I think this is a particularly revealing thread. “Even in definitive” air embolism cases. In other words in cases of air embolism that have actual signs of air embolism, such as frothy blood.
The “Chester cases” are excluded from this characterisation because not one of them had frothy blood. None of the “definitive” signs of air embolism apply.
Then this speculation on locked air disappearing. Explaining away the gaps in this theory.
@drpaulclarke@DebbieKennett U told The Mail, “Both these cases provide clear-as-day evidence that venous air embolism can rapidly become arterial air embolism and so cause rapid onset skin rash.”
Why, as a doctor, do you not understand the difference between a rash and mottling?
I doubt you will respond.
There is no agenda. Shoo Lee is saying that if they find no evidence of inflicted harm, they may be her last hope. If they find evidence of inflicted harm, they won't be. Completely reasonable. I don't even think the Crown's barrister would even go there. @cjsnowdon
@cjsnowdon He knows there is no evidence that the babies were murdered or harmed deliberately. No murders mean no murderer. I don't think it's unreasonable to be disturbed that someone is wrongly imprisoned for life.
https://t.co/gNeBzsaD0p
@Tim_Hugh_Smith@guyrowlanduk@gilham_stuart@PeterElston1@ClarkeMicah@Polpenso It is not clear why it was Milan who represented RLUH at trial. There were others at the lab who would have been more appropriate than her, whether the head of the lab or those more closely associated with the immunoassays in question.
Lucy's handwritten notes ("I'm evil I did this", etc) condemned her. They should not have been admissible. The prosecution told jurors the notes should be "taken as" a confession. But they had not been admitted as a confession, legally speaking. https://t.co/1kQxgz2Nqw
What you have posted is Dr V's statement to Coroner four months after the death in preparation for the Inquest (which as we know never happened). It is NOT the HM Coroner's authorisation form sent by the Coroner to pathologist on 27 June (four days after the death of Baby O on 23 June and one day before the PM was carried out on 28 June) in which Dr V completed the section, "Circumstances surrounding the death". In this section Dr V made NO mention of Brearey's cannula as Davies is saying they should have done. As a result the PM's only reference to anything to do with the cannula was “The right side of the abdomen contains a puncture mark which is covered by self-adhesive patch.” Nothing in the PM about what caused the puncture mark. Why? Because the Countess reporting doctor Dr V did not report that to Coroner and so it was not reported to the pathologist. Shocking and deeply suspicious omission. You'd be forgiven for thinking the Countess doctors were trying to cover something up.
@DebRoberts22249 Oooo look, foreign object. Lucy must have cast a spell on doctor performing the procedure to leave them there. Can't for the life of me think why she would have later written down "foreign object". Can anyone help?
@SaraLockwood_x@DebRoberts22249 Sara, you're alive, wonderful. Are you going to answer my question about which NICU Bohin works in? And yes, I suspect there is all sorts of training nurses receive about the risks foreign objects pose, but I don't know because I am not a neonatal nurse.
@DebRoberts22249@DebRoberts22249 if you were a B5 NN nurse (God forbid), had jst been taken off duty bcs you're suspected of killing babies, and were innocent, wht would you have written down? (Hint: the answer is "I don't know). P.S. what has insulin diabetes got to do with the insulin results?
@NeoDoc11@AstreaScience@cjsnowdon@Michelehal7344@simon170528@triedbystats Very well said. I too pity Snowdon and his ilk. It cannot be much fun being so vile and ignorant of scientific logic. It was also instructive that not a single one of them responded to this post https://t.co/AGiwrGzXQQ
@cjsnowdon What I find hardest to fathom abt @cjsnowdon and the other #lucyletby haters is why, given they know jurors have 100s of times wrongly convicted, and in LL case there are so many credible experts who hv come forward, they wd not wnt case ref'd if it was a close relative of theirs