Too awful to contemplate?

My reading of the Judgement is that the various assessments support long term placements outside the family. The mother had her first baby at 16. Baby removed and adopted after mum found drunk in charge. One incident of drunk in charge would not lead to adoption, there must have been other significant concerns. She went on to have 6 more children, the last 3 with Poppi's father.
This information is in various newspapers. The Judgement indicates that Poppi's father applied to discharge the care orders made a year or so earlier, on the basis of the "new" evidence, which the Judge did not find persuasive.

I think jings report by the judge mentioned the application by the father to re-unite the family again, and that it said that the mother and children were living in the overcrowded grandmothers house. Perhaps I misread it.

I read that the children were all in long-term foster care.

She took the other 5 children to live with their grandmother, (and was told to supervise the father's time with the children) but it was overcrowded and she and the father have applied to move back.

jings Your link was very interesting. Unpleasant reading, but it did clarify just how confusing the situation and the expert opinions were.

Have I missed something? Where's Poppi's mum?

That sums it up briefly and accurately Anya.

The family court hearing that led to the recent Judgement was held in the presence of reporters, though not the general public with I feel is entirely appropriate. The High Court Judge who has had oversight of family proceedings involving Poppi's brothers and sisters has sat through days of evidence and x examination and will have read and carefully considered every report submitted in the proceedings. He would not have reached the conclusions he did without careful consideration.

jingl I referred to the judge's ruling that brought all this back into the public domain. He stated that on the 'balance of evidence available' he considered it highly likely that this man had sexually assaulted his daughter shortly before her death.

Judges do not issue statements like this lightly so I imagine that he took into account all the available evidence he was presented with. He also took into consideration reports that this man had previously been accused to sexual assaults on other children.

As the law stands there is little likelihood of this man being successfully prosecuted but the judge's conclusion at least ensures that his future 'activities' will be either severely curtailed or immediately investigated thoroughly. Or even that other of his victims will speak out.

I suppose my question is why were the obvious actions not taken at the time. I mean why wasn't the bedding, nappies etc kept? Was it down to one new or incompetent officer first on the scene and taken aback by parental grief? Someone somewhere decided not to give credence to the pathologists report but why? There are actual questions that can be asked and key officers are still around. I'm very glad its being looked into.

I will read it, thank you for the link, don't have the stomach for it tonight though.

That is it, without evidence no-one can be tried. He can neither be convicted nor cleared. It is quite obvious that something very nasty happened to that little girl, but tying it to him would not succeed in the absence of the evidence that would prove it. If he were convicted without the evidence, there would always be a doubt.

The experts all seem to disagree. Without further evidence, how can they ever be completely sure? I mean, if they weren't sure then.

It seems extremely complicated. this is the official report on the various investigations It makes unpleasant reading. Avoid if you think you will be too upset.

TBH, reading that, I can't see how it can ever be satisfactorily concluded with any certainty. Very very sad.

Sorry, policeman not 'police'.

Lessons never seem to be learned do they.

Was the police who handed over the nappy to the aunt a complete bungling idiot or was he guilty of conspiracy? Will we ever know?

is DNA a euphemism
Sorry Nonnie, not sure what you mean

Did the report not say that the baby's DNA was found on her father's penis.
Of course, it could be claimed that it got there by any other means.
Any barrister could suggest several other means.

And have I not said if the father is guilty he should be punished ? But I think as he was not the police are responsible for failing in their duty and they too should be punished , we really don't need to hear - lessons will be learned

What exactly is the evidence you speak of Anya. And where is it stored?

But I doubt if that will happen. I believe the main police officer on the case was allowed to take early retirement at fortyeight, and now lives quietly on his pension.

Yes. And in an ideal world he would be. But to bring a case against someone there has to be the small matter of usable evidence. Which, in this case, was destroyed. The people who need to be punished for that now are the people who were completely remiss in their handling of the matter at the time it happened.

Let us put the record straight Annie - yes, it seems that yet again the police and other agencies have been negligent in their duty. But if this man is guilty, and the balance of evidence seems to suggest he was, he is the one who needs to be 'held responsible' for 'wrong doings' and face justice.

Alea - yes, I was too appalled by this to think of starting a thread or indeed speaking of it to anyone.

The thoughts I feel able to share are:
There appears to have been extraordinary incompetence by Cumbia police and possibly ambulance and hospital staff too.
Sometimes the tiniest suspicion of an inappropriate touch seems to be regarded as enough to hound a parent or other person in charge of a child and charge them. This little girl had fatal injuries.
If the father is found guilty and goes to prison he will be a target as Sutcliffe was.
Is there any way to control the big business of online porn? It was involved in the North Wales case and, apparently, in this one.

Annie I wish you would choose your words more carefully.
Clearly there has been dereliction of duty by both the police and social workers in this case, and from what I have read, action is being taken against at least one serving officer.

Your post at 15.01.34 implies firstly that the majority of police officers are incompetent and/or corrupt and secondly that there is no will to bring to account those who do fall short.

This is unfair and unjust to the many who do a very difficult job in tough circumstances.

If there was evidence that the man is guilty, this should have been taken to court.

If there was evidence that the man is innocent, this should have been properly documented so that he would not be hounded as is now happening.

We rely on police to investigate possible crimes and to do everything they can to find out the truth. In this instance it seems they did the opposite so those responsible should certainly be punished in some way.

Petra, I believe in miracles but the police being held responsible and facing justice for their mistakes and their corruption will take more than a miracle

Your spot on there, Annie. But don't hold your breath.