GUILTY UK - Jordan Burling, 18, Died Weighing Less Than 6 Stone, Body Of Baby Also Found, Leeds, June 2016

I'm not caught up but already I'm ranting. There was mention of one of the women being concerned about the money they'd spent on a walking aid for Jordan being wasted when he died. Callous enough but now I read it cost a princely £7.

(I'm going to have a headache by the time I get to the spoilered posts, aren't I?)

I'm at the end of page two. The only main observation I have is that these people seem very low IQ and that none of them (maybe with the exception of the father's siblings) seems all there.

The grandmother's comments that she couldn't wait to get her hands on Jordan's room...it sounds callous from our perspective, but if you think of it more as a 6-yr old with a learning disorder it feels a lot more understandable.

I don't know if you can judge people like this in the same way you judge appropriate actions from more 'abled' people?

I know of examples that are not as extreme as this case, but they involve people who are more 'average' and a lot of it is about the context as the individual sees it.

Why is Abigail claiming that Jordan was out playing football with he daughter the day before he died when the post mortem shows that he was in no condition to be able to do that? She seems to have an obsession with McDonalds, saying that she brought him a double cheeseburger with fries, and that after his death he would be sad to not get nerf gun toys with a happy meal?

If these people are like 6-year olds with a learning disability, how can they be tried by a jury of "their peers"?

From our perspective it's all unbelievable, and yet from their perspective it seems like they were trying their best with changing his incontinence pads and things like that.

I would imagine that Jordan could have been suffering from severe depression, he'd been isolated from the 'normal' world by being taken out of school, what future would he have seen for himself? Abigail talks of him maybe going to college, but if he was anything like the rest of them, and Dawn had been responsible for his schooling, there's no way I can see that he would have been going to college.

I wish this family had got help back when Jordan was attending school and clearly showing signs of major neglect. But even that sounds more like a family that didn't know how to cope than actual purposeful abuse? Back to the comparison with a 6-year old with a learning disability, how could you expect them to cope? I don't think this is so much a failure in this family as a failure of outsiders not recognising that they really needed outside support from social services in order to function, and that those needs weren't going to magically go away. These people have been existing in our world but not thriving in it. From their responses to questioning on the stand they have limited vocabulary, limited foci (McDonalds, Playstation, food shopping). They don't seem to have a good concept of money and finances. I don't know that any of them is psychologically capable of doing better than they have been doing without major support from social services and mental health services.
 
I do believe there is some kind of mental issue going on here. It doesn’t sound like they purposefully set out to abuse him. I jump on and off the fence here. The obvious lies tell me they knew better.
The mom telling a co worker that Jordan was bedridden and Drs couldn’t figure out what was wrong is a sticking point for me. That tells me she knew he needed a Dr.
 
I do believe there is some kind of mental issue going on here. It doesn’t sound like they purposefully set out to abuse him. I jump on and off the fence here. The obvious lies tell me they knew better.
The mom telling a co worker that Jordan was bedridden and Drs couldn’t figure out what was wrong is a sticking point for me. That tells me she knew he needed a Dr.

I haven't got to that bit yet. When I read the first few posts I wondered if Dawn had an anti-male thing going on and so mistreated Jordan, and maybe killed the male baby, as part of that and treated her daughter better. But reading the daughter's testimony she doesn't sound any different from the rest of the family. So far (to the end of page 2) none of them have sounded evil, just ... not all there.
 
I'm not that knowledgeable about court processes: if this was likely to be a defence of diminished responsibility, would that be likely to have been mentioned by now? Or not until the defence starts? I'm in agreement that these people all seem to have mental/intellectual problems, but if there is no claim of diminished responsibility being made, is that actually relevant to the case? As I've not heard anything in the coverage so far to suggest that's the defence to all this; but, I don't know if it would normally be mentioned yet, so perhaps it's still open as a possibility? If it is their defence I'm surprised it wasn't just accepted, which makes me think either it's not their defence or they've been assessed as competent, so it wouldn't apply.

I certainly don't think Jordan having an eating disorder should absolve his family of responsibility; someone only just 18, still living in the parental home, not working, is still basically dependent on his parent IMO (more so if he did indeed have mental health problems). His sister, less so; I find her being on trial more questionable (yes, she should have done something, but morally, not legally IMO), but his mother and grandmother are basically still responsible for him, age or not. Perhaps legally it might not be the case, but common-sense-wise, he's still a child living at home without independence, I don't know if the law covers it in any way though. Well actually, it must do in some way or this trial wouldn't be happening, I assume?

As to their actions, there is something not right with all of them, father included, IMO, and it's a crying shame there was no support for them. But the fact that they've mentioned doctors suggests they knew he should have seen one. Surely even the most dense of people would have some idea that a bedridden young man with a bedsore through to the bone might need medical attention? Or at least to ask someone else, friend, neighbour etc for advice? If not then I wonder how they managed to live independently at all? The grandmother had managed to bring up at least two surviving children, and the mother had managed one, surely between them they could have worked it out?

I'm just a bit baffled, I can see the point regarding their mental state affecting their actions, but I'd expect them to not even be on trial if they really had that little understanding; it'd seem a fairly clear defence if provable.

Edit to add some IMOs to sentences that weren't clearly my own opinions or questions; I know this place likes to make it clear what's the poster's own thoughts :)
 
Last edited:
11:30
‘Abigail scored herself 10/10 as a parent’
Sharon Sheard worked with Jordan’s older sister Abigail as a Senior Family Outreach Worker at Farnley Children’s Centre after Abigail had her daughter.

She tells the jury that during a home visit Abigail scored herself as ‘10 out of 10’ in every area as a parent to her daughter.

11:31
Abigail said Jordan was moody and unwell
Sharon said she asked if Abigail had been staying at her mum’s because ‘Dawn’s house was deemed unsuitable’.

“Abigail said she’s not been going to her mum’s house because her brother was there and that he was moody, unwell and had a poorly leg.

“I said to Abigail that her brother would need to go to a GP but her mum was going to organise it.

“She said her brother was quite lazy and didn’t like going to the Doctors.

“Abigail said: ‘Jordan’s sore on his leg isn’t that bad. He’s ok.’

11:54
'Dawn showed no significant signs of emotion'
On a follow-up visit in June 2016, Sharon discovered that Jordan had died just a few days before.

She noted:

  • Abigail greeted me at the door, which was unusual
  • She was quite animated and angry that we were making a visit
Dawn was also at Abigail’s house and she told Sharon she was ‘shocked by Jordan’s death and didn’t see anything wrong with him the day before he died. He’d eaten a McDonalds.’

Sharon tells the court:

“Abigail said he died from natural causes.”

“Dawn said she’d been really busy at work and hadn’t been able to phone the doctors to arrange a home visit.

“I asked how long it had been since Jordan had been seen by professionals and Abigail stated it had been ‘not this November but the November before’.

“However, Dawn said: ‘Don’t be daft’. She said she’d given Jordan some money two months before and he’d been to the shops to buy something.

“Dawn didn’t show anything significant signs of emotion.”

12:29
‘They didn’t understand why the police had to be involved’
Another member of staff from the children’s centre has told how Dawn and Abigail were ‘angry’ that support workers had been told about Jordan’s death.

“They were both angry because they wanted to share the information with me (about Jordan’s death).

“They said they didn’t understand why the police had to be involved. They said they wanted to grieve and they weren’t being given a chance to.”

13:09
‘Denise said Jordan died in her arms’
A statement from Sandra Detchon, who has lived near the family home for more than two decades, is read out to the jury.

“Dawn appears to have slight learning difficulties. The family are thought of as being quite strange.

“Nearly every day they would have eggs thrown at their window by a gang of youths. This went on for years. It was during this time that Bert (Denise’s partner) took his own life.

“I never saw Jordan play out. I’d say the last time I saw him was in March and he seemed as he always has - quite chubby.

“I saw the bag that he was taken away in and I thought: ‘Good grief’ at the size of it, because it was so small.

“Denise was upset and crying. She said that Jordan had died in her arms. She said he’d been incontinent and not walking.

“To me, Denise is a lady who was doing the best to help her family.”

13:10
Lunch break
The court has adjourned for lunch - trial set to resume at 2pm.
Live: Family on trial after dead teen and baby found in Leeds house
 
We're all struggling.

I thought I would look into the definition of vulnerable adult. The alternative charge is "causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable adult."

In my mind I wondered if they all fit the description of vulnerable adults and whether if that were true would the same expectations apply to vulnerable adults caring for another vulnerable adult. Anyway, the link to the wiki definition of vulnerable adult is below and I do have questions as to the correctness of them labeling Jordan a vulnerable adult after his death, seemingly for the purposes of this prosecution because the charge probably would not be brought against them if he was not a vulnerable adult (it effectively puts him into the same category as a child), but not classifying him as a vulnerable adult when he was alive and obviously requiring of the intervention and assistance of social services as such an individual. It seems he was able to be withdrawn from state education without any checks being made on his parent's ability to educate him for instance. I am not happy with this classification of him after his death without an assessment before death, and it appears as if it does require an assessment to be regarded as official. What about the state's failures in all this being regarded as criminal too.

Vulnerable adult - Wikipedia

I don't know what to think. Is Abigail's daughter at risk?
 
Last edited:
“I asked how long it had been since Jordan had been seen by professionals and Abigail stated it had been ‘not this November but the November before’.

“However, Dawn said: ‘Don’t be daft’. She said she’d given Jordan some money two months before and he’d been to the shops to buy something.
Dawn's answer doesn't appear to be relevant to the same question.

I wonder as an outreach worker to Abigail and her baby daughter, what she meant by professionals, and in what capacity she was enquiring about Jordan. It might seem irrelevant but did she have any duty towards Jordan? If she did she is happy to report on a conversation after his death but what did she do before his death? It seems as if she had at some point assessed the home as being unsuitable for the baby.

This case is making me irritable for some reason.
 
This is my first ever post - have been following a few cases on WS previously and been fascinated by the insight members have - you are all very dedicated and knowledgeable. So thank you, you have taught me much.

I have been moved to post on this one as I feel a personal frustration with it. It is obviously horrific and desperately tragic for poor Jordan and it is absolutely correct that it is investigated and those who had responsibility for Jordans health and well-being face the course of the law...however, my frustration lies in a recent experience that I was looking out for an elderly friend who, whilst she had been appraised as having full mental capacity, she also suffered with complex and varied moderate mental health issues. She was a very difficult and private person. She neglected herself into a terrible state, including continence issues, starvation, social isolation, physical immobility, personal and domestic hygiene did not figure, prescription drug abuse and (historically, prior to physical immobility) alcohol abuse. I tried for a long time to get help for her as I knew it would end in her death (She would state that she wanted to hasten the inevitable, and I believe that she really did mean it) I had to watch her deterioration and was helpless really - she needed to be put into hospital and properly cared for - but because she wouldn't go, the doctors wouldn't make her. Apparently this was due to her being deemed as having capacity to refuse intervention. She did not care one jot about herself - apart from staying in bed all day every day. She absolutely would not have accepted any intervention to help her from any quarter. She was independently wealthy and could have had the very best of everything, but just did not want to take any responsibility for her own health and so what happens?? I called an ambulance twice for her and she was taken into hospital, but they just let her go back home again when she requested it, with no plan or assessment to follow up. In my mind she was incredibly vulnerable, but apparently she wasn't...

I know this case is completely different due to Jordans age (and the deceased baby - which is definitely a sign of mum having mental health issues IMO), but as Tortoise has said above - who says Jordan was vulnerable, at what point did he become vulnerable (although in my mind he very clearly was at least at some point prior to his death), and if he was classed as officially vulnerable, why wasn't he being monitored by other agencies? I would have thought that this household would have been identified as a household in need of help from way back looking at some of the witness statements.


I have disconnected my thoughts a bit, I know, but I think my point is - If Jordan suffered from mental health problems or was suffering from an eating disorder, which seems likely, perhaps having dealt with mental health issues within the family for many years, the family were more inclined to 'normalise' this behaviour? Knowing how hard it is to get support and help is incredibly frustrating and time consuming. In the end when it was clear to them that he was gravely, gravely ill they did actually call for help. Much, much too late, I know. Their world was quite clearly very different from many of ours and in the absence of signs of imprisonment/ restraint they may well have thought they were doing the "right" thing, if he was as difficult as they say. Anyway - its a very difficult case - personally I cannot see how it got to court, but I am glad it has really so these issues can be reported and debated.
 
Welcome Sooty, so glad you joined us.

I can also see your point about normalising his behaviour. I think the combination of young adults, mental health issues and eating disorders are some of the most difficult and challenging areas to intervene and help. With Dawn's depression that is compounded. Buying the walking frame for him a short while before he died showed a desire of some sort to help him get better.
 
I've also found this in relation to manslaughter (involuntary - by gross negligence (my assumption as to the charge)).

Manslaughter in English law - Wikipedia

Individuals have a duty to act in the following situations:

  • to care for certain defined classes of helpless relatives, e.g. spouses must take care of each other, and parents must look after their dependent children. In R v Stone and Dobinson[17] an elderly woman with anorexia nervosa, came to stay with her brother and his cohabitee, who were both of low intelligence, and subsequently starved herself to death. The Court of Appeal held that the question whether the couple owed a duty to care for the deceased was a question of fact for the jury, which was entitled to take into account the facts that she was a relative of one of the appellants, that she was occupying a room in his house, and that the other appellant had undertaken the duty to care for her by trying to wash her and taking food to her.
  • [...]
 
I think one of the witnesses today also said how the family were regarded as being 'strange' and often endured having eggs thrown at the house by gangs of youths. It is all just so sad. I'm afraid that I can't help feeling sympathy for them all - they were not terribly well equipped in life IMO and left to go under the radar completely. I think we could all say that we have seen, known of families who struggle with life.

Maybe I will change my mind though - see how it all develops.
 
R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354

Ted Stone was 67, totally blind, partially deaf had no appreciable sense of smell and was of low intelligence. He lived with his housekeeper and mistress of 8 years, Gwendolyn Dobinson aged 43 who was described as ineffectual and inadequate. Ted's sister Fanny came to live with them. She had previously lived with another sister but had fallen out with her. She had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia nervosa. Ted and Gwendolyn took her in and agreed to look after her. However, Fanny's condition deteriorated and she was found dead in her bed in appalling conditions.

Stone and Dobinson were found liable for her death as they had assumed a responsibility to her by taking her in. They failed to look after her and ensure she got the medical help she needed.

Captcha
 
Same case as above, details at appeal:

Held


The jury were entitled to find that a duty of care was owed on the grounds that the victim was not only a lodger in the home of the defendants but also had closer ties to each. In Stone’s case, a duty of care was owed on the basis that she was a blood relative, whilst Dobinson had undertaken a duty of care by washing her and providing food.

Regarding the issue of negligence, the Court of Appeal held that in order to ground a conviction for manslaughter the defendants must have been ‘grossly negligent’ in respect of their breach of duty. Geoffrey Lane LJ suggested that such gross negligence required the defendants to have been either ‘indifferent’ to the risk of injury, or have foreseen the risk and run it nevertheless.

The conviction of gross negligence manslaughter was upheld.

R v Stone and Dobinson - 1977
 
R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354

Ted Stone was 67, totally blind, partially deaf had no appreciable sense of smell and was of low intelligence. He lived with his housekeeper and mistress of 8 years, Gwendolyn Dobinson aged 43 who was described as ineffectual and inadequate. Ted's sister Fanny came to live with them. She had previously lived with another sister but had fallen out with her. She had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia nervosa. Ted and Gwendolyn took her in and agreed to look after her. However, Fanny's condition deteriorated and she was found dead in her bed in appalling conditions.

Stone and Dobinson were found liable for her death as they had assumed a responsibility to her by taking her in. They failed to look after her and ensure she got the medical help she needed.

Captcha


Gosh That really is quite shocking! How could they deem him fit to make an informed decision I wonder? Interesting cases Tortoise.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
245
Guests online
1,109
Total visitors
1,354

Forum statistics

Threads
589,163
Messages
17,914,809
Members
227,740
Latest member
snoopyxxoo31
Back
Top