To think that Lucy Letby will get a new trial?

@kkloo Yeah obviously having no defence is a problem from an innocence perspective! She never did anything to defend herself at all-zero. Of course to people on here that just means her defence was out to get her along with all the dozens of other people, probably.

You are silly, nobody has suggested anything of the sort - they are just pointing out that it is concerning when an opinion presented in court, is so widely criticised by multiple more qualified experts

@Nyungnyung well that's just their opinions as well isn't it. How can you think their opinions long after the fact means more than what was tested in court. It's like people think lets not even bother with trials anymore we'll just go with what expert we like best. Experts that haven't even seen all the medical records.

So in other words if I don't agree with you I don't understand the burden of proof 😆not up to me anyway. The jury obviously thought it was met who were there-not us.

I don't blindly trust the criminal court. It's on a case by case basis. It's this idea I "just don't understand" because I happen to believe she's guilty. Your opinion holds no more weight than mine. If there's problems in the case it'll all come out but right now there's nothing to suggest that. What matters the most at this point in time is what happened in that court room.

@Firefly1987I don’t think you don’t understand because you think she’s guilty. I think you don’t understand the burden of proof you’ve shown that to be so. Your misunderstanding of the BOP means your whole understanding of what had to be proven in this case, by whom and to what standard is compromised - and it is that which undermines my respect for your opinion.

Anyway, I am bowing out now as this argument isn’t going anywhere.

What? What do you even mean by this? That you agree with the outcome? You trust the process? How does this argument even begin to engage with the challenge I’ve put forward?

Maybe your just blindly trusting the criminal court process is the problem. Court cases are run by humans and humans make mistakes

Another issue I don’t think has been raised on the thread is that appeal courts are VERY reluctant to overturn first instance decisions, as they don’t want to question their judicial colleagues’ reasoning.

Probably too reluctant.

Q. Yes. Did it surprise you that you were not sent a single verbatim description given by any of the eyewitnesses of any of the discolouration seen on any of the children in this case?
A. I was only given something that was new and so I did my work. I don't know how the court works, so I can't comment on that.
Q. Yes, but following on from the point that you accepted, that in order to give a robust expert opinion, you need all of the relevant information, do you find it surprising that you have not been sent a single verbatim eyewitness account of what was seen?
A. I was only asked – the instructions that were given were to comment on the witness statements. Like I said, I (inaudible) forwards, only the old ones. Yes. So I believe this was (inaudible).
Q. Dr Lee, you are not answering the question – all right? So we will try again. Were you surprised that you were not sent a single verbatim description given by any eyewitness?
A. No, not surprised because, as I say, I don't know how these things from the court. So I presume what happens and what (inaudible).
Q. But I was not asking you about what happens in court. I was asking you what information you need to provide a robust expert opinion. That has got nothing to do with court. So, would you answer the question from that point of view, please?
A. I think it would have been proper to have been given access to the records.
Q. Were you given an explanation for why you were not given access to the records?
A. No, I wasn't but I didn't ask.
Q. Why did you not ask?
A. I presumed that was all there was. Like I said, I don't know how a court works.
Q. And you were happy to come to court knowing that you did not have all the information? Is that fair?
A. I was given the material to review, and I was happy to come to court because I had sufficient information to comment.

And yet somehow I'm still on the side of the criminal process whereas you are not!

According to Neena Modi, the prosecution experts had not seen all the records - Evans, yes, Bohin, not sure, but the others were sent only extracts by Evans for their comment.

The experts who work with the defence have seen all the relevant medical records that the prosecution witnesses saw.

Why wouldn't they? You need to understand that the prosecution can't hoard evidence. and keep it secret. They are obliged to share all relevant material with the defence.

There is the problem of obstetrics records: neither they nor the prosecution have seen these. Evans did not consider them necessary. McDonald's team of experts disagree and hope to obtain them.

The experts who work with the defence have seen all the relevant medical records that the prosecution witnesses saw.

Why wouldn't they? You need to understand that the prosecution can't hoard evidence. and keep it secret. They are obliged to share all relevant material with the defence.

There is the problem of obstetrics records: neither they nor the prosecution have seen these. Evans did not consider them necessary. McDonald's team of experts disagree and hope to obtain them.

No. Other things you’ve posted on this thread have made clear you have a very sparse knowledge of criminal process and procedure.

@Nyungnyung well that's just their opinions as well isn't it. How can you think their opinions long after the fact means more than what was tested in court. It's like people think lets not even bother with trials anymore we'll just go with what expert we like best. Experts that haven't even seen all the medical records.

Things they said in the deliberation room evidenced a clear lack of forensic, analytical thought and misunderstood some of the directions given (just as you clearly misunderstand - or aren’t really bothered by - burden and standard of proof, as you’ve shown on this thread).

Just because you don't think the burden of proof has been met doesn't mean I've "misunderstood". If anything I think you've misunderstood the sheer amount of evidence the jury heard. But seems like you're convinced you're right so...I think you'll continue to be disappointed by this case and her not getting out.

So you'll be hoping Jamie Varley and John McGowan-Fazakerley walk free as well then?

@Nyungnyung well that's just their opinions as well isn't it. How can you think their opinions long after the fact means more than what was tested in court. It's like people think lets not even bother with trials anymore we'll just go with what expert we like best. Experts that haven't even seen all the medical records.

it would be far worse to let a serial baby killer go free than a petty thief

Fair point. Still, for reasons similar to "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", IMHO the risk of major wrongful acquittals is more tolerable than the risk of major wrongful convictions.

In healthcare cases, a wrongful conviction wouldn't just ruin one innocent person's life, horrible as that would be. It could also prevent real healthcare defects from being fixed, and divert millions to an inquiry aimed at the wrong target.

But the simpler reason for needing stronger proof for worse allegations is that worse crimes are more rare, i.e. more facially unlikely, and the more unlikely something is as a baseline matter, the stronger proof you need to confirm that it happened.

Things they said in the deliberation room evidenced a clear lack of forensic, analytical thought and misunderstood some of the directions given (just as you clearly misunderstand - or aren’t really bothered by - burden and standard of proof, as you’ve shown on this thread).

Just because you don't think the burden of proof has been met doesn't mean I've "misunderstood". If anything I think you've misunderstood the sheer amount of evidence the jury heard. But seems like you're convinced you're right so...I think you'll continue to be disappointed by this case and her not getting out.

Have you sat on a jury? I have, back in January.

Despite the judge giving detailed directions about all matters to do with the case (including standard and burden of proof), the vast majority of the jurors didn’t read or refer back to those. Things they said in the deliberation room evidenced a clear lack of forensic, analytical thought and misunderstood some of the directions given (just as you clearly misunderstand - or aren’t really bothered by - burden and standard of proof, as you’ve shown on this thread).

And that case involved a single count on the indictment with a single set of facts.

In her initial 2023 trial, LL was convicted of 14 counts (7 murder, 7 attempted murder), acquitted of two counts, and the jury was deadlocked on six further counts. In a 2024 retrial, she was convicted on one of those deadlocked counts (bringing her to 8 attempted murder convictions), leaving five remaining attempted murder charges un-retried.

The sheer number of charges on the indictment makes it a very complex trial. Add in statistical evidence (purely circumstantial) and it gets more complicated. The fact a first jury was deadlocked tells us they couldn’t reach the required either unanimous verdict or majority verdict (10 in favour of guilt and 2 not, usually).

Dewi Evans: not a neonatologist and it seems much of the expert testimony he gave for the prosecution was just plain wrong. The backdrop of a clearly poorly run neonatal unit at Countess of Chester. LL an unsympathetic witness (irrelevant to whether she committed the crimes but this kind of thing has a large degree of influence on juries as they’re human).

Her defence team seems to have botched it (I mean, why were none of the eminent neonatologists chaired by Dr Shoo Lee called at the time!?)

Her convictions are definitely unsafe.