The outcome of the case revolved around Robins second dental appointment on May 15th.Despite the fact that i told them Robin first told me about the ulcer in March,and he saw the dentist on 5th May,the man says he has no recollection of the second appointment ,and despite making no record about following up on the ulcer,he feels he WOULD have told Robin to come back if he had any further problems.
The onus was on the prosecution (who stated that he should have given rob another appointment ,or referred him to a doctor at that time)to prove that he didnt tell Rob to come back,and of course the only person who could do that ,is not here to tell us what was said.

He fully admitted the charges against him for the two appointments in october,but the committee felt that the damage was already done by then,and a diagnosis 7 weeks earlier wouldn't have affected robs final outcome.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.