis CBE, independent author of the serious case review, are
available for interview by appointment.
For more information, or to book an interview, contact Andreas Christophorou
on 07931464843 or email [email protected]
The serious case review report can be found at
http://www.suttonlscb.org.uk/seriouscasereviews.php
Definitions
1. LSCB: It stands for Local Safeguarding Children Board. It is a requirement of the
Children Act 2004 for each local authority to have a Children Safeguarding Board
in place to oversee the safeguarding arrangements in a local area across a range
of partner agencies.
2. SCR: It stands for Serious Case Review which is undertaken by Local
Safeguarding Children Boards in cases where abuse or neglect is known or
suspected and either a child dies or is seriously harmed.
3. Threshold: This term describes the level of risk a child is or likely to be exposed
to, on the balance of probability.
4. Finding of Fact: This describes a decision made in the Family Court setting and it
relates to whether an event has taken place on the balance of probability.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5ILmebheQx3UmgxdjRzbkxIM0U/view
__________
Sutton Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB)
Issued on day of the verdict
SSCB publishes serious case review
report in relation to Ellie Butler
The Sutton Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB) has today published the serious
case review report relating to the tragic death of Ellie Butler.
The 58 page report was commissioned by the SSCB and was independently
authored by Marion Davis CBE, former President of the Association of Directors of
Children’s Services. The report covers the period between January 2000 and
October 2013.
Highlights of the report include the following timeline of events and key findings:
Timeline of Events
February 2007: Whilst in the sole care of her father, Ellie (aged 6 weeks old), was
found to be ‘suddenly soft and limp’ and scans found that she had suffered injuries
including subdural haematomas, retinal haemorrhages and seizures.
March 2007: Ellie became subject to an interim care order and was placed in foster
care. In June 2007, Ellie was placed in the care of her grandparents.
January 2008: The Family Court found that, on the balance of probability, Ben
Butler caused the February 2007 injury and Jennie Gray failed to protect Ellie.
March 2009: Ben Butler was convicted of grievous bodily harm on Ellie and was
sentenced to 18 months in prison. He had a history of offending and violence.
June 2010: Ben Butler’s criminal conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on
the basis of new medical evidence.
May 2012 to July 2012: The Family Court overturned the previous Finding of Fact
(when Sutton Council secured an interim care order to protect Ellie from her
parents). It decided that there was insufficient evidence, on the balance of
probability, that Ben Butler had injured Ellie in February 2007.
The Family Court also went much further than the Appeal Court ruling and stated
that ‘any injury caused was purely accidental’. It also found that Ben Butler should be
exonerated and that he had been a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Sutton Council strongly contested the Family Court’s subsequent decision to have
Ellie and her younger sibling placed in her parents’ care. The Judge appointed an
independent social work agency called Services for Children to assess and oversee
the children moving to their parents’ care. Services for Children were accountable to
the Family Court.
The children were not subject to any court orders. As a result, agencies were
effectively prevented by the Family Court from having any further involvement with
the placement of the children with Ben Butler and Jennie Gray.
The Family Court also directed Sutton Council to send a letter to all agencies to
inform them of Ben Butler’s exoneration. The Family Court directed that this letter
should be prominently referenced in each agency’s file. Agencies included were all
professional, educational, medical and social care bodies.
The Judge concluded that not only was she satisfied that Ben Butler had never
caused harm to his daughter, in fact there was an innocent explanation for his
daughter’s injuries. In reaching this conclusion, the Judge had Ben Butler’s previous
convictions before her.
October/November 2012​: Both children were placed in their parents’ care, with Ellie
placed with them one month after her younger sibling.
March 2013: Services for Children concluded their work with the family and filed
their final report to the court in April 2013.
October 2013: ​Ellie died and her younger sibling was placed in care.
Key Findings
This was an exceptionally unusual case because of factors which include the
following:
1. The extreme level of avoidance, deception and resistance from the parents,
who were often evasive, contradictory and aggressive and who regularly
resorted to complaints and threats.
2. The use of an independent social work agency in the assessment and the
management of the reunification of the children with their parents, and the
exclusion of the Local Authority (Sutton Council) from this role.
3. Despite a significant range of concerns and worrying incidents (albeit below
the threshold for statutory intervention) being documented by agencies before
and after Ellie went to live with her parents, the effect of the court judgement
and exoneration, combined with the parents’ refusal of any voluntary
engagement with support services, meant that no intervention that might have
made a difference was possible.
In line with statutory guidance, all agencies were asked to provide an independent
management review (IMR) of their involvement in this case. However, two IMRs
were not provided.
The Judiciary declined to provide an IMR and supplied the Family Court judgements.
Services for Children did not provide an IMR and instead supplied a management
review they carried out themselves.
Christine Davies CBE, Independent Chair of the Sutton Safeguarding Children
Board, said:
‘We are all deeply saddened by the death of Ellie Butler. The death of any child is
always tragic but more so in these circumstances. Ellie was harmed by her parents,
the very people who were supposed to protect her and keep her safe.
The serious case review concluded that the Family Court’s decision to exonerate
Ben Butler of harming Ellie in 2007, combined with its subsequent order for agencies
to be sent a letter to that effect, had a very significant impact on how agencies could
protect his children from that point in time onwards.
Ben Butler’s exoneration and the Judge’s statement about him being a victim of a
miscarriage of justice had the effect of handing all the power to the parents. This
coupled with the assessment made by Services for Children to support Ellie and her
sibling to be cared for by their parents were critical factors.
It was not possible for the serious case review to gain greater insight into the
decisions of the Family Court, as the Judiciary did not provide an independent
management review of its involvement. Similarly, although Services for Children
contributed to the serious case review, they were unable to produce an independent
management review in line with statutory guidance.’
Notes to Editors
Christine Davies CBE, Independent Chair of the Sutton Safeguarding Children
Board, and Marion Davis CBE, independent author of the serious case review, are
available for interview by appointment.
For more information, or to book an interview, contact Andreas Christophorou
on 07931464843 or email [email protected]
The serious case review report can be found at
http://www.suttonlscb.org.uk/seriouscasereviews.php
Definitions
1. LSCB: It stands for Local Safeguarding Children Board. It is a requirement of the
Children Act 2004 for each local authority to have a Children Safeguarding Board
in place to oversee the safeguarding arrangements in a local area across a range
of partner agencies.
2. SCR: It stands for Serious Case Review which is undertaken by Local
Safeguarding Children Boards in cases where abuse or neglect is known or
suspected and either a child dies or is seriously harmed.
3. Threshold: This term describes the level of risk a child is or likely to be exposed
to, on the balance of probability.
4. Finding of Fact: This describes a decision made in the Family Court setting and it
relates to whether an event has taken place on the balance of probability.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5ILmebheQx3UmgxdjRzbkxIM0U/view
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
shocked at that LB too. Hogg ordered that clean slate - to schools, docs, everyone.
I am waiting to hear the issues with indep social workers S4Children- isn't it time for a public enquiry of some sort.
From sadness.........to satisfied with justice today for BB alone .............. to angry at how this all happened and how no-one is accountable all over again.
I'd like to think that a certain someone has written Mr Neal a cheque for the £70k from her handsome pension!. My only comfort is that he has got two other kids who will be helping & comforting him.
Must get on with some other stuff before the day goes totally. Will check back later and read that long post LegallyB. Just wanted to say, who was looking after/babysitting the girls when they went out drinking and got back in the early hours? According to neighbour. Jeez.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
I suppose it's easier for SServices to release this - cause this time SS is not at fault .
Instead this is waht needs to happen, according to LB's post
"judiciary did not provide an independent management review of its involvement. Similarly, although Services for Children contributed to the serious case review, they were unable to produce an independent management review in line with statutory guidance.’
So how will this be redressed - oh hold on - "lessons will be learned"
Instead this is waht needs to happen, according to LB's post
"judiciary did not provide an independent management review of its involvement. Similarly, although Services for Children contributed to the serious case review, they were unable to produce an independent management review in line with statutory guidance.’
So how will this be redressed - oh hold on - "lessons will be learned"
I'm hoping that she and he gets some proper mental health treatment. As it was recorded. What they did was not 'normal' it reminds me somewhat of Norman Bates 'Psycho' albeit that's a fictional character. But it's set in similar mind set....
I don't know about cong visits. I'm not sure if yr supposed to be married for those. Have to check up on the legalities.
And yes she will get pregnant again. Becuz that's her 'mindset' her rose tinted view of a 'picture perfect life'
Never letting anything to cloud that view. It's an image deep set from home life maybe. And as she's not getting any younger and her friends are wed and bringing up baby going on holidays with mommy daddy.
She NEEDS that. So bad she allowed her bully bf push her to abort a baby she dearly wanted to have. Put up with his tyrannical torments of abusive behaviour over everything.
Shockingly. She could of died too.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...vastation-complete-neal-gray?CMP=share_btn_tw
Maybe this is a generation thing but I find this really selfish. Why should her parents have to take night jobs to pay for her wedding?
Maybe this is a generation thing but I find this really selfish. Why should her parents have to take night jobs to pay for her wedding?
No Sally post on my feed ... I've just flipped thru :dizzy:
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2015
- Messages
- 8,843
- Reaction score
- 44,051
Imagine your parents not wanting to let you know that they've died. You've got to ask some serious questions of yourself, surely?
I really hope Neal manages to cope, I feel for him. As others have posted, hopefully his other children (and dog) will be there for him.
I really hope Neal manages to cope, I feel for him. As others have posted, hopefully his other children (and dog) will be there for him.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...cence-8244535#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare
Tiny bit of the This Morning interview here. How many times can you say "you know" in one sentence? Gigi- I believe this is usually used when the speaker is lying. Have you come across this in your profiling before?
ETA: Did anybody watch This Morning today? Apparently the case was discussed on there
Tiny bit of the This Morning interview here. How many times can you say "you know" in one sentence? Gigi- I believe this is usually used when the speaker is lying. Have you come across this in your profiling before?
ETA: Did anybody watch This Morning today? Apparently the case was discussed on there
Sally write a long and very interesting post about her experiences of JG when they were friends in their late teens. The post was deleted (as was my reply quoting it) even though it wasn't against the rules.
Supernovae
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
- Messages
- 881
- Reaction score
- 1,204
Not a generational thing, JG has very clear narcissistic tendencies. Did you see SallyLa's post? Also the SCR.
Online statistics
- Members online
- 84
- Guests online
- 1,063
- Total visitors
- 1,147