Who is this? Can’t see mentioned in WIKI12:32pm
Child J desaturated at 4.40am on November 27.
Mary Griffiths was working in room 2.
She said in evidence Child J was a 'joy to look after', and described the first desaturation, which she and Nicola Dennison dealed with.
The desaturation was "alarmingly low".
Ms Dennison said, after cross-examination, Child J collapsed after her feed.
Dr Kalyilil Verghese recorded the shift was busy. Twins had been admitted to room 1 at 6.10am.
He said he reviewed Child J once, and all information was given to him by nursing staff. He noted there had been 'two profound desaturations', timed at 5.15am.
Child J was moved to nursery 2 when the designated nurse was Mary Griffith.
Mr Johnson says Letby was then involved in care of babies in room 2, despite her designated babies being in room
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.It's all well and good saying the defence doesn't HAVE to prove anything, it's for the prosecution to prove their case, but if this was me and my life on the line, I think I would be producing any tiny scrap of proof that I could muster to defend myself! It's a bit silly to say "well, there was no need for witnesses because they don't have to prove she didn't do it, the pros just have to prove she did", because, no, if that was an innocent woman sat in the dock, why the hell would you not want to prove you didn't do it! I'd want to prove I was innocent by any means possible!
Have they even cast doubt on the prosecution case though? I don’t think they have. And they do have a specific defence - lack of staffing, natural cause of death, conspiracy gang of 4. They haven’t proven any of that.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.
I found the plumbers statement compellingHave they even cast doubt on the prosecution case though? I don’t think they have. And they do have a specific defence - lack of staffing, natural cause of death, conspiracy gang of 4. They haven’t proven any of that.
It was the wrong lass…. (Who has a username rhyming with lass??)I still can't get over the plumber... could it have been a case of wrong fella Della?!
Yes just chesterstandard.co.uk. Co. UkHave you got a link please x
I meant in general terms - they can only offer up points which would serve to weaken the protection’s case.Have they even cast doubt on the prosecution case though? I don’t think they have. And they do have a specific defence - lack of staffing, natural cause of death, conspiracy gang of 4. They haven’t proven any of that.
Nobody but @Lucyxxxx is an ass so that will doIt was the wrong lass…. (Who has a username rhyming with lass??)
but those alternative explanations hold no weight when they have no medical expert backing it up. It’s like saying you have an alibi but not providing the witness. It means nothing in this caseI meant in general terms - they can only offer up points which would serve to weaken the protection’s case.
In relation to a specific defence you have to provide evidence which supports that. For example - I wasn’t there, I was at place X and here is witness Y to confirm that.
What her defence have done is offer up alternative explanations for the accusations being made.
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?