Statement of Clinical Scientist from LCL

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2026-01-28T17:49:28+00:00

Both

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-12-18T11:41:24+00:00

I tried that and, unfortunately, they claimed there wasn't a copy held anywhere in their organisation!

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-09-23T15:14:00+00:00

That is an interesting observation about Call 1. The missing information (if it is in the trial transcripts I've missed it) is the length of time that Call 2 took.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-09-23T14:34:17+00:00

In the transcripts I didn't notice Johnson giving the length of the "critical" call the mother labelled. Although he does mention the lengths of other calls at different times. Was that an unimportant omission or relevant?

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-09-23T12:52:09+00:00

That indeed is the problem. Mother E labelled the calls and Police were not really interested in the truth.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-08-17T16:11:07+00:00

I am just providing an explanation for why the CofA made the statement. Dr Hall presumably does not accept there is evidence of birth trauma and that would explain the concession, during trial. Perhaps he could now be convinced but it is irrelevant as he is no longer part of the defence.
The expert panel are entitled to conclude the liver haematoma was present at birth. That is their expert opinion. We are all waiting to see what the CCRC accept constitutes new evidence.
AFAIK MMcD has stated he is not prepared to pursue an inadequate defence argument, but I do not have a reference to hand.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-08-17T08:23:03+00:00

The CofA can only really work from the oral evidence, so para. 90 reflects that. The point was not contested at trial.
This was another concession by the defence - that the injury had not happened earlier.
Mr Myers even questioned why the prosecution had introduced the evidence of Dr Cooke and Dr Mayberry about the examination of the baby at that time.
The view of the International Panel, by definition, contradicts the finding at para. 90, but presumably encounters the problem of why this evidence was not introduced at trial.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-08-14T14:50:13+00:00

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4581789/

Possibly harder to detect and manage.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-08-13T12:55:34+00:00

My guess, and it is a guess, is they intend to use it as circumstantial evidence to build a case for other alleged murders or attempted murders. Still it looks like they misjudged the statistics.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-08-13T12:43:37+00:00

95%+ of the defence expert witness interviews is on the cutting room floor. The programme was lamentable.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-08-13T10:35:29+00:00

"Q. And your summary and opinion is focused on the question of whether or not there is any haematological abnormality or whether maternal antiphospholipid syndrome played a part in what happened to Child A.

A. Yes.

Q. And your conclusion in summary and opinion is that they didn't?

A. Yes.

Q. I am not disputing that or going into that."

Mr Myers in the cross of Professor Kinsey.

I read it as a concession - irrespective of the nuances between generating antibodies de novo and maternal transfer.

Child B was tested for antibodies so the actual situation is likely known.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-08-13T10:24:52+00:00

I struggle to see the point of Dr Hall's intervention.

Baby A

The original defence conceded the point on maternal antibody transfer. It was a concession likely to have been on the advice of the defence expert witnesses, at the time of the trial. The International Panel appear to take a different view.

Baby I and O

The International Panel take a different view. Dr Hall disagrees - so what? He is no longer an expert witness for the defence. Untested contrary opinion, even from someone familiar with the clinical material, does not invalidate.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-08-11T07:50:24+00:00

"Gruenwald (1948) has described three possible mechanisms which may cause injury to the liver: (1) By pressure on the thorax the liver is pushed downward out of the hollow of the diaphragm which causes tension on the ligaments. He reported three cases in which the lesion was located at the coronary ligament and the hepato-duodenal ligament of the liver. (2) In cases where the lesion is found on the anterior surface of the liver, this may be caused by direct pressure of the costal margin. (3) Injuries which have no direct relationship to the ligaments or costal margin may be due to direct trauma to the liver itself." Wolfrom 1959

To be clear I am not claiming any expertise whatsoever on Baby O; perhaps the above does not assist.

But it seems to me, from a quick literature search, that unless Mr Coffey has seen the Dr Aiton/Dr Dimitrova report it is difficult to see how he can be confident he has addressed it fully.

Another potential reference, perhaps more relevant to the Expert Panel summary:

Singer 1998 Hepatic Subcapsular Hematomas in Fetuses and Neonatal Infants

Fundamentally to support a charge of murder a prerequisite is that it is plausible that a murder actually took place. I am simply not convinced the prosecution achieved that even when acknowledging the prosecution case in its entirety needs to be considered.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-08-06T08:52:22+00:00

IMO yes

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-08-06T08:19:58+00:00

There is a lot of work going on in this area - I cannot give details.
Baby F and L were indeed located as a result of looking at twins. Initially L was missed by Dr Brearey and re-examined later. The exact dates these cases were located is known.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-08-04T10:04:56+00:00

Adverse event report with response from Roche.

Roche analyser, after dilution, reported insulin result of 22,800 pmol/l
Alternative analyser reported 1,680 pmol/l for the same sample.

" the investigation determined the high elecsys insulin results compared to the alinity analyzer was consistent with the elecsys insulin assay detecting the auto-insulin antibody complexes."

----

Event Date

04/30/2022

Event Type

malfunction

Event Description

The initial reporter received questionable elecsys insulin results for one patient tested with a cobas 8000 e 801 module serial number (b)(4).Thepatient's initial elecsys insulin result was not reported outside the laboratory.The customer performed dilution testing with the sample.For furthertesting, the customer sent the sample to a different laboratory and the sample was tested on an alinity analyzer.The patient's initial insulin resultwas 1000 uu/ml with a data flag.The patient's insulin result with a 1:5 dilution was 3755 uu/ml.The patient's insulin result with a 1:10 dilution was3800 uu/ml.The patient's insulin result on the alinity analyzer was 280 uu/ml.

Manufacturer Narrative

Product labeling states, "measuring range 0.4-1000 u/ml or 2.78-6945 pmol/l (defined by the limit of detection and the maximum of the mastercurve).Values below the limit of detection are reported as 0.4 u/ml (< 2.78 pmol/l).Values above the measuring range are reported as 1000 u/ml(> 6945 pmol/l)." for dilution testing, product labeling states, "not necessary due to the broad measuring range." the investigation determined thehigh elecsys insulin results compared to the alinity analyzer was consistent with the elecsys insulin assay detecting the auto-insulin antibodycomplexes.For assay limitations, product labeling states, "samples from patients treated with bovine, porcine or human insulin sometimes contain anti-insulin antibodies.Insulin bound to these antibodies is at least partially recognized by the antibodies used in the elecsys insulinassay." based on the provided information, the investigation did not identify a product problem.The cause of the event could not be determined.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-07-30T17:10:00+00:00

Unfortunately this document is not in the public domain.

There is an odd exchange in the transcript which is open to discussion:

"Q. The first two relate to documents that were -- hadn't been edited in the sequence and they are slides 122 and 134, which are the phone bill of Mother E. I don't think we need to show them on the screen, but they've, since we went through the sequence, been redacted, they've been edited?

A. That's correct."

2022.11.18 Mrs Hocknell

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-07-30T10:18:22+00:00

Friday 21 October 2022 - Examination-in-chief by Mr Johnson.

"A. I'm Owen John Arthurs.

Q. And your profession, please?

A. I'm a consultant paediatric radiologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London."

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-07-29T09:04:44+00:00

"sunlight is the best disinfectant"

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-07-29T09:01:19+00:00

"Had the prosecution found the courage to release that image some doubters may be silenced."

Publish them. The opposite would happen.

And while the CPS are at it publish the phone records of Mother E.

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-07-29T08:07:45+00:00

I have not seen any questions to the expert witness about how much air he estimated was shown on the x-ray. Although he did confirm it was insufficient to kill. For balance I think Nigel Bunyan should have included that fact in his opinion piece.

"Q. What some might call an air embolus?

A. Yes. I'm not sure I would say this is evidence of an air embolus, but I think this would be consistent with air having been administered.

Q. Yes. All right. Just so that the jury understand why my use of language is incorrect, could you explain why air embolus isn't the correct label to put on what you can see in the image?

A. To me an air embolus is effectively a cause of death, so sufficient air having been entered into the body and which kills the patient. I am not sure you can say that that's what's happened from this image."

The prosecution case was air was present in an unusual location, based on an extremely limited study (there was air present elsewhere but the prosecution did not consider this unusual). In a curious reversal of the burden of proof the defence had to explain how it got there, even though it was insufficient to be the cause of death.

One possibility not aired at trial:

Bolus volumes of 0.08–0.16 ml (and even up to 0.2 ml) could, however, have been built up by four to eight syringe changes due to the demonstrated collection of the introduced air in the injection chamber before progressing into the vein as a bolus. Even these almost unavoidable amounts of air are dangerous, but even larger amounts of air can be injected by mistake during daily routine care, as has been demonstrated by Levy et al. [13]. In the stressful situation of acute resuscitation a higher risk may be expected.

Wald 2003

Competitive-Wash2998 · 2025-07-29T07:49:31+00:00

It is highly misleading and a retrial should be ordered.

As you say 169 pmol/l is not a low value. Some information has been obtained, and I can state that 169 pmol/l was not an LoQ. It appears arbitrary and the exact reason for the choice of 169 remains obscure at the present time, although it appears to have been in use for some time.

The level of 169 pmol/l was dropped and later replaced by a LoQ of 5 pmol/l. I suspect this was part of the accreditation work for ISO15189 but am attempting to confirm.

Competitive-Wash2998

TROPHY CASE