I think she will get away with child A . Nobody actually put in notes about the skin colour and myers is using that to his full advantage .Here we are again questioning cause of death of baby E
It's scary to think.if she did physically harm.him, she could get away with it...
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
He sure is
BM is ripping into the professor on the stand.
Thing is the if the jury find her guilty of even one of the murder charges it will be most likely they’d find her responsible for more or all.
Thing is the if the jury find her guilty of even one of the murder charges it will be most likely they’d find her responsible for more or all.
He's having a field day with her!!
Yeah but I have faith. The prosecution might clarify a few things yet to dispute what he’s trying to discreditHe's having a field day with her!!
How do you all know this? Can you hear the case or is it just what you are reading? XHe's having a field day with her!!
A PHARMACY WORKER HAS TAKEN THE STAND TO TALK ABOUT PRODUCTION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE OF TPN BAGS! Here we go people ….
Given the babies were allegedly injected with air, would it not be difficult to have experts on this as surely they won’t have seen many cases if any, where this has happened, apart from in this case when several Drs have commented on the weird rashes.
i know we aren’t hearing everything but it seems like court is doing a good job so far explaining technical details to the jurors as they are getting to see videos of all the procedures
i know we aren’t hearing everything but it seems like court is doing a good job so far explaining technical details to the jurors as they are getting to see videos of all the procedures
I think it shows how rare these air embolism events actually are, but in this case we’re seeing so many of them so…what’s the explanation?
Good point.....I never looked at it that way, but did ask myself at one point earlier when BM questioned something( can't remember what)
But thought to myself, are there any REAL experts on embolism , given their rarity!!
I think the questions about the lack of literature were to suggest that there aren't for cases like this.
Yes....exactly this...I hadn't looked at it from that perspective
i felt like suggesting Mr Myers might want to consider himself a leading expert in them after this trial.
I can see why you think it, but just say the jury do find her guilty on all of the other 21 charges, chances are the circumstantial evidence for A (even if rash is only mentioned later, there’s been lots of suggestions on why some things have only been documented later, such as things finally clicking into place that maybe didn’t seem relevant/odd at the time), presented will be enough to convince the jury that she is also guilty of A, given the similarities for charges they are absolutely sure on. That’s if they find her G on the majority/all the other charges though, if not then obvs would be a different story for A.
Also pretty sure someone mentioned that the judge may direct them on an issue such as this, and the prosecution said in opening that it’s up to the jury to decide what weight things like this carry when deciding her fate.
Oh I agree, if someone is determined to murder then working with the most vulnerable potential victims is going to still give opportunity. I wouldn't blame the other staff if she's guilty, they didn't murder anyone. However I do think on a better ward she'd never have got past the first couple before questions were asked, the awful practice probably made it much easier.I see your point re supervision and good practice - they will protect staff to some degree. But I can't see that this would prevent LL or any other SK in a hospital setting. They have access to victims and plenty of ways to harm or kill, they can steal and replace drugs (liquids etc), not give medication and hoard to poison patients, hoard medication and say it has been destroyed, tamper with equipment etc etc.
Nursing is largely run on trust - all the guidelines and correct procedures in the world are not going to prevent a SK in a hospital setting. They are not following the rules.
Increased awareness and vigilance, tight procedures and stock control will not prevent a manipulative SK in a hospital setting
I love that the prosecutors are really hammering home without saying it that the only way insulin got into that tpn bag was by LL.
I don’t think BM ripped the professor to shreds. I think he threw shade as usual, but don’t think it made her seem any less credible. I think that the Prof is saying that she can’t say for sure the rash is air embolism (don’t think any expert could 100% say it’s definitely air), but what she is doing is ruling the rash out as being due to any blood condition at all. So what does that leave that could be causing it? By elimination she’s actually confirming.
She also is making it clear that the bleeding could not be spontaneous, but again can’t rule out for sure that it couldn't be due to gastro haemorrhage as there was no PM to confirm. So when the jury hear about the next bleeding injury, it isn’t going to be too much of a leap for to consider that both bleeding injuries are actually caused by external force (LL), rather than one being haemorrhage and one being LL, when they are so similar.
I don’t think BM discredited the Prof at all, I think that’s now 4 experts all concluding the exact same thing, and eliminating any other causes. I can see why the very first rash in these unexplained deaths wasn’t documented as at that time it may not have seemed relevant, but after it appeared a second time people started to pay more attention, and in hindsight there are many posters on here that have said looking back the signs are there you maybe just don’t realise them at the time
Again elimination leads to confirmation for A&B:
ETA*** And there we have it fellas, confirmation of insulin NEVER being in tpn bag
ETA just saw this so adding on; Ohhhhhh I can fully appreciate WHY the judge has said this today
:
She also is making it clear that the bleeding could not be spontaneous, but again can’t rule out for sure that it couldn't be due to gastro haemorrhage as there was no PM to confirm. So when the jury hear about the next bleeding injury, it isn’t going to be too much of a leap for to consider that both bleeding injuries are actually caused by external force (LL), rather than one being haemorrhage and one being LL, when they are so similar.
I don’t think BM discredited the Prof at all, I think that’s now 4 experts all concluding the exact same thing, and eliminating any other causes. I can see why the very first rash in these unexplained deaths wasn’t documented as at that time it may not have seemed relevant, but after it appeared a second time people started to pay more attention, and in hindsight there are many posters on here that have said looking back the signs are there you maybe just don’t realise them at the time
Again elimination leads to confirmation for A&B:
ETA*** And there we have it fellas, confirmation of insulin NEVER being in tpn bag
ETA just saw this so adding on; Ohhhhhh I can fully appreciate WHY the judge has said this today
:
Last edited:
Stay off tattle fellas!ETA just saw this so adding on; Ohhhhhh I can fully appreciate WHY the judge has said this today
View attachment 1769378
I think you can look at this either way
Bearing in mind I think she's guilty!
BM has had her concede "her comments re baby E does not assist with the cause of death"....( back to the lack of PM again)
He's questioned her credibility regarding her knowledge of air emboli etc etc.
I know there's more babies to come and things do appear to take a very sinister turn moving forward, but surely ( and I don't know and am no legal expert or medical expert.and never sat on a jury) the jury will have to give a verdict on each baby and the evidence presented in that as in proven beyind reasonable doubt?
Or....am I just being naive ?
No i agree, I think you can look at it either way. My interpretation was all she can say for “definite”, is her excluding other causes, so what does that leave? I also think it’ll become much stronger after we hear more similar evidence for more babies, I think the more we hear the more other causes are ruled out, so what is left that is the only explanation for 22 charges: LL.
But I know others won’t maybe give as much weight to it as I do. I just think it’s more solid evidence from an expert in a slightly different field, so there can be no doubt the rashes and collapses are most certainly not down to any blood related conditions/problems. Once all the other possibilities are eliminated, it leaves only one explanation. But that’s just my look at what we have heard today.
I guess for me it really comes down to why would 4 different experts all from very different fields of paediatric medicine, all say the exact same thing. Within their particular field it’s the only explanation that makes sense to them, and that they can all find to be the only cause, by excluding any others from their particular fields. And that explanation is the same from all four of them, they come to the same conclusion, that it’s (LL) using physical trauma/air embolism
ETA: Good to hear the jury have been shown the bag properly, and handled it and the syringe. At least we know they won’t have confusion when it comes to some of the more technical details. Sounds like they are deffo getting the correct info they need, and it shown/explained to them in detail so they will a good understanding of the doses etc
Last edited:
- Status