Originally Posted by
Onmybike
I am trying to understand the facts of this case a little better. As you seem to know more about it than I do (not difficult!
) can you shed any light on these questions:
What is the link between the offences described in the two articles and Mr Kirk? Was he also a patient in this stroke treatment unit; and is the allegation that he was also neglected and his records falsified?
Regarding his claim to have brain cancer and the medical report that apparently contradicts this: surely that would be easy to confirm either way by a further scan. Are there any plans to do this? I would have thought Mr Kirk would want to know so that he can get treatment, as well as wanting to prove his point.
Any light you can shed on this and, as Clareprop says, any evidence to support the conclusions, would help people to form a more objective view. Thanks!
