Hopefully this will be covered in podcast, what I’m hoping for anyway. I think this 2nd bag thing is deflecting from the fact the original tpn was poisoned tbh, which I can understand raising questions for some of us, but if it had any bearing on defence there’s no way BM wouldn’t have used it or at least alluded to it already.I get you...but maybe he is going to use this in his defence ...and though Baby F was only one needing it at that time...that surely could have changed at any point, as in another baby requiring it unexpectedly?
I still think she's guilty BTW, but I think this will be part if his defence....unless we've missed something in the reporting?
Me neither, I sorta doubt these babies are the first living being she's harmed either. I'm curious about her training and what could have arose there...What I keep thinking is if she's done this, and is found to be beyond reasonable doubt that she's guilty - then I don't think baby A was the first baby she harmed
It’s just sugar water.The “10% dextrose” that they used to treat child fs hypoglycaemia, I’m not sure exactly what this does or even is lol but I guess it’s used to raise blood sugar levels? Anyway how does this treatment effect C peptide levels?
I just feel he is going to concentrate on this....he just needs to put enough doubt in the jury's minds and this is a big question that nobody seems to be able to answer. I believe he didn't question both experts today cos, as I've said, I think this will be the defence re baby FHopefully this will be covered in podcast, what I’m hoping for anyway. I think this 2nd bag thing is deflecting from the fact the original tpn was poisoned tbh, which I can understand raising questions for some of us, but if it had any bearing on defence there’s no way BM wouldn’t have used it or at least alluded to it already.
Also LL in both police interviews for both insulin poisonings accepted it couldn’t have been accidental or a mistake. The defence are not disputing that it was contaminated, their only issue seems to be who did it. So do we accept there are two potential murderers now, or do we accept that it’s more likely to be the only one that has been present for all 22 incidents.
I’m so glad the jury don’t have to wonder the answer to bits that we aren’t sure on, it will be far more clear cut for them, and at least they can ask questions for anything they aren’t sure on. Let’s see how baby G starts tomorrow and hopefully get the last bit of info on F on Monday in podcast
I'm still in the unsure frame of mind only because I haven't heard the full thing and things just haven't fully 'clicked' for me yet. The Facebook searches, photos on her phone and paperwork, to me, are just background noise - because I bet if they investigated the other members of staff they would also find the same (some posters on here have already said they would probably have a sheet stuffed in a pocket etc). I guess the context is what is missing for me. Are they talking box files upon box files of babies sheets organised in a system, or some crumpled up pieces in a drawer? Are we talking multiple pictures of irrelevant things, or one picture of a card which really, proves nothing? I think the bigger picture for those things are missing, it's just adds a wee bit of speculation for me.
It may well be that once the defence have had their say, that will be the 'click'. I just haven't heard the full story, and I don't like to make a judgement based on one side.
A good example of this is the Star case - the prosecution said they had video evidence of Savannah hitting Star in the car () - lots of people said the video evidence was really grainy and couldn't really be made out. So when the defence came and Savannah claimed she was doing 'the claw' from the Jim Carrey film because Star liked it (Star being 16 months old and the film being about 16 years old), it locked and loaded that that was completely untrue. Does that make sense? Had the defence brought out videos and pictures of Savannah doing 'the claw' with Star at other points in time, it wouldn't have rung quite so suspiciously.
I feel like you’ve just argued with yourself on that whole postIt seems like background noise on the surface, but it needs to be looked at in context. I agree, I am sure other nurses have facebooked searched, the texts seem innocent enough on the surface, but there is a reason why they are showing them as evidence. It’s about building a picture and you will see a pattern forming. Now of course if you investigated all the nurses they may have gone home with a handover sheet stuffed in their pocket, but in relation to a child that had just died on your watch it could be deemed as highly suspicious. Why was she Facebook searching other families - yes you could say she “ does it all the time, I bet they all do “. But I expect most of them did not do it to the extent she has.
They would not be showing it as evidence if it was not relevant. Of course those things alone can’t make her ‘guilty’ and yes none of us know until we’ve heard all the evidence. Criminologist and profilers are looking at exactly those things, t they see things in the searches, texts etc that a lot of us won’t.
We don’t know enough yet. I won’t say what I think.
But to say it’s ‘background noise’ when it’s obviously a huge part of the evidence and the trial.
How else would she be put on trial? No, you are right it doesn’t make her guilty but it certainly doesn’t make her innocent.
Another little thing that's popped in my head. Ben asked if the baby could be screaming cause he was hungry. When I had my youngest the midwives stressed to me that I had to feed him every 3 hrs and that cause he was so small sometimes babies that little forget they need to be fed. Although very small he was discharged within 24 hrs of birth so if my approaching 5lb baby was liable to forget to be fed why would a premature smaller baby be screaming out of hunger?
I don’t agree that this is them conceding anything
I agree I think he’s playing the long game, but I would have still expected him to have started to plant/sow little seeds with F, and then pick it up further with LI think BM will have more to say about Baby F when he covers Baby L.
Yes that is also what I meant in above post, I thought he’d at least do some groundwork with F, rather than just leave it all to L, by L as well I think we’ll have heard far more compelling evidence about LL, so by then I think it would be even harder to believe there’s two poisoners rather than it all being LL. Think that’s why I’m surprised he’s leaving it atmYes I think so. I think he should have still made an effort separately. Baby L had contaminated dextrose so slightly different to the tpn confusion.
I just think he knows what he's going to produce in her defence and from his point of view there was no point questioning further today....his " game plan" is obviously to sew the seeds of doubt as to it being her responsible beyond reasonable doubt...with the second bag scenario then think he will manage that quite well!I agree I think he’s playing the long game, but I would have still expected him to have started to plant/sow little seeds with F, and then pick it up further with L
I agree, even if there was no second bag, or if there was it doesn’t matter. She still contaminated the original bag, and allegedly falsified the notes round 5am to make it look as if baby’s sugar levels were higher than what they really were. The first bag still would have been enough to kill F (or so she would have thought), along with the delay to treating the low sugar level from her falsifying the 5am reading. She did enough even just with the first bag and false note. I think that’s why she used much higher dose next time with L.I don’t think she would have to contaminate all the bags. There were 2 types of stock TPN, ‘start up’ and ‘maintenance’ with 5 bags in total, there was more of one type or another (can’t remember which). They were stored in no particular date order.
The nurses checked the stock levels at night and ordered more if required.
Depending on what type of TPN Baby F was having there was probably a maximum of 3 bags of that type.
Not sure, but if it was me, I’d have them stacked in 2 piles. She could have contaminated the top one.
Ofc there’s a lot of supposition here, but I only
think she would have had to contaminate one bag.
I’ve seen this previously and I don’t think it’s a concession of anything, I thought there was something new, that confirmed the defence aren’t questioning foul play. I think this sentence is pretty meaningless without any context around it. And as I’ve said in another post, even if she concedes it in an interview what actually qualifies her to make that judgmentIt’s been discussed a few times and was mentioned during the agreed facts at the beginning.
I see what you’re saying but I think the test not being followed up on is irrelevant. It doesn’t change that fact baby F was deliberately poisoned with insulin.And I think the fact that they had these test results at the time and no action was taken is a huge part of the defence, the prosecution seem to suggest that the results point to only one conclusion which is inconsistent with no action being taken at the time
I’m going to speculate that at the time the results were put down to something else. And BM will use this as part of his confirmation bias pattern he’s been alluding to throughout the trial
It's brought up a couple of pages back, the witness claims insulin was added to the TPN and the defence has no questions. (These are from today).I’ve seen this previously and I don’t think it’s a concession of anything, I thought there was something new, that confirmed the defence aren’t questioning foul play.
If we can have no doubt that child f was deliberately poisoned with insulin because of the test results then how come that conclusion wasn’t reached at the time? I’m going to assume it was explained away in one way or another, therefore why can’t the reason used at the time not apply any moreI see what you’re saying but I think the test not being followed up on is irrelevant. It doesn’t change that fact baby F was deliberately poisoned with insulin.
But it’s a fact that the insulin in F’s blood was synthetic, therefore it had to been given externally, that is a fact. The pharmacy has been ruled out, as have any other ways of it being delivered, that’s fact. All that leaves is the high probability that it was added to the tpn bag as way of administering it. The only bit that isn’t certain is who did itI don’t agree that this is them conceding anything
We don’t hear the question she’s responding to, it’s a vague statement as part of the opening statement that they’ve not expanded on (in the reporting anyway) so imo I don’t think she has agreed to anything particularly incriminating I think it’s similar to the mother who walked in on LL in the act. Its probably not quite what it first seems,
besides even if she said yep someone definitely had to have done this deliberately. What does that even prove? Just because she said it doesn’t make it a medical fact , if she’d have said no this definitely wasn’t a deliberate act everybody would say ”well what qualify her to make that judgment”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?