So…I don’t know how true this is. I have been talking to a lady through chat on fb, she’s a lovely lady, but we got chatting earlier in the trial. She’s very much on the innocent side, we’ve discussed and we both respect each other’s opinions. However, she says the jury have been handed ‘bundles’ her belief and many on the innocent side believe the reason why the defence didn’t really present many witnesses was because they didn’t need to - because there is more evidence in these ‘bundles’ one being that there is further evidence about the whole water and sewage incidents. She sent me a document, and in here it was about how water causes infections, it was actually quite bad in the hospital and it can cause similar symptoms to air embolus…I will admit I have not read the whole document. ( I’ve been away for a few days) and I’ve kind of liked the break from thinking about this trial.
she’s very much on the scapegoat theory. She does have a medical background ( I don’t want to say too much about her )
Now, anybody who is in law know how true it is that the jury have ‘bundles’ with other evidence.
Also, I’ll admit, I’m partial to a conspiracy ( never trust governments, drug companies or anybody in authority really ) but at the same time I do like to exercise common sense, and don’t go down rabbit holes too much.
So once I have seen it all laid out in front of me, I just see it as so obvious she’s guilty, however the longer it goes on and the more I talk to others with differing opinions doubt does creep in…
She very much believes that the defence have been tactical over this…again anybody in law know if that is the kind of tactics they’d use? Present no witnesses because they didn’t need to, like they have something in the ‘magical’ bundles that somehow will get L L off…
