I'm sure Nurse Taylor was more than competent looking after those babies. Staff shortages are the norm. What's he playing at- bloody idiot
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
10:35am
The trial is now resuming.
Benjamin Myers KC is referring to the case of Child A.
He says there was sub-optimal care in that case.
He says on a neonatal unit, babies "are there for a reason" and many of the babies have "signficant problems" and are "at risk of deterioration".
Has been speaking to Dicky Gill?! These babies were poorly and could've died anyway schpiel. Sickening.
---
He says there "should not have been just one nurse" looking after Child A and Child B. He says if there was one nurse for each, they would be "more confident" the issue of lines and nursing care was resolved. He adds Dr David Harkness was stretched between a number of babies for the shift on June 8, 2015.
Does he think the NHS have unlimited funding to provide a nurse to give 24/7 watch on one patient at a time?
The trial is now resuming.
Benjamin Myers KC is referring to the case of Child A.
He says there was sub-optimal care in that case.
He says on a neonatal unit, babies "are there for a reason" and many of the babies have "signficant problems" and are "at risk of deterioration".
Has been speaking to Dicky Gill?! These babies were poorly and could've died anyway schpiel. Sickening.
---
He says there "should not have been just one nurse" looking after Child A and Child B. He says if there was one nurse for each, they would be "more confident" the issue of lines and nursing care was resolved. He adds Dr David Harkness was stretched between a number of babies for the shift on June 8, 2015.
Does he think the NHS have unlimited funding to provide a nurse to give 24/7 watch on one patient at a time?
10:46am
The respiration rate chart for Child A is shown, with what Mr Myers says is "escalating up to the point of collapse", and is in a yellow bracket (ie elevated above normal).
He says [medical expert] Dr Sandie Bohin would not accept that, saying it was stable.
Mr Myers says the defence wonder how much attention was paid to Child A, with Melanie Taylor looking after two babies.
Mr Myers says Child A received no fluids for four hours, and Dr Bohin agrees it was "sub-optimal".
He says the long line was "in the wrong place" for Child A.
He said the records show it was not correctly sited.
He refers to an x-ray review on June 8: 'Long line...to be pulled back'.
Dr David Harkness put in 9.20pm he was unable to move the long line as he had been called to another patient.
Mr Myers says Dr Harkness had a review with colleagues the following day and they agreed it was in a 'perfect place'.
Mr Myers cross-examined Dr Bohin on the long line position, which she reported was 'not in the best position'.
He says Dr Bohin didn't mention it in her evidence.
Mr Myers says the line 'was too close to the heart', and fluids were put down it, and Child A had a fatal collapse within 20 minutes of that.
He says Dr Harkness removed the line as soon as the collapse happened.
The respiration rate chart for Child A is shown, with what Mr Myers says is "escalating up to the point of collapse", and is in a yellow bracket (ie elevated above normal).
He says [medical expert] Dr Sandie Bohin would not accept that, saying it was stable.
Mr Myers says the defence wonder how much attention was paid to Child A, with Melanie Taylor looking after two babies.
Mr Myers says Child A received no fluids for four hours, and Dr Bohin agrees it was "sub-optimal".
He says the long line was "in the wrong place" for Child A.
He said the records show it was not correctly sited.
He refers to an x-ray review on June 8: 'Long line...to be pulled back'.
Dr David Harkness put in 9.20pm he was unable to move the long line as he had been called to another patient.
Mr Myers says Dr Harkness had a review with colleagues the following day and they agreed it was in a 'perfect place'.
Mr Myers cross-examined Dr Bohin on the long line position, which she reported was 'not in the best position'.
He says Dr Bohin didn't mention it in her evidence.
Mr Myers says the line 'was too close to the heart', and fluids were put down it, and Child A had a fatal collapse within 20 minutes of that.
He says Dr Harkness removed the line as soon as the collapse happened.
I’m gonna dip out while bowel movement is chatting nonsense. I’ll be back on Friday when it’s hopefully all over 
10:50am
He says Letby helped a nurse with sterilisation.
He asks when was she supposed to have done what she was alleged to have done, and next to Dr Harkness and Melanie Taylor.
He says there is "nothing to support" that Letby got a syringe and injected some air.
He says "no-one could access" the lines without opening the incubator first.
He says Letby helped a nurse with sterilisation.
He asks when was she supposed to have done what she was alleged to have done, and next to Dr Harkness and Melanie Taylor.
He says there is "nothing to support" that Letby got a syringe and injected some air.
He says "no-one could access" the lines without opening the incubator first.
The second someone’s accused of something and they just start spouting off about what everyone else has done is where I can almost guarantee guilt.
Whether it’s in this case or when I ask my kids who’s left the freezer open again or even stuff from years back. Bore off BM
Whether it’s in this case or when I ask my kids who’s left the freezer open again or even stuff from years back. Bore off BM
10:55am
Letby said it was Melanie Taylor who set up and connected the line and put up the fluids.
Melanie Taylor "couldn't remember which way it was".
Mr Myers says that is something the prosecution would have "absolutely slated" her is she was the one accused.
Mr Myers says another nursing colleague gave "lots of evidence", but "could not remember", in evidence, who connected the line.
He says in cross-examination, from her January 2018 police interview, the colleague said:"it appears I was able to say then it was Mel who did it".
Mr Myers says on the evidence, there is "no basis" of Letby being guilty of any offence for Child A.
He says this account is "firmly based on the experts" who agreed on air embolus.
---
10:59am
Mr Myers refers to the 'overarching theory of air embolus'.
He says "at the heart of it" are Dr Dewi Evans and Dr Sandie Bohin, 'neither of whom are experts on air embolus'.
He says they relied on a research paper written over 30 years ago.
He says he asked them the clinical signs of identifying an air embolus.
They both said a sudden and unexpected collapse.
They said a skin discolouration, and the presence of air in the great vessels.
Dr Evans added 'resuscitation is unsuccessful'.
Mr Myers not one of those criterium have been applied consistently across the trial, and they have been 'chopped and changed' to suit the evidence, with 'extraordinary contortions' to fit.
"My word, it changed", he adds.
Letby said it was Melanie Taylor who set up and connected the line and put up the fluids.
Melanie Taylor "couldn't remember which way it was".
Mr Myers says that is something the prosecution would have "absolutely slated" her is she was the one accused.
Mr Myers says another nursing colleague gave "lots of evidence", but "could not remember", in evidence, who connected the line.
He says in cross-examination, from her January 2018 police interview, the colleague said:"it appears I was able to say then it was Mel who did it".
Mr Myers says on the evidence, there is "no basis" of Letby being guilty of any offence for Child A.
He says this account is "firmly based on the experts" who agreed on air embolus.
---
10:59am
Mr Myers refers to the 'overarching theory of air embolus'.
He says "at the heart of it" are Dr Dewi Evans and Dr Sandie Bohin, 'neither of whom are experts on air embolus'.
He says they relied on a research paper written over 30 years ago.
He says he asked them the clinical signs of identifying an air embolus.
They both said a sudden and unexpected collapse.
They said a skin discolouration, and the presence of air in the great vessels.
Dr Evans added 'resuscitation is unsuccessful'.
Mr Myers not one of those criterium have been applied consistently across the trial, and they have been 'chopped and changed' to suit the evidence, with 'extraordinary contortions' to fit.
"My word, it changed", he adds.
11:05am
Mr Myers says the research paper from 1989 identified 5 out of 53 infants with skin discolouration, and one had a rash, of 'bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background'.
He says it is a very specific description, of one case study.
He says as the basis of convicting someone of murders and/or attempted murders it is "tenous in the extreme", but Dr Evans and Dr Bohin have made reference to it.
That "meagre" research has "carried into pure guesswork", he adds.
Professor Sally Kinsey, a professor of haematology, had also given evidence.
She had said in cross-examination, she was not an expert in air embolus.
She agreed she hadn't seen it herself, and that air embolus did not feature in her expertise.
She said she had given evidence because "she had been asked to".
Mr Myers said she had relied upon Dr Evans and Dr Bohin, which he adds was a "big mistake".
Mr Myers says the research paper from 1989 identified 5 out of 53 infants with skin discolouration, and one had a rash, of 'bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background'.
He says it is a very specific description, of one case study.
He says as the basis of convicting someone of murders and/or attempted murders it is "tenous in the extreme", but Dr Evans and Dr Bohin have made reference to it.
That "meagre" research has "carried into pure guesswork", he adds.
Professor Sally Kinsey, a professor of haematology, had also given evidence.
She had said in cross-examination, she was not an expert in air embolus.
She agreed she hadn't seen it herself, and that air embolus did not feature in her expertise.
She said she had given evidence because "she had been asked to".
Mr Myers said she had relied upon Dr Evans and Dr Bohin, which he adds was a "big mistake".
So all you nurses out there forget your 4 nursing principles, according to BM it doesn't count. Well, witch face obviously didn't adhere to 'above all, do no harm' ethic. I'm not buying him at all
Soo yesterday wasn’t as bad as it sounds written up- at all!
•BM was too gushing too OTT going on and on about how good the jury are thanking them etc but it went on so long it almost came across as insincere/ too rehearsed. I felt like I needed a sick bucket
•when he was saying the prosecution say everything leads to guilty he was throwing his arms around trying to get an Oscar i think, everytime he mentioned LL he did this poor LL face and pointed at her. He’s been army, author, barrister and I’m guessing actor next, it was very theatrical and kinda too OTT- again came across to over rehearsed and not Authentic.
•the bit about the prosecution shouldn’t have asked LL about staffing pressures etc, you could tell he was narked. He wasn’t happy she’d answered it and he had to basically say she doesn’t know what she’s on about and then told us there was staffing issues etc. he went on and on and on about so many sick babies extra children brought in extra this is in direct correlation etc. no it’s not! There’s a ratio of staff to needs, they were never shown to my knowledge to not have enough staff!
•about her remembering pieces of evidence, he said ‘there’s little else to do in prison’ there were a few laughs here. Granted yes BUT that doesn’t explain why she doesn’t remember the rest or forgot things from 2 weeks ago but suddenly after all these years now remembers somethings that happened 7 years ago that she hadn’t remembered 2,3,4 years later in police interviews
•he said her treatment in cross exam was (in the most over exaggerated voice, tone and action ) ‘BADDDD’ yet he ate the witnesses alive in cross exam, who’ve done nothing wrong, they aren’t in court suspected of murder.
•he said that the fact everyone seems to think the babies were doing brilliantly boggles his mind, then he said something basically saying they could’ve all died they were soooo sick that’s why they were there. But some of those babies were ready to go home!
•defence Said we are the only people who will stand up for LL-no one else will. No because you brought a plumber, where’s your expert witness’s, character witness’s etc that’s no one’s fault but his! Well hers…
•she ‘dared to defend herself’ no she was rude arrogant, self righteous sometimes snappy, absolutely I wanted her to defend herself and tell the truth but she did not IMO she changed what she said every sentence.
•when he said there were months in which they could’ve raised the alarm, if they were right it was a failure and staggering failure in care WAIT WHAT so one second he’s saying she’s done nothing wrong, then said well if she has they haven’t stopped it continuing and reported it… sorry what. She’s either guilty or not you can’t have answers for both, to try and make the prosecution wrong for both this was really clutching at straws for me.
•then he basically said if air embolism worked so well why change it up to insulin etc and if she was so good why did some not die WTF this didn’t go down well, really clutching, he came across awfully! Like she’s not stupid if she did the exact same thing over and over it would be noticed she covered her back and changed them to make it less suspicious…
•saying the list of similarities wern’t all similar some were similar because parents had just gone home, he was saying the opposite for all the others- but yes of course because again it would be soooo obvious!
•notice board was really pointless. Do murders not have notice boards, or perhaps theirs have skulls and Satan pictures on?! I’m sorry if one of your only examples for being nice is a notice board I’m sorry it’s not looking good!
•the she dared to have a social life before the arrest- the problem he failed to point out is SHE WASNT ALLOWED to speak to any work colleagues, then eventually a few, but she ignored it all and carried on yet clearly lied to the jury to get them to feel sorry for her- that was proved FACT with the socials.
•he said about her messages to colleagues were normal, others did it too, I wouldn’t say moaning about not being in room but colleague gets to etc is normal. I certainly don’t think talking about confidential babies etc is normal. And as for many staff doing it 2 wrongs don’t make a right- no one should’ve had their phone even on them! Let alone being used.
•the collection of paper, IMO he wasn’t impressed with how she explained she collected them so he’s tried to soften the edges. He also failed to mention that yes she had 257 but the ones relevant to these cases were in a bag of just around 30 for safe keeping under her bed. They may have been less than 10% of the total but they were around 50% of the ones under the bed! Some wern’t the correct dates- no but it still had the names to search on fb.
•moaning about air embolism research being on pigs and rabbits, hmm I wonder why that could possibly be…. Hmm surely there wasn’t a lack of parents wanting to sign their babies up to have air embolisms inserted for research
The microphones kept messing up some awful ear hurting stuff and some where it kept repeating the last bit he said like a rap- literally everyone was laughing- I felt like Matilda ‘shut him up shut him up’ and off went the sound
Sorry for the biggest ramble ever
•BM was too gushing too OTT going on and on about how good the jury are thanking them etc but it went on so long it almost came across as insincere/ too rehearsed. I felt like I needed a sick bucket
•when he was saying the prosecution say everything leads to guilty he was throwing his arms around trying to get an Oscar i think, everytime he mentioned LL he did this poor LL face and pointed at her. He’s been army, author, barrister and I’m guessing actor next, it was very theatrical and kinda too OTT- again came across to over rehearsed and not Authentic.
•the bit about the prosecution shouldn’t have asked LL about staffing pressures etc, you could tell he was narked. He wasn’t happy she’d answered it and he had to basically say she doesn’t know what she’s on about and then told us there was staffing issues etc. he went on and on and on about so many sick babies extra children brought in extra this is in direct correlation etc. no it’s not! There’s a ratio of staff to needs, they were never shown to my knowledge to not have enough staff!
•about her remembering pieces of evidence, he said ‘there’s little else to do in prison’ there were a few laughs here. Granted yes BUT that doesn’t explain why she doesn’t remember the rest or forgot things from 2 weeks ago but suddenly after all these years now remembers somethings that happened 7 years ago that she hadn’t remembered 2,3,4 years later in police interviews
•he said her treatment in cross exam was (in the most over exaggerated voice, tone and action ) ‘BADDDD’ yet he ate the witnesses alive in cross exam, who’ve done nothing wrong, they aren’t in court suspected of murder.
•he said that the fact everyone seems to think the babies were doing brilliantly boggles his mind, then he said something basically saying they could’ve all died they were soooo sick that’s why they were there. But some of those babies were ready to go home!
•defence Said we are the only people who will stand up for LL-no one else will. No because you brought a plumber, where’s your expert witness’s, character witness’s etc that’s no one’s fault but his! Well hers…
•she ‘dared to defend herself’ no she was rude arrogant, self righteous sometimes snappy, absolutely I wanted her to defend herself and tell the truth but she did not IMO she changed what she said every sentence.
•when he said there were months in which they could’ve raised the alarm, if they were right it was a failure and staggering failure in care WAIT WHAT so one second he’s saying she’s done nothing wrong, then said well if she has they haven’t stopped it continuing and reported it… sorry what. She’s either guilty or not you can’t have answers for both, to try and make the prosecution wrong for both this was really clutching at straws for me.
•then he basically said if air embolism worked so well why change it up to insulin etc and if she was so good why did some not die WTF this didn’t go down well, really clutching, he came across awfully! Like she’s not stupid if she did the exact same thing over and over it would be noticed she covered her back and changed them to make it less suspicious…
•saying the list of similarities wern’t all similar some were similar because parents had just gone home, he was saying the opposite for all the others- but yes of course because again it would be soooo obvious!
•notice board was really pointless. Do murders not have notice boards, or perhaps theirs have skulls and Satan pictures on?! I’m sorry if one of your only examples for being nice is a notice board I’m sorry it’s not looking good!
•the she dared to have a social life before the arrest- the problem he failed to point out is SHE WASNT ALLOWED to speak to any work colleagues, then eventually a few, but she ignored it all and carried on yet clearly lied to the jury to get them to feel sorry for her- that was proved FACT with the socials.
•he said about her messages to colleagues were normal, others did it too, I wouldn’t say moaning about not being in room but colleague gets to etc is normal. I certainly don’t think talking about confidential babies etc is normal. And as for many staff doing it 2 wrongs don’t make a right- no one should’ve had their phone even on them! Let alone being used.
•the collection of paper, IMO he wasn’t impressed with how she explained she collected them so he’s tried to soften the edges. He also failed to mention that yes she had 257 but the ones relevant to these cases were in a bag of just around 30 for safe keeping under her bed. They may have been less than 10% of the total but they were around 50% of the ones under the bed! Some wern’t the correct dates- no but it still had the names to search on fb.
•moaning about air embolism research being on pigs and rabbits, hmm I wonder why that could possibly be…. Hmm surely there wasn’t a lack of parents wanting to sign their babies up to have air embolisms inserted for research
The microphones kept messing up some awful ear hurting stuff and some where it kept repeating the last bit he said like a rap- literally everyone was laughing- I felt like Matilda ‘shut him up shut him up’ and off went the sound
Sorry for the biggest ramble ever
11:15am
Mr Myers says there are many causes of discolouration to a baby, and there isn't a precise description as there is no photograph of any.
He says the descriptions vary between the witnesses.
He adds sometimes the descriptions have come months or years afterwards, after people have listened to other people's descriptions, and the dangers of recollection being 'contaminated or influenced are obvious'.
Mr Myers says 'unexpected collapses' can happen to neonatal babies.
He says Child D had pneumonia and was at risk of collapse.
He says for 'resuscitations unsuccessful', the proportion of babies who recovered in this case "doesn't make sense".
He says the air is 78% nitrogen and "doesn't just go".
He says it is "static, it is a blockage", and would be found post-mortem.
He says the jury won't find air in the heart, post-mortem, in any of the cases.
Mr Myers says there are many causes of discolouration to a baby, and there isn't a precise description as there is no photograph of any.
He says the descriptions vary between the witnesses.
He adds sometimes the descriptions have come months or years afterwards, after people have listened to other people's descriptions, and the dangers of recollection being 'contaminated or influenced are obvious'.
Mr Myers says 'unexpected collapses' can happen to neonatal babies.
He says Child D had pneumonia and was at risk of collapse.
He says for 'resuscitations unsuccessful', the proportion of babies who recovered in this case "doesn't make sense".
He says the air is 78% nitrogen and "doesn't just go".
He says it is "static, it is a blockage", and would be found post-mortem.
He says the jury won't find air in the heart, post-mortem, in any of the cases.
I find it frustrating that he, who isn’t a medical professional, is speaking to the jury like he is.
I know BNE also did this, however he was led by the medical experts. I would be more inclined to listen to BM if he too had a medical expert which supported all these things he is spouting
I know BNE also did this, however he was led by the medical experts. I would be more inclined to listen to BM if he too had a medical expert which supported all these things he is spouting
this made me a bit emosh - I’m so glad it was goodNothing like crashes I don’t think! One of them for baby G was a projectile vomit. The dad had already said in his statement though that she had never done it before the date the first alleged attack (huge vomit onto chair and floor) happened but did on occasion have projectile vomits of less severity after. She was left severely brain damaged from the first attack so I’d say that really doesn’t add any doubt at all.
thanks @nosycowmoo we appreciate you taking some time for your write up this evening
@docmum I had my Greek salad! It was soo good but probably because I’d been thinking about it all day thanks to youhope yours was nice.X
Thank you for the write up!Soo yesterday wasn’t as bad as it sounds written up- at all!
•BM was too gushing too OTT going on and on about how good the jury are thanking them etc but it went on so long it almost came across as insincere/ too rehearsed. I felt like I needed a sick bucket
•when he was saying the prosecution say everything leads to guilty he was throwing his arms around trying to get an Oscar i think, everytime he mentioned LL he did this poor LL face and pointed at her. He’s been army, author, barrister and I’m guessing actor next, it was very theatrical and kinda too OTT- again came across to over rehearsed and not Authentic.
•the bit about the prosecution shouldn’t have asked LL about staffing pressures etc, you could tell he was narked. He wasn’t happy she’d answered it and he had to basically say she doesn’t know what she’s on about and then told us there was staffing issues etc. he went on and on and on about so many sick babies extra children brought in extra this is in direct correlation etc. no it’s not! There’s a ratio of staff to needs, they were never shown to my knowledge to not have enough staff!
•about her remembering pieces of evidence, he said ‘there’s little else to do in prison’ there were a few laughs here. Granted yes BUT that doesn’t explain why she doesn’t remember the rest or forgot things from 2 weeks ago but suddenly after all these years now remembers somethings that happened 7 years ago that she hadn’t remembered 2,3,4 years later in police interviews
•he said her treatment in cross exam was (in the most over exaggerated voice, tone and action ) ‘BADDDD’ yet he ate the witnesses alive in cross exam, who’ve done nothing wrong, they aren’t in court suspected of murder.
•he said that the fact everyone seems to think the babies were doing brilliantly boggles his mind, then he said something basically saying they could’ve all died they were soooo sick that’s why they were there. But some of those babies were ready to go home!
•defence Said we are the only people who will stand up for LL-no one else will. No because you brought a plumber, where’s your expert witness’s, character witness’s etc that’s no one’s fault but his! Well hers…
•she ‘dared to defend herself’ no she was rude arrogant, self righteous sometimes snappy, absolutely I wanted her to defend herself and tell the truth but she did not IMO she changed what she said every sentence.
•when he said there were months in which they could’ve raised the alarm, if they were right it was a failure and staggering failure in care WAIT WHAT so one second he’s saying she’s done nothing wrong, then said well if she has they haven’t stopped it continuing and reported it… sorry what. She’s either guilty or not you can’t have answers for both, to try and make the prosecution wrong for both this was really clutching at straws for me.
•then he basically said if air embolism worked so well why change it up to insulin etc and if she was so good why did some not die WTF this didn’t go down well, really clutching, he came across awfully! Like she’s not stupid if she did the exact same thing over and over it would be noticed she covered her back and changed them to make it less suspicious…
•saying the list of similarities wern’t all similar some were similar because parents had just gone home, he was saying the opposite for all the others- but yes of course because again it would be soooo obvious!
•notice board was really pointless. Do murders not have notice boards, or perhaps theirs have skulls and Satan pictures on?! I’m sorry if one of your only examples for being nice is a notice board I’m sorry it’s not looking good!
•the she dared to have a social life before the arrest- the problem he failed to point out is SHE WASNT ALLOWED to speak to any work colleagues, then eventually a few, but she ignored it all and carried on yet clearly lied to the jury to get them to feel sorry for her- that was proved FACT with the socials.
•he said about her messages to colleagues were normal, others did it too, I wouldn’t say moaning about not being in room but colleague gets to etc is normal. I certainly don’t think talking about confidential babies etc is normal. And as for many staff doing it 2 wrongs don’t make a right- no one should’ve had their phone even on them! Let alone being used.
•the collection of paper, IMO he wasn’t impressed with how she explained she collected them so he’s tried to soften the edges. He also failed to mention that yes she had 257 but the ones relevant to these cases were in a bag of just around 30 for safe keeping under her bed. They may have been less than 10% of the total but they were around 50% of the ones under the bed! Some wern’t the correct dates- no but it still had the names to search on fb.
•moaning about air embolism research being on pigs and rabbits, hmm I wonder why that could possibly be…. Hmm surely there wasn’t a lack of parents wanting to sign their babies up to have air embolisms inserted for research
The microphones kept messing up some awful ear hurting stuff and some where it kept repeating the last bit he said like a rap- literally everyone was laughing- I felt like Matilda ‘shut him up shut him up’ and off went the sound
Sorry for the biggest ramble ever
At the end of the day BM sadly has a job to do, and since I feel the prosecution is so strong, slinging mud everybody else's way is the only way to do it.
@gigilouxx is right, it's similar to how a kid in trouble will deflect. Blame everybody else to try and bring the heat off themselves. Adults can see right through it, and I hope the Jury see this too!
11:26am
Mr Myers says the jury know what an air embolus looks like, from how Professor Owen Arthurs described it, and a radiograph image was supplied with the research article.
He says it looks "nothing like" what was shown in this case.
He says for Child G, the image looks "nothing like", and the UVC is "misplaced" to the lower liver.
A second image for Child G shows the baby 'in life', with an air embolus.
He says an air embolus can happen "by accident" in legitimate medical treatment.
He says Dr Bohin "reluctantly" accepted that could be the case.
He says Dr Evans refused to accept it.
Mr Myers says the scientific evidence "falls short" on air embolus in this case, with background research "poor", and the guidance has been applied "inconsistently".
He says the evidence "is so poor" it "cannot be used" to back the allegations.
Mr Myers says the jury know what an air embolus looks like, from how Professor Owen Arthurs described it, and a radiograph image was supplied with the research article.
He says it looks "nothing like" what was shown in this case.
He says for Child G, the image looks "nothing like", and the UVC is "misplaced" to the lower liver.
A second image for Child G shows the baby 'in life', with an air embolus.
He says an air embolus can happen "by accident" in legitimate medical treatment.
He says Dr Bohin "reluctantly" accepted that could be the case.
He says Dr Evans refused to accept it.
Mr Myers says the scientific evidence "falls short" on air embolus in this case, with background research "poor", and the guidance has been applied "inconsistently".
He says the evidence "is so poor" it "cannot be used" to back the allegations.
Also I’ve seen doctors be responsible for literally like 100 patients before. They usually have juniors working below them to help carry out jobs but drs are always stretched between multiple patients, they just have to prioritise and if they do so properly it shouldn’t result in any deaths.
Does he think there’s a dr-patient ratio of 1:1 in the NHS
I wish.
I know everyone is entitled to a defence, but he is just dealing low blows at this point and not thinking of the babies or their parents. I've lost any respect for him that I may have had for 'just doing his job'.He's kicking below the belt here.
Poor baby G and her parents heart
11:37am
Mr Myers refers back to the case of Child A.
He says there was a 'failure to read subtle signs'.
He says the "crucial" element is there is no evidence of air embolus.
He says the prosecution have gathered witness accounts from this trial of the skin discolourations.
He says those recollections can change over the years.
He says there is no reference to discolouration in the contemporaneous notes for Child A, which he says is "extraordinary".
He says nurses Caroline Bennion and Melanie Taylor didn't note anything remarkable.
He cross-examined Dr Harkness on the description, who was "very animated" on the "striking" discolourations and "unexpected deterioration", but did not note it at the time, or in a statement to the coroner.
He says the evidence by a nursing colleague noted, in a 2018 police interview, Child A was 'centrally pale', with limbs 'white'.
Mr Myers cross-examined her on it, and asked her about 'blotchiness', and where that had come from.
She agreed the description was different between police interview and evidence.
Dr Jayaram said Child A was 'pale blue', with discolouration 'flitting around'.
Mr Myers says the description he gave from the interview was 'very similar' to the one from the research paper.
My Myers says the description does not appear in his clinical notes at the time, or in the "lengthy statement" to the coroner.
Mr Myers says it is a "remarkable coincidence" that two doctors did not give evidence of discolourations to the coroner in a statement, or note it at the time.
Mr Myers refers back to the case of Child A.
He says there was a 'failure to read subtle signs'.
He says the "crucial" element is there is no evidence of air embolus.
He says the prosecution have gathered witness accounts from this trial of the skin discolourations.
He says those recollections can change over the years.
He says there is no reference to discolouration in the contemporaneous notes for Child A, which he says is "extraordinary".
He says nurses Caroline Bennion and Melanie Taylor didn't note anything remarkable.
He cross-examined Dr Harkness on the description, who was "very animated" on the "striking" discolourations and "unexpected deterioration", but did not note it at the time, or in a statement to the coroner.
He says the evidence by a nursing colleague noted, in a 2018 police interview, Child A was 'centrally pale', with limbs 'white'.
Mr Myers cross-examined her on it, and asked her about 'blotchiness', and where that had come from.
She agreed the description was different between police interview and evidence.
Dr Jayaram said Child A was 'pale blue', with discolouration 'flitting around'.
Mr Myers says the description he gave from the interview was 'very similar' to the one from the research paper.
My Myers says the description does not appear in his clinical notes at the time, or in the "lengthy statement" to the coroner.
Mr Myers says it is a "remarkable coincidence" that two doctors did not give evidence of discolourations to the coroner in a statement, or note it at the time.
- Status