GUILTY UK - Louise Smith, 16, Havant, Hampshire, 8 May 2020 *Arrest*

[Harchmare]

Thank you so much for all the updates !

You're welcome!

 

[Sooty]

The shirtless man seen by the witness .... I can’t recall that coming up in the court reports?

 

[Legally Bland]

Thank you @Harchmare!

 

[Harchmare]

The shirtless man seen by the witness .... I can’t recall that coming up in the court reports?

You're right... I think the reporters missed a bit here and there, there were other things I'd never heard before.

 

[Skigh]

The shirtless man seen by the witness .... I can’t recall that coming up in the court reports?

I cannot remember this being reported either.
Could the man actually be SW without his shirt on?

 

[Harchmare]

I cannot remember this being reported either.
Could the man actually be SW without his shirt on?

In the PN updates it was said it wasn't him, so he must have come forward, and he was eliminated from their inquiries. MOO

 

[Alyce]

She’s not beside him in the dock, or facing any other criminal allegations, not alleged to be party to some attempt to sexually abuse Louise.'
He says: ‘The prosecution know we can’t be sure of that.'


Which I would say is the only reason she has not been charged.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Harchmare]

16:24JAMIE PHILLIPS
'These are not rational deductions', court hears

More from Mr Langdon QC:

What he did in any sense is unforgivable. He may have a low IQ, but there is no case to soften his over count of what he did. A desperate man could of course say anything. Who is going to contradict him? He could have invited a stranger who attacked her or that he knocked her out in one punch and ran away. He does not say that. He described grimly what happened.

He, a full grown man, punched her again and again and again in the face and there was blood and breaking of bones and pitiful moaning. It is hard to see how Shane, if he is taking up his account accurately, would create an account that disadvantages him.

Spoiler: graphic

The prosecution say he must have put the stick in her. He must have raped her, he must have made a hole in her stomach.

These are not rational deductions from facts that have no doubt.

Louise Smith murder trial updates as jury told to put 'strong emotions' aside

 

[Harchmare]

16:29JAMIE PHILLIPS
Prosecution theories not supported by evidence, court hears

Mr Landon QC adds:

Spoiler: graphic

The prosecution theory is that hole was created because he thought she was pregnant. That stick was inside her clearly, but there was not a trace of sperm. There is no evidence that he raped her, but it has not stopped the prosecution from suggesting it. It is not supported by the evidence.

I speak on danger of assumption when the feeling of revulsion is very strong. You may decide that he led her there with cannabis and he raped her and that he made a hole in her stomach because he raped her, but if you conclude these things, you will be doing so without any evidence.

Louise Smith murder trial updates as jury told to put 'strong emotions' aside

 

[Harchmare]

16:33JAMIE PHILLIPS
Defence discuss how Louise's body came to be burned

Mr Langdon QC adds:

Spoiler: graphic

Now, if it wasn't Shane who put the sick inside her, who did? Let's try to look at this calmly and rationally. Can you exclude the thought that whoever was trying to burn the body did not put the stick inside her as part of the effort to burn her?

You will have wondered about how much CJ [Shane's wife] knew. Did she discover what had happened and if so, when? If she knew, who else knew? Is it inconceivable that someone who knew wanted to destroy the evidence?

Louise Smith murder trial updates as jury told to put 'strong emotions' aside

 

[Alyce]

I dont think Defence did a good job - although I allow he had little to work with.

It is totally irrelevant whether Louise took the lead in the walk to the Thicket or whether it was SM.
Either way, she did not expect to end up brutally murdered.

 

[Harchmare]

16:41JAMIE PHILLIPS
Defence denies Shane Mays intended to kill Louise Smith
Mr Langdon QC adds:

He accepts that his attack on her, at least by his own account, contributed to her death. He has no defence to that, but what about murder?

Are we sure that when Shane Mays acted to cause her death, he intended to kill her or to cause her serious bodily injury. To answer that question you have to be sure of what you did to her. If his account of punching her is true, or maybe true, you cannot be sure of the story of burning her.

How does the cold light of a court room compare with him behaving so savagely. Many one of us, if we had been there, would have intervened physically and wondered what on earth he was doing.

Was he intending to kill her? Was he consciously intending to cause her that degree of serious bodily harm? Can you be sure of it? We invite you to look at what is known about his behaviour, his anger management and need for cognitive behavioural therapy across the last three weeks and today.

Louise Smith murder trial updates as jury told to put 'strong emotions' aside

 

[Harchmare]

I dont think Defence did a good job - although I allow he had little to work with.

It is totally irrelevant whether Louise took the lead in the walk to the Thicket or whether it was SM.
Either way, she did not expect to end up brutally murdered.

I agree... And what they discussed on the way: we only have his word for it. There is no excuse for what he did. MOO

 

[Harchmare]

16:52KEY EVENT
Lack of proof Shane Mays intended to kill Louise Smith, defence suggests
Mr Langdon QC continues:

We suggest and reject he lured her with cannabis. He follows her and there is an argument.

Can you, ladies and gentleman, knowing everything, you know about him, removing the possibility that he was just angry and lost his temper with her with such appalling consequences? That he was at any point thinking about what he was doing and what he intended? It was rage certainly, but controlled intention wanting to bring about this result? Or was it a blind rage?

Rage is not a defence, but blind rage without thought and purpose, intention falls away. All of a sudden he has done a terrible thing and quite naturally you will want to convict him of murder, but proof that he was motivated/ Proof that he lured her there with drugs? Proof that you can be sure that when he lost it he had any intention at all?

Louise Smith murder trial updates as jury told to put 'strong emotions' aside

 

[Harchmare]

16:54JAMIE PHILLIPS
Do not convict Shane Mays of murder 'unless evidence drives you there. defence urges

Mr Langdon QC finishes his closing speech to the jury:

It has been a harrowing case. Louise was completely blameless. The blame for her death rests with Shane Mays, but please ladies and gentleman do not convict him of murder unless the evidence drives you there.

16:55JAMIE PHILLIPS
Court rises for the day
Court has risen for the day.

Judge Mrs Justice May will sum up the case to the jury when proceedings resume at 11am on Tuesday (December 8), before the jury will exit the courtroom to begin its deliberations.

We will bring you a full round up of today's proceedings shortly.

Louise Smith murder trial updates as jury told to put 'strong emotions' aside

 

[Skigh]

16:54JAMIE PHILLIPS
Do not convict Shane Mays of murder 'unless evidence drives you there. defence urges

Mr Langdon QC finishes his closing speech to the jury:

It has been a harrowing case. Louise was completely blameless. The blame for her death rests with Shane Mays, but please ladies and gentleman do not convict him of murder unless the evidence drives you there.

16:55JAMIE PHILLIPS
Court rises for the day
Court has risen for the day.

Judge Mrs Justice May will sum up the case to the jury when proceedings resume at 11am on Tuesday (December 8), before the jury will exit the courtroom to begin its deliberations.

We will bring you a full round up of today's proceedings shortly.

Louise Smith murder trial updates as jury told to put 'strong emotions' aside

Where else does the evidence lead except a brutal murder?

 

[Kasmeer]

This defence speech is annoying me; how can there be anything other than intent to cause serious injury? You don't punch someone in the head over and over until such serious injuries are caused (not repeating the graphic descriptions, those who've seen them know what I mean) without intent (or at the very least, an awareness of how serious the injuries could be). I'm pretty sure anyone who inflicted such injuries to another man in a fight outside a pub etc would get convicted of murder, never mind a grown man vs a girl.

The whole argument about whether or not he lured her there, sexual motive etc, is a red herring tbh, since the plain facts are, he killed her in a way that is murder, by his own admission. Obviously we all think there's more to it, but IMO his own story should be enough to convict him, even if you completely discount any other theories.

 

[Harchmare]

Today's recap. **Warning: graphic**

Court told Louise Smith suffered 'excruciating' pain before death

 

[Legally Bland]

Maybe I missed it, but it doesn't look like the defence spent much time on a possible qualifying trigger for loss of control. This is all I can find:

He follows her and there is an argument.

Can you, ladies and gentleman, knowing everything, you know about him, removing the possibility that he was just angry and lost his temper with her with such appalling consequences?

No mention of the claim Louise hit SM with a stick (not that I think it would make the defence much more convincing).

 

[JosieJo]

Although there is the possibility she helped him ...I was quite surprised the defence virtually accused CJ of helping him in such a clear way ..it wasn't just a hint they he may have had help