When is SBS NOT SBS? And daytrips to Truro.
Hi,
Well whats in a name, not a lot, they seem to be doing what they did with Munchausens, it’s time for PR make over, Munchausends became associated with Miscarriages of justice, Roy Meadows and Southall. So lets rename it and they did.
Well if it worked once lets go with SBS to, lets come up with AHT, Abusive Head Trauma. Now as Professor Stephenson pointed out in Panorama, he didn’t like the term SBS as it kind of implies what went on to anyone who becomes involved, or should I say WHAT THEY THINK went on.
It could stop people looking for any other info as it says what (they think) went on, on the tin (SBS). But of course they don’t really know, its guesswork, unless of course they saw it with their own eyes and carried out hundreds, thousands of tests to show that x, y, and z will always be SBS or should I say AHT.
Well I’m still not an expert (thankfully) but surely AHT does the same thing? Your saying there had to be an element of abuse…then head trauma. Which I guess may mean though if Retinal elements are being reduced in their importance as they may appear in more autopsy’s (most of which has no worries at all about involving shaking) then you could get away with only 2 elements maybe and not the beloved triad…or is it me again? Keep the gravy train rolling?
Well the gravy train has rolled into beautiful Truro this week with the likes of Nat Cary and no doubt Stoodley and Risdon et al in attendance.
Looking at local reports from the trial so far it would seem that its Shaking or Shaking AND Impact, so yet again they can’t really be sure which it was. So here I go again, if they can’t be sure and prove it beyond reasonable doubt…then what the hell is it doing in a court in the first place?
They have gone for the lets take the old dog (of a theory) out and give it a run…again tactic.
I hope the jury aren’t easily impressed by white coats and letters after peoples names. Look for real evidence or doubts for pete’s sake!
I worry she (Anne Marie Rooney) may not get a fair trial, if she has done it then fairs fair, but there is a lot of mention about her background, in other cases its usually tricks like they enjoyed a drink (inferring one too many), thankfully for our case, Keran doesn’t really drink (been married to a boring teetotaller too long - mind you I might start drinking by the time we get through this - ooh look a flying pig), so there was no mud to throw at her - so use loads of experts instead to convince the 12 jurors (sorry 10).
Justice wears a blindfold.
Fiat Justicia.