Chapter 23 - ISOLDE DOES NOT TESTIFY IN FRONT OF LORETTA
Prosecutors did not want to traumatize a six-year-old unnecessarily.
Her forensic interview was admissible only under specific rules and with supporting evidence.
The judge limited what could be used.
Staff witnesses testified.
Dr. Mallory.
Physical therapist.
House manager.
Emails.
Messages.
The dinner video from a guest showed the brace being pulled and Isolde falling.
Clear.
No need make Isolde sit feet away from Loretta if the court could avoid it.
I was grateful.
Then Dr. Mallory testified:
“Was the brace medically necessary during unsupervised walking at that stage?”
“Yes.”
“Could abrupt removal increase fall risk?”
“Yes.”
“Did Loretta have authority to discontinue it?”
“No.”
“Did you recommend residential rehabilitation?”
“No.”
“Was Isolde failing outpatient therapy?”
“No.”
That dismantled the medical justification.
Then the therapist.
Three canceled sessions.
Strength loss.
Recoverable.
May you like
No permanent injury.
Accuracy again.
