- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Goodness me looks like Chambers and Harvey have kept almost everyone in the dark. Boy are they in trouble
Seems like they might not be able to get to the bottom of the emails. But I would have thought if someone deleted them from Dr Steve's outlook then that someone could be traced.
Wow - just ploughing through this evidence.
Just when you think it can get any worse it does.
Harvey and Chambers should face criminal charges - this is staggering.
Just when you think it can get any worse it does.
Harvey and Chambers should face criminal charges - this is staggering.
Yes i watched it from the link shared above.
Thanks. I think my post doesn't update sometimes. It misses posts.
I think its really good he explains ot really clearly.
On mumsmet they are still adamant the antibodies crossed the placenta. Causing clots. Jeez!
According to the video with the Kinsey evidence, she confirmed that antibodies were identified in the babies bloodstream though. She said that the condition hadn’t been passed on. I don’t see an inconsistency between her evidence and the panel bringing up the antibodies according to that video, although he alleges that there is.
Is there an active thread over on the other place or are you referring to one of the threads which petered out by the middle of last week?
She did confirm it but she also said it wasn't significant and that the baby dod not have APP syndrome, which Lee is claiming he did have. Antibodies passed via the placenta, does not mean the baby itself had the condition. There was no evidence of blood clots
Not sure who to believe when it comes to blood clots and disorders. A professor in paediatric haematology or a retired neonatologist who is butt hurt the appeal courts rejected his evidence.
Such a toughie in the game of Letby Top Trumps
Lee didn’t claim that he had the condition, he very clearly only said that antibodies passed into the bloodstream. He said that tiny clots would be very difficult to see at post mortem and highlighted the risk of having a line in situ for a period of time without infusion of fluids. This risk was also mentioned by Evans in his testimony on the stand.
Evans? The retired, corrupt paediatrician that doesn’t know what he’s talking about actually mentioned the very thing that Dr Lee the world’s best eminent professor is now claiming as new evidence?
So the jury have heard it then and still decided she was guilty. Fancy that!
It’s not a game of top trumps is it though. For me it’s a matter of what is the actual truth, because that affects all of us. I am completely neutral on LL, I don’t feel in any way emotionally attached to either guilt or innocence, I think if she’s guilty she should rot in jail, then hell, and that if she’s innocent she should get justice. At the moment there are valid questions being asked by some serious people, and it feels reasonable to remain open to possibilities rather than uncritically swallow poor quality content designed to shut down any discussion. Your post is a good example.Not sure who to believe when it comes to blood clots and disorders. A professor in paediatric haematology or a retired neonatologist who is butt hurt the appeal courts rejected his evidence.
Such a toughie in the game of Letby Top Trumps
Are the serious people in the room with us? Because all I see are a bunch of clowns who just see a headline and run with it. Many of the points can and have been debunked, but some people don’t care to hear it.
You're very rude
Exactly. Everything Lee said has already been addressed in the courtroom. As for serious people, these are all Dr Lees mates and colleagues. Impartial? No. And clearly they haven't had, or haven't read properly the clinical record
Tell that to all those running with the press conference narrative that these new experts know best (despite their claims going completely unchallenged) and continually trying to discredit the prosecution main expert because this supposed new expert panel is meant to be “better than a retired paediatrician”. Whilst ignoring all the other experts at the trial. The point is, the new panel are not bringing anything new, just as your own post demonstrates - that Evans already raised something at trial that Lee was putting across.
- Status