GUILTY UK - Ellie Butler, 6, brutally murdered, Sutton, 28 Oct 2013 #2

[Gigi-G]

What was the issue then with her father. ?From what I have heard when she got pregnant with Ellie she livedwith them and then. Moved out. The grandparents however took Ellie on. They couldn't have done this without JG putting them forward and they would have been checked out thoroughly by social services the implication being they had no history that would cause an issue ie convictions etc I would have thought that any issues with bringing up their children would have also been explored. But JG seems to say her and her father did t get along at all. Is this another lie or did she lie to social services about her relationship with her dad to ensure that Ellie went to them Rather than be adopted? Maybe for her it was the lesser of 2 evils ? I don't know. I wonder if her parents are quite old fashioned as BB made a comment that Ellie hadn't even bee. To McDonald's or the cinema like it was a criticism. I just wonder if the whole issue with her and her dad has been Exaggerated by her and him because the grandparents would nt give Ellie back easily in 2012 and also didn't like BB or trust his supposed innocence. I would imagine this has got worse since 2013 therefore JG as she does has fixated on them Hating them for not supporting and believing BB.

Just glossing over some excellent posts.
I'm not holding it here too long. I'm in a Morphine stupor. Body's awake but the mind isn't.
Just to let you know JG'S father is Neal Gray. He's 67.

If they've mentioned the date of this text I have forgotten, because I haven't been writing anything down in court.

What prosecution did, when they selected texts to ask JG about, it seems to me, is ask her about different texts to the ones they asked BB about. I think the prosecutors (Brown and FitzGerald) had a plan to not ask questions where the other defendant had already given an answer, because they had both been in court to hear each other's evidence and they were aligning their answers in court. That became very obvious.

But what JG did was deflect from the questions. BB did it too. Went off on a tangent and not answer the question. So many times, virtually all the way through those days of evidence, and pros. would wait until they had finished their speeches and then point out that they had not answered and repeat the question. If they tried to stop them from straying off topic midway they would both say 'I haven't finished yet'. So arrogant. So in relation to this text JG addressed the jury and said 'look at my face, do I look like I've been maimed?' She wouldn't answer things like what was happening at the time the text was sent, and why he included Ellie.

Trying to build up a picture of what was going down in the two weeks leading up to Ellie's death, when parents seem to be alert to possibility school is getting concerned.

Mon 14th Oct - Ellie returns to school having been absent since 1st Oct, with injuries. No sick note.
Thurs 17th Oct - JG's birthday. BB discovers her diary. She gets a lump on her head.
Fri 18th Oct - tells work she fell down some steps after having wine night before. Tells court she threw away the diary on way to bus stop.
School week of 21st - 25th Oct - BB's argument in corridor with headmaster about sick note, BB confrontational aggressive, is asked to leave. JG's urgent email to school about their victimisation.
Thurs 24th Oct, a school day - BB takes Ellie to the GP about ear-pinning. Is this just so GP can say he saw Ellie with no noted concerns about her appearance?
Fri 25th Oct, a school day - JG stays at home, Ellie is at school. Tells work that BB is away visiting his sick father. Tells court that she was sick, hence still slightly sick on Monday, when she texted her boss, saying she left work due to sickness. Why does she need to stay at home? I think he has walked out and left JG to do the school run.
Sun 27th Oct - meet grandparents in McDonalds. Probably means Ellie has no signs of injuries.
Mon 28th Oct - half-term. tells work BB still away and Ellie is being looked after by godfather.

I think BB, after his outburst at school, is going into melt down. Maybe he's walked out and said I'm not sticking around for this - we're going to be investigated again. To JG you can look after the children. He knows that if Ellie is given a proper health check, x-rays whatever, her broken shoulder will be discovered. Perhaps he goes to stay at Ian's, in a bid to distance himself. But it's not going to work retrospectively, the broken shoulder has already happened. But along come the grandparents, perhaps insisting on a visit. JG has mentioned their access in her email to the school - were they getting suspicious and poking around. Perhaps they would phone the school and ask if they had any concerns to add to their own - maybe JG's told them you cannot divulge information to my parents.

After the McD's visit, BB is anxious to know how it went. With his anxiety, violence is just under the surface.

I cannot think how he can not be aware that he won't get away with another assault on Ellie. They've used up all the tripping over excuses. If he is that worried about what is going to happen, why doesn't he just stay away? There is loss of control but he knew that was signing his own conviction if he did it one more time, Ellie survived it and was medically examined and questioned by trained Social Workers.

I'm coming back again to this being a deliberate murder. I just think he would know these injuries would be fatal. It's hard to comprehend, but maybe the first knock happened and if she was lying on the floor unconscious, maybe he shook her head violently against the floor, to smash it at the back, causing the two spinal injuries. He's picked her head up leaving the grip marks under the jawline, and hit her head forcefully back down again. Sorry for the gruesomeness.

Just remembering JG's text to BB - "you nutted me like a bloke."

BBM

Was the trip to McDonalds/meeting the grandparents there something that was brought up in Court?

I can't find any mention of it in on line reporting.

That does not surprise me in itself but I am wondering where it came from and whether it has been corroborated by anyone else? Given Gray and Butler both being consummate liars I am reluctant to take their word/s for anything re Ellie's last days.

His account lacks verisimilitude.

There is no real right or wrong way to recount witnessing even an expected death let alone the discovery that someone is suddenly and shockingly dead or seriously injured, but somehow we normals know a truthful account when we hear it, and can recognise an untruthful account equally well.

Like you I was prepared to consider that somehow this child had had an improbable accident, but none of the evidence supports that and his account - or rather, story - just doesn't hang together.

Chances are neither of them will ever admit what they know to be the truth. He can't admit it because he is the great Ben Butler who just made a small error in thinking he could beat the **** out of his own kid and get away with it. She won't admit it because she is in his thrall and nothing else matters to her. Hopefully the Jury will see through them and they'll both go to prison, regardless.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[theirmommy]

This has been lingering on my mind and I am hoping someone can help. In this article I am quoting below, the judge speaks to BB. Is that normal in the UK for the judge to speak directly to the defendant and ask questions, outside of state your name and how do you plead, etc? Wouldn't this mainly be the prosocuters job? This is a trial by jury, correct? I'm just confussed. Don't get me wrong, I am happy he did. Just curious...

from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36334937
He told the court he then went out to walk the dog. Neighbours have confirmed they spoke to him.
"That means, doesn't it, that Jennie was the sole adult in the house for quite a period of time leading up to the period before you rang the ambulance?" asked Mr Justice Wilkie.
Mr Butler agreed but said he was unsure how long Ms Gray was there.
Shortly after getting back, he rang for an ambulance. A transcript of his conversation with the 999 operator showed Mr Butler was heard to say "What happened, what happened, baby?" to Ms Gray.
He subsequently tells the operator he does not know what happened and had gone upstairs to find Ellie had "fallen down".
Mr Justice Wilkie asked Mr Butler how he would respond to the suggestion there was a "cover up" and he had sought to "transfer suspicion" from himself.
Mr Butler replied: "Absolutely not. I would not blame [Ms Gray] for anything."

 

[ColourPurple]

If they've mentioned the date of this text I have forgotten, because I haven't been writing anything down in court.

What prosecution did, when they selected texts to ask JG about, it seems to me, is ask her about different texts to the ones they asked BB about. I think the prosecutors (Brown and FitzGerald) had a plan to not ask questions where the other defendant had already given an answer, because they had both been in court to hear each other's evidence and they were aligning their answers in court. That became very obvious.

But what JG did was deflect from the questions. BB did it too. Went off on a tangent and not answer the question. So many times, virtually all the way through those days of evidence, and pros. would wait until they had finished their speeches and then point out that they had not answered and repeat the question. If they tried to stop them from straying off topic midway they would both say 'I haven't finished yet'. So arrogant. So in relation to this text JG addressed the jury and said 'look at my face, do I look like I've been maimed?' She wouldn't answer things like what was happening at the time the text was sent, and why he included Ellie.

Well looking at her face she definitely looks like she's had her nose broken. Doesn't she realise that her arrogance and general "arsiness" will not endear her to the jury? And her fate lies in their hands.

 

[ColourPurple]

I'm very interested in the time they went to trial last year.

He sacked his legal team, and changed his defence to admit the 999 call was a charade. Causing JG to change her defence and admit to perverting the course of justice, the next day.

He has said a couple of times in court, I could have hidden behind the 999 call. I didn't have to admit it, I decided to hold my hands up. He's also said a few times, the prosecution have got the charges wrong. He wasn't aware of Ellie's broken scapula but if they had charged him with the same offence, and causing Ellie's death, by being negligent and not getting medical treatment for the concussion, he would have pleaded guilty. This is all part of his strategy, to get the jury on his side.

I think he realised when he went to trial in 2015, that there was too much evidence that the 999 call was a hoax. Even though JG was backing him and saying Ellie fell after she got home. I've read on my travels around the web that the ambulance crew found Ellie cold and blue, with no heart beat. So I think he thought, if the jury disbelieved the 999 story, they would find him untruthful and more likely to be guilty of murder. So this is his trick, to admit failings, in the hope they will think he is now being honest.

When FitzGerald put it to JG that they had conspired to match their false versions, and she had changed her defence the day after he did, in 2015, she said "you mean when he had his breakdown".

IMO that was another deflection. She has to throw in another medical reason for them acting that way, having to lie, because of stress, because of their wrongful conviction. They were forced to cover up their cover up, because they were being victimised by police. Nothing to do with the evidence being strong and their chances in front of a jury.

"I didn't have to admit it" ????? How about you didn't have to lie about it in the first place?? He honestly wants a pat on the back for admitting that he lied? Would be interesting to know what caused him to admit it at that point though. I wonder did his lawyers at the time tell him that his version wouldn't be believed so he sacked them in a temper then thought "Actually they're probably right"

 

[ColourPurple]

Just remembering JG's text to BB - "you nutted me like a bloke."

That's a brilliant piece of evidence. With that one text she completely contradicts two of her claims about BB.

1. That he's never been violent to her.
2. That he's only violent to other men not women.

Him headbutting her like she was a bloke clearly shows that he doesn't differentiate between men and women when it comes to violence. And it's specific enough that she can't seriously claim that it's describing anything other than him headbutting her. That one text shows her to be the liar she is and IMO that is the text that will send her down

I cannot think how he can not be aware that he won't get away with another assault on Ellie. They've used up all the tripping over excuses. If he is that worried about what is going to happen, why doesn't he just stay away? There is loss of control but he knew that was signing his own conviction if he did it one more time, Ellie survived it and was medically examined and questioned by trained Social Workers.


I'm coming back again to this being a deliberate murder. I just think he would know these injuries would be fatal. It's hard to comprehend, but maybe the first knock happened and if she was lying on the floor unconscious, maybe he shook her head violently against the floor, to smash it at the back, causing the two spinal injuries. He's picked her head up leaving the grip marks under the jawline, and hit her head forcefully back down again. Sorry for the gruesomeness.

I agree, it may not have been premeditated beyond a few seconds or minutes but he must have known that grabbing her by her head and jaw and either throwing or hitting her with something would cause serious harm or death. The only thing that makes me think it probably wasn't premeditated a long time before it happened was that the cover up was so weak. I think if he'd have had more time to plan it he would have pulled off a better cover up and timed it so that she had been in somebody else's care just before it happened (unless his friend was going to be the person he set up but refused to come round and ruined that plan). I don't think he ever wanted Ellie and their whole campaign/appeal was to keep him out of prison rather than to get Ellie back.

 

[ColourPurple]

What was the issue then with her father. ?From what I have heard when she got pregnant with Ellie she livedwith them and then. Moved out. The grandparents however took Ellie on. They couldn't have done this without JG putting them forward and they would have been checked out thoroughly by social services the implication being they had no history that would cause an issue ie convictions etc I would have thought that any issues with bringing up their children would have also been explored. But JG seems to say her and her father did t get along at all. Is this another lie or did she lie to social services about her relationship with her dad to ensure that Ellie went to them Rather than be adopted? Maybe for her it was the lesser of 2 evils ? I don't know. I wonder if her parents are quite old fashioned as BB made a comment that Ellie hadn't even bee. To McDonald's or the cinema like it was a criticism. I just wonder if the whole issue with her and her dad has been Exaggerated by her and him because the grandparents would nt give Ellie back easily in 2012 and also didn't like BB or trust his supposed innocence. I would imagine this has got worse since 2013 therefore JG as she does has fixated on them Hating them for not supporting and believing BB.

Yup I reckon he probably didn't believe BB the first time round. Ellie was only 7 weeks old and had already been burnt, had a fractured skull and nearly died and these incidents had only happened when she was in the sole care of her father, who also happened to be a man with a history of violence.

 

[theirmommy]

Just remembering JG's text to BB - "you nutted me like a bloke."That's a brilliant piece of evidence. With that one text she completely contradicts two of her claims about BB.

1. That he's never been violent to her.
2. That he's only violent to other men not women.

Him headbutting her like she was a bloke clearly shows that he doesn't differentiate between men and women when it comes to violence.....snipped by me

BIB: Ahhh thats what nutting me like a bloke means

 

[ColourPurple]

Just remembering JG's text to BB - "you nutted me like a bloke."That's a brilliant piece of evidence. With that one text she completely contradicts two of her claims about BB.

1. That he's never been violent to her.
2. That he's only violent to other men not women.

Him headbutting her like she was a bloke clearly shows that he doesn't differentiate between men and women when it comes to violence.....snipped by me

BIB: Ahhh thats what nutting me like a bloke means

Yup "nutting" or "dropping the nut" on somebody is headbutting them , though I'm sure JG will come up with some daft explanation like "oh no I meant he threw a peanut at me!"

 

[theirmommy]

It's pretty amazing that she thinks everyone else is just stupid and will believe her. All of her texts are evidence and paint a clear picture of abuse. She just has an excuse for everything. ughhhh

 

[Renee110]

If they've mentioned the date of this text I have forgotten, because I haven't been writing anything down in court.

What prosecution did, when they selected texts to ask JG about, it seems to me, is ask her about different texts to the ones they asked BB about. I think the prosecutors (Brown and FitzGerald) had a plan to not ask questions where the other defendant had already given an answer, because they had both been in court to hear each other's evidence and they were aligning their answers in court. That became very obvious.

But what JG did was deflect from the questions. BB did it too. Went off on a tangent and not answer the question. So many times, virtually all the way through those days of evidence, and pros. would wait until they had finished their speeches and then point out that they had not answered and repeat the question. If they tried to stop them from straying off topic midway they would both say 'I haven't finished yet'. So arrogant. So in relation to this text JG addressed the jury and said 'look at my face, do I look like I've been maimed?' She wouldn't answer things like what was happening at the time the text was sent, and why he included Ellie.

That just about answers all of my questions. I can't imagine losing my child and being able to keep my mind and being cunning enough to evade and plan etc... just unimaginable.

Monsters walk among us.

 

[Sallyla]

Was BB in fact trying to create a situation where there were two people who could have killed Ellie and police would be unable to prove which one it was so neither could be prosecuted.

That's really interesting. It does seem like they certainly sat down and tried to think of their best chance of getting away with it and planned very carefully to try and do so.

I've also wondered if similar is true of the clothes soaked in BBs blood and JGs blood being around the house and possibly on her washed clothes too.

I suspect that they may initially have tried to create another scenario absolving themselves from blame - one where a third party attacker was involved and came into the house and attacked BB and JG alongside E. And I think that they might have harmed themselves to make it look like they too had been attacked alongside E and were victims rather than perpetrators. But for some reason abandoned this plan? Perhaps they intended to fit up Ian as an attacker but when he refused to come to the house had to abandon that plan and go with plan B confusion over who killed E out of the two of them.

It would certainly explain why the blood of both of them was so plentiful in the house.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm liking this analysis of his account of the discovery of E's body. I know you have said this before, as soon as you heard it Tortoise. I think your "camera panning around the scene" is very appropriate for his scene setting.

We know he's very canny yet as you & Nellie just said, it just doesn't have any "ring of truth" to it.
So it's ironic that cunning BB he got this part very wrong......
but that's what happens when you believe your own hype , or you indeed you have someone like JG saying "Yes that sounds great Ben." wtte!
( It's rather like his weak jokes - he can't hit the right note but I 'm sure she tells him he is hilarious!)

PS Re-reading your account of his discovery story again it's striking that despite his shock/irrational frozen moment before closing the door on E, in this fake script he has to fit in getting YD out as he had inserted her into the script .
They really wanted YD in their stories, their new and old versions, I can just imagine him thinking , "oh dear, I need to get YD back out of the room , where in the sequence will it be best to do it?" or wtte.
If YD had been older than 3 yrs old and her testimony was useable, she would have been nowhere in this story. ( Back in the very early stages of trial I mistakenly thought she was older than 3 and thought she could be a witness of some type, clearly not at such a tender age.)

YD's 4th birthday was on 7th September.

I think I've confused you because I said she was 3 when JG went to hospital (at the beginning of the year) and left her and Ellie at home alone.

We heard her speaking on the 999 recording "I tried to wake her up but she did not wake up". I think she could have been asked questions but not necessarily been brought as a witness.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes, I agree I think this issue of a conflict between Grandpa & JG has been over emphasised for effect. Claiming this helped JG & BB in many ways and cover up the real reasons for the friction between the four individuals since 2007.

If JG & BB are liars, deflectors and blame - merchants, and we know they are, grandpa is the perfect target but the true sources of the conflict & resentment are conveniently obscured.

From what I have learnt over the years, personality disorders tend to manifest or become apparent in late teenage. I have a niece of 25 with a suspected PD, she has been a nightmare for my sister, at one stage we thought she would never be able to live independently, she has self-harmed regularly, attempted suicide, had a baby and couldn't look after him so my sister is like his surrogate mum, she can't stick at anything - dropped out of her nursing degree after school because she was apparently bullied by flat mates, can't hold down any jobs for long because of 'illnesses', manifests illnesses that appear to be imaginary, like laying on the floor shaking and the doctors have no explanation for what is wrong, in and out of hospital, not completing therapy, she is just unstable. I don't think there are many families who are equipped or would have the patience to live with this continual disruption in their lives. My sister has a brilliant husband (not my neice's father) but several times we as a family wondered if he would walk out because it was so awful and it drained my sister who was also working and having to look after my niece and her baby grandson. The doctor and hospital visits were almost every day. The only difference between my niece and JG seems to be she doesn't get into abusive relationships.

So if JG was having teenage problems beyond the normal, I can imagine a lot of family strife. She was living at home with her parents at age 26, her first marriage having broken down, when she fell pregnant. That is quite old to be living at home still, but perhaps she was just finding her feet after leaving marital home. She lived with her husband in Brighton btw, which is where she tried to escape to when the authorities found out about YD and took her away. I imagine she has a psychiatric history. There was that point made that SS would not allow her to have a third baby and keep the two girls. That is not insignificant, I think there is more we don't know about her, mental health assessments etc.

When she was 26 and pregnant she said her family were not supportive of her having the baby, so she moved out into a 1 bed flat. Who can blame them, having unstable mental health (presumably it hasn't just manifested since meeting BB), being pregnant having just met the bloke a few weeks earlier and no stable relationship. I imagine they thought they would end up parenting this baby. Now it could be that she has strong beliefs about terminations. But she had two terminations after Ellie and YD. I can understand that these may have been under extreme pressure to avoid having them taken into care, but when she talks about the rift with her family when she was pregnant with Ellie she doesn't say she kept her because abortion was against her beliefs. I rather tend to prefer the explanation that she wanted a baby, because it was a new childlike drama in her life, and something that she could use to get love for herself. Either love from the baby or from BB.

Her mum stayed with her for the first few weeks, to help, after she had Ellie.

I think they knew BB was trouble, and that JG would end up having this baby on her own, and that she would have problems coping. His picture was probably in the papers already from his previous convictions and assaulting his ex. twice the year before. JG can't accept reality, she rebels against reason, she allows herself to be beaten up, and her daughter, and not only lies about it but can't rationalise her decisions to put up with it. Her only goal is to rebel and deny the reality. I know that if (when) he is convicted she will move on and repeat with another loser. She is not sane, in the sense that she can't do anything to help herself, she is mentally unsound. Now, at the age of 36, she is not receiving treatment. Her post natal depression was never diagnosed. She eludes the authorities, won't acknowledge she needs treatment.

BB said that it was only after Ellie was fostered by her grandparents that JG mentioned she had a terrible relationship with her father. Ellie was 6 or 7 months old. BB and JG didn't have a normal relationship, weren't living together and he had no interest in her or in changing that. I think his life was about booze and sex and computer gaming. They probably wouldn't have normal conversations about family and interest in each other as people. As he said, they were forced together by their fight to clear their names, it was a disaster in the making, in terms of these imbeciles being parents.

In my personal opinion, with no other information to go on, I think JG's problems with her father were nothing to do with him as a person, but to do with one drama unfolding into the next in JG's life from adolescence. He has set boundaries and she has rebelled. She has serious problems, it's like a child that never grows up. SS would have very carefully checked out the grandparents, even more so because it was a set up that would allow JG to continue perhaps surreptitiously having access to her child, when they had identified her as being a dangerous risk to her child.

 

[cottonweaver]

No probs Tortoise - it's not you

( I linked in thread 1 to an article saying that in the UK, increasingly , infants were being used to give testimony ( not on the stand of course) but IIRC the minimum was something like 5yrs old.
So YD was never going to be old enough at age 3 or 4. ( I confused myself with the ages, back at the beginning when we knew little about YD)

 

[cottonweaver]

It must be awful having a niece with those kind of mental health issues, so I empathise.

Yes in my post I put - anticipated teen turmoil or wtte . However I expected a stable childhood.
I can't rem the rules on character evidence - if Def don't use it, Pros can't bring it up in cross? Is that right ? Could that be the reason Def has not led with her good family background , for fear Pros then can open the door on a troubled teenhood?

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes the interlude back home with mum & Dad after her marriage broke up.

This is also why I don't believe the extent of her personal conflict with her Dad. She was happy to go back home there to get back on her feet, this was pre-BB and pre-children. A sign that they were supportive of her and she felt able to rely on them when she was vulnerable etc.

Any serious concerns over a poor dau-father relationship and SocServ would never have let E go into their care for 5 years. JG is exaggerating the issues as it suits them both.

PS JG moving into 1 bed flat as parents don't agree with her getting pregnant. Also this could be that they simply don't agree with her getting stuck in a reln with BB as they had now met him, maybe they got wind of his crim convictions even. Being independent in this flat allows her to see him - I don't think she did that just so she could bring up baby without parental disapproval. Sorry , IDBelieve JG is some valiant single mum - this is not JKRowling ! LOL. ( Also JG wants to work, thus needs child care etc etc, staying with parents would have been great for her & JG. It's BB she wanted.)

I have never believed that in 2007, ( when he first was charged with SBS on E at 6 wks) that they were NOT in a reln. Certainly he would not commit to her but that reln was ongoing and regular even then. He/they said that they were broken -up - IMO it was an easy cover story- as they bust up every week anyway, fights never stopped them continuing the liasion for all those years.

Cover for SServices and the 2007 trouble. "Distancing" allows her to credibly support his innocence etc. Claiming a break-up helps get SS ogg their backs. We know SS have a policy of child removal in cases where someone is in a relationship with a DV partner - so easier to say they are friends.

ETA Apols T , I realise u uhave now said virtually same thing. I was reading part of ur posts and replying before finishing them.

 

[Tortoise]

It must be awful having a niece with those kind of mental health issues, so I empathise.

Yes in my post I put - anticipated teen turmoil or wtte . However I expected a stable childhood.
I can't rem the rules on character evidence - if Def don't use it, Pros can't bring it up in cross? Is that right ? Could that be the reason Def has not led with her good family background , for fear Pros then can open the door on a troubled teenhood?

I think that is right cotton, perhaps jog can clarify for us.

Maybe that's the reason grandparents haven't been used to testify about JG (not about Ellie, because I'm hoping they were unaware and being kept away from children for false reasons such as settling in issues). If grandparents wanted to say anything about her mental instability it would have had to have been in rebuttal to an ordinary history put forward by defence.

 

[cottonweaver]

Right finished your post

Yes, crossed my mind too that they could even have read about his previous from the Sutton Guardian - his past crimes would have made the local news- Can't imagine the parents googling BB etc..
Or JG's brother /sis also didn't approve, got his measure. (She said she met BB when out at her brother's b'day celeb. not that I believe anything she says.)
After an unwise/hasty marriage No. 1, MH issues ( possible MHealth hosp/record as you said) of course any parent would be very concerned about a sudden pregnancy with Mr. Unsuitable No. 2.
Easy way - she moves out.
Anyone who doesn't approve of BB is demonised.

 

[Tortoise]

Something else I've just remembered about JG and her father.

She was explaining that she had to give a false name when she checked into hospitals because her father had contacted the authorities and asked them to divulge information about her medical treatment. She says they had told her father about her 2011 abortion. She said he had no right to her personal information and that's why she used false names. It is BS btw (not the bit about her father getting her records but her reason - she was covering up the pregnancy from SS, then later she was covering up DV)

She said when her father found out about her abortion in 2011 he said (she uses a very la-di-da accent) wtte 'Oh, so that's another grandchild we've lost then'.

I'm sure he didn't say that, she's invented this. He would probably have been pleased she had done the best thing, and I don't think he would feel an aborted fetus was a grandchild. It doesn't ring true.

 

[cottonweaver]

I think that is right cotton, perhaps jog can clarify for us.

Maybe that's the reason grandparents haven't been used to testify about JG (not about Ellie, because I'm hoping they were unaware and being kept away from children for false reasons such as settling in issues). If grandparents wanted to say anything about her mental instability it would have had to have been in rebuttal to an ordinary history put forward by defence.

UL Good idea.

BIB Am sure that is true and altho IDWant to belabour this type of thing on here as I do think the gps are victims, I've always thought it may have been them that notified SS, as their duty, re preg 2 (YD)

We hear an awful lot in the news about struggling parents of adult children with MH difficulties, desperate to get MH support for their kids, so if JG's parents had suspicions, fear, but few facts, they did the right thing by notifying SS on her IMO . ( Her Brighton flit followed this. ) There was another event where she said a snooper "grassed them up" but IDRemember the background right now.