I'm not in the NG camp but a lot of things haven’t been explained thoroughly for me to make a firm decision.
Take Child C, I read this today…..
View attachment 2284855
So baby C had a twisted colon and acute pneumonia. Whilst they were not determined to be a cause of death, that baby was very poorly. What are the chances of someone deciding to murder a baby who was so poorly?
we keep getting told that these babies weren’t expected to die and were 'stable', yet here is evidence of illness that could have easily caused his/her death.
LL is not on trial for all the baby’s murders that died, I think there’s 5 others, so what happened to them?
I stepped away from this thread for months because it was so upsetting but have been following, and am now looking again but there are still lots of questions.
LL continually going in that room after Child C died is very concerning and by the time we get to Child L she’s returning from holiday and saying she’ll no doubt be back 'with a bang' and child L and M suddenly die on her consecutive shifts. That’s far too coincidental.
I still have questions BUT I think my problem is that I don’t want to believe she did murder them because it’s too terrible to think about AND a relative of mine employed by the NHS has been through a terrible experience with them where they broke their own policy procedures and lied and lied to cover their tracks, so I also don’t trust them.
I’m all over the place!
(Also, thank you to everyone for updating these threads and the WIKI as they are a brilliant source of info. I had to C&P this over as the previous thread closed).
It is a given that almost all the babies on this case were at risk. That, after all, is the reason why they were admitted to the NICU.
So the question at the heart of this case is: “
Were the babies’ prematurity / prior health conditions a sufficient condition for their collapses / deaths?”
And that question can only be explained medically. If medical experts say: “yes, those babies could very well have died in the way that they did, given the symptoms that they presented”, then we would have no case.
But the reason why LL is in the dock is because
all the medical experts that the hospital, police and prosecution had consulted confirmed that none of the babies prior medical profile could explain their collapses/deaths/symptoms (e.g. c-peptide in the blood of babies given insulin, unusual rash that comes & goes, etc).
To me, this answers that question because they (the experts) have clearly stated that the babies’ prior condition could not have been the cause of their collapse/death. The defence has not produced a single medical expert to refute this.
As for BM’s claim that the experts in this case are biased because some of them did, after all, work at the CoCH, I like to remind myself of the doctor from LWH who Dr Brearey had initially consulted prior to referring the cases to the police. That doctor, upon reviewing all the incidents, had said that all the cases point back to LL (not the babies’ medical condition. Why would the doctor at LWH be biased? What do they have to gain?
This was then corroborated by the reviews Drs Evans, Bobbins & Marnarides. Why would they be biased? Why would they lie? Is it even realistic that they’d all be biased? What do they have to gain. It is important to note that BM has offered no reason or explanation for why Drs Bobbins & Evans would be biased. He threw this in court like it’s some fact, but without any justification. In reality, it’s an article of faith — he is expecting the jury to just take his word for it because he has offered no convincing reason as to why they’d both be biased. The most he did was tell us Evans was previously admonished by a judge in a previous case, and Bobbins simply (and the implication is, mindlessly) just followed his assumptions without further reflection or analysis. How does BM know that? What proof does he have of this? That’s not a good argument because what Evans did in a prior case has no bearing on his reasoning and medical analysis in this case (he’s explained that reasoning in court, so if he’s wrong, then it was open to another expert produced by the defence to refute it). As for his claim about Bobbins, like I already said, he gave no proof or explanation for his accusations against her.
If all the doctors at CoCH, the doctor at LWH, and the independent consultants all agreed that these babies did not collapse / die as a result of their prior conditions, then that’s probably true. This seals it for me because the alternative would not only be highly improbable, but it would also make a mockery of our medical and judicial systems, which are built on the idea we (the jury, courts, police, public institutions) have to follow the guidance of the majority of experts in that field.
Apologies for the long reply, but I think that if you look at this way, you’ll see that our justice system (in order to be fair & just) needs to have this kind of assumption in place. If we didn’t, then we wouldn’t have a justice system at all.
(was never gona happen) … his tone was the same the whole time … if I didn’t know better I would of thought he was just reading a book to students … 
