Charlie Gard 6

[CaveMum]

New thread so that we can await this morning's hearing.

Let's try to keep this one as sensible and measured as the past 5 threads have been.

Fingers crossed that this can all be resolved today and that Charlie and his parents can find peace.

I think it is right that there will be a video conference at 2pm with the NY specialist.

I think they said previously the hearing could go on all day

This video conference will be key. Allows all teams (Gards/gosh/ Charlie) to question the expert in open court (if tech works - it often doesn't at least in family court).

2pm here will be 9am in New York which is a reasonable time.

The parents want the judge to listen to more evidence at 2pm. They also asked for two weeks to gather data and they didn't get that.

But the judge might rule this morning if no new evidence is presented.

Judge: I can’t reopen issues dealt with not only by me but by Court of Appeal. Armstrong: strict rules in civil proceedings don’t apply here

Are they saying GOSH don't know how to interpret an MRI or EEG scan properly?

1400 London time is 0900 NY time. it seems perfectly reasonable to me, in that they will want time to question the doctor, and they will adjourn for lunch beforehand.

2pm? surly he could have arranged to do this earler

2pm is 9am NY time, isn't it? (assuming NY means New York)

but they know whn evidence should be handed in so why is it allowed

thanks cjt

Seems that way Cavemum

Judge accepts that new arguments can be put to him. Armstrong argues that the court can review its own previous findings.

CaveMum, I thought it read that Armstrong has been given wrong details, I presume by parents?

2pm here will be 9am in New York which is a reasonable time.

You would want the expert to have enough time to do his preparation beforehand, say 8 till 9, and be at his brightest during the teleconference so he can present his evidence is in the best and clearest way.

Ah. This is going to be a shitstorm. Parents are arguing that they need to reopen their case on success of treatment and I think, are being told no, as only NEW evidence can be considered.

Arguing over meaning of old evidence (that they could have done in first case) is not allowed, any lawyers around who can confirm my understanding?

I totaly trust Mr Justice Francis - he is clearly going to get to the bottom of this 10% business by speaking with the 'horse's mouth'

Judge was clear that the parents has to bring new evidence not stuff already ruled on.

I feel for the parents, it must be so hard for them.

But Charlie best interests must come first, whatever the parents thoughts :(

Armstrong: some features of this case amount to entirely new evidence and some will be a fresh perspective on the existing evidence.

nauticant, surely it should have been done before now though? as the judge wanted the evidence by yesterday, why do they keep taking the piss?

My thoughts are with Connie, Chris and of course, Charlie.

Judge said on Monday he would accept evidence by video link today if it seemed necessary. I think it's proper that the new evidence, if any, be examined in court.

thats what i meant muckypup

The Judge did say on Monday that he wouldn't refuse to hear evidence by video link during today's hearing.

Just place marking...

And thank you to all of you who are keeping this thread alive and have contributed with personal experiences and information to help in understanding Charlie's plight.