Dr Evans has also already said previously he came to that conclusion before knowing about the discolouration!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
And unless the defence can tell us who, they don't have a hope in hell.Reading the evidence the medical experts this morning ..just finished reading Dr Bohin's evidence ( after reading up on her background)
She's not just some fly by night who has put her neck on the line saying the babies were administered air....if LL didn't do this then someone else did......bloody heartbreaking.
Witness testimony plus circumstance (LL being the constant in all cases, odds of 1 in 10 million I believe) means it HAS to have been her.
Sorry but all of the above plus 'I killed them ON PURPOSE' - anyone who still thinks she's innocent is absolutely blinded by confirmation bias.
Makes me so incandescently angry, cuddling my baby a little closer to me today.
Isn’t the point that air embolism is so rare? So stands to reason there wouldn’t be very many case studies. I’m not sure it’s a ‘lol’ moment regardless, bit inappropriate.
Yeah this study had 50 cases in it, for something so rare you'd not expect those to be churned out regularly.
I think the cases are going to get worst . He obviously investigated them all and he says “ disturbing “ 
Attachments
No need for sorry but it is beyond horrific
Was just thinking the same
Today has been truly shocking.
Hope the jury members are coping as well as can be also...they will have heard much more than we have
Bless those tiny babies and their families....I can't even contemplate how they're coping ...we are years down the line and sure nothing can have prepared them for this....
Big up to Dr Evans for how he's handled himself this afternoon
I don’t know how I will keep up with the other cases so many more yet to listen to and the fact this DR says they get more disturbing I just can’t . So so sad 
The defence are clutching at straws. I imagine we will hear from Dr Evans throughout the trial.
Just caught up on today.
Absolutely heartbreaking to read. I’m so sad for those poor little babies and their families.
The mention of smothering has sent chills down me. If this is just the beginning I’m not sure I’ll be able to follow when it gets more disturbing.
Absolutely heartbreaking to read. I’m so sad for those poor little babies and their families.
The mention of smothering has sent chills down me. If this is just the beginning I’m not sure I’ll be able to follow when it gets more disturbing.
So really the defence’s only options are to find multiple expert witnesses who are willing to testify that either it wasn’t air embolism, or that if it was it wasn’t accidental? As I mentioned before I think even if expert witnesses with those views existed would they really be willing to stand up in a trial like this and defend it? I really don’t know what else the defence are going to have up their sleeves. But my most likely guess is that they’re going to try hard to dispute that it was even air embolism. Who knows how that will play out.
All I can hope for is that there’s no shadow of a doubt of the fact it was her and nobody else. I cannot imagine the thought of someone who’s deliberately done this to babies existing amongst us all and not being caught
All I can hope for is that there’s no shadow of a doubt of the fact it was her and nobody else. I cannot imagine the thought of someone who’s deliberately done this to babies existing amongst us all and not being caught
If the defence are struggling with this case, which we all agreed had some of the least convincing evidence initially, how on earth are they going to cope with the insulin cases and the ones towards the end with a lot more evidence. Cases where in the opening statement the defence admitted they too didn't know the cause, just that we couldn't assume LL was responsible.
I don't actually know if they're bringing on their own experts for this case tbh as the defence lawyer is effectively putting forward their alternatives by cross examining the prosecution's experts. They might, but it would be to just repeat what the defence lawyer has said now so wouldn't add new information for the jury.
I think defence strategy is just to discredit witnesses or suggest an alternative explanation that creates reasonable doubt. If there was any smoking gun, they'd have referred to it in their opening statements. If they have any experts it will likely be around confirmation bias or something rather than medical testimony. But I'm just guessing.
I don't actually know if they're bringing on their own experts for this case tbh as the defence lawyer is effectively putting forward their alternatives by cross examining the prosecution's experts. They might, but it would be to just repeat what the defence lawyer has said now so wouldn't add new information for the jury.
I think defence strategy is just to discredit witnesses or suggest an alternative explanation that creates reasonable doubt. If there was any smoking gun, they'd have referred to it in their opening statements. If they have any experts it will likely be around confirmation bias or something rather than medical testimony. But I'm just guessing.
Well after today, even if I was in the jury I’d be leaning towards guilty.
so far I’ve gone from, innocent until proven guilty, to unsure, to guilty (but only because I’m safe to cast judgement as I’m not part of the jury), to today feeling guilty even if I was on the jury, and there’s over five more months to go.
so far I’ve gone from, innocent until proven guilty, to unsure, to guilty (but only because I’m safe to cast judgement as I’m not part of the jury), to today feeling guilty even if I was on the jury, and there’s over five more months to go.
It’s seems strange from the defence so far, especially not challenging the air embolus very strongly. As said before multiple accidents like that don’t happen. They seem to be going a lot at the health of the babies and sub optimal care, which is irrelevant if you can’t disprove air embolus or atleast throw some doubt over it, the only other road they might go down is using inconsistencies in the symptoms the people saw in each case and to try and prove that every was situation was unique so how can they arrive at the same outcome in terms of cause.So really the defence’s only options are to find multiple expert witnesses who are willing to testify that either it wasn’t air embolism, or that if it was it wasn’t accidental? As I mentioned before I think even if expert witnesses with those views existed would they really be willing to stand up in a trial like this and defend it? I really don’t know what else the defence are going to have up their sleeves. But my most likely guess is that they’re going to try hard to dispute that it was even air embolism. Who knows how that will play out.
All I can hope for is that there’s no shadow of a doubt of the fact it was her and nobody else. I cannot imagine the thought of someone who’s deliberately done this to babies existing amongst us all and not being caught
Me too....this is exactly how I've been from day 1, but now,as it stands and I know it's very early days, I know what my vote would be...but am open for that to change just as it already has!
My thoughts are with the families and those tiny babies
Last edited:
- Status