Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

Notworthy

VIP Member
No, I agree with what you’re saying. It’s not that I disbelieve her either, it’s more that she’s listened to evidence in court and changed her statement off the back of it that feels wrong to me, as I didn’t think witnesses were allowed to hear anything until after they’d finished giving evidence.
it was part of the opening statement which is not considered evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

Daisydunn15

VIP Member
Not much today but sounds like another colleague showing support for her in some way, I wonder what the jury will make of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

tay65

Chatty Member
Id like to see more murder documentaries filmed in this way, it gives you a real look into the legal procedures and I don’t think you get that with most other murder docs.
I 100% think he did it, I don’t remember all the details of it but If I remember correctly it came out in one of the later episodes that his first wife had died in very similar circumstances.
Yes she did which was very coincidental. He also had some strange sexual behaviours and the prosecution tried to say he and his wife had argued about this which is why he did it. It was fascinating and so were the family dynamics and loyalties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

slingo16

Chatty Member
I don’t think it’s fair to describe somebody as snappy or arrogant just from reading written text either, unless any of us were actually there listening to him we have no idea of the tone in which he spoke.

I do understand we will all interpret things differently though.
I did say I’m not in court and it is paraphrased, But it’s abit like LLs texts. It’s hard to gauge because it’s only written. And I accept I could be wrong but You’ve also got the other experts not coming across at all like him. And some of the things he said are difficult for me to take any other way than him being the way I described, again I could be wrong but I stand by the fact he was rude and snappy today. Besides is it not equally unfair to assume somebody is a baby killer without hearing all the evidence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

candyland_

VIP Member
Yesterday I read something about a jury member on another case that admitted during deliberations that they had searched the case and there had to be another trial.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1

Daisydunn15

VIP Member
We don't have datix but we have something similar and it's such a chore to complete, I wouldn't complete one if a medic made a mistake like that, I'd probably ask my manager to have a word with them when I was a staff nurse or now I'd do it myself. If we did an incident form everytime a staff member made a mistake then we'd get nothing else done, also they'd end up being escalated to higher management and they love milking it when someone fucks up, its much more helpful to just have a chat with them rather than trying to get people into trouble when it wouldn't have been intentional.
Prescribing errors I'd always incident report or patient complaints, but not something like this so there wouldn't necessarily be a paper trail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

avabella

VIP Member
He did say that the vomit in the cot was not remarkable. It was the projectile vomiting on the floor and chair that was extraordinary. So I don’t think he meant that they can’t vomit, but maybe was referring to the volume. Perhaps it was the wording that’s caused confusion, not sure.
It was reported that he said they wouldn’t vomit on an NG tube.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: 1

Notworthy

VIP Member
God forbid we agree with the evidence given in court. The defence are extremely weak and haven't provided any "reasonable" doubt.

If you think she's innocent fair enough but don't pretend your better than people here who believe she's guilty after all we have been presented with.

At least those of us who believe she's guilty aren't peddling conspiracy theories we are just going by the expert witnesses that we have heard from.
It's the prosecutions case right now, of course all the evidence they are putting forward points to her guilt, that's their job.
 

SnoopySnooper86

Chatty Member
Why are some of the colleagues not named? Is because they chose to have screens when giving evidence? Probably not wanting their names plastered over the media?