The pattern seems to be if the defence want to cross examine then the witness takes the stand. Otherwise they have been reading out witness statements as agreed facts. So I’d be surprised if he didn’t cross examine her.
The jury will also need toSo it seems like nothing was documented for child A on the rash. But it was noted for Child B in the notes and they have a record of a camera being requested (which would only happen if it was unusual) and the mother's statement that the consultant said it was unusual.
Child A is the weakest link here then with the rashes not being recorded. However, we know from child B onwards the rash was recorded for other victims in medical notes. So for the jury it will be a case of whether they believe the nurse/doctor's claim child A had a rash because all the others did and it's proven, or don't believe it as it wasn't recorded.
With child a being the weakest link in terms of evidence I have mentioned before that it is likely that she didn’t commit atleast one of these murder purely based on the nature of her job she’s bound to see atleast one pass innocently over the time period. Could be some really compelling stuff to come. Too many questions to make a decision yet, I can see the no smoke without fire argument. I mean how many people are wrongly accused of 7 murders. It’s good to have an open mind though because right now we simply don’t knowI like to think I would have tried to describe it.
In latter years writing pale wouldn't have cut it. You write where at least, size, appearance, feel, type.
I feel like some people refuse to see any point that disrupts the evidence. I thought the point of a trial discussion thread was to do that, so that's what I will be doing.
For me the mottling doesn't indicate embolism as such. It's indicative of all sorts of conditions. The female doctor seems to describe flitting patches, which again I'd question in terms of being indicative of embolism or even mottling, if I were the defence.
I think it happened I just think it's not something that currently has any veracity for baby A
So for me, we still can't even pin the embolism diagnosis.
I’ve no experience of lactate levels.
I’m not saying people aren’t thrown under the bus within the NHS/ any work place. I’m not saying that’s unbelievable, I just think it is very hard to believe with such a huge allegation.It's not as simple as you go ohh I made a mistake and just quit Healthcare is very dog eat dog, some staff do throw others under the bus. I've had that but there was CCTV to prove I didn't do anything wrong. An accusation means you can end up suspended under investigation by the GMC and NMC. Stuck in limbo as these cases can take years. You can be struck off and face criminal charges there are reasons why staff would want to cover up their mistakes.
I dont know about the scapegoat theory I'm not sure I buy it. LL does fit the profile though odd ball with no life outside of work
I'm hoping this is the case, that they were so busy trying to resuscitate and the rash disappeared so quickly that they didn't get time to document it properly or take a photo.It’s possible that they didn’t document the rash the first couple of times but once they started to see it over and over again then there’s no way they would miss documenting it.
The mottling has been documented for Baby B.I'm hoping this is the case, that they were so busy trying to resuscitate and the rash disappeared so quickly that they didn't get time to document it properly or take a photo.
BUT I expect them to have documented it properly going forward. Otherwise I would have to discount it tbh.
Imagine if that’s whyMark Dowling I apologise for ever criticising your reporting, please come back! You are definitely missed today!!
Do you have to keep dragging it on? Ffs. Just scroll past comments you don’t like.Try discussing it then?
I see that now!! Sorry, thought I was caught up and I wasn't!!!The mottling has been documented for Baby B.
Considering you've just done the same thing you could take your own advice. The thread was trundling along quite nicely until the boring old 'scapegoat' and sarcastic crap comments came back. So I'll call it out if I want as you're quite right, it's bollocks and there's just no need for it.Do you have to keep dragging it on? Ffs. Just scroll past comments you don’t like.
This thread is becoming a load of bollocks.
I thought this too! FrustratingLast week there was a junior (?) doctor present at Child As collapse that stood back and took notes due to him having less experience. Can anyone remember if he noted the rash?
I’m sure there was mention of one of the parents taking a photo of the rash too?
Edit: I’ve checked from Thursday and there’s no mention but his statement is minimal.
That's a fair comment. I've never thought of it like that. Going along the lines of, 'it would make me look incompetent' and 'I'll wait until someone else mentions it'. Especially if, the doctors are juniors or don't have much experience with neonatal deaths.An explanation with regard to the poor documentation of the rash could be that, the witnesses may have felt they opened themselves up for criticism and scrutiny if they’d have bought it up, if you’ve not seen something before you might think that you’ve made a mistake and therefore as bad as it sounds keep your head down about it
Hes been reporting on Benjamin Mendy today too! How dare he leave us like this.Mark Dowling I apologise for ever criticising your reporting, please come back! You are definitely missed today!!
That's definitely a good point. Plus, I wonder if the working environment was toxic to the point that staff would actively avoid fulfilling their full duties due to backlash from others. Definitely something to consider.An explanation with regard to the poor documentation of the rash could be that, the witnesses may have felt they opened themselves up for criticism and scrutiny if they’d have bought it up, if you’ve not seen something before you might think that you’ve made a mistake and therefore as bad as it sounds keep your head down about it
The bloody cheek of him!Hes been reporting on Benjamin Mendy today too! How dare he leave us like this.
The reporting has never been great by anyone on Twitter apart from Judith Moritz. I think they are mainly there to write up an end of day article for BBC and not to live report.I wonder if the latest statements/witnesses have a lot of information redacted from public press and that's why updates are so sporadic?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?