Lucy Letby (2)

@isthisaplum Yes babies died, at her hands. And most of the population who have been swept up in the innocence circus can get back to facing that terrible truth and supporting the victims and their families in what they've had to go through. Because of her. Long overdue. How do you expect me to react? Say oh no what a shame, lets have a moment of silence for poor Lucy?

@isthisaplum what are you disagreeing with? It's just a fact this is not good news for camp Letby. It's also a fact that her PR company have had free reign to try and convince the public she's innocent for two years. Yes I'm happy that is finally at an end and we are at least getting news about her guilt again-it never should've gone on as long as it did to the point people were complaining whenever she's described as what she is in the newspapers-a serial killer of babies. Call it crowing if you like, but the gaslighting is finally over.

I don’t think it’s good or bad news. I’m not interpreting it in the way you are, which is probably because we differ in our opinions about her guilt. You are interpreting it as ‘two experts have withdrawn their support; as such, this adds evidence to the fact she is guilty,’ I’m interpreting it as the Guardian said, which is “although they stood by their assessment that it was “very unlikely” two of the babies were poisoned, some of the arguments being put forward on her behalf were “inconsistent with the available evidence, science and established physiology”.”

Even if you are on the same page as someone in a broad sense it doesn’t mean you’ll agree on everything. For example, many people who firmly believe Letby is guilty of the crimes she was convicted of also believe the notes were nonsense and should not have been used as evidence. For my part, I am firmly convinced of her innocence. I also think the storing of the handover sheets was peculiar behaviour. That’s a very basic sort of argument but is the best example I’m going to come up with.

There is absolutely nothing about her guilt in the article I have read: the opposite, in fact.

So what is actually happening. It's all very confusing.

If they stand by their work and still think it’s unlikely she murdered the babies I don’t get why they would withdraw, even if they don’t agree with some of the other experts.

Because they don’t agree with a particular theory. It is probably a clumsy example, but I work in SEN. If someone says they feel a child is dyslexic and I don’t then I may disagree with that diagnosis; that doesn’t mean I don’t believe the child has SEN.

It sounds more like they're distancing themselves from the defence team but they are standing by their own work separately, and that hasn't been withdrawn from the CCRC, they don't seem to have asked for their report to be withdrawn and not considered, but then I can't see an official copy of the full letter.

My reading of this is that they are withdrawing their report from the CCRC.

I have no clue what the bit about the professional engineering codes is supposed to mean. Complete word salad. Something about safeguarding Letby’s health and safety and also the victims’ families? Or something.

I'm not sure you understand what has happened @Firefly1987 . Chase and Shannon have not said they think Letby is guilty; in fact, they have publicly stated they stand by their belief that it is unlikely any babies were poisoned and that there are strong, reasonable doubts. They disagree with the way other elements of the insulin evidence are being handled, not their own report. They still do not believe the babies were poisoned.

@Frequency I read it, I get it. Don't worry I don't expect them to have the integrity to admit they got it all wrong and she's actually guilty. Lets not pretend this isn't a huge blow to her defence team though.

I think they’re saying:

The prosecution claimed there was no non-malicious explanation for the insulin. They disagreed with that and still do.

But they don’t agree with the arguments the defence are putting forward to explain the insulin, for example, it occurred randomly. As that goes against the science.

No idea if they themselves have a possible explanation.

I saw this wording, do you know if it's been posted somewhere officially?

It's the following sentence... it doesn't really make sense and seems like it's missing a word or two to me...

, "including withdrawing support for any representation our work endorses the defence team’s current scientific case"

Could they have meant "“including withdrawing support for any representation that suggests our work endorses the defence team’s current scientific case.”"

This is the usual black-and-white thinking from you.

Chase and Shannon still believe their work demonstrates a plausible, if not highly likely, explanation for the inverted insulin to c-peptide ratio. They still think that this means there is ample doubt of Letby’s guilt.

But first and foremost they are scientists who do not wish to have their reputations tarnished by association with what they believe are other unscientific arguments. For them, the science is everything and Letby’s situation is less of a concern.

McDonald et al can still use their paper as evidence.

And with reference to your other posts yesterday it’s “rein”, not “reign” in this context.

I’m not sure what’s difficult to understand.

C&S have a professional ethics code. They believe that their personal association with some of the defence’s arguments about insulin, which they believe not to be credible, contravene their code of ethics, so they must not be associated with it.

Moreover, C&S believe that the defence’s use of evidence that C&S believe to be unscientific is detrimental to Letby’s case. Whether or not this is legally accurate is immaterial: they believe it is harmful, so they are ethically bound to disassociate themselves from it, in Letby’s interests.

I'm also finding this weird. Surely it's entirely appropriate that the defence will put forward any available alternative hypothesis - they don't have to say they agree with all of them. Sounds like people who are overly anxious about their public image perhaps.,

I think the problem is that McDonald is steering the experts beyond simply disproving the prosecutions allegations of how the babies died at Letby's hand, they've trying to come up with alternative explanations to explain the deaths. Most of their reasoning and analysis is evidence based, but I suspect they're starting to enter into the murky depths of Dewi Evans interpretation, supposition and theorising. And some of that is what these two scientists appear to have taken issue with. It should be sufficient to just pull the original prosecution's 'evidence' apart, to disprove their flaky, circumstantial evidence, and show that the convictions are unsafe. They don't need to go too far into trying to come up with alternative explanations, and unless what they come up with it water tight, it could do more harm than good.

The things they’re citing that the code requires them to do - ‘safeguard the health and safety of people, identify hazards, explain the consequences of disregarding professional advice, and report serious breaches’ - don’t seem to bear any relation to Letby or this situation.

Surely them withdrawing their report, if they believe their work still stands and that it’s unlikely she murdered the babies, puts Letby’s ‘long-term interests’ more at risk? Same for the families (who they appear to bring in as an afterthought).

Agree tbh.

An appeal based on fresh evidence is considerably stronger where the defence can offer a credible alternative explanation for the prosecution evidence, rather than merely identify gaps in the prosecution case. It is a completely legitimate strategy for the defence to seek to do this . they don't have to demonstrate that the alternative is what happened, they just have to show them to be a reasonable possibility capable of undermining the conviction .

I can't understand the expert witness reasoning here other than through a lens of ego and image. Or maybe they just lack experience in how these kinds of legal systems work?

One could equally say that the legal system just doesn’t understand how science works.

This may be why we are where we are.