There we agree. It seems apparent to me that the consultant would've more appropriately been giving evidence in his own defence, rather than being permitted to ensure someone else took the brunt. Doesn't make #BawaGarba innocent of course, but he certainly isn't so, imho.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY @hilaryklonn and
Witnesses are forced to appear or face indefinite imprisonment. They are used for the purposes of the side calling them, then for the purposes of the Court. Generally aren't permitted to speak freely about stuff they're keen on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rwade300 @hilaryklonn and
To be fair, that's what cross examination is supposed to be for - to offer opportunity for the other side to bring out the unscripted answers. And given that witnesses are under oath, far from not being permitted to say what they think, I'd expect them to be obliged.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY @hilaryklonn and
I don't follow the last sentence. The consultant witness was presumably a witness of fact, not an expert witness. Can't see how he could ensure Dr BG took the brunt unless his answers of fact convinced the majority in the jury, and Dr BG couldn't raise doubts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rwade300 @hilaryklonn and
Let me start by asking what you had in mind when you said people weren't able to speak freely then? Is there something specific in this case that you were thinking of which went unsaid? Just trying to understand your perspective.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @hilaryklonn and
Your "permitted to ensure someone else took the brunt" suggests the consultant was free to argue that. Either party can shut him down and the judge would decide if he could continue or not, and instruct the jury to ignore whatever. Conviction isn't fault of witness consultant.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rwade300 @hilaryklonn and
The point I was trying to make was that he should've been a defendant in the case, given the broad acceptance that he had senior responsibility. Being allowed to testify against another w/o his own culpability being scrutinised is wrong for me. Judges oft show deference to medics
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @hilaryklonn and
1 Crown prosecutor presumably looked at him and decided they'd lose. Dr BG did accuse him in her defence. "Senior responsibility" is a dead end: why would a senior take responsibility for a 5-year specialist "junior", may as well not have juniors, then where do seniors come from
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
2 A woman consultant intervened with Dr BG in the morning when Jack was assessed, clarifying she was available as the other was away. Dr BG knocked back the offer for Jack, but did consultant about another patient. Should that consultant also be prosecuted? From the SUI report.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Aaah… you're ahead of me. I have the SUI report open on another tab, but have yet to work my way through it - I was on a twitter break when it emerged. Let me pick this conversation back up with you when I've had chance to absorb it.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY @hilaryklonn and
And it's redacted. God knows what it says.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.