Discussion in 'Trials' started by imstilla.grandma, May 11, 2020.
Re: stick. Yes it was
Am I the only one who doesn't think CJ was involved?
I think she was repeating to the police what she'd been told by Shane when they were interviewed at the house. If he's of low intellectual ability than it's more likely she will be the dominant one to talk for him etc. Lots of relationships are like this.
I really believe if she was involved she would be up there in the Dock with him, the police aren't stupid and going on the evidence so far they wouldn't need her word to convict him (not that I'm sure the police would even cut a deal with a witness in this type of case - don't think that happens in the UK it's more of a US thing??).
If they only have that one circumstantial evidence and he doesn't talk they wouldn't be able to prove it.
I am just puzzled how a low iq man can commit something like this without blood on him and hardly any evidence of himself at the crime scene (apart from the DNA on the stick).
He doesn't have a digital footprint as no phone and was lucky with cctv (or knew exactly how to avoid) but where is all that blood from this evil murder?
If he beat her with a fist there would be marks on his knuckles, did he use the stick or a stone perhaps? How thick is that stick? Can't see injuries like that from sticks.
He ( or she or both) went back and did the rest. But CJ was reported staying at home for police wasn't she? Perhaps night time.
I'll facepalm myself now.
The stick... Just when you think you've heard it all.
I'm wondering how much time between the injuries could have been. Just going with SM's claim, if he hit her and left, how long that mysterious evil someone would have had to do his deed in order to the pathologist not be able to identify the cause.
She wasn't alive at fire I guess as there would have been smoke inhalation in lungs - amateur guess
Plus depending on the larvae found in the burnt part or unburnt part as if larvae were in burnt skin then we know approximately
You absolutely are judging people on benefits or with disabilities, because otherwise there would be no need to recount your little anecdote about your acquaintance.
You don’t have to be completely housebound with agoraphobia to qualify for disability benefits - there’s a scale of how it affects you and points are awarded accordingly. GPs have nothing to do with awarding benefits so “making out” anything to them would be pretty pointless.
I really don't want to argue with you. I was just giving an example of one person i know Personally (she is a family member) who unfortunately abuses the system. I do not believe every person who claims disability to be faking it for benefits. In fact, I think a lot of people who probably genuinely need it do not get the help/support they deserve. But SOME people NOT all people do exaggerate symptoms. I was merely asking if CJ had used her condition by way of an alibi in this case.
Thanks for all the updates.
I can't see in a million years they can even try and defend as manslaughter.
If her injuries were so severe that she collapes and inhales a significant amount of blood ..thats not going to happen in one strike ...so awful
I'm wondering if SM paid cash or used CJ's bank card then for purchases in Tesco as he's claiming he doesn't have one. If bank card and /or Tesco clubcard was used (if it's local to them there is a big possibility of having a clubcard especially as they didn't work imo) then LE could check the purchases, most importantly the lighter purchase imo.
Not sure on Tesco but Sainsbury's can check items through your nectar card. I had to return a pair of school shoes but didn't keep the receipt. They put the item code in and swiped my nectar card. They found the day and cost of it too and refunded straight away without the receipt. Also if they have two different clubcard accounts to get more points and deals perhaps then he would use his one, they could rule out CJ buying it. JMO
R.e the stick, I think I saw it posted that the chances of it being CJ’s dna were around 150 to 1? Correct me if I’m wrong. Whereas Louise and SM’s were a more in the millions/billions to 1. If that was correctly reported then I don’t think we can be certain that it was CJ’s dna, if 1 out of every 150 people have that dna profile. Not that I don’t think she may have had some hand in it. The evidence we’ve heard paints her as the dominant one in the couple, and as someone else suggested I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t return to the scene to burn the body after the fact at CJ’s instruction.
That being said, I believe the actual murder was his own doing, the stick situation appalls me. It was pointed towards the liver which I can only assume means it was found inserted into Louise when they discovered her body. It’s sickening poor Louise
Thanks legally for today's updates.
I wonder why Louise mum said she wasn't allowed to be with them anymore, did the mum know he was a creep/dodgy?
The stick, almost to her liver?! That's some powerful rage from mays. I hope to hell this kid passed out very quickly.
Girl, 16, 'murdered by her predator uncle' would have suffered 'overwhelming pain', court hears | Daily Mail Online
On balance I keep going back and forth about CJ.
If she were involved would she have called the police to report her missing as early as 6:23? and encouraged the police to attend and investigate by stating that L was 'vulnerable' and that she was afraid she might 'do something to herself'? I think if she were guilty she would hold off alerting the police and / or make light of the disappearence. - That being said, her demeaner was described as 'unconcerned and not unduly panicked' when police attended. - So why call only 23 minuets past her curfew?
CJ doing all the talking when police attend - I find that odd. Especially answering questions on S's behalf when in another room. You think she'd encourage S to discuss whatever he knew.
I'd like to know about CJ's behaviour towards S once it started to become clear he was telling lies, at what point did she start to suspect him? turn on him?
I keep thinking of Tia Sharp...
As a student social worker I've worked with looked after children and from experience if a child is under social services then the parents/carers have to report them missing to the police as soon as they are 10mins late home. Each and every missing incidence. This is because often missing children are victim to the various types of exploitation
Thanks for that info Lucy!
That is interesting. Would that still apply to Louise as she was over 16 ?
Yes if she was under social services then she would have a social worker until the age of 18.
Also I suspect this is why CJ stated Louise was a vulnerable child in her call to the police.
Thanks for the reply.
I wonder if she had phoned the police on all the other occasions Louise was late home or apparently went missing.