Not a chance imo
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Does BM remind anyone else of Father Ted giving his award acceptance speech “and now, we move on to liars…”
Also, what’s his point re haemophilia? It’s more weird if she didn’t google it. We always google conditions we’re not routinely dealing with, even though there will be clinical guidelines given by the Trust on our intranet or via specialist nurse. We usually pin a summary at the start of the nursing notes. “He says there is no evidence found Letby Googled 'haemophilia' following a conversation between a colleague nd Letby on Child N.”
Also, what’s his point re haemophilia? It’s more weird if she didn’t google it. We always google conditions we’re not routinely dealing with, even though there will be clinical guidelines given by the Trust on our intranet or via specialist nurse. We usually pin a summary at the start of the nursing notes. “He says there is no evidence found Letby Googled 'haemophilia' following a conversation between a colleague nd Letby on Child N.”
No, she'll want to hold that power for further torment
"He says Dr Evans is 'not a neonatologist - and that matters'."
But Dr Bohin is - so what's your point?
He says Dr Evans's evidence is the starting point for the other experts. "He has led the way on medical opinion."
Bit condescending to think other experts don't have their own mind and would jeopardise their reputation for someone who BM says is retired from medical practice. Why would they care about agreeing with Dr Evans then?
"Dr Evans hasn't got current clinical practice, and "a good deal of his knowledge is historic" and he is "an expert at being an expert", and "his focus is on that, and not in clinical practice"
Which is why, other experts were brought in to validate his findings? Where are your experts BM?
But Dr Bohin is - so what's your point?
He says Dr Evans's evidence is the starting point for the other experts. "He has led the way on medical opinion."
Bit condescending to think other experts don't have their own mind and would jeopardise their reputation for someone who BM says is retired from medical practice. Why would they care about agreeing with Dr Evans then?
"Dr Evans hasn't got current clinical practice, and "a good deal of his knowledge is historic" and he is "an expert at being an expert", and "his focus is on that, and not in clinical practice"
Which is why, other experts were brought in to validate his findings? Where are your experts BM?
Can't listen to this tit anymore
I know he has a job to do, and I've never followed a case so closely before... but FML, I knew his closing statement would concentrate on discrediting ALL the witnesses, but bloody hell
I guess he knew it was ok not to have his own expert witnesses....he's just throwing it out there that they're all liars and incompetent and hoping that it will sew the seeds of doubt in the minds of the jury...I just hope to god they don't fall for it...i just worry that it will only take a couple of them to be swayed by his utter balls
I know he has a job to do, and I've never followed a case so closely before... but FML, I knew his closing statement would concentrate on discrediting ALL the witnesses, but bloody hell
I guess he knew it was ok not to have his own expert witnesses....he's just throwing it out there that they're all liars and incompetent and hoping that it will sew the seeds of doubt in the minds of the jury...I just hope to god they don't fall for it...i just worry that it will only take a couple of them to be swayed by his utter balls
The fact that she knew she was suspected but still didn’t destroy them just adds more weight to them being valuable trophies.
I can see what Ben is doing here but I can’t watch 🫣 He’s good at his job I’ll give him that. The evidence is stacked against her so all BM can do is talk at the Jury for 5 days and hope something sticks enough to plant seeds of doubt. It’s not too difficult to do with circumstantial evidence but hopefully the jury remember the sheer volume of it. The bigger picture is so damning.
"Dr Brearey said there were two meetings with police, including one on May 15. At that meeting, Dr Jayaram raised concerns with police about air embolus. Mr Myers says this is before Dr Evans got in contact after that point.
Mr Myers says Dr Evans was "very keen to get involved" and "unless they [Dr Evans and the police] met in silence" in July 2017, then Mr Myers says Dr Evans would have been informed about a theory of air embolus after being relayed suspicions by the police."
Cool story bro - but the only options aren't to "sit in silence" or discuss air embolism theories. The police don't normally discuss all their theories and hypotheses with experts who are supposed to be unbiased. If they did, this evidence wouldn't be allowed by the CPS as it wouldn't meet the threshold for independent opinion... So where's this evidence that the police told Evans to look for air embolisms? And more importantly - if Evans was wrong why haven't you found a single expert to discredit his findings and come up with a diagnosis of natural causes or unexplained...
Mr Myers says Dr Evans was "very keen to get involved" and "unless they [Dr Evans and the police] met in silence" in July 2017, then Mr Myers says Dr Evans would have been informed about a theory of air embolus after being relayed suspicions by the police."
Cool story bro - but the only options aren't to "sit in silence" or discuss air embolism theories. The police don't normally discuss all their theories and hypotheses with experts who are supposed to be unbiased. If they did, this evidence wouldn't be allowed by the CPS as it wouldn't meet the threshold for independent opinion... So where's this evidence that the police told Evans to look for air embolisms? And more importantly - if Evans was wrong why haven't you found a single expert to discredit his findings and come up with a diagnosis of natural causes or unexplained...
3:43pm
Mr Myers says Dr Evans was cross-examined "for months" about his 'lack of independence'.
He says Dr Bohin "has done the same thing but with rather more subtlety".
He refers to agreed facts, of December 5, 2022, of a judge's ruling in a court of appeal, in which there had been a report of Dr Dewi Evans.
Included in his reasons for refusal, the judge said: "The report is worthless and shows no support whatsoever for an appeal.
“No attempt has been made to engage with the full range of medical information or the powerful contradictory indicators.
“Instead the report has the hallmarks of an exercise in ‘working out an explanation’ that exculpates the applicants.
“It ends with tendentious and partisan expressions of opinion that are outside Dr Evans’ professional competence and have no place in a reputable expert report.
“For all those reasons, no court would have accepted a report of this quality even if it had been produced at the time of the trial.”
Mr Myers says those comments are "appalling".
He says the language from the judge "resonates very uncomfortably" with the evidence presented in this case.
"Those comments paint a disgraceful picture".
Mr Myers says those comments were put to Dr Evans.
He said Dr Evans the Lord Justice of Appeal had got it wrong.
Mr Myers "the worrying thing" is "he wouldn't really accept the criticism at all".
Mr Myers says that decision "coincides with the months we have spent complaining about [him]".
Mr Myers says Dr Bohin hasn't 'peer reviewed' Dr Evans, but "supported him as far as she can", and "is every bit as much a part of the prosecution team [as he is]."
Mr Myers says Dr Evans was cross-examined "for months" about his 'lack of independence'.
He says Dr Bohin "has done the same thing but with rather more subtlety".
He refers to agreed facts, of December 5, 2022, of a judge's ruling in a court of appeal, in which there had been a report of Dr Dewi Evans.
Included in his reasons for refusal, the judge said: "The report is worthless and shows no support whatsoever for an appeal.
“No attempt has been made to engage with the full range of medical information or the powerful contradictory indicators.
“Instead the report has the hallmarks of an exercise in ‘working out an explanation’ that exculpates the applicants.
“It ends with tendentious and partisan expressions of opinion that are outside Dr Evans’ professional competence and have no place in a reputable expert report.
“For all those reasons, no court would have accepted a report of this quality even if it had been produced at the time of the trial.”
Mr Myers says those comments are "appalling".
He says the language from the judge "resonates very uncomfortably" with the evidence presented in this case.
"Those comments paint a disgraceful picture".
Mr Myers says those comments were put to Dr Evans.
He said Dr Evans the Lord Justice of Appeal had got it wrong.
Mr Myers "the worrying thing" is "he wouldn't really accept the criticism at all".
Mr Myers says that decision "coincides with the months we have spent complaining about [him]".
Mr Myers says Dr Bohin hasn't 'peer reviewed' Dr Evans, but "supported him as far as she can", and "is every bit as much a part of the prosecution team [as he is]."
Last edited:
Social life defence - was only brought up by the prosecution because she LIED to claim she was isolated & had few people around her.
The note - never touched on the “on purpose” part she wrote which can’t be excused by “anguish”.
Appearance/her as a person - he’s playing on the already there perception some people have in that she can’t have done this purely by looking at her.
Go commando/messages being irrelevant - no they’re not if she was indeed having an affair with a married man, paints a bit of a different idea about said character that BM is trying to portray as innocent. Also, not irrelevant considering the prosecution are showing how much she is a) on her phone & b) the potential motive involving dr no name.
Others texting - yes others did text at work. No one is denying that. It’s the volume that is the difference and the additional lies that she didn’t text inside clinical areas & that she was “busy”. Often her texts were to colleagues not working. The others are also not on trial for murder.
Facebook searches - again, on their own fair enough they’re not mega strong. Added to everything else, they’re the icing on the cake
The note - never touched on the “on purpose” part she wrote which can’t be excused by “anguish”.
Appearance/her as a person - he’s playing on the already there perception some people have in that she can’t have done this purely by looking at her.
Go commando/messages being irrelevant - no they’re not if she was indeed having an affair with a married man, paints a bit of a different idea about said character that BM is trying to portray as innocent. Also, not irrelevant considering the prosecution are showing how much she is a) on her phone & b) the potential motive involving dr no name.
Others texting - yes others did text at work. No one is denying that. It’s the volume that is the difference and the additional lies that she didn’t text inside clinical areas & that she was “busy”. Often her texts were to colleagues not working. The others are also not on trial for murder.
Facebook searches - again, on their own fair enough they’re not mega strong. Added to everything else, they’re the icing on the cake
Thank you for the updates everyone. I've not been able to follow this today as work is a bit mental as Ofsted have announced they are coming in this week.
I'm only up to page 28 and I can feel my bp rising, which is not good as it's high anyway. I night have to skim read the rest.
I know she's entitled to a fair trial and all that and BM is doing his job but I'm worried how this is going to play out with the jury. I hope they are all sensible and can see past the bs.
I'm only up to page 28 and I can feel my bp rising, which is not good as it's high anyway. I night have to skim read the rest.
I know she's entitled to a fair trial and all that and BM is doing his job but I'm worried how this is going to play out with the jury. I hope they are all sensible and can see past the bs.
What does this mean?? Too late in the day to insinuate “it” is someone else? Does he mean the murderer?? F
3:50pm
Mr Myers says Dr Bohin has "worked" to agree where she can.
"We do say she has been doing her best to shore up the allegations as far as she can."
He says of Dr Andreas Marnerides, a pathologist, "is not a clinician, is not a paediatrician or a neonatologist", which "puts some limits [on his expertise]".
He says his expertise is on what happens following a death, not in life.
He says Dr Marnerides is "reliant" on the evidence of others, something which he agreed.
He says he made a lot of reference to Dr Dewi Evans, and it is "too late in the day" to "insinuate" it is someone else.
Mr Myers says Dr Bohin has "worked" to agree where she can.
"We do say she has been doing her best to shore up the allegations as far as she can."
He says of Dr Andreas Marnerides, a pathologist, "is not a clinician, is not a paediatrician or a neonatologist", which "puts some limits [on his expertise]".
He says his expertise is on what happens following a death, not in life.
He says Dr Marnerides is "reliant" on the evidence of others, something which he agreed.
He says he made a lot of reference to Dr Dewi Evans, and it is "too late in the day" to "insinuate" it is someone else.
First it's a gang of 4 at CoCH, now a gang of 3 unrelated medical experts, and finally it's another murderer on the unit.
Ahahahahaha, he was doing alright for a minute there but he's made himself look a silly conspiracy theorist with no evidence, no experts who would say otherwise and zero facts to support his claims.
Just some reading about Dewi Evans re judge comments. Haven't read it all yet. Seems the judge was a bit of a fool at first glance. Imo of course.
I've seen the what are we having for tea chat.
I'm having tuna pasta bake which I found lurking in the freezer today from a batch I made ages ago. I'll probably get food poisoning
I'm having tuna pasta bake which I found lurking in the freezer today from a batch I made ages ago. I'll probably get food poisoning
No she was distraught because she knew she wouldn’t have access to anymore to kill, plus she probably knew her time was up. Her being ‘distraught’ over thinking she caused the deaths was probably her fishing for information to see if they were onto her. Unless the jury are impressionable morons they have to see through this utter nonsense surely?!
Oh yes look at Dr Evans there, telling them that he has worked clinical negligence cases before. Really sounds like he came in all guns blazing to decide there was a serial killer on the ward doesn’t it
I find it really baffling that all he is doing is basically slagging off the experts. If I was in the jury now, I’d actually be offended on behalf of these expert witnesses that I’d heard provide details evidence.
I’m confused about what he said about the 2 police meetings suggesting the police told information from the first meeting to dr evans? Couldn’t he just have come up with air embolism after reviewing the medical information?
Also I think it’s unfair that he’s been allowed to insinuate about other babies off the indictment as for all anyone knows, charges for more of these babies may be brought in the future…the prosecution were not allowed to infer this so it’s unfair that he can use it to infer innocence
I’m confused about what he said about the 2 police meetings suggesting the police told information from the first meeting to dr evans? Couldn’t he just have come up with air embolism after reviewing the medical information?
Also I think it’s unfair that he’s been allowed to insinuate about other babies off the indictment as for all anyone knows, charges for more of these babies may be brought in the future…the prosecution were not allowed to infer this so it’s unfair that he can use it to infer innocence
- Status