Unless people believe BM is part of a conspiracy also to throw her under the bus (which is quite the accusation) then there can only be one logical reason that the only expert they called upon was a plumber as there's nothing to suggest he is incapable of doing his job. There was doubt raised when the independent medical testimony was given near the start, presumably they viewed that as enough to sow seeds of doubt and didn't want to push the matter which would likely go to their disadvantage when it would invariably be pointed out how unusual these scenarios are. Personally I think both can be true- a short staffed ward with devastating errors made at times and someone causing deliberate harm. It is bizarre that the short staff angle and whatever else wasn't delved into deeper, I think her statements on the stand really threw a curve ball.
Obviously everyone has a different opinion and ours don't matter it's that of the jury who do have a lot of additional information- I was surprised at just how much wasn't reported from the morning and afternoon sessions I attended and along with the extensive resources and background information they have a far far more comprehensive overview. The accompanying info such as the handover notes, texts, false datixes, admission that she'd often be on the ward outside of her regular shifts and this wouldn't be tracked necessarily even by the swipes can be hard to put into a timeline and relate back to each case but of course they're important to consider as there isn't hard CCTV or other evidence which makes it a very complex case.
I do still find these bits from his opening statement quite odd:
Sometimes what happened was a genuine deterioration in the health of one or other of these children.
There doesn't seem to have been any compelling alternatives put forward to the ones that fall out of the 'sometimes'- insulin was agreed to have had to have been deliberate but yes but I didn't do it doesn't seem overly....thorough.
When we strip away all the surrounding detail, messages, Facebook searches, even amateur psychology, the case will come down to the medical evidence.
Of which the defence didn't seem to utilise much despite recognising this case would likely hang on the medical evidence?
"And in that dock is a young woman who says this is not her fault."
Doesn't seem overly convincing, not her fault doesn't even sound like claiming she didn't do it just that she's not at fault.
I know probably minor and semantics, but BM uses 'babies' throughout whereas when on the stand LL always says 'children' ie I didn't harm any children, seems weird to not say babies but just my opinion. Due to DHs job i know a lot of paeds HCPs and none call neonates children but babies, anecdotal I know but sounded purposeful in a way. I also don't see why if it's being insinuated these were genuine errors being made they didn't put forward that LL as an allegedly competent nurse didn't identify these or whatever?
I was very open minded until she took the stand, but am always interested to hear other opinions and acknowledge its just my view and don't think I am absolutely right or whatever.