To be surprised this potential miscarriage of justice isn’t given more prominence

I did not follow the case closely but the conviction really is looking less and less safe, to me, and that Guardian article (which makes clear that the expert seems to have fundamentally failed to understand has legal duty to be objective) is alarming. Regardless of Letby's guilt or otherwise, he seems a total clown.

It's in the public interest because we should have confidence in our justice system. It doesn't sound like Letby was a good nurse, but there hasn't been clear evidence that she murdered any babies (or from my understanding that the babies were murdered).

I also don't understand how the expert witness scheme works and what it means if no one will take the stand for you. How can that be a fair trail?

It may be that an appeal will be allowed after the inquiry finishes.

Drs Neil Aiton and Svilena Dmitrova, working from the full medical and legal records.

news.sky.com/story/lucy-letbys-lawyers-say-expert-witness-has-changed-his-mind-on-cause-of-death-of-three-babies-13274948

And the poor baby with liver damage, which they think was done by one of the consultants (who reported LL) when he inserted a cannula .

where has this information come from? and who is "they"

It may be the case that the babies died due to vulnerabilities of prematurity that the hospital, resources, consultants and nursing staff were inadequately able to cope with.

That parents may have brought medical negligence claims.

Finding a scapegoat increases parental distress but makes all culpability disappear.

There is no objective evidence of murder. The law does not proceed by finding a likely candidate for murder and then orchestrating circumstantial evidence so that a jury finds them guilty.

The guilty verdict may please the crowd but is a threat to justice. This is why it won't go away. It sets a dangerous precedent.

Absolutely. You have emails where the consultants worry, in good faith I think but in a scientific ignorance, that if the hospital investigates too many unexpected collapses they won't see Letby at enough of them. They were struck by the coincidence that she was on shift for so many deaths, and after that they just floundered into the clutches of the Charlatan Evans

It’s chilling. How could she have murdered baby c, she wasn’t there. I did read that they based the investigation on only suspicious /excess deaths when she was on duty - ignoring the other suspicious / excess deaths that she wasn’t there for or couldn’t have been responsible for . Much like the door swipe data inaccuracy seems like the case of baby c was an oversight and if they’d looked into it I expect they would have not included that particular case. They had LL at the centre of the investigation rather than every single suspicious/ excess death. It’s flawed from the outset.

Some very revealing statements from the expert witness there.

"Well without being too blase about it, it’s only difficult if you don’t know the answer, OK ... Trouble is you don’t get evidence: air embolus doesn’t leave any marks, you see"

“Something must have happened,” he said. “I know that’s not a very scientific term.”

"Lucy Letby murdered Baby C. Get that into your head.”

Exactly. She wasn’t even there so how on Earth can she have harmed baby c???

And the poor baby with liver damage, which they think was done by one of the consultants (who reported LL) when he inserted a cannula .

There's a new article in The Guardian today that gives a really clear overview of why there is so much noise about the expert evidence used in this case: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/my-kind-of-case-intense-focus-falls-on-lucy-letby-trial-expert-witness The situation with the evidence for Baby C is particularly mind-boggling.

The point that I’m making is no one would doubt I did this if it was me because I’m Black. HTH

you tagged on a thread that was asking for that - re read the thread you've attached - you might want to be pedantic and now say well it wasn't actually me that said that - but you added to the chain.

How do you think anyone is going to prove a negative if there isn't one? It's not even clear who you want the credentials for?

Dr Andrew Garrett
Sarah Cumbers
Peter Green

I did nothing of the sort.
My first post on this thread was responding to you.

What I would like in this country is a very robust justice system, if there is doubt about a not guilty or guilty verdict based circumstantial evidence then it needs to be scrutinised.

The fact of a baby being born whilst LL was off duty, not having come into contact with LL until after the X-ray being taken (ever) showing air in her lungs - to me that needs looking at. At the time the prosecution said - well she may have come into the hospital on her day off - yet they didn't have proof even though they all were issued sipe cards. Everyone know that tailgating happens, but without cctv evidence of tailgating or other proof it appears flimsy and quite the opposite of beyond doubt

Hmm.

I think having my baby murdered in hospital by someone who was meant to be looking after them; going through a trial; having years of people saying she's innocent (cause she's young and white and pretty); having to see the face of my baby's murderer every single fucking day on the news and splashed over newspapers and being defended over and over and over again all over social media by people who think they know more than those at the multiple trials and appeals she has had could be worse.

But that's just me. Maybe that isn't so bad to you.

The doctor in the hearing that’s just happened (about whether there is grounds for the rejection of an appeal to be overturned) said something about this. I’m not a doctor, so forgive the vagueness. Essentially, there was an injection given by a doctor. It was not for air. It was an inappropriate procedure that was not needed and the injection site was too high, causing laceration of the liver. This explains the blood. There was no evidence of the air that was hypothesised about. He talked about the % of oxygen snd nitrogen and how they are absorbed into the body.

Yes. In that one case he has now presented three possible causes of death / deterioration.

You could be really charitable and say that he was so unclear that the prosecution went with the wrong charge, but the fact remains.

Letby is convicted of a method of murder that Evans told the court was based on sound evidence, and which he has since says was unheard of and did not directly cause any deaths and did not happen in the way he described.

It's not in anyone's interest to treat him as reliable witness. And the prosecution stated at the first trial that their entire case depended on him and would collapse without him.

He didn't just change his mind after the fact, he changed it on the stand during the trial. So his written statement doesn't correspond with his oral evidence. Presumably he stands by his oral evidence, as that was later, but the Court of Appeal referred to the reason he gave in written evidence in its refusal of permission to appeal.

I can't keep up on what he currently says is the cause of death of the baby that he said was definitely killed by air in the stomach, as proven by an x ray showing air in its stomach, until it was shown that Letby was not on duty between that baby being born and that x ray being taken. Is that the one when CPS filled in the gap by saying that perhaps Letby had come in on her day off and added the air before the x ray was taken?

Private Eye has covered this case extensively, and is growing ever more contemptuous of the expert evidence presented at trial.

Yes, that's all significant and a great summary.

Just to say, the expert who changed his mind is the prosecution witness in point 3, who told the press he had changed his mind on three cases after the trial concluded.

Can't think of much worse? How about your baby has been murdered/left permanently disabled and some ignorant twats are constantly making MN posts about their murderer being innocent!! Give your head a wobble!

I listened to some of the hearing. The expert - a British qualified consultant doctor working in Canada - has not ‘changed his mind’ because he was not involved in the initial trial. He has begun to look at the evidence only recently and has raised some alarming funds, including:

1. evidence of clinical negligence on the part of a doctor in the car of one baby
2. evidence that the glucose measurement was taken from a contaminated sample in another baby
3. evidence that the expert relied on by the CPS relied solely on the expert account of one person who approached them to volunteer his services, and they accepted the offer without investigation into this unusual contact and without appointing anyone else using their normal appointment procedures.
4. There are more than 60 professionals in all manner of relevant fiends across several countries raising concerns about this case - both the way it was conducted and the credibility of the verdict.

You know nothing about me.

But our standard is innocent unless proved guilty, and she should not be in prison if there is reasonable doubt in that score.

Yes, it is and she has been found guilty, in a court of law, twice, by a jury, twice.

She had a multi million pound defence that most criminals could only dream of, by one of the best barristers in the country.

There is no reasonable doubt, this is your hobby horse because you see yourself as a justice fighter to the middle classes.

They aren't on this thread telling me it's in the article! Bit of a shocker from them, but it happens a lot with headlines. The reporters don't write them after all.

If she wins an appeal, there will always be a shadow of suspicion. Could I shake that off? Who knows? But our standard is innocent unless proved guilty, and she should not be in prison if there is reasonable doubt in that score.