@TurquoiseBaubles
So that's it? No more evidence? AH's lawyer has been allowed to say loads of (in my view) incrimination and insulting things about various witnesses and they don't get to answer or explain or put their point of view across?
It's all a bit dissatisfactory.
I just wanted to chip in on this, because I think we're getting a slanted view because of the way the Chair has handled closing submissions.
The way the hearing works is a bit like a dance. It's turn and turn about, following a very standard order.
The last thing is that each side gives closing submissions. That's 45 minutes or an hour, usually, of each side summing up what they think is important and why their side should win.
It's not evidence. It's submissions. It's not given weight as evidence is. It's each side trying to draw attention to what evidence matters.
The prosecution goes first and the defence second. That's standard in all courts - the accused has the right to the final say to defend themselves against any allegations.
What's happened here is that the Chair has asked that those submissions be made in writing. That's unusual.
One consequence of that is we haven't heard them.
What we've heard is the panel asking questions about them.
They had more questions for the defence than the GMC, which means we've heard more about the defence submissions than the GMC ones. It doesn't mean they haven't both had a good go. It's just we know more about what the defence has said.
And, yes, both lawyers are allowed to try and undermine the other side's witnesses. That's standard. It's the consequence of having an adversarial judicial system. Is it nice if you're a witness? No. But Harrop is entitled to be really robust in his defence - ultimately it's his career on the line.
The panel will have the submissions from both sides, in full. We can only really guess at what the GMC said. They'll also have the witness statements in full which, again, unlike it seems half the world's press, we haven't seen.
I suspect with the full information available things look very different than today's tweets might suggest. Because today's tweets are basically the panel trying to clarify the defence position.
Until next week...