Love the new pic Della!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Yeah this too. If he has reason to doubt the accuracy of the blood test results, he should at least explain what that reason is.
If I was a jury member rn, I’d be sat there thinking, wow this guy must think I’m a right mug!
I wonder this quite often. I know it doesn’t matter in terms of he still has to represent her for a fair trial etc, it’s more of a curiosity of mine. Perhaps he believed she was innocent at first and has realised her blatant bleeping guilt over the course of the trial
would a defence lawyer know the prosecutions evidence before the trial starts does anyone know?
I wondered if he’d taken the case thinking she could be being scapegoated then saw all the evidence and thought well let’s give her a fair trial so there’s no grounds for appeal. I’d struggle to defend someone who I thought killed babies.I wonder this quite often. I know it doesn’t matter in terms of he still has to represent her for a fair trial etc, it’s more of a curiosity of mine. Perhaps he believed she was innocent at first and has realised her blatant bleeping guilt over the course of the trial
Was the plan always for her to take the stand?
Mini Caledonian is off to get weighed today and has to start infant gaviscon so we will see how he goes with that 
it helps
it helps
I'm pretty sure but not 100% as I have no legal knowledge really, that both parties have to present their evidence prior to the trial because it has to be agreed facts. I'm sure someone else in the know can confirm this properly.I wonder this quite often. I know it doesn’t matter in terms of he still has to represent her for a fair trial etc, it’s more of a curiosity of mine. Perhaps he believed she was innocent at first and has realised her blatant bleeping guilt over the course of the trial
12:07pm
Mr Myers says Dr Evans and Dr Bohin, before the trial, said air and milk had been forced down the NG Tube, and that a colleague of Letby had aspirated Child G's stomach before the 45ml feed [ie the stomach was 'pretty much empty'].
He says that was the assumption.
He says the assumption was wrong.
The nurse said she would have taken enough aspirate to assess the pH level of the stomach, but not enough to empty the stomach.
She had said that would have been done with bigger babies who were stable.
He says the evidence "all falls apart".
He says the nurse said there could have been undigested milk in there.
He says this "created a fundamental problem for the experts".
He says the defence was critical of how the allegation "morphs", and focused on the description of the pH level.
He says the judge, Mr Justice James Goss, asked about that, and the nurse replied the pH level would not give an indication of how much milk was in the stomach.
Mr Myers says Dr Evans and Dr Bohin said low pH levels meant acid, and no milk in the stomach, and had "changed their lines of attack".
Dr Bohin was "particularly vigorous" about it, saying pH of 4 was "very acidic" and milk would "neutralise" that reading.
Mr Myers says the nurse "did not get that wrong".
He says in the case of Child P, there can be a low pH reading with a lot of milk in the stomach.
He says 14ml of milk was aspirated, and a pH reading of 3, and a later reading gives 20ml aspirate and a pH reading of 3.
Mr Myers says Dr Evans and Dr Bohin, before the trial, said air and milk had been forced down the NG Tube, and that a colleague of Letby had aspirated Child G's stomach before the 45ml feed [ie the stomach was 'pretty much empty'].
He says that was the assumption.
He says the assumption was wrong.
The nurse said she would have taken enough aspirate to assess the pH level of the stomach, but not enough to empty the stomach.
She had said that would have been done with bigger babies who were stable.
He says the evidence "all falls apart".
He says the nurse said there could have been undigested milk in there.
He says this "created a fundamental problem for the experts".
He says the defence was critical of how the allegation "morphs", and focused on the description of the pH level.
He says the judge, Mr Justice James Goss, asked about that, and the nurse replied the pH level would not give an indication of how much milk was in the stomach.
Mr Myers says Dr Evans and Dr Bohin said low pH levels meant acid, and no milk in the stomach, and had "changed their lines of attack".
Dr Bohin was "particularly vigorous" about it, saying pH of 4 was "very acidic" and milk would "neutralise" that reading.
Mr Myers says the nurse "did not get that wrong".
He says in the case of Child P, there can be a low pH reading with a lot of milk in the stomach.
He says 14ml of milk was aspirated, and a pH reading of 3, and a later reading gives 20ml aspirate and a pH reading of 3.
Yeah it gets disclosed, along with a schedule relevant unused material and anythingthat might help the defence case or undermine the prosecution is disclosable.I wonder this quite often. I know it doesn’t matter in terms of he still has to represent her for a fair trial etc, it’s more of a curiosity of mine. Perhaps he believed she was innocent at first and has realised her blatant bleeping guilt over the course of the trial
I honestly doubt he focuses on his personal feelings about her guilt at all tbh. If he had the capacity and experience to represent her, then he couldn’t turn it down and I’d imagine he’s just focusing on following his instructions and the evidence. It sounds completely alien, because you’d wonder how you could possibly not have strong personal feelings either way, but in my experience you often avoid it where possible
12:11pm
Mr Myers says Child G's CRP rating [a test to diagnose conditions which cause inflammation] had risen in the 24 hours after the projectile vomit, from 1 to 218.
He says that is a sign Child G was developing an infection.
He says what Letby is alleged to have done is "incredibly speculative".
---
12:15pm
He says there are "vanishing amounts of time" for Letby to have done what she is alleged to have done, given how long the 2am feed takes to be administered and how long Letby had been with colleague Ailsa Simpson before they were both called over for the projectile vomiting incident at 2.15am
Mr Myers says Child G's CRP rating [a test to diagnose conditions which cause inflammation] had risen in the 24 hours after the projectile vomit, from 1 to 218.
He says that is a sign Child G was developing an infection.
He says what Letby is alleged to have done is "incredibly speculative".
---
12:15pm
He says there are "vanishing amounts of time" for Letby to have done what she is alleged to have done, given how long the 2am feed takes to be administered and how long Letby had been with colleague Ailsa Simpson before they were both called over for the projectile vomiting incident at 2.15am
Last edited:
It wouldn't surprise me if he continued into Friday but not all day. Then the Judge won't want to start his summing up until Monday.
I’m now getting ads for post it notes
12:22pm
Mr Myers refers to the 6.05am 'profound desaturation' for Child G. 'NG aspirated as abdo appeared v large, ~100mls aspirated'.
He says the presumption of guilt is Letby did this.
Alison Ventress had said, in cross-examination, this was most likely to be air.
He says Dr Stephen Brearey first gave evidence in the trial at this point.
He said he "assumed it was fluid".
Mr Myers says that is "extraordinary" and there's "no basis" for that.
Mr Myers refers to the 6.05am 'profound desaturation' for Child G. 'NG aspirated as abdo appeared v large, ~100mls aspirated'.
He says the presumption of guilt is Letby did this.
Alison Ventress had said, in cross-examination, this was most likely to be air.
He says Dr Stephen Brearey first gave evidence in the trial at this point.
He said he "assumed it was fluid".
Mr Myers says that is "extraordinary" and there's "no basis" for that.
I have a question for you, if you don’t mind. So if BM has made a mistake about the insulin, and BNE knows it needs corrected, and then there was today when he said there was an entry for E in the 2015 diary, but it the other day he said there was no entry at all in 2015 (so basically something else that’s incorrect/wrong), then can BNE ask for anything like this to be corrected, by either raising an objection, or asking the judge to intervene, or can BNE not do anything more at all now he’s completely finished?
Second question for some of the long time sitters of the fence/NG for a while, has anything that BM has said in his speech that has swayed any of you back again? Really curious as to how effective he is currently to some of the more unsure people. I don’t think the jury will be swayed at this point, so would be really interested to see what slingo and avabella daisy etc think of the closing arguments
12:27pm
The note also refers to 'ETT removed at 0610. Thick secretions++ in mouth. Blood clot at end of ETT...Reintubated at 0615'.
Mr Myers says Child G was not getting air in due to a blood clot.
He says Alison Ventress had agreed in cross-examination the blood clot had interfered with the ETT.
Dr Bohin had agreed, in evidence, blood clots can cause a desaturation, when describing a desaturation event for Child G on a different occasion.
Mr Myers says there was a failure to ventilate Child G for hours
The note also refers to 'ETT removed at 0610. Thick secretions++ in mouth. Blood clot at end of ETT...Reintubated at 0615'.
Mr Myers says Child G was not getting air in due to a blood clot.
He says Alison Ventress had agreed in cross-examination the blood clot had interfered with the ETT.
Dr Bohin had agreed, in evidence, blood clots can cause a desaturation, when describing a desaturation event for Child G on a different occasion.
Mr Myers says there was a failure to ventilate Child G for hours
I’m actually not 100% sure but if he’s made a mistake on agreed evidence then they should be able to get that corrected
12:31pm
Mr Myers refers to the second event for Child G on September 21, 'At 1015 x2 large projectile milky vomits....desaturation to 35% with colour loss. NG Tube aspirated - 30mls undigested milk discarded.'
He says if Letby is alleged to have attempted to kill Child G, 'what a thing to put it in a nursing note'.
He asks where the 'document fraud', or 'cooking the notes' is.
He says it is "an incredibly weak basis" that the only two events of milky vomits on September 7 and September 21 are suspcious
Mr Myers refers to the second event for Child G on September 21, 'At 1015 x2 large projectile milky vomits....desaturation to 35% with colour loss. NG Tube aspirated - 30mls undigested milk discarded.'
He says if Letby is alleged to have attempted to kill Child G, 'what a thing to put it in a nursing note'.
He asks where the 'document fraud', or 'cooking the notes' is.
He says it is "an incredibly weak basis" that the only two events of milky vomits on September 7 and September 21 are suspcious
I knew he'd barely focus on the insulin deaths. They're the ones that prove conclusively there was a murderer on the ward and it's too ridiculous to get the jury to believe there was a poisoner miraculously at the same time LL was implicated in the deaths of loads of other babies, who magically stopped when LL was put on admin duties. These are the ones she will surely be found guilty of and if the jury takes the judge's initial advice I am confident they'll find her guilty of most, if not all of the other charges too.
12:35pm
Mr Myers says "we don't know" how much of the 45ml feed at 6am is still in the stomach by the time of the following feed.
He says for September 21, Child G recovered quickly, unlike the September 7 event.
Mr Myers says "we don't know" how much of the 45ml feed at 6am is still in the stomach by the time of the following feed.
He says for September 21, Child G recovered quickly, unlike the September 7 event.
Man after reading BM’s prattlings I had a bit of a wobble. Anybody else?
But taking a step back and thinking about the powerful evidence we have (what is he on about saying the evidence is weak?), I am convinced of her guilt. I think the jury could do the same- perhaps have that seed of doubt but when they re-examine the evidence they will come to the right conclusion.
But taking a step back and thinking about the powerful evidence we have (what is he on about saying the evidence is weak?), I am convinced of her guilt. I think the jury could do the same- perhaps have that seed of doubt but when they re-examine the evidence they will come to the right conclusion.
- Status