Murder trial collapses seven years after teenager's shooting
The trial of a man for the murder of 17-year-old Tanesha Melbourne-Blake has collapsed almost exactly seven years since she was shot dead in an alleged gang shooting on rival territory.
On Thursday, Judge Mark Dennis KC discharged jurors in the Old Bailey case of Marcus La Croix, 37, saying issues had arisen during the course of the evidence that needed to be 'bottomed out'.
La Croix had been charged with murder after allegedly making a confession to a fellow inmate, jurors had heard.
Judge Dennis said further inquiries were needed following the evidence from two police officers who had taken a witness statement from the prisoner.
He spoke of the need for time to carry out the investigation, saying: 'If you rush something like this further errors can be made.'
He reassured jurors following news reports suggesting cases could be heard by a judge and two magistrates, saying: 'There will always be jury trials, come what may.'
The case will be listed on June 20 for a case management hearing when the prosecution is expected to announce a decision on whether to seek a retrial.
Previously, the court had heard how Tanesha had been standing with friends in Chalgrove Road in Tottenham, north London, on the evening of Easter Monday in 2018 when a car pulled up and an occupant opened fire.
Jurors were shown CCTV allegedly showing an attack on La Croix the day before the shooting by members of a rival gang.
The prosecution alleged La Croix was among a group of men who travelled from Wood Green into rival territory before fatal shots were fired.
The silver Vauxhall Meriva that the shots were fired from was later set alight outside a housing estate in Barnet, north London.
Two years after the shooting, police made a breakthrough in the case when a prisoner at HMP Pentonville, north London, came forward to report an alleged confession, jurors were told.
La Croix had been 'boasting' and 'showing off' to fellow inmates in 2020, it was claimed.
An inmate told police La Croix admitted the killing after they spent time together and became close, the court was told.
He had given evidence in the trial over two days before the two police officers were called as witnesses.
La Croix, from Hackney, north London, had denied murder and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Justin Baldoni's Lawsuit Being Tossed Out Is A Win For Survivors
Note: This post is an Op-Ed and shares the author's personal views. I fucking told you so: Justin Baldoni's $400-million countersuit against Blake Lively was tossed out by a judge. Last December, Blake filed a California Civil Rights Department complaint against her It Ends with Us costar and director, in which she alleged sexual harassment and a subsequent retaliatory media campaign (she would then go on to sue Justin). Justin denied the claims and filed a countersuit of his own, alleging defamation and extortion, among other things. Related: 21 Times Celebrities Revealed Wildly Juicy, Shady, Or Even Disturbing Things In Interviews Earlier today, a judge ruled that the countersuit against Blake, as well as Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane, Vision PR, and the New York Times Company had been dismissed. The Wayfarer parties can still amend their complaint for "breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with contract." But the important part that I'd like to highlight is the emphasis that the allegations Blake made in her CRD complaint were privileged speech. To highlight one section from the judge: "The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged a defamation claim as to any part of the purported conspiracy. The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that any false statements were made to the Times other than the statements in Lively's CRD complaint, which were privileged under California law. There also is no allegation that the distribution of the CRD complaint was made by anyone other than Lively or, more particularly, with the involvement or agreement of Sloane or Reynolds. The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that Sloane or Reynolds individually did any more than repeat Lively's version of events, which they had no reason to doubt. And the Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that Lively should be held responsible for Sloane or Reynolds' statements. Their allegations of a conspiracy between the parties are conclusory." In non-legal-speak terms, California has a rule that essentially means you can't be sued for defamation if you make a serious allegation of sexual harassment. It's designed to prohibit a tactic that can be used to silence survivors who do speak out by bleeding them dry via the courts. Related: Here Are 16 Actors Who Saved Their Skin By Turning Down Roles In Movies That People Notoriously Hated Nineteen women's organizations already expressed concern over Baldoni's lawsuit because of what it could mean for survivors. Child USA worried that allowing Baldoni's lawsuit to continue would effectively have grave complications for California's civil code and "would force survivors into the untenable position of having to choose between remaining silent or facing emotional, reputational, and financial devastation through protracted, abusive litigation." The Child USA amicus brief continues, "It would also send a dangerous message to other survivors contemplating disclosure — that speaking out may carry intolerable risks — and it would embolden perpetrators and complicit institutions that depend on secrecy to perpetuate cycles of abuse." This is what I have been harping on about since news of the lawsuits first emerged. This isn't just an annoying celebrity trial. If Blake Lively, a rich white lady with celebrity cache, can face a multimillion retaliatory defamation lawsuit, where the fuck does that put the rest of us who might want to speak out about sexual harassment? We need allegations of sexual harassment without malice to be considered privileged speech, which isn't the case across the country. The suit against the New York Times being dropped is also good news for the media's ability to report on alleged sexual harassment cases. Smaller publications sounded the alarm from the get-go. To a certain extent, I do worry that the damage has already been done. Most people I speak to voice confusion about what to me is a fairly simple sexual harassment and retaliation case, citing the sheer abundance of media flooding our feeds. Will all the tabloids and TikTokers that called Blake a bitch in a million different ways because she made an allegation of sexual harassment finally look at themselves in the mirror? Will my comments finally not be full of people who claim they know more about this case and its implications for women than a domestic violence shelter? (For the love of god, "Believe All Women" is not the slogan.) Or perhaps the slop machine will keep churning until the trial, reminding us that we are in an age of conspiracy that will continue to assert that survivors' stories are really important — well, unless I don't like you. Nothing says, "I champion survivors' stories" more than spending most of your time bashing a woman online! Also in Celebrity: Chrissy Teigen Posted The Results Of Her Hairline Lowering Surgery, And Ouch Also in Celebrity: 18 Celebrities Who Called Out Other Celebs On Social Media For Bad, Problematic, Or Just Plain Mean Behavior Also in Celebrity: 21 Incredible Photos Of Hollywood Legends Back In The Day That I Guarantee You've Never, Ever Seen Before
Buzz Feed
4 days ago
- Buzz Feed
Justin Baldoni's Blake Lively Lawsuit Dismissed: Opinion
I fucking told you so: Justin Baldoni's $400 Million countersuit against Blake Lively was tossed out by a judge. Last December, Blake filed a California Civil Rights Department complaint against her It Ends With Us co-star and director, in which she alleged sexual harassment and a subsequent retaliatory media campaign (she would then go on to sue Justin). Justin denied the claims and filed a countersuit of his own, alleging defamation and extortion, among other things. Earlier today, a judge ruled that the countersuit against Blake, as well as Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane, Vision PR, and the New York Times Company had been dismissed. The Wayfarer parties can still amend their complaint for "breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with contract." But the important part that I'd like to highlight is the emphasis that the allegations Blake made in her CRD complaint were privileged speech. To highlight one section from the judge: "The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged a defamation claim as to any part of the purported conspiracy. The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that any false statements were made to the Times other than the statements in Lively's CRD complaint, which were privileged under California law. There also is no allegation that the distribution of the CRD complaint was made by anyone other than Lively or, more particularly, with the involvement or agreement of Sloane or Reynolds. The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that Sloane or Reynolds individually did any more than repeat Lively's version of events, which they had no reason to doubt. And the Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that Lively should be held responsible for Sloane or Reynolds' statements. Their allegations of a conspiracy between the parties are conclusory." In non-legal-speak terms, California has a rule that essentially means you can't be sued for defamation if you make a serious allegation of sexual harassment. It's designed to prohibit a tactic that can be used to silence survivors who do speak out by bleeding them dry via the courts. 19 women's organizations already expressed concern over Baldoni's lawsuit because of what it could mean for survivors. Child USA worried that allowing Baldoni's lawsuit to continue would effectively have grave complications for California's civil code and "would force survivors into the untenable position of having to choose between remaining silent or facing emotional, reputational, and financial devastation through protracted, abusive litigation." The Child USA amicus brief continues, "It would also send a dangerous message to other survivors contemplating disclosure — that speaking out may carry intolerable risks — and it would embolden perpetrators and complicit institutions that depend on secrecy to perpetuate cycles of abuse." This is what I have been harping on about since news of the lawsuits first emerged. This isn't just an annoying celebrity trial. If Blake Lively, a rich white lady with celebrity cache, can face a multimillion retaliatory defamation lawsuit, where the fuck does that put the rest of us who might want to speak out about sexual harassment? We need allegations of sexual harassment without malice to be considered privileged speech, which isn't the case across the country. The suit against the New York Times being dropped is also good news for the media's ability to report on alleged sexual harassment cases. Smaller publications sounded the alarm from the get-go. To a certain extent, I do worry that the damage has already been done. Most people I speak to voice confusion about what to me is a fairly simple sexual harassment and retaliation case, citing the sheer abundance of media flooding our feeds. Will all the tabloids and TikTokers that called Blake a bitch in a million different ways because she made an allegation of sexual harassment finally look at themselves in the mirror? Will my comments finally not be full of people who claim they know more about this case and its implications for women than a domestic violence shelter? (For the love of god, "Believe All Women" is not the slogan). Or perhaps the slop machine will keep churning until the trial, reminding us that we are in an age of conspiracy that will continue to assert that survivors' stories are really important — well, unless I don't like you. Nothing says, "I champion survivors' stories" more than spending most of your time bashing a woman online!
USA Today
4 days ago
- USA Today
He developed 'dissociative amnesia' after a rape. What is that?
He developed 'dissociative amnesia' after a rape. What is that? Show Caption Hide Caption Organizers say political pressure is motivation to continue celebrating Pride Organizers say political pressure is motivation to continue organizing and celebrating Pride, although some corporate support dwindles. Editor's Note: This story contains graphic descriptions that some readers may find disturbing. Ron Blake understands trauma. He also understands what it's like to work through it. Blake was raped more than a decade ago. Held down, beaten and assaulted. The men responsible, including a prior domestic partner of his, were all aware he was a gay man. Police made no arrests. A documentary released earlier this year recaps his experience. In order to cope with his trauma, his brain blocked it all out. He had some recollection of what happened, but the vast majority was gone. Several years later, in May 2014, a Time article jogged his memory. Like a lightning bolt. "I remember at lunchtime, I was reading the cover story, and it was about sexual assault on campus. For whatever reason, that just started triggering memories. And I remember I shut off the TV, I stopped eating, and I called my friend, and I said, 'I think this happened to me,'" says Blake, now 56, of Phoenix. The friend knew, though. Blake had told him the day after, then never brought it up again. What was going on? Dissociative amnesia, according to counselors of Blake's. "It took me a long time to really accept that dissociative amnesia is a real thing." In case you missed: What 'The Red Zone' on college campuses teaches us about sexual assault What is dissociative amnesia? The condition may occur "when your mind blocks out important information about yourself, causing 'gaps' in your memory," according to Cleveland Clinic. "One of the most common reasons your mind blocks out things is to protect you from unpleasant, distressing or traumatic experiences." People may develop it after one-time traumatic events or from years and years of stress. Think neglect, abuse, seeing violence up close, etc. "For many, the memories they regain are upsetting or overwhelming," Cleveland Clinic adds. "Mental health therapy can help you cope with those feelings and manage them in a healthy and safe way." Treatments and diagnoses aren't one-size-fits-all; it's not something that can be cured, but can be managed. Blake still can't remember certain details about the night of the rape, but his therapists have told him "if you want to try and remember, that's great, but look at where you're at today. And, you know, does it really matter?" The important thing is he's safe now. Still, it's an odd sensation. "Even as I'm describing it to you, it doesn't seem real that those memories could have been stored in my head, but just not accessible to me," he says. In Blake's case, "the most destructive part was knowing that my ex partner was involved in this." His counselor told him the dissociation "was more than likely my brain's way of saying, 'somebody this close to you, somebody that you love this much, could have done something so destructive to you. Your brain just shut it out because it wasn't prepared to deal with it.'" Her daughter's suicide shocked everyone. Now, she's raising awareness. 'What I needed to keep surviving' Blake survived a suicide attempt in May 2015 and credits a Stephen Colbert joke for making him laugh and stopping him from dying by suicide months later. He doesn't recall the joke today. "It wasn't the joke that was important, it was me recognizing that I still had something good in me," he says, "the laughter." He's since made it his mission over the last decade to share his story with strangers; he's met 34,320 to be exact, who have all written on large poster boards he carries around. What started off as trying to get people to support him getting on "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" has snowballed into people writing down song lyrics, jokes, and Bible verses. They opened up to him about their lives, just as he opened up to them. "That was what I needed to keep surviving, is I had to learn how to talk to people and re-engage with society, and I could even show myself at the end of the day," he says. "Look at what I accomplished. I got out. Look at all these people that listen to me." His trauma and dissociative amnesia may lurk in the dark background. But Blake has stepped into a light of his own making. If you are a survivor of sexual assault, RAINN offers support through the National Sexual Assault Hotline at (4673) and and en Español If you or someone you know is a victim of domestic violence, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 800-799-7233 or text "START" to 88788.
