I was referring to the doctors whos statements have changed, and later evolved to seemingly merge, as opposed to the independent experts specifically. I should have made that clearer.
That said, I absolutely agree that the prosecution need to bring in expert witnesses of their own, to validate their claims that the evidence in some cases points to alternative explanations.
E.g., child-D’s case of an apparent systemic infection, who did not receive antibiotics. Alongside, child C’s infection, req. for O2 via CPAP, and accumulation of air in his abdomen on 12 th June (e.g., when LL was ‘not’ at work), but yet was considered to be ‘stable’ - that is the prosecutions experts claim until LL arrived the following day. Not to mention the case of the TPN bag contaminated with insulin put up, when LL was yet again on her day off.
Thus, I hope the defence produce alternative expert viewpoints - Since, whilst there were clearly serious concerns regarding the rise in mortality and near misses, IMO many seemingly binary perspectives have yet to be fully scrutinised.
The prosecution don’t need to bring in witnesses to prove that there could have been other causes. Under cross examination that was the opportunity for BM to ask about other possible causes, which he did, and the response by most of the experts was ‘it’s possible but not probable’ in other words, it’s possible that because I have milk in my fridge I may have a cow in my kitchen, but it’s unlikely I actually do. It’s up to the defense to present these experts who will then under cross examination be grilled by NJ and have to concede that it is possible that the babies were administered air. In the insulin cases there should be no argument as it seems to have been agreed by all parties that someone poisoned those babies with insulin, I’m unsure what the defence can do in those cases to attempt to refute that.
Majority of the babies were not considered critically ill, many were ready for home. Most babies are given antibiotics at some point in their stay to prevent things like sepsis, if child D had already received antibiotics at some point, then they may have been trying to avoid antibiotic resistance or ‘watchful waiting’ might have been in place with plans to begin them if the problem didn’t improve.
LL has admitted herself that just because the swipe data shows she wasn’t there doesn’t mean she wasn’t actually on the unit, I believe on Friday she admitted to going to the unit to check on babies, finish paperwork, when she wasn’t meant to be on shift, and that colleagues could have held the door open for her, which happens. Also if there was a buzzer system (I’m not sure if we’ve heard about one though) then she could have been buzzed in with no evidence of her entering. In many hospitals, if a nurse/doctor sees a colleague waiting to enter a unit they will use their swipe card to open the door and hold the door open for them. They are their colleagues, who are permitted to be on the ward, all she would have had to say is ‘I’m just picking up something I forgot’ or ‘just finishing off my notes from yesterday’. The first bag I believe wa spit up when LL was on shift, when that one ran out, another new bag should have been started but under oath LL testified that there were occasions she was on the unit when she wasn’t meant to be on shift so the TPN bag could well have been poisoned by her that night or she could have arrived early the next morning, got let in by a colleague and then swiped herself in at the time her shift was meant to start.
I think the defence have a lot of work on their hands to dispute a lot of the evidence. They have LL on shift for all the collapses, and plenty of evidence placing her directly around the babies either just before they collapsed or at the time of collapse. Even babies she wasn’t designated to care for and even occasions when she shouldn’t have even been in that room. They also have Dr J and baby E’s mum who witnessed her suspicious activity that she is now trying to dispute.
These babies weren’t meant to die, many were ready to go home soon, had no issues and were by all means healthy until LL entered their orbit.
The doctors at first did not realise that they were witnessing children being murdered/harmed. It didn’t even enter their mind as why would it? The automatic assumption would be some sort of infection that set in quickly with tragic consequences. It was only when the circumstances were investigated that each event was looked at again, along with all X-rays and test results, blood gases, nurses notes etc. that’s when the fuller picture started to emerge.
All MOO
www.bbc.co.uk
www.easterneye.biz
