Newbie here too but I’ve been following the threads since the beginning of the year. Unfortunately not ginger, hate Matalan, never owned a dildo but love a post it note, hubbys family live in Cheshire and had a premmie baby
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Yes I’ve read all about dildomus prime 
Absolutely not to the live laugh love tat
Absolutely not to the live laugh love tat
There's already one vote on the poll for 'She's a scapegoat!'
“A defence statement was confirmed by her on February 11, 2022. The judge says some of it differs from the police interviews.
He refers to his next legal direction, on the defence statement.
He says if the jury find "a material difference" between the two statements, the jury are entitled to ask themselves why.”
I like this. Get it in nice and early that she’s a liar.
He refers to his next legal direction, on the defence statement.
He says if the jury find "a material difference" between the two statements, the jury are entitled to ask themselves why.”
I like this. Get it in nice and early that she’s a liar.
Congratulations
It must be weird for all you Facebook migrants being allowed to use laugh emojis and not being told off for it 
11:42am
Dr Rachel Lambie had said Child A 'looked like Child B', pale and blotchy all over.
The defence said her original police statement referred to Child A being pale, with white hands.
She thought there was a "lot of discussion" over the rashes.
She said no-one had told her what to say on them.
The defence "draw your attention" to the difference, the judge says.
Dr Rachel Lambie had said Child A 'looked like Child B', pale and blotchy all over.
The defence said her original police statement referred to Child A being pale, with white hands.
She thought there was a "lot of discussion" over the rashes.
She said no-one had told her what to say on them.
The defence "draw your attention" to the difference, the judge says.
I'm trying to catch up (at work). I voted guilty because she is.
Thank you for the updates and so far the judge is doing a great job, some nice reminders there.
@Caledonianprincess hope the little one is ok and you get some answers.
@Lucyxxxx many congratulations. (I had to check I had the right number of x's so I wasn't congratulating some poor person who'd be thinking wtf
)
Thank you for the updates and so far the judge is doing a great job, some nice reminders there.
@Caledonianprincess hope the little one is ok and you get some answers.
@Lucyxxxx many congratulations. (I had to check I had the right number of x's so I wasn't congratulating some poor person who'd be thinking wtf
)11:42am
The judge's next legal direction is on differences in evidential statements.
He says what a witness says in the witness box is all evidence for consideration.
He says where there are, or appear to be, differences in accounts, it is for the jury to decide how different those accounts are, and how important they are.
He says if there are important differences, they should consider them, and the explanations given.
He says if the jury do not accept their explanations, they should treat the witness' evidence with caution.
If the explanations are accepted, then the evidence can be treated as such.
He says it is "really no more than a common-sense approach" "to see where the truth lies".
The judge's next legal direction is on differences in evidential statements.
He says what a witness says in the witness box is all evidence for consideration.
He says where there are, or appear to be, differences in accounts, it is for the jury to decide how different those accounts are, and how important they are.
He says if there are important differences, they should consider them, and the explanations given.
He says if the jury do not accept their explanations, they should treat the witness' evidence with caution.
If the explanations are accepted, then the evidence can be treated as such.
He says it is "really no more than a common-sense approach" "to see where the truth lies".
Congratulations!
are you in the first trimester? Hope you aren’t feeling too rough 
BM last week won’t have helped!!Feeling very nervous and hoping that there is a guilty verdict. I am so worried in case she gets NG - I can't imagine how awful it would be if it was one of your babies as I feel so invested in this result with no direct involvement.Posted as the last thread locked. How is everyone feeling now the verdict is so close to coming? I'm praying for a guilty verdict for all the families so they can get justice.
I don't know how much I'll be able to follow today as in a and e with mini Caledonian as he's not putting on weight as he should despite constantly feeding and he's very sleepy so much so I'm struggling to wake him for feeds (13 yesterday and had to wake him for 9 of them)
Whatever could you meanIt must be weird for all you Facebook migrants being allowed to use laugh emojis and not being told off for it
This is so important. It’s common sense and reasonable that years later there may be a few discrepancies with evidence. Even for a defendant.
It’s not reasonable when the defendant is challenged with something incriminating she can’t recall it but when it supports her case she can. Over and over again.
‘I can’t remember where I was but I was not at the cot’
I mean, that is not a reasonable answer!
Now that I've read the judge's summing up so far I am a lot less nervous than I was last week.
11:48am
Dr Harkness had given a description of the 'blotchy' rash, saying it was only seen again by him in the case of Child E.
The defence criticised him for not including the description in medical notes at the time or in notes to the coroner.
Dr Ravi Jayaram had said it was "highly unusual" in the way that Child A was deteriorating and his heart rate fell even after intubation.
At the time, he noted Child A's pale skin.
His explanation for not including the 'pink patches' skin discolouration to the coroner - mentioning it to the police later - was "he had not considered it clinically relevant" at the time.
He said it was "a matter of regret" he had not mentioned them.
He says he could not explain how Child A collapsed.
He said he read a document in a medical paper about skin discolouration in a case of air embolus.
He said he had not been influenced by that paper when it came to that explanation
Dr Harkness had given a description of the 'blotchy' rash, saying it was only seen again by him in the case of Child E.
The defence criticised him for not including the description in medical notes at the time or in notes to the coroner.
Dr Ravi Jayaram had said it was "highly unusual" in the way that Child A was deteriorating and his heart rate fell even after intubation.
At the time, he noted Child A's pale skin.
His explanation for not including the 'pink patches' skin discolouration to the coroner - mentioning it to the police later - was "he had not considered it clinically relevant" at the time.
He said it was "a matter of regret" he had not mentioned them.
He says he could not explain how Child A collapsed.
He said he read a document in a medical paper about skin discolouration in a case of air embolus.
He said he had not been influenced by that paper when it came to that explanation
I want to have faith in the jury but having been on a jury... I am not confident. (We did get to the right verdict in the end but I was shocked by some of the dimwittery.)
Same, and it’s only the first morning of the first day. Let’s hope he carries on this trajectory.
I am also, im sure he must be helping the jury massively, after last week's tit show...they must be so confused
waiting to be seen just now but a and e is oddly busy for a Monday morning. Thank you for the kind words. I hope we can get to the bottom of what's wrong with him as its horrible when they aren't well
- Status