On Monday he told the jury there was nothing in the 2015 diary. Now he’s saying there is for Child E.11:22am
Mr Myers says Letby believed she had a good relationship with Child E and Child F's mother.
He says there is an entry in Letby's diary on Child E - the only entry for any child in the indictment in the 2015 diary.
He says there is no entry for Child F.
He says the photograph of the sympathy card for Child E's parents, taken by Letby at the hospital, has no relevance.
Mr Myers says it was a photo taken while she was at work.
Exactly. They've had months and months of hearing what's happened to those babies, this is a whole load of desperate hogwash.I think the majority of them will be like the majority of us.
We believe in her guilt, we stand by BNE, those babies and their families.
Ben Myers is rocking the boat but he won't tip it over. We won't suddenly believe in her innocence because Ben has spent a few days talking bollocks and casting aspersions.
There jury haven't sat there for all these months to just take Ben at his word against all those experts.
Have faith
She wrote the card at home but waited until she got to work to write the card - he missed out that bit.11:22am
Mr Myers says Letby believed she had a good relationship with Child E and Child F's mother.
He says there is an entry in Letby's diary on Child E - the only entry for any child in the indictment in the 2015 diary.
He says there is no entry for Child F.
He says the photograph of the sympathy card for Child E's parents, taken by Letby at the hospital, has no relevance.
Mr Myers says it was a photo taken while she was at work.
Sorry waited until she got to work to take the photo.She wrote the card at home but waited until she got to work to write the card - he missed out that bit.
He's blatantly lying.On Monday he told the jury there was nothing in the 2015 diary. Now he’s saying there is for Child E.
View attachment 2270800
No way. He can't even get an expert witness to stand up in court, apart from the plumber and that didn't show anything relevant.Do we think Myers knew she was guilty when he took the case? Does anyone think he believes shes innocent?
https://giphy.com/ooz0LQ8fIqkRNFXjgLHe’s finished with the insulin babies VERY quickly
The whole thing feels rushed. He’s skirted over so much. Obviously there wasn’t much he could pluck out to benefit his client.He’s finished with the insulin babies VERY quickly
11:22am
Mr Myers says Letby believed she had a good relationship with Child E and Child F's mother.
He says there is an entry in Letby's diary on Child E - the only entry for any child in the indictment in the 2015 diary.
He says there is no entry for Child F.
He says the photograph of the sympathy card for Child E's parents, taken by Letby at the hospital, has no relevance.
Mr Myers says it was a photo taken while she was at work.
BM made a mistake on Monday when he said the 2015 contained mention of the babies.
No, he's a very clever man. If I can see the massive gaps in his speech, so can he.Do we think Myers knew she was guilty when he took the case? Does anyone think he believes shes innocent?
Someone on here predicted that yesterday. If he'd have had anything to really show her innocence in the insulin poisonings he would have been talking about it all morning.He’s finished with the insulin babies VERY quickly
They keep saying relevant to the indictment re 2015. I bet there are babies in there that haven't been included in this indictment because they can't prove anything as yet.On Monday he told the jury there was nothing in the 2015 diary. Now he’s saying there is for Child E.
View attachment 2270800
100% but I posted the other day that I think it’s a little unfair he’s been allowed to sort of us/make reference to other babies to try plant doubt when for all the jury know, those babies on all the other handover sheets are currently being looked into by operation hummingbird. Obviously the prosecution have not been allowed to allude there could be further charges into other babies so I don’t think it’s fair BM is allowed to allude that because there are other babies she’s not currently on trial for, that must mean she is innocent - I know he’s not said that outright but he’s insinuated itThey keep saying relevant to the indictment re 2015. I bet there are babies in there that haven't been included in this indictment because they can't prove anything as yet.
Oh, that old trick of saying “we can’t re-test them, so you (the jury) must discount them” isn’t going to work Ben! The tests were done properly by experts in a proper lab — there’s no need for them to be retested, or for the results to be doubted. It’s solid evidence.He says the prosecution referred to Letby's 'concessions' of the insulin results. He says the defence reject she has committed an offence for those two counts.
He says the jury 'may well accept' the insulin results. He says it is insufficient to say Letby's concessions that the lab results are accurate when she cannot say otherwise. He says the defence can't test the results as they have long since been disposed of.
He says the evidence at face value shows how the insulin results were obtained. He says it is not agreed evidence.
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?