Today at court
Don't know what to think about Dr Mack - if I was a juror I'm not sure she was convincing on a couple of matters.
They were analysing the CT scans of Ellie's head, post mortem.
Her head showed a very large thickness (swelling) protruding at the back, and another smaller area of thickness on the right side, at about 2 to 3 o'clock on a clock face (in relation to the one at the back of the head being at 6 o'clock, on the scan picture - just to give an idea of distance between the areas). Mack says you can't tell what the composition of these swellings is, it could be tissue or blood or a mixture. Now the defence is claiming that Ellie's head was scanned at an angle, as if she was laying facing her right. There is an abnormally flat area of the skull also, between those two areas of swelling. From what I could gather, she is saying by laying on the larger area of swelling it has pushed some of that swelling to another area. Brown QC argued by giving an analogy of injuring his upper arm and his wrist swelling up as a result of that. And also in those particular scan pics the larger swelling is not reduced, where it has in her view perhaps been displaced to another site. He says the size of the back bulge/swelling would be smaller if it had been dispersed over a wider area. I think there were probably some other good arguments against her opinion that I've forgotten. But the bottom line is that she agreed that the pathology would trump the radiology. So if there is a pathological finding that there was a second impact, she would not argue with that.
I think the problem is that Prof Risdon reported on 'one or more impacts', and he deferred to second opinions that were sought.
She also said a lot about calcification (couldn't be seen on the CT scan but a white layer was visible under a microscope scaled up to magnification of 200), but all that was lost on me because I don't even know what that would signify. Perhaps it is to do with dating injuries. Anyway she said that tissue samples weren't taken or were lost - which led to the defendants calling out and stabbing their fingers at Brown QC.
As for the jury questions -
Q1. Did JG not receive school newsletters or look up on their website for term dates. She seemed to have no problem receiving other school notes sent home in Ellie's bag concerning school trips.
A1. She received newsletters via email, and didn't check her email very often. And had she been a stay at home mum, she has no doubt she would have found out these things from making friends with other mums. She had already made this 2nd point under cross exam, but not the one about not checking her emails. I think it's an obvious lie - there's not checking emails often but term dates are sent out well in advance. And she was emailing the school at various points when she wanted to argue with them about absences. So it's just not a credible answer.
Q2. She made an internet search in August when she says BB had a head trauma. So why didn't she do the same when Ellie had head bump/concussion?
A2. BB's head swelling was massive, Ellie's head bump was very small and insignificant. Yeah right.
Q3. She claims the blood trail in the house and the large number of her blood spots in Ellie's room was from her menstrual bleeding, which means her underwear and trousers must have been soaked through. Why didn't she change her underwear and trousers on the day of Ellie's death when she changed her top?
A3. She wears large maternity pads and although that was soaked through she only needed to change into a fresh pad, which she would do every couple of hours. Her trousers were clean. (Tetlow and FitzGerald had the lovely task of inspecting her trousers, which had been taken into evidence by the police and they confirmed that there was no blood staining on them, inside or out). It sounds to me as if the jury isn't buying her explanation of having recently stood in Ellie's room while allowing her menstrual blood to drip down her legs, causing 38 blood spots on the carpet.
Q4. She has said she had post natal depression. Has this ever been confirmed/diagnosed?
A4. No, but a health visitor who visited her after YD's birth in 2009 said she had all the symptoms, and she's going to bring the letter in to put into evidence.
Apart from that they listed a few more agreed facts. The police found a shirt belonging to BB in a plastic bag next to the fridge freezer, with one arm profusely stained with his own blood. I can't remember the wording they used so I shall put it into my words - the blood staining would match him having used that hand/arm in a fight.
Then there was the overdose of radiation which you've reported on above, and text messages between BB and JG on 10th and 11th October (claimed date of Ellie's concussion). The texts started just after 6 in the morning and carried on all day until about 6.30 in the evening, nothing sent/received the first evening but on the second evening starting up again at about 9pm and continuing through to early hours of next morning. No reference as to what was in the messages.
So to round off, Peart said Dr Ophoven will be giving evidence by video on Tues 7th June, 3 hour slot, 3pm to 6pm. And judge said after that (Weds thru Fri) there would be closing speeches and he hoped to give his summing up around Monday 13th June. I expect that will take him a full day at least, there is a lot of medical evidence to go through. So, I expect Jury will retire on 14th or 15th.
Don't know what to think about Dr Mack - if I was a juror I'm not sure she was convincing on a couple of matters.
They were analysing the CT scans of Ellie's head, post mortem.
Her head showed a very large thickness (swelling) protruding at the back, and another smaller area of thickness on the right side, at about 2 to 3 o'clock on a clock face (in relation to the one at the back of the head being at 6 o'clock, on the scan picture - just to give an idea of distance between the areas). Mack says you can't tell what the composition of these swellings is, it could be tissue or blood or a mixture. Now the defence is claiming that Ellie's head was scanned at an angle, as if she was laying facing her right. There is an abnormally flat area of the skull also, between those two areas of swelling. From what I could gather, she is saying by laying on the larger area of swelling it has pushed some of that swelling to another area. Brown QC argued by giving an analogy of injuring his upper arm and his wrist swelling up as a result of that. And also in those particular scan pics the larger swelling is not reduced, where it has in her view perhaps been displaced to another site. He says the size of the back bulge/swelling would be smaller if it had been dispersed over a wider area. I think there were probably some other good arguments against her opinion that I've forgotten. But the bottom line is that she agreed that the pathology would trump the radiology. So if there is a pathological finding that there was a second impact, she would not argue with that.
I think the problem is that Prof Risdon reported on 'one or more impacts', and he deferred to second opinions that were sought.
She also said a lot about calcification (couldn't be seen on the CT scan but a white layer was visible under a microscope scaled up to magnification of 200), but all that was lost on me because I don't even know what that would signify. Perhaps it is to do with dating injuries. Anyway she said that tissue samples weren't taken or were lost - which led to the defendants calling out and stabbing their fingers at Brown QC.
As for the jury questions -
Q1. Did JG not receive school newsletters or look up on their website for term dates. She seemed to have no problem receiving other school notes sent home in Ellie's bag concerning school trips.
A1. She received newsletters via email, and didn't check her email very often. And had she been a stay at home mum, she has no doubt she would have found out these things from making friends with other mums. She had already made this 2nd point under cross exam, but not the one about not checking her emails. I think it's an obvious lie - there's not checking emails often but term dates are sent out well in advance. And she was emailing the school at various points when she wanted to argue with them about absences. So it's just not a credible answer.
Q2. She made an internet search in August when she says BB had a head trauma. So why didn't she do the same when Ellie had head bump/concussion?
A2. BB's head swelling was massive, Ellie's head bump was very small and insignificant. Yeah right.
Q3. She claims the blood trail in the house and the large number of her blood spots in Ellie's room was from her menstrual bleeding, which means her underwear and trousers must have been soaked through. Why didn't she change her underwear and trousers on the day of Ellie's death when she changed her top?
A3. She wears large maternity pads and although that was soaked through she only needed to change into a fresh pad, which she would do every couple of hours. Her trousers were clean. (Tetlow and FitzGerald had the lovely task of inspecting her trousers, which had been taken into evidence by the police and they confirmed that there was no blood staining on them, inside or out). It sounds to me as if the jury isn't buying her explanation of having recently stood in Ellie's room while allowing her menstrual blood to drip down her legs, causing 38 blood spots on the carpet.
Q4. She has said she had post natal depression. Has this ever been confirmed/diagnosed?
A4. No, but a health visitor who visited her after YD's birth in 2009 said she had all the symptoms, and she's going to bring the letter in to put into evidence.
Apart from that they listed a few more agreed facts. The police found a shirt belonging to BB in a plastic bag next to the fridge freezer, with one arm profusely stained with his own blood. I can't remember the wording they used so I shall put it into my words - the blood staining would match him having used that hand/arm in a fight.
Then there was the overdose of radiation which you've reported on above, and text messages between BB and JG on 10th and 11th October (claimed date of Ellie's concussion). The texts started just after 6 in the morning and carried on all day until about 6.30 in the evening, nothing sent/received the first evening but on the second evening starting up again at about 9pm and continuing through to early hours of next morning. No reference as to what was in the messages.
So to round off, Peart said Dr Ophoven will be giving evidence by video on Tues 7th June, 3 hour slot, 3pm to 6pm. And judge said after that (Weds thru Fri) there would be closing speeches and he hoped to give his summing up around Monday 13th June. I expect that will take him a full day at least, there is a lot of medical evidence to go through. So, I expect Jury will retire on 14th or 15th.
