Dad accused of killing baby girl in court

First published in News

A dad accused of murdering his baby daughter has an acute form of epilepsy and was suffering from a seizure when she was fatally injured, a court was told.

Aimee-Rose Sandland, who was born on September 27, 2012, was five weeks old when she died on November 9, 2012.

She had been taken to hospital on November 5, 2012 following an incident – the details of which have not been revealed.

On Friday her father, heavily tattooed Mark Sandland, appeared in Lewes Crown Court.

The 27-year-old, who spoke only to confirm his name, wept in the dock.

He did not enter a plea to the count.

Lewis Power, defending Sandland, said he would deny the charge against him.

He said: “He [Sandland] suffers from an acute form of epilepsy.

“He believes he suffered from an attack [when the incident occurred].

“It’s a complex case.”

Mr Power outlined three defences which were likely to be referred to.

There is a legal defence known as ‘Automatism’. It argues that a person cannot be held responsible for their actions if they had no conscious knowledge of them.

The case was adjourned until a plea and case management hearing on January 10, 2014.

Sandland, of Cambridge Road, Hastings, was remanded in custody.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:47pm Mon 7 Oct 13

KarenT says...

Epilepsy... right. If that were in any way true than no one with epilepsy would be allowed to keep their children, if it made parents potential child murderers. I've seen people having epileptic fits... in the most extreme cases where they lose consciousness they lie on the ground semi-conscious having spasms. Yeah maybe I "don't know the facts" but it sounds to me like someone grasping at straws for a defence... ANY defence.
Epilepsy... right. If that were in any way true than no one with epilepsy would be allowed to keep their children, if it made parents potential child murderers. I've seen people having epileptic fits... in the most extreme cases where they lose consciousness they lie on the ground semi-conscious having spasms. Yeah maybe I "don't know the facts" but it sounds to me like someone grasping at straws for a defence... ANY defence. KarenT
  • Score: -85

2:59am Tue 8 Oct 13

mimseycal says...

Epilepsy is a symptom of an underlying neurological disorder. There isn't therefore a disease that can be called Epilepsy; acute or otherwise.
Epilepsy is a symptom of an underlying neurological disorder. There isn't therefore a disease that can be called Epilepsy; acute or otherwise. mimseycal
  • Score: -7

10:18pm Tue 8 Oct 13

1nnocent until proven guilty says...

Yes Karen T, you 'don't know the facts' and there's no 'maybe' about it. Your uneducated comment speaks volumes about the sort of person you are. I hope for your sake that if you ever get wrongly accused for anything that you don't have a jury of peers like you because they will throw away the key whether you're guilty or not!
Yes Karen T, you 'don't know the facts' and there's no 'maybe' about it. Your uneducated comment speaks volumes about the sort of person you are. I hope for your sake that if you ever get wrongly accused for anything that you don't have a jury of peers like you because they will throw away the key whether you're guilty or not! 1nnocent until proven guilty
  • Score: 43

9:03am Wed 9 Oct 13

bethrebecca says...

Karen, why you have put I don't know the facts in inverted commas is a little beyond me, you don't know the facts, this article is about a preliminary hearing with only the bare bones of information provided, and isn't here to start a Daily Mail style comment war. I suspect you don't quite understand what inverted commas mean in punctuation.

Having seen a few epileptic fits, I'm afraid this doesn't make you an expert - nor would it make me, or anybody else one. Unless you have a constructive, useful comment to post, please refrain from airing a misinformed opinion and remember these are people involved in this trial, not only Mark but his family and the baby's Mother, and this isn't a soapbox. If you are unsure about the different types and severitys of epilepsy, perhaps you should consult with an Epilepsy charity to inform yourself better. Thankyou.
Karen, why you have put I don't know the facts in inverted commas is a little beyond me, you don't know the facts, this article is about a preliminary hearing with only the bare bones of information provided, and isn't here to start a Daily Mail style comment war. I suspect you don't quite understand what inverted commas mean in punctuation. Having seen a few epileptic fits, I'm afraid this doesn't make you an expert - nor would it make me, or anybody else one. Unless you have a constructive, useful comment to post, please refrain from airing a misinformed opinion and remember these are people involved in this trial, not only Mark but his family and the baby's Mother, and this isn't a soapbox. If you are unsure about the different types and severitys of epilepsy, perhaps you should consult with an Epilepsy charity to inform yourself better. Thankyou. bethrebecca
  • Score: 23

9:17am Wed 9 Oct 13

KarenT says...

1nnocent until proven guilty wrote:
Yes Karen T, you 'don't know the facts' and there's no 'maybe' about it. Your uneducated comment speaks volumes about the sort of person you are. I hope for your sake that if you ever get wrongly accused for anything that you don't have a jury of peers like you because they will throw away the key whether you're guilty or not!
What is "uneducated" about my comment? Did I misspell anything? Did I use bad grammar? Why is it that whenever you say something that people disagree with they often say you are uneducated? That's just extremely weak and desperate debating!
[quote][p][bold]1nnocent until proven guilty[/bold] wrote: Yes Karen T, you 'don't know the facts' and there's no 'maybe' about it. Your uneducated comment speaks volumes about the sort of person you are. I hope for your sake that if you ever get wrongly accused for anything that you don't have a jury of peers like you because they will throw away the key whether you're guilty or not![/p][/quote]What is "uneducated" about my comment? Did I misspell anything? Did I use bad grammar? Why is it that whenever you say something that people disagree with they often say you are uneducated? That's just extremely weak and desperate debating! KarenT
  • Score: -14

9:24am Wed 9 Oct 13

KarenT says...

bethrebecca wrote:
Karen, why you have put I don't know the facts in inverted commas is a little beyond me, you don't know the facts, this article is about a preliminary hearing with only the bare bones of information provided, and isn't here to start a Daily Mail style comment war. I suspect you don't quite understand what inverted commas mean in punctuation.

Having seen a few epileptic fits, I'm afraid this doesn't make you an expert - nor would it make me, or anybody else one. Unless you have a constructive, useful comment to post, please refrain from airing a misinformed opinion and remember these are people involved in this trial, not only Mark but his family and the baby's Mother, and this isn't a soapbox. If you are unsure about the different types and severitys of epilepsy, perhaps you should consult with an Epilepsy charity to inform yourself better. Thankyou.
I said I don't know the facts because I don't, and put that in inverted commas to highlight that! I DO understand what they mean! Nor have I said that I'm an expert on epilepsy; get your facts straight! My opinion isn't misinformed, i.e it's not based on the WRONG information, it is my supposition, which, based on available facts, I am entitled to. Like I am entitled to suppose that BASED on what you write, you aren't very clever at all! I 'could' be wrong though, cuz I don't personally know you, but I'd rather keep it that way if it's all the same to you! :D
[quote][p][bold]bethrebecca[/bold] wrote: Karen, why you have put I don't know the facts in inverted commas is a little beyond me, you don't know the facts, this article is about a preliminary hearing with only the bare bones of information provided, and isn't here to start a Daily Mail style comment war. I suspect you don't quite understand what inverted commas mean in punctuation. Having seen a few epileptic fits, I'm afraid this doesn't make you an expert - nor would it make me, or anybody else one. Unless you have a constructive, useful comment to post, please refrain from airing a misinformed opinion and remember these are people involved in this trial, not only Mark but his family and the baby's Mother, and this isn't a soapbox. If you are unsure about the different types and severitys of epilepsy, perhaps you should consult with an Epilepsy charity to inform yourself better. Thankyou.[/p][/quote]I said I don't know the facts because I don't, and put that in inverted commas to highlight that! I DO understand what they mean! Nor have I said that I'm an expert on epilepsy; get your facts straight! My opinion isn't misinformed, i.e it's not based on the WRONG information, it is my supposition, which, based on available facts, I am entitled to. Like I am entitled to suppose that BASED on what you write, you aren't very clever at all! I 'could' be wrong though, cuz I don't personally know you, but I'd rather keep it that way if it's all the same to you! :D KarenT
  • Score: -18

9:45am Wed 9 Oct 13

bethrebecca says...

Accusing somebody of being stupid and following it with 'cuz' isn't the best way to prove your point...but unlike your comment I wrote on this article purely to put a stop to any ignorance and not to personally attack you. My point was that you said you had seen a couple of epileptic fits therefore had decided that Mark was guilty, surely you can see that basing your opinion on that doesn't make you look too informed? If it was as easy as one type and severity of epilepsy then this case would be simple but as you can see it is not. You are of course entitled to your opinion, however if it's misinformed you have to accept that you may be pulled up on it. This isn't a debate, it's a person's life, and we don't have fair trials in England so bored people can decode whether other people are guilty or not for fun.
Accusing somebody of being stupid and following it with 'cuz' isn't the best way to prove your point...but unlike your comment I wrote on this article purely to put a stop to any ignorance and not to personally attack you. My point was that you said you had seen a couple of epileptic fits therefore had decided that Mark was guilty, surely you can see that basing your opinion on that doesn't make you look too informed? If it was as easy as one type and severity of epilepsy then this case would be simple but as you can see it is not. You are of course entitled to your opinion, however if it's misinformed you have to accept that you may be pulled up on it. This isn't a debate, it's a person's life, and we don't have fair trials in England so bored people can decode whether other people are guilty or not for fun. bethrebecca
  • Score: 5

10:11am Wed 9 Oct 13

Clarence78 says...

I can't imagine what Mark and his family must be going through. To lose their daughter, have the stress of a court trial and to have their lives dragged through the papers. It is interesting to see how many people appear to be able to write a person off as guilty based on a couple of paragraphs they have read in a local rag about a total stranger.
Oh, but he's got some tattoos, right? Orf with his ead...
I can't imagine what Mark and his family must be going through. To lose their daughter, have the stress of a court trial and to have their lives dragged through the papers. It is interesting to see how many people appear to be able to write a person off as guilty based on a couple of paragraphs they have read in a local rag about a total stranger. Oh, but he's got some tattoos, right? Orf with his ead... Clarence78
  • Score: 7

10:23am Wed 9 Oct 13

KarenT says...

bethrebecca wrote:
Accusing somebody of being stupid and following it with 'cuz' isn't the best way to prove your point...but unlike your comment I wrote on this article purely to put a stop to any ignorance and not to personally attack you. My point was that you said you had seen a couple of epileptic fits therefore had decided that Mark was guilty, surely you can see that basing your opinion on that doesn't make you look too informed? If it was as easy as one type and severity of epilepsy then this case would be simple but as you can see it is not. You are of course entitled to your opinion, however if it's misinformed you have to accept that you may be pulled up on it. This isn't a debate, it's a person's life, and we don't have fair trials in England so bored people can decode whether other people are guilty or not for fun.
Didn't say you were "stupid", I said you don't seem very clever, which is my assessment based on your poor debating skills, which involve misquotes, for one. I also said based on the facts as they stand I believe he might very well be culpable. An "opinion". If I WAS a member of the jury I would be presented with all the facts, and then I would make an 'informed decision', however I'm still entitled to voice a supposition, which is different. And I'm not bored, my opinion will have no bearing on the outcome of this trial, so I don't feel compelled to think carefully about it. Out of my hands! Oh, and ta for letting me know that 'cuz' is incorrect spelling... Never would've known! ;-)
[quote][p][bold]bethrebecca[/bold] wrote: Accusing somebody of being stupid and following it with 'cuz' isn't the best way to prove your point...but unlike your comment I wrote on this article purely to put a stop to any ignorance and not to personally attack you. My point was that you said you had seen a couple of epileptic fits therefore had decided that Mark was guilty, surely you can see that basing your opinion on that doesn't make you look too informed? If it was as easy as one type and severity of epilepsy then this case would be simple but as you can see it is not. You are of course entitled to your opinion, however if it's misinformed you have to accept that you may be pulled up on it. This isn't a debate, it's a person's life, and we don't have fair trials in England so bored people can decode whether other people are guilty or not for fun.[/p][/quote]Didn't say you were "stupid", I said you don't seem very clever, which is my assessment based on your poor debating skills, which involve misquotes, for one. I also said based on the facts as they stand I believe he might very well be culpable. An "opinion". If I WAS a member of the jury I would be presented with all the facts, and then I would make an 'informed decision', however I'm still entitled to voice a supposition, which is different. And I'm not bored, my opinion will have no bearing on the outcome of this trial, so I don't feel compelled to think carefully about it. Out of my hands! Oh, and ta for letting me know that 'cuz' is incorrect spelling... Never would've known! ;-) KarenT
  • Score: -3

10:24am Wed 9 Oct 13

KarenT says...

Clarence78 wrote:
I can't imagine what Mark and his family must be going through. To lose their daughter, have the stress of a court trial and to have their lives dragged through the papers. It is interesting to see how many people appear to be able to write a person off as guilty based on a couple of paragraphs they have read in a local rag about a total stranger.
Oh, but he's got some tattoos, right? Orf with his ead...
He has tattoos? How'd you know that then? What has tattoos got to do with it?
[quote][p][bold]Clarence78[/bold] wrote: I can't imagine what Mark and his family must be going through. To lose their daughter, have the stress of a court trial and to have their lives dragged through the papers. It is interesting to see how many people appear to be able to write a person off as guilty based on a couple of paragraphs they have read in a local rag about a total stranger. Oh, but he's got some tattoos, right? Orf with his ead...[/p][/quote]He has tattoos? How'd you know that then? What has tattoos got to do with it? KarenT
  • Score: 2

10:28am Wed 9 Oct 13

KarenT says...

Oh, it says he is "heavily tattooed" in the text. So what? Why are you assuming that my opinion is in any way based on "tattoos"? Hadn't even noticed that insignificant fact. What I said had nothing to do with that obviously?!
Oh, it says he is "heavily tattooed" in the text. So what? Why are you assuming that my opinion is in any way based on "tattoos"? Hadn't even noticed that insignificant fact. What I said had nothing to do with that obviously?! KarenT
  • Score: 2

11:32am Wed 9 Oct 13

AmyD88 says...

KarenT wrote:
Epilepsy... right. If that were in any way true than no one with epilepsy would be allowed to keep their children, if it made parents potential child murderers. I've seen people having epileptic fits... in the most extreme cases where they lose consciousness they lie on the ground semi-conscious having spasms. Yeah maybe I "don't know the facts" but it sounds to me like someone grasping at straws for a defence... ANY defence.
Karen T - I don't even know where to begin with this. It is disgusting. Who are you to judge a person so drastically based upon a brief description of a court hearing? And for you to write your comment in such a light hearted, flippant tone as well. This is somebody's life, not just something for you to have a little gossip about.

So you've seen people having epileptic fits. SO WHAT? Why would you even include that in your post unless you were trying to imply that this puts you in some kind of position of authority on the matter? People who suffer from epileptic fits can have totally different experiences and totally different levels of severity. Considering you have never seen Mark Sandland himself have a fit, your comment is completely pointless. You know nothing.

Mark and his family and friends are going through something more horrific at the moment than most people will experience in their entire lives. Not only have they lost their baby daughter due to a terrible tragedy, but Mark is being wrongly accused of her murder. This is a painful enough time, without people like you using their suffering as some kind of entertainment and posting ignorant comments on news articles about their life.

As somebody mentioned in a comment previously, I REALLY hope you are never wrongly accused of something this serious, because I wouldn't wish the kind of suffering Mark is experiencing now on ANYONE.

Please think things through a little more before you are so harsh and judgmental in future. You really do not know what you are talking about.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Epilepsy... right. If that were in any way true than no one with epilepsy would be allowed to keep their children, if it made parents potential child murderers. I've seen people having epileptic fits... in the most extreme cases where they lose consciousness they lie on the ground semi-conscious having spasms. Yeah maybe I "don't know the facts" but it sounds to me like someone grasping at straws for a defence... ANY defence.[/p][/quote]Karen T - I don't even know where to begin with this. It is disgusting. Who are you to judge a person so drastically based upon a brief description of a court hearing? And for you to write your comment in such a light hearted, flippant tone as well. This is somebody's life, not just something for you to have a little gossip about. So you've seen people having epileptic fits. SO WHAT? Why would you even include that in your post unless you were trying to imply that this puts you in some kind of position of authority on the matter? People who suffer from epileptic fits can have totally different experiences and totally different levels of severity. Considering you have never seen Mark Sandland himself have a fit, your comment is completely pointless. You know nothing. Mark and his family and friends are going through something more horrific at the moment than most people will experience in their entire lives. Not only have they lost their baby daughter due to a terrible tragedy, but Mark is being wrongly accused of her murder. This is a painful enough time, without people like you using their suffering as some kind of entertainment and posting ignorant comments on news articles about their life. As somebody mentioned in a comment previously, I REALLY hope you are never wrongly accused of something this serious, because I wouldn't wish the kind of suffering Mark is experiencing now on ANYONE. Please think things through a little more before you are so harsh and judgmental in future. You really do not know what you are talking about. AmyD88
  • Score: 7

11:39am Wed 9 Oct 13

KarenT says...

AmyD88 wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Epilepsy... right. If that were in any way true than no one with epilepsy would be allowed to keep their children, if it made parents potential child murderers. I've seen people having epileptic fits... in the most extreme cases where they lose consciousness they lie on the ground semi-conscious having spasms. Yeah maybe I "don't know the facts" but it sounds to me like someone grasping at straws for a defence... ANY defence.
Karen T - I don't even know where to begin with this. It is disgusting. Who are you to judge a person so drastically based upon a brief description of a court hearing? And for you to write your comment in such a light hearted, flippant tone as well. This is somebody's life, not just something for you to have a little gossip about.

So you've seen people having epileptic fits. SO WHAT? Why would you even include that in your post unless you were trying to imply that this puts you in some kind of position of authority on the matter? People who suffer from epileptic fits can have totally different experiences and totally different levels of severity. Considering you have never seen Mark Sandland himself have a fit, your comment is completely pointless. You know nothing.

Mark and his family and friends are going through something more horrific at the moment than most people will experience in their entire lives. Not only have they lost their baby daughter due to a terrible tragedy, but Mark is being wrongly accused of her murder. This is a painful enough time, without people like you using their suffering as some kind of entertainment and posting ignorant comments on news articles about their life.

As somebody mentioned in a comment previously, I REALLY hope you are never wrongly accused of something this serious, because I wouldn't wish the kind of suffering Mark is experiencing now on ANYONE.

Please think things through a little more before you are so harsh and judgmental in future. You really do not know what you are talking about.
Who said I "judged"? I could only do that if I was a member of the jury or the judge him/herself! "Supposition" is different from "judgement". Look them both up if that helps! If I were ever wrongly accused of something, then I'd leave it to my appointed solicitor/QC to present facts to defend me. Then it would be up to a jury. I'm not judge or jury, I am assuming, given the info available, what I am assuming. If I'm incorrect with my assumption then it will come out in the trial! Get over it FFS! And I have to get over to work now... We'll all hear about the trial results no doubt.
[quote][p][bold]AmyD88[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Epilepsy... right. If that were in any way true than no one with epilepsy would be allowed to keep their children, if it made parents potential child murderers. I've seen people having epileptic fits... in the most extreme cases where they lose consciousness they lie on the ground semi-conscious having spasms. Yeah maybe I "don't know the facts" but it sounds to me like someone grasping at straws for a defence... ANY defence.[/p][/quote]Karen T - I don't even know where to begin with this. It is disgusting. Who are you to judge a person so drastically based upon a brief description of a court hearing? And for you to write your comment in such a light hearted, flippant tone as well. This is somebody's life, not just something for you to have a little gossip about. So you've seen people having epileptic fits. SO WHAT? Why would you even include that in your post unless you were trying to imply that this puts you in some kind of position of authority on the matter? People who suffer from epileptic fits can have totally different experiences and totally different levels of severity. Considering you have never seen Mark Sandland himself have a fit, your comment is completely pointless. You know nothing. Mark and his family and friends are going through something more horrific at the moment than most people will experience in their entire lives. Not only have they lost their baby daughter due to a terrible tragedy, but Mark is being wrongly accused of her murder. This is a painful enough time, without people like you using their suffering as some kind of entertainment and posting ignorant comments on news articles about their life. As somebody mentioned in a comment previously, I REALLY hope you are never wrongly accused of something this serious, because I wouldn't wish the kind of suffering Mark is experiencing now on ANYONE. Please think things through a little more before you are so harsh and judgmental in future. You really do not know what you are talking about.[/p][/quote]Who said I "judged"? I could only do that if I was a member of the jury or the judge him/herself! "Supposition" is different from "judgement". Look them both up if that helps! If I were ever wrongly accused of something, then I'd leave it to my appointed solicitor/QC to present facts to defend me. Then it would be up to a jury. I'm not judge or jury, I am assuming, given the info available, what I am assuming. If I'm incorrect with my assumption then it will come out in the trial! Get over it FFS! And I have to get over to work now... We'll all hear about the trial results no doubt. KarenT
  • Score: -5

1:34pm Wed 9 Oct 13

AmyD88 says...

KarenT wrote:
AmyD88 wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Epilepsy... right. If that were in any way true than no one with epilepsy would be allowed to keep their children, if it made parents potential child murderers. I've seen people having epileptic fits... in the most extreme cases where they lose consciousness they lie on the ground semi-conscious having spasms. Yeah maybe I "don't know the facts" but it sounds to me like someone grasping at straws for a defence... ANY defence.
Karen T - I don't even know where to begin with this. It is disgusting. Who are you to judge a person so drastically based upon a brief description of a court hearing? And for you to write your comment in such a light hearted, flippant tone as well. This is somebody's life, not just something for you to have a little gossip about.

So you've seen people having epileptic fits. SO WHAT? Why would you even include that in your post unless you were trying to imply that this puts you in some kind of position of authority on the matter? People who suffer from epileptic fits can have totally different experiences and totally different levels of severity. Considering you have never seen Mark Sandland himself have a fit, your comment is completely pointless. You know nothing.

Mark and his family and friends are going through something more horrific at the moment than most people will experience in their entire lives. Not only have they lost their baby daughter due to a terrible tragedy, but Mark is being wrongly accused of her murder. This is a painful enough time, without people like you using their suffering as some kind of entertainment and posting ignorant comments on news articles about their life.

As somebody mentioned in a comment previously, I REALLY hope you are never wrongly accused of something this serious, because I wouldn't wish the kind of suffering Mark is experiencing now on ANYONE.

Please think things through a little more before you are so harsh and judgmental in future. You really do not know what you are talking about.
Who said I "judged"? I could only do that if I was a member of the jury or the judge him/herself! "Supposition" is different from "judgement". Look them both up if that helps! If I were ever wrongly accused of something, then I'd leave it to my appointed solicitor/QC to present facts to defend me. Then it would be up to a jury. I'm not judge or jury, I am assuming, given the info available, what I am assuming. If I'm incorrect with my assumption then it will come out in the trial! Get over it FFS! And I have to get over to work now... We'll all hear about the trial results no doubt.
What you said is clearly printed above, so there is no point in denying it. I am not going to argue with you because there is nothing to argue about. You said something cruel, ignorant, thoughtless and judgmental. That is a fact - we can all view it if we scroll up the page. You literally have no idea what you are talking about, regarding either epilepsy in general, or this case in particular. That too is a fact, and is also made clear in your earlier post.

What happened with Mark Sandland was a tragic accident. You can speculate as much as you want but not one single friend of family member of Mark has doubted him in the slightest. We all stand by him completely because we know him and we know what happened. And bear in mind that Mark's family are his daughter's family also. They love her as much as they love Mark. If they had even the slightest doubt about what happened then they would not stand so faithfully by Mark. But they have, because they know the truth, and the ignorant opinions of small minded people like yourself really mean nothing in comparison to that.

Therefore there is nothing to debate. I have said what I needed to say and I am hoping that if you are in any way a decent human being you will think about the consequences of your words and the hurt they can cause before you make flippant comments in the future. This is somebody's life you are thoughtlessly commenting on. An innocent man and his grieving family's life. Have some respect and keep your uneducated speculation to yourself. That is all.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmyD88[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Epilepsy... right. If that were in any way true than no one with epilepsy would be allowed to keep their children, if it made parents potential child murderers. I've seen people having epileptic fits... in the most extreme cases where they lose consciousness they lie on the ground semi-conscious having spasms. Yeah maybe I "don't know the facts" but it sounds to me like someone grasping at straws for a defence... ANY defence.[/p][/quote]Karen T - I don't even know where to begin with this. It is disgusting. Who are you to judge a person so drastically based upon a brief description of a court hearing? And for you to write your comment in such a light hearted, flippant tone as well. This is somebody's life, not just something for you to have a little gossip about. So you've seen people having epileptic fits. SO WHAT? Why would you even include that in your post unless you were trying to imply that this puts you in some kind of position of authority on the matter? People who suffer from epileptic fits can have totally different experiences and totally different levels of severity. Considering you have never seen Mark Sandland himself have a fit, your comment is completely pointless. You know nothing. Mark and his family and friends are going through something more horrific at the moment than most people will experience in their entire lives. Not only have they lost their baby daughter due to a terrible tragedy, but Mark is being wrongly accused of her murder. This is a painful enough time, without people like you using their suffering as some kind of entertainment and posting ignorant comments on news articles about their life. As somebody mentioned in a comment previously, I REALLY hope you are never wrongly accused of something this serious, because I wouldn't wish the kind of suffering Mark is experiencing now on ANYONE. Please think things through a little more before you are so harsh and judgmental in future. You really do not know what you are talking about.[/p][/quote]Who said I "judged"? I could only do that if I was a member of the jury or the judge him/herself! "Supposition" is different from "judgement". Look them both up if that helps! If I were ever wrongly accused of something, then I'd leave it to my appointed solicitor/QC to present facts to defend me. Then it would be up to a jury. I'm not judge or jury, I am assuming, given the info available, what I am assuming. If I'm incorrect with my assumption then it will come out in the trial! Get over it FFS! And I have to get over to work now... We'll all hear about the trial results no doubt.[/p][/quote]What you said is clearly printed above, so there is no point in denying it. I am not going to argue with you because there is nothing to argue about. You said something cruel, ignorant, thoughtless and judgmental. That is a fact - we can all view it if we scroll up the page. You literally have no idea what you are talking about, regarding either epilepsy in general, or this case in particular. That too is a fact, and is also made clear in your earlier post. What happened with Mark Sandland was a tragic accident. You can speculate as much as you want but not one single friend of family member of Mark has doubted him in the slightest. We all stand by him completely because we know him and we know what happened. And bear in mind that Mark's family are his daughter's family also. They love her as much as they love Mark. If they had even the slightest doubt about what happened then they would not stand so faithfully by Mark. But they have, because they know the truth, and the ignorant opinions of small minded people like yourself really mean nothing in comparison to that. Therefore there is nothing to debate. I have said what I needed to say and I am hoping that if you are in any way a decent human being you will think about the consequences of your words and the hurt they can cause before you make flippant comments in the future. This is somebody's life you are thoughtlessly commenting on. An innocent man and his grieving family's life. Have some respect and keep your uneducated speculation to yourself. That is all. AmyD88
  • Score: 5

2:52pm Wed 9 Oct 13

Brighton Gal says...

tell me are you all thick in hastings or what? she said that she supposed he was guilty, not that he was guilty! big difference between supposing something and judging something!!!!!! to be honest I thought the same thing, having seen a photo on google, he looks the part, and everyone makes assumptions on apearance like it or not, but hey we both might be wrong! he'll have his day in court and all the facts will come out! and I'm sure all you mark sandler fans will be there in the docks, baying like the mad folks you sound!
tell me are you all thick in hastings or what? she said that she supposed he was guilty, not that he was guilty! big difference between supposing something and judging something!!!!!! to be honest I thought the same thing, having seen a photo on google, he looks the part, and everyone makes assumptions on apearance like it or not, but hey we both might be wrong! he'll have his day in court and all the facts will come out! and I'm sure all you mark sandler fans will be there in the docks, baying like the mad folks you sound! Brighton Gal
  • Score: -2

2:57pm Wed 9 Oct 13

AmyD88 says...

Brighton Gal wrote:
tell me are you all thick in hastings or what? she said that she supposed he was guilty, not that he was guilty! big difference between supposing something and judging something!!!!!! to be honest I thought the same thing, having seen a photo on google, he looks the part, and everyone makes assumptions on apearance like it or not, but hey we both might be wrong! he'll have his day in court and all the facts will come out! and I'm sure all you mark sandler fans will be there in the docks, baying like the mad folks you sound!
You have made yourself sound so stupid in that comment that I don't think I even need to dignify it with a response.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Gal[/bold] wrote: tell me are you all thick in hastings or what? she said that she supposed he was guilty, not that he was guilty! big difference between supposing something and judging something!!!!!! to be honest I thought the same thing, having seen a photo on google, he looks the part, and everyone makes assumptions on apearance like it or not, but hey we both might be wrong! he'll have his day in court and all the facts will come out! and I'm sure all you mark sandler fans will be there in the docks, baying like the mad folks you sound![/p][/quote]You have made yourself sound so stupid in that comment that I don't think I even need to dignify it with a response. AmyD88
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Wed 9 Oct 13

AmyD88 says...

Brighton Gal wrote:
tell me are you all thick in hastings or what? she said that she supposed he was guilty, not that he was guilty! big difference between supposing something and judging something!!!!!! to be honest I thought the same thing, having seen a photo on google, he looks the part, and everyone makes assumptions on apearance like it or not, but hey we both might be wrong! he'll have his day in court and all the facts will come out! and I'm sure all you mark sandler fans will be there in the docks, baying like the mad folks you sound!
Can everyone just ignore this comment? The girl who wrote it doesn't even deserve a response. She clearly has no interest in the case - she even got Mark's name wrong when it is written above! It seems like she just wants to have a little internet scrap because she has nothing better to do. She can barely form a coherent sentence so trying to have a sensible conversation with her will just be a waste of your time.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Gal[/bold] wrote: tell me are you all thick in hastings or what? she said that she supposed he was guilty, not that he was guilty! big difference between supposing something and judging something!!!!!! to be honest I thought the same thing, having seen a photo on google, he looks the part, and everyone makes assumptions on apearance like it or not, but hey we both might be wrong! he'll have his day in court and all the facts will come out! and I'm sure all you mark sandler fans will be there in the docks, baying like the mad folks you sound![/p][/quote]Can everyone just ignore this comment? The girl who wrote it doesn't even deserve a response. She clearly has no interest in the case - she even got Mark's name wrong when it is written above! It seems like she just wants to have a little internet scrap because she has nothing better to do. She can barely form a coherent sentence so trying to have a sensible conversation with her will just be a waste of your time. AmyD88
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Wed 9 Oct 13

Brighton Gal says...

AmyD88 wrote:
Brighton Gal wrote:
tell me are you all thick in hastings or what? she said that she supposed he was guilty, not that he was guilty! big difference between supposing something and judging something!!!!!! to be honest I thought the same thing, having seen a photo on google, he looks the part, and everyone makes assumptions on apearance like it or not, but hey we both might be wrong! he'll have his day in court and all the facts will come out! and I'm sure all you mark sandler fans will be there in the docks, baying like the mad folks you sound!
You have made yourself sound so stupid in that comment that I don't think I even need to dignify it with a response.
but you just DID respond! LOL!
[quote][p][bold]AmyD88[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton Gal[/bold] wrote: tell me are you all thick in hastings or what? she said that she supposed he was guilty, not that he was guilty! big difference between supposing something and judging something!!!!!! to be honest I thought the same thing, having seen a photo on google, he looks the part, and everyone makes assumptions on apearance like it or not, but hey we both might be wrong! he'll have his day in court and all the facts will come out! and I'm sure all you mark sandler fans will be there in the docks, baying like the mad folks you sound![/p][/quote]You have made yourself sound so stupid in that comment that I don't think I even need to dignify it with a response.[/p][/quote]but you just DID respond! LOL! Brighton Gal
  • Score: -1

5:00pm Wed 9 Oct 13

Clarence78 says...

KarenT wrote:
Clarence78 wrote:
I can't imagine what Mark and his family must be going through. To lose their daughter, have the stress of a court trial and to have their lives dragged through the papers. It is interesting to see how many people appear to be able to write a person off as guilty based on a couple of paragraphs they have read in a local rag about a total stranger.
Oh, but he's got some tattoos, right? Orf with his ead...
He has tattoos? How'd you know that then? What has tattoos got to do with it?
Um... because I read the article?!!
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clarence78[/bold] wrote: I can't imagine what Mark and his family must be going through. To lose their daughter, have the stress of a court trial and to have their lives dragged through the papers. It is interesting to see how many people appear to be able to write a person off as guilty based on a couple of paragraphs they have read in a local rag about a total stranger. Oh, but he's got some tattoos, right? Orf with his ead...[/p][/quote]He has tattoos? How'd you know that then? What has tattoos got to do with it?[/p][/quote]Um... because I read the article?!! Clarence78
  • Score: 2

5:07pm Wed 9 Oct 13

Clarence78 says...

KarenT wrote:
Oh, it says he is "heavily tattooed" in the text. So what? Why are you assuming that my opinion is in any way based on "tattoos"? Hadn't even noticed that insignificant fact. What I said had nothing to do with that obviously?!
My post was not specifically for you dear, I'm afraid your arrogance mislead you. I find it interesting that you have such strong opinions about a case when you have clearly just skimmed the article.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Oh, it says he is "heavily tattooed" in the text. So what? Why are you assuming that my opinion is in any way based on "tattoos"? Hadn't even noticed that insignificant fact. What I said had nothing to do with that obviously?![/p][/quote]My post was not specifically for you dear, I'm afraid your arrogance mislead you. I find it interesting that you have such strong opinions about a case when you have clearly just skimmed the article. Clarence78
  • Score: 6

6:21pm Wed 9 Oct 13

KarenT says...

Clarence78 wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Oh, it says he is "heavily tattooed" in the text. So what? Why are you assuming that my opinion is in any way based on "tattoos"? Hadn't even noticed that insignificant fact. What I said had nothing to do with that obviously?!
My post was not specifically for you dear, I'm afraid your arrogance mislead you. I find it interesting that you have such strong opinions about a case when you have clearly just skimmed the article.
Why, cuz I missed that he had tattoos? As I said, who cares? It's not even relevant! No wonder it didn't sink in! Of course it seemed to be relevant to you for some unusual reason...! Have you some tattoos and are feeling rather defensive of them perhaps? :D Nor did I take note of the hearing date, amongst other extraneous details. Dinner time, am outta here!
[quote][p][bold]Clarence78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Oh, it says he is "heavily tattooed" in the text. So what? Why are you assuming that my opinion is in any way based on "tattoos"? Hadn't even noticed that insignificant fact. What I said had nothing to do with that obviously?![/p][/quote]My post was not specifically for you dear, I'm afraid your arrogance mislead you. I find it interesting that you have such strong opinions about a case when you have clearly just skimmed the article.[/p][/quote]Why, cuz I missed that he had tattoos? As I said, who cares? It's not even relevant! No wonder it didn't sink in! Of course it seemed to be relevant to you for some unusual reason...! Have you some tattoos and are feeling rather defensive of them perhaps? :D Nor did I take note of the hearing date, amongst other extraneous details. Dinner time, am outta here! KarenT
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Wed 9 Oct 13

Clarence78 says...

KarenT wrote:
Clarence78 wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Oh, it says he is "heavily tattooed" in the text. So what? Why are you assuming that my opinion is in any way based on "tattoos"? Hadn't even noticed that insignificant fact. What I said had nothing to do with that obviously?!
My post was not specifically for you dear, I'm afraid your arrogance mislead you. I find it interesting that you have such strong opinions about a case when you have clearly just skimmed the article.
Why, cuz I missed that he had tattoos? As I said, who cares? It's not even relevant! No wonder it didn't sink in! Of course it seemed to be relevant to you for some unusual reason...! Have you some tattoos and are feeling rather defensive of them perhaps? :D Nor did I take note of the hearing date, amongst other extraneous details. Dinner time, am outta here!
Karen T, I think I pointed out that my original post was not written specifically to you. I noted that Mr Sandland was described as being "heavily tattooed", I feel that as many people still judge others solely on their appearance, it could be suggested that bringing up such details may encourage more narrow minded people to pre-judge Mr Sandland. Only you know if you fall into that category or not Karen T, as I don't know you I'd hate to cast aspersions...
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clarence78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Oh, it says he is "heavily tattooed" in the text. So what? Why are you assuming that my opinion is in any way based on "tattoos"? Hadn't even noticed that insignificant fact. What I said had nothing to do with that obviously?![/p][/quote]My post was not specifically for you dear, I'm afraid your arrogance mislead you. I find it interesting that you have such strong opinions about a case when you have clearly just skimmed the article.[/p][/quote]Why, cuz I missed that he had tattoos? As I said, who cares? It's not even relevant! No wonder it didn't sink in! Of course it seemed to be relevant to you for some unusual reason...! Have you some tattoos and are feeling rather defensive of them perhaps? :D Nor did I take note of the hearing date, amongst other extraneous details. Dinner time, am outta here![/p][/quote]Karen T, I think I pointed out that my original post was not written specifically to you. I noted that Mr Sandland was described as being "heavily tattooed", I feel that as many people still judge others solely on their appearance, it could be suggested that bringing up such details may encourage more narrow minded people to pre-judge Mr Sandland. Only you know if you fall into that category or not Karen T, as I don't know you I'd hate to cast aspersions... Clarence78
  • Score: 1

6:34pm Wed 9 Oct 13

Clarence78 says...

Karen T, I think I pointed out that my original post was not written specifically to you. I noted that Mr Sandland was described as being "heavily tattooed", I feel that as many people still judge others solely on their appearance, it could be suggested that bringing up such details may encourage more narrow minded people to pre-judge Mr Sandland. Only you know if you fall into that category or not Karen T, as I don't know you I'd hate to cast aspersions...
Karen T, I think I pointed out that my original post was not written specifically to you. I noted that Mr Sandland was described as being "heavily tattooed", I feel that as many people still judge others solely on their appearance, it could be suggested that bringing up such details may encourage more narrow minded people to pre-judge Mr Sandland. Only you know if you fall into that category or not Karen T, as I don't know you I'd hate to cast aspersions... Clarence78
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Wed 9 Oct 13

Clarence78 says...

PS- no tattoos on me treacle!
PS- no tattoos on me treacle! Clarence78
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree