Lucy Letby Court Case

[Pebble21uk]

Today has been the first day of the trial, which is expected to last for six months. One thread has already been pulled on the subject. Upon deletion MNHQ said that a thread about the case is fine but please read the rules around contempt of court before posting... these are copied and pasted here:
Publicly commenting on a court case:

You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media.
For example, you should not:
say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
refer to someone’s previous convictions
name someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous, even if you did not know this
name victims, witnesses and offenders under 18
name sex crime victims
share any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public

If any of the above take place then new threads will also be pulled. Let's please try and keep it going!

I am quite surprised they got an expert so long out of clinical practice as an expert in such a high-profile case. I am also very surprised to read that he described himself on the witness stand as not actually being an expert witness. He literally is. That is what is there for.

2009 - and no clinical practice since? That does seem a bit odd when they are talking about tampering with current equipment. I wonder how he stays up to date.

Yes, I think that Myers KC was trying to insinuate Dr Evans was out of date. That said he is very used to being on the stand in this capacity and so wasn't at all phased by the look of his testimony.

The prosecution have another 'expert witness' yet to call. She is still clinically practising and agreed with Dr Evans - so that will add more weight to his findings.

I can't even read the newspaper reports about this case. Some things really are too horrible even to contemplate.

In which case I could have spared myself the effort of posting, as will likely be pointed out. But October is the month of the wave of light, a time when the babies parents have lost are forefront in our minds. I've lost babies in pregnancy and I've known far, far too many parents whose beloved children have succumbed to stillbirth, or in the earliest months of their lives, conditions like SMA which are still far too common in this day and age.

Part of me naively hopes it's all a horrible mistake. Because how could anyone do such a terrible thing? Just how?

Of course it's a rhetorical question. I know enough about humanity to know that anything within the scope of the human imagination is within the scope of someone, somewhere, to action it. My mind just doesn't want to let it in.

According to the GMC register he voluntarily relinquished his license in 2009 so can’t have practiced in the UK since.
His argument appears to be that he has consulted on many cases of child injury and illness for the courts since, so has been keeping up to date through those cases rather than by hands on care.

Thanks @Amber17 that's interesting. I'm just thinking about how he would be able to be clear that it was die to deliberate tampering if he doesn't use that kind of equipment/work in the environment

Hmmmm.. scraping the barrel calling him I think.

I'm late to this thread so it's probably already been discussed but I'm asking nicely so indulge me please. Why is it due to take six months?

The monitors are all generally the same and have the same functions. I’m not sure about the ventilators but they probably weren’t that different from 2009 to 2015 certainly in the units I’ve been in have had the same vents for many years. Intubating, cannulating and ng tubes and the process of aspirating will all be the same.

I would think because there is going to be a huge amount of witness,s and evidence to get through ,she's Been charged with seven murders and 10 attempted murders ,if they e going to investigate each one properly that's going to take time?

thanks @x2boys that makes sense

I doubt very much that one of the principal crown witnesses called in a murder trial is “scraping the barrel”.

Thank you, I have no medical knowledge as a practitioner only in the receiving end so that's good to know. I looked him up (his CV and details are available) and he does seem to focus on CA and has dropped medical negligence. Will be interesting to hear what he brings.

Basically, she could, quite easily be made to believe she did it.

I think a jury might find that far fetched. I do. The easily part is particularly reckless. You have no evidence for such an assertion. It's important to get the right result for the child patients of the future as well, not just for Lucy Letby. Don't get carried away.

If she has a personality disorder or other mental health issue, it may be easier than if she didn't, I'll grant you that. But we don't know.

Not practicing in medicine? I wouldn’t be able to take him too seriously if I was on the jury. Too many “expert witnesses” have been wrong in the past, so at the very least I expect them to be up to date.

Is he going to be there frequently for the whole 6 months? I can’t imagine many practicing consultants would be able to make that kind of commitment.

It's not uncommon for an expert witness to be retired after a long career. They have the time and a career behind them. How could a practising consultant reasonably be expected to put the time in? This is normal.

Surely there will be other currently practising doctors brought as witnesses for the case.

I think it makes sense for an expert witness to have a background in clinical neonate medicine but also have further specialist experience in these sort of exceptional cases where you are trying to ascertain if a death was natural or otherwise.

As for understanding the “technology” - a lot of the equipment used by nurses is never touched by doctors. Doctors do not generally hang up IV bags or put feed through NG tubes. Again, I think questions regarding normal practise on the word in this respect will likely be best answered by the practising nurse witnesses that will be called.

And I agree with PP that actually the type of equipment we are talking about really won’t have changed very much in ten years in the NHS.

Normal practice on the ward*

Also, giving expert evidence in court requires expertise at that. You want someone who understands the system and how medical law operates. It's not just about being a doctor. It's answering the questions in a way that will give the jury the information they need for their specific tasks. Quite fairly as each side has experts.

Whitepouringglue, I assure you, it's a genuine phenomenon.

As I sad, medicine moves on, at quite a fast rate actually. So how “expert” is someone if they aren’t working in the clinical environment? That would be my concern.

The doctor in court said he is there to advise and does not define himself as an expert witness. It’s very interesting the perspective he is giving - as he was around in the beginning when there wasn’t much treatment for these babies and has been one of the pioneers of the speciality as it developed. He is also explaining the basic medical terms etc. I do think this is helpful and relevant for the jury.

He also has a lot of recent experience in medical negligence cases, which is helpful, again given the speculation about the unit itself.
I’m sure current practitioners will also be called upon including those on the unit, but that’s a different angle.

The problem with that is that, if he is reliant on being called as an expert witness for income, it brings the potential for bias - he's not going to be instructed if he can't be relied on to support the prosecution case.