Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,396
- Reaction score
- 133,096
This is opening speeches, we haven't heard the experts' evidence for N yet.You see, this is precisely the sort of statement which seems very wide open and "catch-all", if you will.
I mean an "inflicted injury" or "injection of air"! These are two wildly different diagnoses and modes of injury. Why would an expert who was apparently looking at these cases blind (ie; with no prior information of what the police suspect) arrive at those two significantly different conclusions? Conclusions which neatly fit the prosecutions theory.
The two conclusions seem to be so far apart as to be very unlikely to be independently arrived at. I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other possible causes for the desaturations yet these two were settled upon.
Only mh opinion, obviously.
The last time this happened it turned out to be a case of sub-standard reporting:
"The expert witness suggests that a piece of equipment made of rigid plastic may have been used to cause the injury to baby E."
A more comprehensive report stated:
"Dr Evans said: “there were a number of bits of equipment on a neo-natal unit that are relatively rigid.
“Plastic tubes used for suction, for instance, so it could have been interference with that.”
He said another medical instrument known as an introducer – a thin wire surrounded by plastic which can be used to intubate a baby – would be “more than sufficient to cause trauma if used inappropriately”.
Dr Evans said: “I cannot be 100 per cent certain what caused the trauma to the gastrointestinal system but it had to be some kind of relatively stiff (equipment) which was sufficient to cause this extraordinary bleeding.”
Rigid wire could have caused baby´s `extraordinary bleeding´, court...
We've been told in the opening speech baby N was stable at 1am when his nurse left for a break. 5 minutes later he came close to death because his oxygen levels fell so low. This mirrors many other cases where the nurse left the room and the baby collapsed while LL was close by. The medical experts are best placed to determine what could have caused a sudden unexpected collapse, going from normal breathing to a severe drop in oxygen. But, we haven't heard their evidence yet.
"Conclusions which neatly fit the prosecutions theory" is a loaded sentence. What reasons do you have for doubting that the prosecution is based on many medical expert opinions?