Okgolightly
VIP Member
Bonkers. Will she have had a psychological evaluation at any point?
- Notice
Futtrit
VIP Member
10:30am
The trial is now resuming. Mr Johnson says there are four children left to go through - Child I, Child J, Child N and Child Q. He first details the case of Child I.
10:34am
Mr Johnson says evidence had been heard of Child I, that medics do not worry about self-correcting desaturations.
Mr Johnson says having failed to kill Child G and Child H, she turned her attention to Child I, and was deisgnated nurse for two of the four occasions in which she tried to kill the baby girl, and falsified notes along the way.
Mr Johnson says it was important to note from the post-mortem evidence that Child I did not have NEC [a gastrointestinal disease].
The trial is now resuming. Mr Johnson says there are four children left to go through - Child I, Child J, Child N and Child Q. He first details the case of Child I.
10:34am
Mr Johnson says evidence had been heard of Child I, that medics do not worry about self-correcting desaturations.
Mr Johnson says having failed to kill Child G and Child H, she turned her attention to Child I, and was deisgnated nurse for two of the four occasions in which she tried to kill the baby girl, and falsified notes along the way.
Mr Johnson says it was important to note from the post-mortem evidence that Child I did not have NEC [a gastrointestinal disease].
I keep seeing a lot of posts along the lines of 'how did she afford BM' and did she get legal aid etc. I'm assuming he took it on for publicity, the Hillsborough trial was obviously a massive public case too, maybe that verdict even got him a bit cocky. I think he took it on for his reputation thinking it would be another big bosh she didn't do it not guilty. I'm assuming he charged less thinking they'd get the defeat of his life and an even bigger turn for his career but it didn't work out.
stardust1
VIP Member
Feel like lucy would be upset to miss this
justkeepscrolling111
Chatty Member
The Judge will cover this point in his directions - it’s an important one. The same way that the defendant not taking the stand says nothing about guilt.I think most of us are aware of this being the rule now thanks to the legal brains on the thread. However, NJ has directly raised with the jury several times that they’ve had nothing to contradict his experts findings. He’s also raised several times how they’ve shown no actual evidence to prove the points that their case is built on, staffing levels, medical negligence, Gang of Four.
It’s usually reported when BM or the judge objects so personally feel the jury are being allowed to see the point that there is no real evidence coming from the defence. And I know exactly what I’d be thinking if I was on that jury! Rule or not
There are asp lots of reasons why you might not call an expert. Cases tend not to be won or lost on them - for example, I might not call an expert because it’s more likely to confuse the jury and it’s easier, acting for the defence, to cast doubt on the Pursuer’s experts.
Faith61
VIP Member
Thankyou for thatManaged to find out what this post was about. Looks like what they failed to mentioned was the investigation that found no wrongdoing and the MP (or whatever he is) in question had 3 complaints put in about them for naming the doc and claiming it was parliamentary priveledge.
Feel better now I have the bigger picture.
Deputy Gavin St Pier code of conduct complaints
Deputy Gavin St Pier is facing complaints over a speech he made about health service concerns.www.bbc.co.uk
amsmall
Chatty Member
Yeah, and probably wanted to kill them too because they were getting his attention and obviously in the way.
justkeepscrolling111
Chatty Member
The defence do not have to do anything at all. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot infer anything from the defence’s decision not to call expert witnesses.
justkeepscrolling111
Chatty Member
[/QUOTE]
It’s very hard to “prove innocence” because you can’t prove a negative. Unless you have a specific defence (for example self-defence, duress, an alibi) all you can really do is cast doubt on the prosecution case.
Futtrit
VIP Member
11:34am
Mr Johnson says, from the paper trail, if anyone 'puts two and two together' and thinks there is a problem with Lucy Letby, they are "thrown off the scent".
Dr Neame said the mottling was "unusual", which was why he recorded.
NJ: "How many times have we heard that in this case?"
Mr Johnson says the abdomen was distended.
Dr Andreas Marnerides had excluded NEC.
Mr Johnson says the only possibility is pushing air in down the NG Tube.
Dr Neame said Child I looked uncomfortable when examined and "grimaced".
He noted the abdominal distention.
Prof Arthurs said, of the x-ray image, the stomach was 'markedly dilated', and the small bowel and the large bowel were also dilated, with 'no symptoms of NEC'.
Another image at 8.03am had the stomach decompressed, and a third image the following day showed 'no problems at all'.
Dr Neame recorded a further desaturation for Child I at 7am, and the ET Tube was reintubated.
It was noted there was 'good air entry' for Child I, but - as Mr Johnson says, in so many other cases for babies in this trial - Child I was desaturating.
Mr Johnson says, from the paper trail, if anyone 'puts two and two together' and thinks there is a problem with Lucy Letby, they are "thrown off the scent".
Dr Neame said the mottling was "unusual", which was why he recorded.
NJ: "How many times have we heard that in this case?"
Mr Johnson says the abdomen was distended.
Dr Andreas Marnerides had excluded NEC.
Mr Johnson says the only possibility is pushing air in down the NG Tube.
Dr Neame said Child I looked uncomfortable when examined and "grimaced".
He noted the abdominal distention.
Prof Arthurs said, of the x-ray image, the stomach was 'markedly dilated', and the small bowel and the large bowel were also dilated, with 'no symptoms of NEC'.
Another image at 8.03am had the stomach decompressed, and a third image the following day showed 'no problems at all'.
Dr Neame recorded a further desaturation for Child I at 7am, and the ET Tube was reintubated.
It was noted there was 'good air entry' for Child I, but - as Mr Johnson says, in so many other cases for babies in this trial - Child I was desaturating.
Windowtothewall
Chatty Member
I thought so too but daily mail yesterday said 2 friends. So I wonder if this trip before the final triplets was with friends and then Ibiza trip before arrest was with parents?
pissedandsad
Well-known member
With her long face, obvious misery, and notes that question why me and say hate my life - I’ve thought the same. She had desires to do dreadful things and it seems she wished she didn’t. I can feel a smidge of compassion but not mercy.
Faith61
VIP Member
Of course ..I agree
I just wasn't sure at what point the results were received, for want of a better word, by the hospital...I know its pretty irrelevant now and it's one of the most damning pieces of evidence against her....its just a " niggle" that I've always had...but without a doubt these results alone should secure her fate....I'm not really making sense i don't think...
Last edited:
Faith61
VIP Member
Anonymous member for a reason!! Wtf?
((FB obvs!)
I don’t know whether to mention names or not, but I’ve only just joined the dots on who one of doctors involved in the evidence is.
If I’m honest I’m pretty horrified as I know said doctor has accused multiple innocent families of FII.. and I know them to be innocent on multiple levels 1. Because we have a common specialist, 2. Because I know 2 of them personally and one further family is the family of a prominent politician (they did not know at the time).
A full investigation took place following the complaints from multiple (double figures), families, including other doctors, child protection and more.. and the families were cleared after much stress and the doctor removed from their team.
They systematically with huge bias, fabricated cases.
Yet they are considered an expert here. Happy to substantiate with admin also. Just shows not all is what it seems.
I am an on the fence person who believes the defence could have done a better job with lots of the data and changing accounts. Not convinced of guilt or innocence. But believe she will be found guilty on some counts.
((FB obvs!)I don’t know whether to mention names or not, but I’ve only just joined the dots on who one of doctors involved in the evidence is.
If I’m honest I’m pretty horrified as I know said doctor has accused multiple innocent families of FII.. and I know them to be innocent on multiple levels 1. Because we have a common specialist, 2. Because I know 2 of them personally and one further family is the family of a prominent politician (they did not know at the time).
A full investigation took place following the complaints from multiple (double figures), families, including other doctors, child protection and more.. and the families were cleared after much stress and the doctor removed from their team.
They systematically with huge bias, fabricated cases.
Yet they are considered an expert here. Happy to substantiate with admin also. Just shows not all is what it seems.
I am an on the fence person who believes the defence could have done a better job with lots of the data and changing accounts. Not convinced of guilt or innocence. But believe she will be found guilty on some counts.
pollypocket77
VIP Member
Have you got a link please x
Pulltheotherone
VIP Member
Yep … that’s the one !
pissedandsad
Well-known member
Lolol! Your profile pic!!!! Did you see where Spotify & Netflix dropped them?