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

[Gigi-G]

It's funny Michelle, if you look at thread 1 you can read some of the posts and links we put up, trying to work out which PD she has. Maybe some went into thread 2 also.
we had zero info from the court about any psych reports but a strong impression that she suffered from a PD. ( Sometimes the least info you have makes it more fascinating. )


It would take me ages to re-find the links again but there was also a really good comparison chart of the traits shared in Cluster B personality disorders and stuff related to co morbidity.

For BB there were some interesting links for distinguishing between sociopathy and psychopathy etc.

Tweeted @ProfDavidWilson Criminology specialist. As i saw his tweet this morning stating that BB was a horrible man. Asking him his take on their PD's. We might get a tweet back we might not lol

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[neteditor]

Hello everyone

I've been lurking unregistered on this thread for a number of weeks now, mainly out of frustration on the days the MSM didn't cover the trial. I'd like to say a great thanks to all the contributors here, especially everyone who attended the court. You provided a fantastic service to the "justice must be seen to be done" standard.

There have been a few things along the way that I wanted to respond to but I fear they are mostly too old now to mention. However someone a few pages back asked about the double jeopardy law, I think in relation to being tried again for Ellie's infancy injuries. My understanding of that law is that a retrial of an acquitted person can only be brought if substantial new evidence comes to light in the case. This is unlikely to happen of course, since the evidence has been cremated, rest your beautiful innocent soul little Ellie.

I used to be a journalist years ago and reported on many court cases. If I can add any insight to questions people may have regarding court proceedings I'll be delighted to help. I'd just say that one of the court attendees mentioned a lot of court staff were in court for the verdict because they wanted to know what happened, but this would not be the reason. They would be there to remove anyone from the public gallery who interrupted the proceedings with noisy reactions. IE if someone jumped up shouting at the jury or defendant etc. It is usual in highly emotive cases for staff to flood the room so they can react quickly and en masse to removing anyone.

Likewise, there would be extra security staff beside the defendants (especially a known violent person) in case they react badly and need hauling down to the cells. The intimidation effect of their presence is usually enough to keep the defendant in check.

Also, just to note the video of YD's interview was put back up on YouTube, on the same link that was posted here (https://www.you tube.com / watch?v=_R8_Sr05_gY)... There are a few things I would note. Firstly there was a small section of YD saying Ellie was jumping but we don't see her saying that she fell or didn't wake up etc. Whoever created that video edited it heavily to show only what suited them, and added text frames to force their points over which were not backed up by any video frames included. I'd take that whole thing with a massive pinch of salt. The child constantly says she wants to go and tell mummy and daddy something. I read that as her having been schooled in what to say and having to go constantly for affirmation and confidence that she is doing what they asked. Obviously this is just MOO!

The big question for me on that is who posted that video on YT? In my understanding, defendants would not normally have personal possession of evidence, it would be passed from police to legal teams, from legals to court etc. But am I right in thinking that at some point BB represented himself? Did he acquire the police interview tapes then? I very much doubt he could have uploaded those from prison. JG is a graphic designer, the text frames were very poorly done, very amateur, I feel she would have done a better job, unless she was trying to throw investigators off the scent? I hope YT has been asked for IP information of the uploader, interfering with court proceedings is a very serious offence. The timing is interesting too. Why upload it after the jury has gone out? Perhaps hoping for a full collapse of trial and a future argument that a retrial could not be fair as this one has been so widely reported? Whatever, that video gives me way more questions than it does answers.

Sorry for writing so much on my first post

 

[Gigi-G]

Hello everyone

I've been lurking unregistered on this thread for a number of weeks now, mainly out of frustration on the days the MSM didn't cover the trial. I'd like to say a great thanks to all the contributors here, especially everyone who attended the court. You provided a fantastic service to the "justice must be seen to be done" standard.

There have been a few things along the way that I wanted to respond to but I fear they are mostly too old now to mention. However someone a few pages back asked about the double jeopardy law, I think in relation to being tried again for Ellie's infancy injuries. My understanding of that law is that a retrial of an acquitted person can only be brought if substantial new evidence comes to light in the case. This is unlikely to happen of course, since the evidence has been cremated, rest your beautiful innocent soul little Ellie.

I used to be a journalist years ago and reported on many court cases. If I can add any insight to questions people may have regarding court proceedings I'll be delighted to help. I'd just say that one of the court attendees mentioned a lot of court staff were in court for the verdict because they wanted to know what happened, but this would not be the reason. They would be there to remove anyone from the public gallery who interrupted the proceedings with noisy reactions. IE if someone jumped up shouting at the jury or defendant etc. It is usual in highly emotive cases for staff to flood the room so they can react quickly and en masse to removing anyone.

Likewise, there would be extra security staff beside the defendants (especially a known violent person) in case they react badly and need hauling down to the cells. The intimidation effect of their presence is usually enough to keep the defendant in check.

Also, just to note the video of YD's interview was put back up on YouTube, on the same link that was posted here (https://www.you tube.com / watch?v=_R8_Sr05_gY)... There are a few things I would note. Firstly there was a small section of YD saying Ellie was jumping but we don't see her saying that she fell or didn't wake up etc. Whoever created that video edited it heavily to show only what suited them, and added text frames to force their points over which were not backed up by any video frames included. I'd take that whole thing with a massive pinch of salt. The child constantly says she wants to go and tell mummy and daddy something. I read that as her having been schooled in what to say and having to go constantly for affirmation and confidence that she is doing what they asked. Obviously this is just MOO!

The big question for me on that is who posted that video on YT? In my understanding, defendants would not normally have personal possession of evidence, it would be passed from police to legal teams, from legals to court etc. But am I right in thinking that at some point BB represented himself? Did he acquire the police interview tapes then? I very much doubt he could have uploaded those from prison. JG is a graphic designer, the text frames were very poorly done, very amateur, I feel she would have done a better job, unless she was trying to throw investigators off the scent? I hope YT has been asked for IP information of the uploader, interfering with court proceedings is a very serious offence. The timing is interesting too. Why upload it after the jury has gone out? Perhaps hoping for a full collapse of trial and a future argument that a retrial could not be fair as this one has been so widely reported? Whatever, that video gives me way more questions than it does answers.

Sorry for writing so much on my first post

Hi and welcome neteditor.
We are a friendly accomodating bunch im sure you will agree. Hehe
Its always nice and a valid input to have people join who have a professional insight to the cases and info we follow.

As im sure aware. Media have asked for a whole case review. But its not forthcoming. Media have appealed but Justice King. Has ruled it out apart from an excerpt she let release. In the event of BB &JG issuing an appeal on their case. So it wont jeopardise it.
That basically states the Ellie died by a bludgeoning blow by BB. in a fit of volcanic rage.
Albeit there is overwhelming evidence stacked against him. He still maintaibs his innocence. Smdh.

The YT vid i cant access it today. I dont get anything apart from the circle going round that serves when yr net is trying to load busy not.
One of us found it by just sheer coincidence. And i said we'd best report it cuz itcould have repercussions on the trial. So the member who found it contacted the met. And another member here who was in a solicitor capacity gave her the numbers to alert the OB and Prosecution out of hours. To which we were told. Ty and Judge will deal on the following Monday.
We as you were trying to work out who would have a Police copy of the interview.
As what you say makes more sense. About BB having it when he represented it himself. And possibly her heavily editing it. That does fit the cause.
And id like to see that go further. As in Police investigation. Cuz as you stated it could of had a detrimental effect on the trial.

Finally. As my brain hurts and i need to plug myself up to my machine.
Whats your take/view on Justice Hogg?
Only in yr own opinion. We dont do libel on here. Just as this is moo.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

Hi neteditor,

Welcome to WS! Great post, the longer the better in my view

Is the video still up for you? Because it's not for me, although I note the number of views has gone up from about 200 to over 300. Perhaps it's been taken back down again, or it was temporarily reinstated by the police so that they could perform police work / checks on its contents or download it? I haven't heard that BB represented himself in these proceedings.

To be honest I really think it was JG's work. And when she didn't leave to go outside during court breaks, she used to sit at a desk in the actual court room, not the dock. She used to leave her bags in the court room too, which I know because I saw her in the street with her large holdall style handbag, and trolley case, and twice I heard her phone going off in her bag during court proceedings. Her barrister had to quickly leap up and take her bags outside to switch the phone off. If the police recordings were on discs for court use, and kept in boxes or such like with the barristers' court files, I think she could very easily have noticed this and removed one if they were distracted or not looking. She was always walking around with sheafs of paperwork which would be a good cover.

I was reading some tweets when this Mary Smith started tweeting everyone with the video, and someone said 'nice try Jennie'. She replied, Jennie? I'm Mary, I'm a law student and I've been sitting in the public gallery listening to the trial. There was no such person called Mary in the public gallery when I was there, which was very often.

Anyway, I think it was an attempt to cause a collapse of the trial as you say. And I agree with you, about the heavy editing. It was obvious to me that if the sibling had said anything really helpful to their case it would have been there and not edited out. I also think the defence would have made a very strong case for using it as evidence in the trial, because I really don't see protection of sibling's identity as being more important than justice. They could have blacked out her face if that was the case. As you say, the text on the video did not match the clips that were supposed to back it up.

 

[neteditor]

Hi Gigi and Tortoise, thank you very much for the warm welcome. Yes Gigi I agree this seems like a very nice place with some wonderful people posting and questioning and thinking. I usually avoid forums as they can get nasty, but not here Well done mods

Bear with me while I get to grips with the technical side Need to figure out the quoting some time.

The case review for the family court proceedings for YD is very interesting. Clearly there is evidence regarding this broken table leg. We can also assume that Ellie's head injury in some way matched to this item, for the judgment to state that is specifically what caused the injury. So we can also assume that this evidence was deliberately kept out of the murder trial evidence for some good reason. What that reason is... is another matter. Do you remember if there were hearings at the start of the case with the jury and public excluded? Both sides must have at some stage agreed that the table leg evidence would not be brought in. Of course if it was decided in closed court, it would be contempt of court to make that public, so perhaps we should also be careful discussing it.

My view of Justice Hogg was immediately clouded when I read her pedigree. I don't understand her decision or reasoning. Very weak of her to retire when she did though isn't it?

Tortoise, on the video, I very much doubt that JG could have *ahem* acquired it during court proceedings. I don't think it would have been physically in court. Before trial, the prosecution / defence solicitor(s) prepares all the material to be used in court. I'd bet that video was never going to be shown to the jury (because YD basically is too young to carry the burden of affecting the trial outcome and I also think the evidence probably isn't there, as you say it would be in the YT video if it were).

I honestly laughed out loud at "Mary the law student". Any law student would know that putting that video up and threatening the outcome of a trial (especially at such a late stage after all the evidence has been heard) is a serious contempt of court which is a criminal offence and would instantly end their aspirations for a law career. And quite likely also see them thrown in jail for a spell. A judge can basically do what he likes with a contempt offence, there are no limits. I think Mary is most likely JG, who else would want to get BB off anyway?

Another thing I just thought of. BB said after his conviction about the video on YT. So he already knew it was there and I assumed his brief told him, but then wouldn't they also have said it had been taken down? Perhaps the brief never mentioned it at all in that case. So who could have told him except the person who knew it was there (but didn't know it had been taken down). Sorry I am confusing even myself now lol. Do you see the rabbit hole I am going down? Curiouser and curiouser! As the outcome of the trial was not affected, we'll probably never hear any more about this. On protecting YD's identity, if that video was key evidence and absolutely had to be used, the judge could have taken many steps to protect her ID up to and including complete media blackout. To be honest it was only from reading here that I realised there was a YD, the press must have been under order not to mention / ID her.

 

[atm9533]

Welcome Neteditor. Good post. I think you are correct about the video.

 

[Gigi-G]

Hi Gigi and Tortoise, thank you very much for the warm welcome. Yes Gigi I agree this seems like a very nice place with some wonderful people posting and questioning and thinking. I usually avoid forums as they can get nasty, but not here Well done mods

Bear with me while I get to grips with the technical side Need to figure out the quoting some time.

The case review for the family court proceedings for YD is very interesting. Clearly there is evidence regarding this broken table leg. We can also assume that Ellie's head injury in some way matched to this item, for the judgment to state that is specifically what caused the injury. So we can also assume that this evidence was deliberately kept out of the murder trial evidence for some good reason. What that reason is... is another matter. Do you remember if there were hearings at the start of the case with the jury and public excluded? Both sides must have at some stage agreed that the table leg evidence would not be brought in. Of course if it was decided in closed court, it would be contempt of court to make that public, so perhaps we should also be careful discussing it.

My view of Justice Hogg was immediately clouded when I read her pedigree. I don't understand her decision or reasoning. Very weak of her to retire when she did though isn't it?

Tortoise, on the video, I very much doubt that JG could have *ahem* acquired it during court proceedings. I don't think it would have been physically in court. Before trial, the prosecution / defence solicitor(s) prepares all the material to be used in court. I'd bet that video was never going to be shown to the jury (because YD basically is too young to carry the burden of affecting the trial outcome and I also think the evidence probably isn't there, as you say it would be in the YT video if it were).

I honestly laughed out loud at "Mary the law student". Any law student would know that putting that video up and threatening the outcome of a trial (especially at such a late stage after all the evidence has been heard) is a serious contempt of court which is a criminal offence and would instantly end their aspirations for a law career. And quite likely also see them thrown in jail for a spell. A judge can basically do what he likes with a contempt offence, there are no limits. I think Mary is most likely JG, who else would want to get BB off anyway?

Another thing I just thought of. BB said after his conviction about the video on YT. So he already knew it was there and I assumed his brief told him, but then wouldn't they also have said it had been taken down? Perhaps the brief never mentioned it at all in that case. So who could have told him except the person who knew it was there (but didn't know it had been taken down). Sorry I am confusing even myself now lol. Do you see the rabbit hole I am going down? Curiouser and curiouser! As the outcome of the trial was not affected, we'll probably never hear any more about this. On protecting YD's identity, if that video was key evidence and absolutely had to be used, the judge could have taken many steps to protect her ID up to and including complete media blackout. To be honest it was only from reading here that I realised there was a YD, the press must have been under order not to mention / ID her.

Lol. We can get rather big on the banter. But its all lighthearted.
Hmm yeah i remember Court sitting but just Jury and Court were gathered for the presentation of evidence. You expect that as par the course.
This is the 3rd trial I've been in on. This and the one prior was high profile. Concerning a pre 16 y o child. And yet this has been handled totally different. I realise different reasons etc. But there were no 'restrictions' placed after the sentencing of the 2 abusers were sent down.

Sooo Justice King has ruled that the table leg evidence excerpt can be made public. No pictures however are forthcoming. For any other evidence it can be said is under judicial control. Until such times an appeal by those accused is requested and decision given at that time?
The evidence she's released is pretty damning as is. I just, as do we all fail to see what how and why could be so detrimental to their or an appeal. 😩

Re the YT video. Just who then would be privvy to such evidence?
I do think there should be an investigation into it. As if illegally obtained it was definitely then used against the Crown Prosecution. And the integrity of the evidence. Whether it was used in court or not.
Yes im thinking JG also. And 190 visits to him in Belmarsh in a year if that. 😉
Plenty of time. Opportunity. Places. People.

In a way. How theyve been able to liase thru her visits to him in prison. Theyve built uptheir 'stories' i tbink personally she should of been on remand too. Im sure they would of well tripped over their tongues if she was.

@Tortoise
BB represented himself in a court setting over Ellie before. Thats how it got to be so much in the public view. I need something cold...
Suffering today. And im fed up with the #brexit already 😨

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[neteditor]

Lol. We can get rather big on the banter. But its all lighthearted.

Banter is good. Sometimes better to laugh than cry

Hmm yeah i remember Court sitting but just Jury and Court were gathered for the presentation of evidence. You expect that as par the course.
This is the 3rd trial I've been in on. This and the one prior was high profile. Concerning a pre 16 y o child. And yet this has been handled totally different. I realise different reasons etc. But there were no 'restrictions' placed after the sentencing of the 2 abusers were sent down.

Perhaps the fact that BB has won an appeal before and seems to relish the proceedings is making them extra cautious?

Re the YT video. Just who then would be privvy to such evidence?
I do think there should be an investigation into it. As if illegally obtained it was definitely then used against the Crown Prosecution. And the integrity of the evidence. Whether it was used in court or not.
Yes im thinking JG also. And 190 visits to him in Belmarsh in a year if that. 
Plenty of time. Opportunity. Places. People.

I think the only people privvy to it would be the police, the CPS and the defence solicitor. The fact their defence representation changed three times is a concern though. There are potentially three sets of legal teams there who would have had access to all the material.

In a way. How theyve been able to liase thru her visits to him in prison. Theyve built uptheir 'stories' i tbink personally she should of been on remand too. Im sure they would of well tripped over their tongues if she was.

The phrase "give them enough rope..." springs to mind. But to be honest once JG had admitted she knew Ellie was dead when she got home I think everything else was a bygone conclusion. The cruelty evidence with the broken shoulder was very strong too. Anyone who has fractured or broken a bone knows the agony that comes with that. I only broke my wrist, I can't imagine the pain of a young child with a fractured shoulder - every movement, every breath taken, unable to lie down, that poor poor little girl. No wonder she looked so haggard and gaunt when the grandparents saw her that last time in McDonalds.

 

[Gigi-G]

Banter is good. Sometimes better to laugh than cry



Perhaps the fact that BB has won an appeal before and seems to relish the proceedings is making them extra cautious?



I think the only people privvy to it would be the police, the CPS and the defence solicitor. The fact their defence representation changed three times is a concern though. There are potentially three sets of legal teams there who would have had access to all the material.



The phrase "give them enough rope..." springs to mind. But to be honest once JG had admitted she knew Ellie was dead when she got home I think everything else was a bygone conclusion. The cruelty evidence with the broken shoulder was very strong too. Anyone who has fractured or broken a bone knows the agony that comes with that. I only broke my wrist, I can't imagine the pain of a young child with a fractured shoulder - every movement, every breath taken, unable to lie down, that poor poor little girl. No wonder she looked so haggard and gaunt when the grandparents saw her that last time in McDonalds.

Lol indeed. And alot of the times in here a laugh is definitely good medicine.
With a sprinkling of somewhat decorum ha!

As for BB its obvious he fancies his own voice. As per his visit on the stand. Either that or he is grossly under the influence that he is somewhat a legal/medical specialist.

Ahh good thinking. We were all wondering how the VID got released. And yes yes! Of course maybe via the other sets of Legal Teams. I do wonder if its going to be pursued?

When we first reviewed this case. There was lil information out there initially. But bit by bit it started to drizzle out. There always seemed much more than met the eye. You know?
Still is.
And I do think Mrs Justice Hogg needs to address the calls to the decision she took and why. After his troubled background. Makes my head swim.

Anyways ive bored everyone into a log. I best go play my game on here which will give me a kick to replace my lack of enthusiasm failure..
(More meds... im not gonna talk before long.I'll be able to reply as a maracca.. in shakes n rattles) 🤖

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[neteditor]

Haha maracca - made me laugh

Speaking as a former journalist, there is very often a great deal of information that is kept non-public. There was a very famous kidnapping case many years ago, the press was fully briefed from the start but the police asked us to publish nothing because they didn't want the kidnapper to know they had been informed. In most court cases involving child victims and/or witnesses there will be identifying information the press can't publish. It's actually amazing how much the press will know that they can't tell. I've a good friend still in the MSM who I sometimes pump for info

 

[Gigi-G]

Haha maracca - made me laugh

Speaking as a former journalist, there is very often a great deal of information that is kept non-public. There was a very famous kidnapping case many years ago, the press was fully briefed from the start but the police asked us to publish nothing because they didn't want the kidnapper to know they had been informed. In most court cases involving child victims and/or witnesses there will be identifying information the press can't publish. It's actually amazing how much the press will know that they can't tell. I've a good friend still in the MSM who I sometimes pump for info

Lol pump... 😂🤓

The mind boggles... hehe.
I appreciate that 'stuff' has to be discreet and obviously names etc not to be released in sensitive cases.
But once a case has been digested over a sentence given. .... who has the rights to them? Are they made public?. And is there an ID scrubber. That can erase any criminal data 'out there in cyberspace'
Or is just a rosy thought thru pink sunglasses? Lol?

For example a HUGE case just recently cleared. Cliff Richard. Now as soon as the Police went to search his premises. Obviously he was named by media? Will he be able now CPS has said lack of evidence to 'scrub' his cyberspace footprints so to speak?

Sorry i know im a right pain in the derriaire... 😂

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[michelle230]

Thanks CW - I am fairly well researched in PDs and have many books at home on the topic, but do find it hard to fully work these two out. I think there is a view now that sociopathy and psychopathy are more or less the same thing. The DSM- iv manual lists and characterises the various PDs

http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/car...ica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

 

[michelle230]

Welcome Neteditor -I`m new here myself! A great post and thanks for pointing out re the court staff being in the public gallery - we are all so well behaved (though we would all loved to have shouted out a few choice words lol), that it didn`t occur to me they were there for that reason!
I`m a bit ignorant about some things here and wonder if you or any of the other better informed posters could explain to me! Re the video - how could that have been made if the "star" of it was not around anyway (due to being taken elsewhere)? And how could it have affected/scuppered the trial? I don`t understand the implications (sorry to be a bit "thick").
The other thing I`m unclear about is the 2014 BB judgement. Again - excuse my ignorance but how could there be a judgement made before the trial? Or does that happen in automatically at a higher level, in serious cases where it is considered that the accused needs to be remanded immediately? And if an appeal is granted (in any case) does that mean experts looking over the case or automatically a whole new trial?
Sorry for all these questions that I am pondering over - the more I learn the less I know!!!

 

[michelle230]

For those of you who didn`t read the Sutton Council`s serious case review (I know it has been posted previously) it is very, very interesting reading. I think they did an amazing job but sadly their hands were tied...or....handcuffed. Is it allowed to post a few of the points on here as it`s out there in the public domain, or is that not permissible?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5ILmebheQx3YmhvbjVYOHlpN2M/view

 

[Gigi-G]

For those of you who didn`t read the Sutton Council`s serious case review (I know it has been posted previously) it is very, very interesting reading. I think they did an amazing job but sadly their hands were tied...or....handcuffed. Is it allowed to post a few of the points on here as it`s out there in the public domain, or is that not permissible?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5ILmebheQx3YmhvbjVYOHlpN2M/view

Is that the same as this one Michelle?
http://www.careappointments.co.uk/p...ildren-board-ellie-butler-serious-case-review

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[neteditor]

Lol pump... 邏

The mind boggles... hehe.
I appreciate that 'stuff' has to be discreet and obviously names etc not to be released in sensitive cases.
But once a case has been digested over a sentence given. .... who has the rights to them? Are they made public?. And is there an ID scrubber. That can erase any criminal data 'out there in cyberspace'
Or is just a rosy thought thru pink sunglasses? Lol?

For example a HUGE case just recently cleared. Cliff Richard. Now as soon as the Police went to search his premises. Obviously he was named by media? Will he be able now CPS has said lack of evidence to 'scrub' his cyberspace footprints so to speak?

Sorry i know im a right pain in the derriaire... 

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I think we can safely assume the family court Judge saw evidence that was not put before the jury in the murder trial and releasing that information to the press would prejudice any future jury who might also not be presented with it.

Everyone does have the right to ask Google to remove search results, by their name I believe. But it has to be historical I think ie not something that was in the news last week.

It's quite complex but here is an article that goes through it http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-articles-covering-right-to-be-forgotten.html it makes my head spin.

So my understanding of that is, if the articles were about "Mary Smith Murders 10 children in London"... Mary could ask Google that simply by searching "Mary Smith" links to that article would not be shown. If you searched "10 children murdered in London" you could still find the article.

Also interesting to note the restriction would only be on relevant country... ie google.co.uk would not show the result but if you switched to google.com it probably would.

It's late and I have had wine so apologies if I misinterpreted anything

 

[Gigi-G]

Thanks CW - I am fairly well researched in PDs and have many books at home on the topic, but do find it hard to fully work these two out. I think there is a view now that sociopathy and psychopathy are more or less the same thing. The DSM- iv manual lists and characterises the various PDs

http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/car...ica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

Sociopathic and Psychopathic traits are usually intermingled as theyre very similar in breakdown. Just one may err on the other with intent. But i think theres more to play with here with these 2 😨
They should of never been given option to have Ellie back whatsoever at anytime.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Gigi-G]

I think we can safely assume the family court Judge saw evidence that was not put before the jury in the murder trial and releasing that information to the press would prejudice any future jury who might also not be presented with it.

Everyone does have the right to ask Google to remove search results, by their name I believe. But it has to be historical I think ie not something that was in the news last week.

It's quite complex but here is an article that goes through it http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-articles-covering-right-to-be-forgotten.html it makes my head spin.

So my understanding of that is, if the articles were about "Mary Smith Murders 10 children in London"... Mary could ask Google that simply by searching "Mary Smith" links to that article would not be shown. If you searched "10 children murdered in London" you could still find the article.

Also interesting to note the restriction would only be on relevant country... ie google.co.uk would not show the result but if you switched to google.com it probably would.

It's late and I have had wine so apologies if I misinterpreted anything

Hehehe. Ooh i might go look at that. But yeah i see what you mean by overseas getting a different search result.
And hey its a friday.. time to kick back n have some chill time. Ive just had dinner cooked n a nice tall glass of rosè fizzy stuff. Hic!
Oh n watching BB.... (Big Brother on ch5) lol.
I need to cheeseey up my mind sometimes.
Have a great weekend!

Sorry for barraging you with q's and tyvm for yr replies

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[neteditor]

Welcome Neteditor -I`m new here myself! A great post and thanks for pointing out re the court staff being in the public gallery - we are all so well behaved (though we would all loved to have shouted out a few choice words lol), that it didn`t occur to me they were there for that reason!
I`m a bit ignorant about some things here and wonder if you or any of the other better informed posters could explain to me! Re the video - how could that have been made if the "star" of it was not around anyway (due to being taken elsewhere)? And how could it have affected/scuppered the trial? I don`t understand the implications (sorry to be a bit "thick").
The other thing I`m unclear about is the 2014 BB judgement. Again - excuse my ignorance but how could there be a judgement made before the trial? Or does that happen in automatically at a higher level, in serious cases where it is considered that the accused needs to be remanded immediately? And if an appeal is granted (in any case) does that mean experts looking over the case or automatically a whole new trial?
Sorry for all these questions that I am pondering over - the more I learn the less I know!!!

Hi Michelle, thanks for the welcome

Court is usually quite intimidating, even as a reporter in there every day! Most people are well behaved. Emotion can run high though for family etc must be hard to keep a lid on that.

I'm not sure what you mean about the star not being around?

However, I can answer the next bit. Firstly, none of the younger child's evidence was before the court that I can recall. I only knew there was one because of bad cropping of the family photo and mentions here. There may have been an unreportable direction from the judge not to identify her. None of her video evidence was put before the jury. That video was made and uploaded to influence the jury and persuade them the younger child had witnessed Ellie jumping and banging her head (ie exactly BB's defence).

Attempting to influence the outcome of a trial is a criminal offence of contempt of court. If the jury had seen that video and it swayed their decision and acquitted BB, he likely couldn't be retried and he'd have walked free. It's the same offence if you find out where the jury live and co-erce, bribe or threaten them into a decision. It's the same offence if you stand up in the public gallery and call the judge rude names

The 2014 judgment was made in the family court, they urgently needed to decide if the younger child should be taken into care for her own safety. That decision couldn't wait for the criminal proceedings to end. The burden of proof there is lower than in a criminal court. ie the judge alone can consider the facts and make a decision based on probability, whereas in a criminal trial a 12-person jury must hear all the evidence and (usually unanimously) decide "beyond a reasonable doubt" guilt or innocence.

Criminal courts decide if a defendant should be remanded. After being charged with an offence, you are brought before the next available sitting of the magistrates court (so if you punch someone on Friday night down the pub you're going to be in a cell all weekend waiting for court to open on Monday!). In serious charges like murder, the defendant is almost always remanded in custody by the magistrates straight away. Serious offences are always then sent to the crown court (or high court in very serious like murder) to be heard by a judge and jury.

An appeal court is just judges, no jury, and they can decide to quash a conviction which then leaves the crown prosecution service to decide whether to prosecute the person again.

If there's a proper lawyer here who spots errors in my blatherings please say I might not have it all completely right

 

[michelle230]

It is Gi-Gi - a long read! Had to read over three sittings!