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

[ColourPurple]

In Court today. The girls admit to kidnapping....

http://dailym.ai/22LAJJ7

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

"The pair were originally charged with kidnap 'with the intention of committing a sexual offence' but this was 'discontinued' at a youth court today and the girls admitted an alternative charge of kidnap"
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-36...-old-toddler-Primark-store.html#ixzz4AuoNokn0


I really think they should have been charged with the original offence. Presumably with the downgrading to kidnapping (without the sexual offence part) they won't go on the sex offenders register. I hope no other child suffers in the future because of that.

Surely this was enough to suggest the sexual motive?

a tablet computer was found containing searches for 'rape', 'people getting raped', 'young people getting raped' and 'poor little thing getting kidnapped and raped'.

'There is several links to 'African woman sexual activity' and the young child in this case is black.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-36...-old-toddler-Primark-store.html#ixzz4AupIzFST
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[ColourPurple]

[video=twitter;740212335944585216]https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/740212335944585216[/video]



Tiny bit more here: http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/ellie-died-falling-low-chair/?fb_ref=2c2d0x_MtK-Twitter

Saying what the defendants wanted her to say.

I hope the cross-ex is good (I'm sure it will be).

Even if it were true it doesn't make the other option (that BB was responsible) suddenly not feasible. Though with appeal of the original 97 case, it did seem to be enough merely to show that the injuries could have been related to Ellie's birth and to BB trying to resuscitate her, rather than him doing deliberately. Did he get off that charge just because there was a chance he didn't do it deliberately or did he get off because the original court case had not put forward that option?

What I'm getting at is...if the jury is given today's scenario (low fall + previous fracture) as well as the alternate scenario that BB deliberately killed her, if they still find it more likely that he deliberately injured and killed her can they still find him guilty? And then because the low fall medical evidence was presented in court, he won't then be able to appeal a guilty decision by quoting that evidence?

The thought that he might be found not guilty and allowed contact with young children like Ellie's sister again makes me feel sick.

 

[Tortoise]

A v similar case to Ellie's (in Georgia, USA) which resulted in a murder conviction, went to appeal (and lost) yesterday. Dr Janice Ophoven testified the same thing in that case, the fatal injuries could have been caused by a prior recent fall. Thank goodness that jury didn't believe it. She seems like a devil on a mission to me.

http://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/s16a0103.pdf

 

[Tortoise]

And another appeal lost yesterday in Illinois, where Dr Ophoven testified for defence and the jury rejected her argument http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2016/2ndDistrict/2140270_R23.pdf

 

[ColourPurple]

A v similar case to Ellie's (in Georgia, USA) which resulted in a murder conviction, went to appeal (and lost) yesterday. Dr Janice Ophoven testified the same thing in that case, the fatal injuries could have been caused by a prior recent fall. Thank goodness that jury didn't believe it. She seems like a devil on a mission to me.

http://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/s16a0103.pdf

And another appeal lost yesterday in Illinois, where Dr Ophoven testified for defence and the jury rejected her argument http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/R23_Or...140270_R23.pdf

So she basically gets paid to cast doubt on any deliberate injury by saying she thinks it could have been X,Y,Z?

Let's hope they look beyond her evidence at the bigger picture.

 

[Legally Bland]

There was brief mention of calcification and suggestions from BB/JG that an injury occurred while Ellie was in the care of SS/GPs.

But has it really been shown that Ellie was likely to have suffered a previous skull fracture?

I'm thinking not, but I'm sure the court goers on here will have a better idea.

 

[Tortoise]

So she basically gets paid to cast doubt on any deliberate injury by saying she thinks it could have been X,Y,Z?

Let's hope they look beyond her evidence at the bigger picture.

They will. That second one was interesting because the appellant said the jury could not have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt with the conflicting expert opinions, but the appeal court rejected the argument because the jury had convicted with that choice. It strengthens the conviction really, because it means the jury is not only weighing expert opinion, but also judging the accused as a person and his testimony.

There is so much evidence of violence in the Butler household, victimisation of Ellie, her frequent injuries, and always occurring when he is with her. As well as the extent and nature of her fatal injuries and his failure to get treatment a month before she died and failure to call an ambulance on the day she died.

It's telling when you have to go to America to get your (controversial) experts - no one in UK prepared to testify.

 

[ColourPurple]

There was brief mention of calcification and suggestions from BB/JG that an injury occurred while Ellie was in the care of SS/GPs.

But has it really been shown that Ellie was likely to have suffered a previous skull fracture?

I'm thinking not, but I'm sure the court goers on here will have a better idea.

There was mention of a previous healed skull fracture that could have dated back to when she was injured as a baby in 2007

Bone pathology expert Professor Anthony Freemont, of the University of Manchester, gave evidence for the prosecution today.
He told jurors there were four distinct periods of injuries, including 'at least two or three instances of significant skull trauma'.
A healed skull fracture could have dated back to the first allegation of assault by Butler in 2007, he said.
Three to five weeks before her death, Ellie suffered a broken shoulder bone.
Then she sustained 'bruising' to the skull, two to three weeks before the fatal injury, the court heard.
Prof Freemont said the fresh skull fracture itself would have happened between one and six hours before she died.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...used-assaulting-jury-hears.html#ixzz4AvBddwtw

 

[ColourPurple]

They will. That second one was interesting because the appellant said the jury could not have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt with the conflicting expert opinions, but the appeal court rejected the argument because the jury had convicted with that choice. It strengthens the conviction really, because it means the jury is not only weighing expert opinion, but also judging the accused as a person and his testimony.

There is so much evidence of violence in the Butler household, victimisation of Ellie, her frequent injuries, and always occurring when he is with her. As well as the extent and nature of her fatal injuries and his failure to get treatment a month before she died and failure to call an ambulance on the day she died.

It's telling when you have to go to America to get your (controversial) experts - no one in UK prepared to testify.

And looks like you can earn a good living by holding a controversial medical opinion. World wide demand.

I hope you're right and the jury will see the bigger picture. I'm sure he'll appeal if he's convicted anyway. That text he sent about waking up in a rage and being ready to snap said it all for me. I know it wasn;t sent the day Ellie died but it demonstrates what his usual mindset and temperament are how he could have snapped over nothing.

‘I cant cope… woke up in a rage already… Been in place so many times… my hands are shaking… One more mistake im going to lose it.’

 

[Tortoise]

There was brief mention of calcification and suggestions from BB/JG that an injury occurred while Ellie was in the care of SS/GPs.

But has it really been shown that Ellie was likely to have suffered a previous skull fracture?

I'm thinking not, but I'm sure the court goers on here will have a better idea.

I haven't been in court at the times when all the different experts testified so I can't say what the prosecution's case is in that regard. Hopefully it will be reported in closing speeches and summing up, which I won't be there for unfortunately.

I hope to be there for sentencing :jail:

 

[Tortoise]

Who's going to believe she fractured her skull while she was in care?

They'll try anything.

 

[Legally Bland]

She said: "My conclusion was that there was evidence of a recent injury to the skull of one to two, or perhaps more, weeks of age; a fresh skull fracture concurrent with her fatality and aging damage that was consistent with an abnormality dating back to 2007."

Dr Ophoven added the more recent injury was consistent with an incident described by Butler and his partner Jennie Gray, 36, when Ellie fell down the stairs on October 10 or 11 while chasing the family Jack Russell puppy, Minnie.

[...]

"My conclusion was the child died from blunt force impact to the head but the injuries were compounded by recent injury of fracture to the skull and also compounded by injuries that occurred in infancy," she said.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ben-butler-murder-trial-six-8135460#r3z-addoor
__________

More at link.

 

[Gigi-G]

Even if it were true it doesn't make the other option (that BB was responsible) suddenly not feasible. Though with appeal of the original 97 case, it did seem to be enough merely to show that the injuries could have been related to Ellie's birth and to BB trying to resuscitate her, rather than him doing deliberately. Did he get off that charge just because there was a chance he didn't do it deliberately or did he get off because the original court case had not put forward that option?

What I'm getting at is...if the jury is given today's scenario (low fall + previous fracture) as well as the alternate scenario that BB deliberately killed her, if they still find it more likely that he deliberately injured and killed her can they still find him guilty? And then because the low fall medical evidence was presented in court, he won't then be able to appeal a guilty decision by quoting that evidence?

The thought that he might be found not guilty and allowed contact with young children like Ellie's sister again makes me feel sick.

I just find it abhorrent. Saying that Ellie could of suffered a 'death' blow by falling from a low chair on a 'carpeted' surface! That's just as fkd up as saying Peppa Pig was the cause.
Maybe had she of fallen on a concrete floor. But we are led to believe by this 'specialist' ahem. That she fell onto a 'soft' surface. Whereas the post mortem described that Ellie died from 'car crash' type injuries.. that just simply rules out the low chair on soft surface fall completely.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[flutterby]

Earlier. child forensic pathologist Dr Jan Ophoven told jurors: "She was not like an otherwise normal child because of the previous abnormalities.
"She was at a substantially higher risk of dying from blunt force trauma than any other child."
Dr Ophoven said the previous injuries had negatively affected the blood-brain barrier membrane, which controls pressure inside the head.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36475288

urgh, wtf?

(Don't think I'm going to make it to court this week either as previous plans have fallen through unfortunately)

 

[ColourPurple]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36475288

urgh, wtf?

(Don't think I'm going to make it to court this week either as previous plans have fallen through unfortunately)

She's contradicted herself here with the order of injuries hasnt she?


"My conclusion was that there was evidence of a recent injury to the skull of one to two, or perhaps more, weeks of age; a fresh skull fracture concurrent with her fatality and aging damage that was consistent with an abnormality dating back to 2007."Dr Ophoven added the more recent injury was consistent with an incident described by Butler and his partner Jennie Gray, 36, when Ellie fell down the stairs on October 10 or 11 while chasing the family Jack Russell puppy, Minnie."

AND...


"My conclusion was the child died from blunt force impact to the head but the injuries were compounded by recent injury of fracture to the skull and also compounded by injuries that occurred in infancy," she said.

First shes saying that the order that the injuries took place was...2007 injury followed by recent bruising 2 or more weeks ago(stair fall) followed by fresh fracture that killed her. Then she concludes that the blunt force injury was the cause of death but that it was compounded by a recent injury of fracture of the skull. Her conclusion places the fracture of the skull before the blunt force injury timewise but she's already said earlier, that the fracture was the fresh injury not the 2-3 weeks ago injury so that can't be true. Her conclusion contradicts her original findings.

I hope she was cross examined and didn't just give an unchallenged recorded video message.

 

[ColourPurple]

More from Dr O



"Dr Ophoven also told jurors the finger marks found on the little girl's jaw - previously referred to as grip marks - were most consistent with someone fixing a bag over her mouth to perform CPR."


If Ellie was already dead by the time paramedics got there would her body bruise?

 

[Tillymint]

I wonder how much this so called expert has been paid for coming out with rubbish and muddying the waters? Ellie was long dead when the paramedics arrived.

 

[Tortoise]

CourtNewsUK ‏@CourtNewsUK [video=twitter;740473628161105920]https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/740473628161105920[/video]
Jurors in Ben Butler murder trial played Peppa Pig DVD in bizarre end to six weeks of evidence at the Old Bailey

 

[Tortoise]

After the jurors watched the video, prosecutor Ed Brown QC asked them not to be swayed by "fanciful or speculative reasoning or entertain fanciful suggestions" but to use their "collective common sense and experience of life".
In his closing speech, he urged them to look at the medical evidence presented in court and the atmosphere in the Butler household at the time of the child's death.
Mr Butler "dominated" the family with "self-centred control" and "a temper that could break at any moment", the prosecutor said.
He said the child's injuries were so "extreme" and "catastrophic" that they could not have been due to an accidental fall, and added the defence team had tried to use the six-year-old's previous injuries to their advantage.
Mr Brown said: "They do nothing to detract from the extreme and acute injuries that killed that young girl."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36478786

 

[cottonweaver]

CourtNewsUK ‏@CourtNewsUK [video=twitter;740473628161105920]https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/740473628161105920[/video]
Jurors in Ben Butler murder trial played Peppa Pig DVD in bizarre end to six weeks of evidence at the Old Bailey

OH MY GOD!

Can you imagine the jury's reaction, peppa pig tune ringing in their ears, after weeks of testimony from a couple of charlatans describing a squalid life & brutal abuse ?
Think they've hit a bum note with that one.

In the previous links I pasted re. Dr Janice O ( thread 1) she even referenced the Muppets in her testimony! :facepalm: