Thanks for putting this, i think its a really important point you make.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It’s is still an opinion - just a professional opinion. And the jury can disregard it if they find other professional opinions more credible.
Given the amount of criticism Ben Myers got for not calling Letby’s own medical expert it was quite interesting to see what happens when they do. It’s a strategic choice for the defendant to take. I wonder if JV insisted this expert take the stand against advice because I’m not convinced BNW would have liked how often Dr Crane did actually have to agree with the prosecution.
Given the amount of criticism Ben Myers got for not calling Letby’s own medical expert it was quite interesting to see what happens when they do. It’s a strategic choice for the defendant to take. I wonder if JV insisted this expert take the stand against advice because I’m not convinced BNW would have liked how often Dr Crane did actually have to agree with the prosecution.
He is giving his opinions though. They are his professional opinions based on his medical knowledge. The facts are Preston had bruising, injuries etc, then the medical experts give their opinions on what caused them. I suppose it's up to the jury to decide which opinions to give more weight to. Personally I'd give more weight to the findings and opinions of the person who actually carried out the post-mortem examination.
I could only go by what was written.
A relevant issue at DBS would have stopped the adoption process and possibly his career so it follows that it was all a-ok. It would have been a factual part of the full picture of assessing him.
From the testimony today it would appear that injuries were not immediately apparent unless I’ve misinterpreted. I have seen prolapse and rupture mentioned here repeatedly but have never seen it mentioned on the live reporting. This was from today
Where is JVs mum! I'm so surprised she hasn't been called! Can she refuse to be a witness for the defense?
Professor Crane was not actually present at the post mortem so didn't see Preston's body for himself. He would have had to rely on photos, histological sections of tissue etc
So how can one of them say prolapse an the other say had difficulty spotting it wth
I think one did the post mortem in person and the other is just looking at photographs
I think it’s just not being reported because it’s so awful
There could be evidence which is internal, he may only have seen close-ups of the injuries, not a whole pic of the full area, he’s saying it’s not glaringly obvious but also he doesn’t disagree. Basically don't sue him if it ever turns out it wasn’t.
A prolapse isn't always visible externally.
I don’t imagine JVs mum would offer any evidence beyond saying Preston had no injuries when she saw him and he was fine when he was handed over to JV. Given JV himself says this (and can’t explain what happened) it wouldn’t really add anything to his defence?
Could be why she’s not been called. If the prosecution thought she had anything to say of value to assist them they would have called her.
Could be why she’s not been called. If the prosecution thought she had anything to say of value to assist them they would have called her.
It is awfulI think it’s just not being reported because it’s so awful
If it’s not been reported where did it come from to be posted here? I would only take information from a credible source.Thank you, it conjures up a horrific image either way but JV’s mum may not have seen when changing a nappy
I agree with you I think he’ll stick to the story and largely just deny all knowledge. It’ll be interesting to hear from him.
I wonder if she’ll be called by JMFs defence to say the horrific injuries weren’t obvious/she didn’t see them so how would he have seen them?
Apologies, I thought it had been used and had also been heard by someone going to court but granted that was from Facebook so probably very unreliable. I think the questioning and evidence has made it clear that this was a very obviously unnatural appearance, both at death and the close up photograph JV took a few days before death. The pathologist (or perhaps expert in CSA) gave the impression it was not something she’d ever seen even in the worst cases of constipation. So I think there is some ability to join the dots there to be honest but I can see why the terms are upsetting.It is awful
Thank you, it conjures up a horrific image either way but JV’s mum may not have seen when changing a nappy
The perforated bowel was mentioned in the prosecutions opening statement.
I assumed he was talking about the perforation which was hard to see / the injury to the anal wall that is mentioned in the transcript below he also said things can happen during the taking of samples, so he’s alluding damage/ hole internally could be caused by that.
He also said that “something” can happen due to constipation so I was thinking he meant the prolapse - as they can often be caused by this (according to google). We also don’t know how big it was, it might not have been a massive one - but we know there was an obvious injury Drs saw, as JV tried to pass it off as caused by medications used during the resus attempt.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status