I'm weirdly pleased BM is doing what he can to defend her this week - so she won't win an appeal. The jury can see as we can, that he needed to have witnesses and evidence that respectable senior doctors were lying and conspiring. The prosecution have given us their evidence why they believe LL lied, and if BM wants to discredit witnesses, he needs more than his say so!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Come on BM we all know you're educated, don't play silly beggars. We all know the answers to these silly questions.
12:10pm
Mr Myers says "various factual allegations" came across Lucy Letby which amounted to 'wholescale document fraud', referred from 'page 34,536 of the evidence', he says, including children not on the indictment - such as 'the Stoke baby'.
He asks why witnesses were not cross-examined about such incidents, on 'falsely identifying names' on paperwork, over the months.
He says the "prosecution have been looking for things...so they can shore up".
He cites a piece of evidence from the case of Child H, a note by Alison Ventress about a chest drain.
He says she gave evidence, and she was cross-examined about it, about chest drains moving.
He says that was no part of any allegation, and "it came out of nowhere" in cross-examination, "it suddenly became part of an allegation".
He refers to a note about blood-stained secretions for Child H, made by Letby.
He says the prosecution used that note as an opportunity "to bolster their list" by asking her if she had altered Child H's ET Tube.
Mr Myers says "various factual allegations" came across Lucy Letby which amounted to 'wholescale document fraud', referred from 'page 34,536 of the evidence', he says, including children not on the indictment - such as 'the Stoke baby'.
He asks why witnesses were not cross-examined about such incidents, on 'falsely identifying names' on paperwork, over the months.
He says the "prosecution have been looking for things...so they can shore up".
He cites a piece of evidence from the case of Child H, a note by Alison Ventress about a chest drain.
He says she gave evidence, and she was cross-examined about it, about chest drains moving.
He says that was no part of any allegation, and "it came out of nowhere" in cross-examination, "it suddenly became part of an allegation".
He refers to a note about blood-stained secretions for Child H, made by Letby.
He says the prosecution used that note as an opportunity "to bolster their list" by asking her if she had altered Child H's ET Tube.
this is just so silly, there is many known killers who get bored of the same method they then chase the thrill and switch it up. Alternatively switching it up can also be to throw the scent off which is exactly what he is now trying to do..
12:14pm
Mr Myers says Letby was asked about how long she had been on the phone when feeding a baby not on the indictment, and how long she was spending texting.
Letby had said: "You think I pushed it in, didn't you?" Mr Myers said Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, replied: "I do."
Mr Myers asks where had that come from, and "there was no evidential basis" for that.
He says it was "an allegation on the hoof".
He says no-one suggested that baby had a vomit was unwell.
He says that allegation was "made in passing"
Mr Myers says Letby was asked about how long she had been on the phone when feeding a baby not on the indictment, and how long she was spending texting.
Letby had said: "You think I pushed it in, didn't you?" Mr Myers said Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, replied: "I do."
Mr Myers asks where had that come from, and "there was no evidential basis" for that.
He says it was "an allegation on the hoof".
He says no-one suggested that baby had a vomit was unwell.
He says that allegation was "made in passing"
"Mr Myers says Letby was asked about how long she had been on the phone when feeding a baby not on the indictment, and how long she was spending texting.
Letby had said: "You think I pushed it in, didn't you?" Mr Myers said Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, replied: "I do."
Mr Myers asks where had that come from, and "there was no evidential basis" for that. He says it was "an allegation on the hoof". He says no-one suggested that baby had a vomit was unwell.
He says that allegation was "made in passing".
Well, Ben unless you know how LL could feed a baby in 4 mins instead of 20 mins without pushing it in, I think BNE had her bang to rights. She wouldn't have asked about it would she, if it wasn't bleeding obvious!
Letby had said: "You think I pushed it in, didn't you?" Mr Myers said Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, replied: "I do."
Mr Myers asks where had that come from, and "there was no evidential basis" for that. He says it was "an allegation on the hoof". He says no-one suggested that baby had a vomit was unwell.
He says that allegation was "made in passing".
Well, Ben unless you know how LL could feed a baby in 4 mins instead of 20 mins without pushing it in, I think BNE had her bang to rights. She wouldn't have asked about it would she, if it wasn't bleeding obvious!
12:19pm
Mr Myers moves to the issue of 'delay'.
He says there is an issue with missing door swipe data between July-October 2015, and allegations are made against Letby during that time, such as during the case of Child I.
He says the prosecution had accused Letby of 'making up a note' for September 30, 2015.
Mr Myers says the prosecution can make that allegation as the door swipe data is missing for that date.
Another note is referred to for October 14, 2015.
He says Dr Matthew Neame's note, timed at 5.55am, is used as evidence there was a delay in reporting the issues.
Mr Myers says it is their case 5.55am was when the note was written, not the time he attended.
He says there is no door swipe data for that day to say when that doctor arrived.
Mr Myers moves to the issue of 'delay'.
He says there is an issue with missing door swipe data between July-October 2015, and allegations are made against Letby during that time, such as during the case of Child I.
He says the prosecution had accused Letby of 'making up a note' for September 30, 2015.
Mr Myers says the prosecution can make that allegation as the door swipe data is missing for that date.
Another note is referred to for October 14, 2015.
He says Dr Matthew Neame's note, timed at 5.55am, is used as evidence there was a delay in reporting the issues.
Mr Myers says it is their case 5.55am was when the note was written, not the time he attended.
He says there is no door swipe data for that day to say when that doctor arrived.
All he can do is try and baffle the jury with science (or non-science I guess). And presumably if he goes on long enough their memories of NJ will fade a bit. Scuzzy, but it's his job.
12:22pm
Mr Myers says there is missing post-mortem examination evidence for Child E, which allowed the prosecution to present evidence of 'bleeding from the throat'.
He says that allowed the prosecution to provide linked evidence. He says there is no evidence to show it, post-mortem.
Mr Myers says there is missing post-mortem examination evidence for Child E, which allowed the prosecution to present evidence of 'bleeding from the throat'.
He says that allowed the prosecution to provide linked evidence. He says there is no evidence to show it, post-mortem.
She bleeping talks about the bleeding ffs.
'Keep throwing tit at the wall until something sticks' comes to mind!
12:29pm
Mr Myers moves to the topic of 'lists'.
The 'staff presence' of when staff were on shift during the times of the 25 events for the babies.
He says it is a "major part of the prosecution case" that Letby is present "far more often" than other staff.
Mr Myers says it "doesn't show fault".
He says "one thing that is striking about this chart" is having focused on it in the opening, there has been no reference to it at the end. He says the jury might wonder why that is.
Mr Myers says it is "obvious now" that the list isn't complete. It is "missing two or three events" which could be considered "harm events".
He points to Child N's case at June 14, 'night', for Child N's second event at 7.15am.
Mr Myers says that is correct, and evidence had been heard Child N was unwell that night.
He says Dr Sandie Bohin identified that in her evidence.
He says Letby wasn't on duty for the night shift.
He says the prosecution say Letby 'did something' before she left her shift the previous night - "what, we don't know".
He says the point is that Letby 'wouldn't be in that shift' and the note would be blank.
Mr Myers moves to the topic of 'lists'.
The 'staff presence' of when staff were on shift during the times of the 25 events for the babies.
He says it is a "major part of the prosecution case" that Letby is present "far more often" than other staff.
Mr Myers says it "doesn't show fault".
He says "one thing that is striking about this chart" is having focused on it in the opening, there has been no reference to it at the end. He says the jury might wonder why that is.
Mr Myers says it is "obvious now" that the list isn't complete. It is "missing two or three events" which could be considered "harm events".
He points to Child N's case at June 14, 'night', for Child N's second event at 7.15am.
Mr Myers says that is correct, and evidence had been heard Child N was unwell that night.
He says Dr Sandie Bohin identified that in her evidence.
He says Letby wasn't on duty for the night shift.
He says the prosecution say Letby 'did something' before she left her shift the previous night - "what, we don't know".
He says the point is that Letby 'wouldn't be in that shift' and the note would be blank.
So did II had made that last night
Mr Myers says there is a 'harm event' for Child C, as identified by experts, on June 12, 2015, which is not in the sequence of events, and is not on the list. He says Letby was not on duty at that time. He says the prosecution are "not that bothered" for that one as Letby "wasn't on duty".
For Child I, there was a 'harm event' identified which is not included on the chart, and says the table 'doesn't look so good'.
He says there was a third 'harm event', not featured on the indictment, for Child G. He says Dr Sandie Bohin had said there were no further projectile vomits. Mr Myers says he referred to a third event happened on October 15, 2015 by Ashleigh Hudson, at 7.20pm...'one vomit, projectile, quite large in size'.
Dr Bohin said if she had missed it, she missed it, Mr Myers tells the court. He added that was her attitude.
He says there are 'at least two, maybe three events' which happened for the babies when Letby was not on duty. Child C on June 12, 2015; Child I, August 23; and Child N, June 14, 2016, night.
Ohh well. That makes it ok then. Never mind lads, poorly babies were poorly on occasions that she wasn't there so just ignore all the times they had sudden, unexpected collapses when she was there.
For Child I, there was a 'harm event' identified which is not included on the chart, and says the table 'doesn't look so good'.
He says there was a third 'harm event', not featured on the indictment, for Child G. He says Dr Sandie Bohin had said there were no further projectile vomits. Mr Myers says he referred to a third event happened on October 15, 2015 by Ashleigh Hudson, at 7.20pm...'one vomit, projectile, quite large in size'.
Dr Bohin said if she had missed it, she missed it, Mr Myers tells the court. He added that was her attitude.
He says there are 'at least two, maybe three events' which happened for the babies when Letby was not on duty. Child C on June 12, 2015; Child I, August 23; and Child N, June 14, 2016, night.
Ohh well. That makes it ok then. Never mind lads, poorly babies were poorly on occasions that she wasn't there so just ignore all the times they had sudden, unexpected collapses when she was there.
Can anyone clarify if BM has any physical evidence like when 
NJthrew the file at twatt face for lying about her social life?
NJthrew the file at twatt face for lying about her social life?
really hope not! She’s guilty as sin!Obviously going to slate Dr Bohin, wonder if that stuff about her posted on Fb will be brought up?
Eeeek Ben babes. It becomes important if it happens just before their heart stops out of nowhere. It’s also not just about colour is it. It’s fleeting, moving, flashing rash with no infection present. And the babies just happened to be full of air. Honestly this is 
Genuinely more interested in all the dinner chat
@docmum you’ve got me lusting over a Greek salad now 
Genuinely more interested in all the dinner chat
@docmum you’ve got me lusting over a Greek salad now BM just salty because he doesn't have a Tattle fan club 
No I don’t believe he does, hence why he only had one witness and it was a bit of a moot point. He has 0 medical experts to back him up. The only evidence I believe is some tiny little holes/mistakes in the prosecutions case, which he’ll play on but which don’t negate the bigger picture when you look at both statistics of her being there either just before or during every single collapse and things such as her keeping the medical notes, her own notes which she made, the Facebook searches etc etc etc.Can anyone clarify if BM has any physical evidence like when
- Status