Their defense seems to be a bit rubbish in my uneducated opinion. Things like the perforated bowel and damage to his mole, no excuses for those, and weirdly no blaming of anyone else, I'd have thought at this stage they'd be blaming each other.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Forgive me if I've missed this, but I wasn't sure if the bite mark was present at the time of Prestons death, or if it was caused earlier and Dr Gifford's evidence that it appeared to be a human bite mark was from a photograph taken by JMF?
Definitely just going through the motions. JV/JMF are entitled to spout whatever rubbish they like, and to have a witness agree that in certain unlikely circumstances it could, (may, possibly, with the wind in the right direction and a bit of bad luck) have happened that way. They’re not entitled to have anyone believe them though.
Quoting myself to say the entry on MEN (from 13th May) says the following;
"A human bite mark"
The pathologist was also asked to consider pictures taken of Preston in his cot and in a paddling pool.
In the paddling pool picture, taken on Mr McGowan-Fazakerley’s June 12, 2023, Preston appears to have a bruise on his buttock.
‘It is my view this most likely represents a human bite mark’, she says. ‘It is inconsistent with a fall.’
I’m not seeing what lessons from her death would apply in Preston’s case.
I hate reading the defence evidence because it always makes me anxious that they’ll manage to create enough reasonable doubt. I’d hate to be on that jury right now, for so many reasons. Although this Crane bloke does seem to be clutching at straws with some of his ‘opinions’ so hopefully the jury see right through it.
Oh - now I'm not sure. You may be right.
Thank you. And apologies.
All the defence has to do is introduce enough “reasonable doubt” there will always be room for some doubt where there is no witness saying “I saw him doing x,y and z”. It’s just hard whilst the defence is on because it’s all just blatantly balls in this case.
The judge’s directions at the end of the trial are usually a good round-up of how damning the whole prosecution case is.
At the end of the day he died in their care and had lots of unexplained injuries, plus they had videos of physical and emotional abuse.
Whilst you can’t say JV definitely killed him/SA’d him (because you didn’t see it happen), he was SA’d and killed and only JV was there so he more than likely is guilty.
The judge’s directions at the end of the trial are usually a good round-up of how damning the whole prosecution case is.
At the end of the day he died in their care and had lots of unexplained injuries, plus they had videos of physical and emotional abuse.
Whilst you can’t say JV definitely killed him/SA’d him (because you didn’t see it happen), he was SA’d and killed and only JV was there so he more than likely is guilty.
I actually wasn't. But, I'm not going to argue as you seem to want a fight, it's a serious thread, I don't want to derail it and I'm stepping away from it.
No need for apologies - everything happened so awfully and in such a relatively short amount of time it's hard to get a clear picture of what happened when.
Seems JMF's KC only asked one (reported) question - about the arm - and now onto Prosecution's KC, who already seem to be on the ball.
Mr. Wright says internally there were findings consistent with trauma, through sexual abuse.
Prof Crane says it could be. He agrees there were findings which were consistent with injuries being caused in that way.
Very damming, he’s agreed the arm injury was non accidental and now looks like he’s agreeing there was SA.
Prof Crane says it could be. He agrees there were findings which were consistent with injuries being caused in that way.
Very damming, he’s agreed the arm injury was non accidental and now looks like he’s agreeing there was SA.
I am thinking Surely asked him more questions and just not been reported on but maybe not !
I've had very little to say in here, so far, but have been following the discussion. We all know that everyone is entitled to a defence, if they go to trial, no matter how vile and despicable the alleged perpetrator(s) may be. Don't know much about the legal process but am because of that, the defence is there to provide the best potential counter argument possible to the allegations, however stretched. Am taking some reassurance and comfort from that. It's just something that 'has' to be done. I'm reasonably confident, based on the horrific evidence that is already out and even agreed upon, that JV has it coming. JMF, on the other hand, I'm not sure on what will happen to him. Like others have said, probable reporting restrictions are limiting us from having a clearer picture on events and how things are progressing. I hope JV gets a WLO and is never released.
no, I’m not looking for a fight, I was just responding to this. And it’s because I have a background with DBS and safeguarding. I want to be really clear about what a DBS is because safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, and a DBS is a very limited document, it won’t tell you who “might” be a risk.
Mr Wright asks about injuries to Preston's head, torso, mouth and lip
Mr Wright asks about the injuries to the head, torso, mouth and lip, of which Dr Armour and Dr Gifford expressed opinions in terms of the mechanism by which they were caused.
T
hese experts expressed the view that these were inconsistent with resuscitation.
Prof Crane says they may have been consistent with attempts at resuscitation and forceful gripping during this process. He says they are consistent with fingertip bruising which ‘could’ be caused by prodding or gripping.
Mr Wright asks: “Are they consistent with Preston being subjected, shortly before his death, to the forceful taking hold of his head, arm, upper body and insertion of a hard, smooth object deep into his throat?”
Prof Crane says: “Yes.”
The witness says there was a bruise to the baby’s bladder. It may be explained by compression of the bladder against the spine but Prof Crane agrees it is a ‘most unusual injury’.
Mr Wright asks about the injuries to the head, torso, mouth and lip, of which Dr Armour and Dr Gifford expressed opinions in terms of the mechanism by which they were caused.
T
hese experts expressed the view that these were inconsistent with resuscitation.
Prof Crane says they may have been consistent with attempts at resuscitation and forceful gripping during this process. He says they are consistent with fingertip bruising which ‘could’ be caused by prodding or gripping.
Mr Wright asks: “Are they consistent with Preston being subjected, shortly before his death, to the forceful taking hold of his head, arm, upper body and insertion of a hard, smooth object deep into his throat?”
Prof Crane says: “Yes.”
The witness says there was a bruise to the baby’s bladder. It may be explained by compression of the bladder against the spine but Prof Crane agrees it is a ‘most unusual injury’.
This just makes me incredibly sad. Whilst we all know how it's alleged the injuries were caused, seeing it written there in a little more detail that previously reported just stopped me short. I'm not sure why this is the bit that did that - out of all the other parts - but I'm trying to take from it that Mr Wright KC is doing a good job in laying it all out, as difficult as it is.
The cross is doing a great job - naming all the other experts who agreed, making him confirm the injuries are consistent with SA despite other ‘possible’ causes and confirming he wasn’t actually at the autopsy and that each individual injury could have an ‘alternative’ but when you look at all the injuries all together it gives a bigger picture of what likely happened
If this guy has been put into the witness box, I suspect the reports from Letby’s experts would have been worse for her than Crane’s opinions are for Varley….. and that is saying something judging by today’s live feed
It is important to remember that Prof Crane is not giving opinions here, as a medical professional, he is stating facts for the defence.
It is for prosecution to prove that these facts can be seen from another angle, Prof Crane is not there to defend the accused.
It is for prosecution to prove that these facts can be seen from another angle, Prof Crane is not there to defend the accused.
- Status