Page 25 | Lucy Letby Court Case

Pebble21uk · 2022-10-10T15:51:43+00:00

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!

Novum · 14/10/2022 22:06

Whitepouringglue · 14/10/2022 19:42

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.

It really isn't far-fetched. It happens all too often that someone makes a false confession, especially after hours of police interviews interspersed with being held on their own in a cell, only for it to be discovered some time later that they could not possibly have committed the offence in question.

LovinglifeAF · 14/10/2022 22:48

MissyB1 · 14/10/2022 20:03

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.

Show quote history

He’s not going to be the only medical witness is he, in a case set down for 6 months? He will have his specific thing he’s there to give evidence on, there will be others I’m sure. Plus I’m sure he will be aware he’s going to be cross examined and will be ready to explain himself and his expertise.

PurplePansy05 · 14/10/2022 23:19

MissyB1 · 14/10/2022 20:40

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.

Someone who is very senior and experienced, and who practised at the time when Letby trained, left practice 6 years before the alleged murders and attempted murders took place and has been expert witness since is very well placed, indeed. Certainly better placed than everyone on here.

bottleofbeer · 14/10/2022 23:38

They've got pretty damning evidence to bring it to a six month trial.

PurplePansy05 · 15/10/2022 07:30

Novum · 14/10/2022 22:00

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.

Show quote history

He provided expert witness evidence on behalf of prosecution and defence previously, are you reading the trial updates?

MissyB1 · 15/10/2022 07:37

PurplePansy05 · 14/10/2022 23:19

Someone who is very senior and experienced, and who practised at the time when Letby trained, left practice 6 years before the alleged murders and attempted murders took place and has been expert witness since is very well placed, indeed. Certainly better placed than everyone on here.

Show quote history

There’s quite a wide scope between that “expert witness” and the rest of us! Pretty sure there a few alternatives in between 😂

PurplePansy05 · 15/10/2022 07:40

MissyB1 · 15/10/2022 07:37

There’s quite a wide scope between that “expert witness” and the rest of us! Pretty sure there a few alternatives in between 😂

Show quote history

Sorry, not sure if I understand your point here. Or your previous criticism of him, for that matter, which doesn't seem justified.

Lougle · 15/10/2022 08:04

Medicine does move quickly in terms of surgical techniques and drugs, etc., but physiology generally remains the same. The causes of death of these babies, as stated, are mechanical (diaphragm splinting, air embolus) or insulin overdose, etc. The mechanisms don't change.

Machines vary slightly in terms of the sound they make, which buttons you press, but the modes are all very similar (they may have a slightly different name for the same function), the parameters will be the same because they are based on normal physiology, and procedures will be pretty much the same. I last did neonates in 2006 but the processes described in these court proceedings are identical to when I was nursing neonates.

theDudesmummy · 15/10/2022 08:05

If he has been called as an expert witness his duty is to the Court and not to either side. In most cases experts are called by one side or the other (sometimes are jointly instructed but that isn't normal in criminal trial). You cannot tailor your evidence one way ir another, it doesn't matter who is paying you. Most credible experts seek to even out their work between (in criminal work) prosecution and defence work (and in civil work between claimant and defendant). I am confused though, whether this doctor has actually been called as an expert witness. One because he said he wasn't. And two because if he is no longer GMC registered, how is he being regulated and who is insuring him? Indemnity insurance companies won't insure a doctor who is not on the GMC register (and on the specialist register of their speciality).

Novum · 15/10/2022 08:07

PurplePansy05 · 15/10/2022 07:30

He provided expert witness evidence on behalf of prosecution and defence previously, are you reading the trial updates?

Show quote history

But the same issue arises - he's not going to be instructed as an expert witness if he doesn't say what those paying him want him to say. The point is that if he were in practice and not reliant on acting as an expert witness for his main income that would not be a concern.

theDudesmummy · 15/10/2022 08:19

@novum expert witnesses cannot go down the route of saying what those who are paying them want them to say. Its against the law, and the regulatory bodies, and you can end up in very serious trouble. What does happen though is that the solicitors may instruct various witnesses, bin the evidence of the ones they don't want, and only put on the stand the witnesses they think will be helpful to their case. That is a different thing however from a witness being a 'hired gun' who actively tailors evidence to one side or another.

Wednesdaywobbles · 15/10/2022 08:45

Novum · 15/10/2022 08:07

But the same issue arises - he's not going to be instructed as an expert witness if he doesn't say what those paying him want him to say. The point is that if he were in practice and not reliant on acting as an expert witness for his main income that would not be a concern.

Show quote history

I’m assuming that the defence will secure expert witnesses in the same manner, hopefully they will come under the same scrutiny on here

CheapAsChip · 15/10/2022 08:46

People love to hate an expert now a days…

I’m no expert but I think this doctor’s qualifications and background sound suited to the job.

In this case, we aren’t just talking about negligent care, we are talking about malicious intent. You don’t just need a doctor who knows what good and poor care look like. You need someone who is experienced in spotting when care goes wrong and the root cause.

Thankfully, most clinicians won’t see a great deal of the type of deliberate acts of harm that LL stands accused. But that also means that most clinicians wouldn’t have the experience to give testimony on whether the signs are there or not.

LovinglifeAF · 15/10/2022 08:48

Novum · 15/10/2022 08:07

But the same issue arises - he's not going to be instructed as an expert witness if he doesn't say what those paying him want him to say. The point is that if he were in practice and not reliant on acting as an expert witness for his main income that would not be a concern.

Show quote history

I don’t think you know how criminal legal proceedings work..

theDudesmummy · 15/10/2022 08:49

No reputable solicitor would instruct an expert who tailored their evidence. And no expert would do it unless they want to be sued/prosecuted/struck off by their regulatory body. But each side will of course choose to highlight in court the experts and evidence which support their case.

theDudesmummy · 15/10/2022 08:50

@LovinglifeAF criminal or civil...

theDudesmummy · 15/10/2022 08:54

@CheapAsChip I agree that his qualifications and experience sound very relevant to what he has been called to address. I was just wondering how he sees his role/remit if he does not see himself as an expert witness (ie what rules is he bound by in that case?) and who is regulating and insuring him as an expert if he is not registered with the GMC.

CheapAsChip · 15/10/2022 08:58

theDudesmummy · 15/10/2022 08:54

@CheapAsChip I agree that his qualifications and experience sound very relevant to what he has been called to address. I was just wondering how he sees his role/remit if he does not see himself as an expert witness (ie what rules is he bound by in that case?) and who is regulating and insuring him as an expert if he is not registered with the GMC.

You’d assume he’s not some rogue cowboy witness given the gravity of the case
but can never assume anything I guess

theDudesmummy · 15/10/2022 09:14

Oh I don't think he's a rogue cowboy at all. I don't have any knowledge of the field he is giving evidence in and can't comment on his expertise/impartiality or otherwise. I imagine that, for them to call someone out of actual clinical practice that long, he must have very specific technical knowledge which the other side might struggle to match with a clinician? It's very normal to have experts who have retired from practice and now only do EW work of course, but I was struck by the length of time he has been retired and that PPs on here were saying he is not GMC registered, which begs my questions of who is regulating and/or insuring him.

Followinclosely · 15/10/2022 13:58

I'm a neonatal nurse in a level 2 NICU. I'd be horrified if a new consultant arrived to the unit having last practiced 12/13yrs ago! There's no way anyone can stay top of their game just by reading, and without hands on skills.

I'm curious why Dr Evans gave up his licence to practice. I would have thought that once obtained most people would be very careful to keep it!

MissyB1 · 15/10/2022 14:12

Lougle · 15/10/2022 08:04

Medicine does move quickly in terms of surgical techniques and drugs, etc., but physiology generally remains the same. The causes of death of these babies, as stated, are mechanical (diaphragm splinting, air embolus) or insulin overdose, etc. The mechanisms don't change.

Machines vary slightly in terms of the sound they make, which buttons you press, but the modes are all very similar (they may have a slightly different name for the same function), the parameters will be the same because they are based on normal physiology, and procedures will be pretty much the same. I last did neonates in 2006 but the processes described in these court proceedings are identical to when I was nursing neonates.

But hospital processes and conditions have also changed massively. Also Staffing numbers, the working conditions, the amount of work per member of staff. All of those things are potentially very relevant. He may well not have a clue about what happens on a Neonatal ward these days. Does that matter? Well potentially yes.

theDudesmummy · 15/10/2022 14:15

I suppose there a few things about that. Firstly, he is giving evidence about practice a number of years ago now, so not as remote from his last clinical work as if the events had happened now. Second, he may end up giving evidence only about things which don't actually change, like helping the court with definitions of terms, understanding clinical notes, explaining types of equipment used interpreting statistical data etc. It may be that there will be other experts in the same field to assist the court on actual clinical practice at the time. I am still surprised though that they have called someone who is not registered with the GMC and hasn't been for years. If true, that also means he is giving evidence as an expert without the restrictions/guidelines of a regulatory body, which is unusual.

EuripidesCousin · 15/10/2022 20:48

Agree it's curious that he would remove himself from the register on retiring from the NHS particularly as 2009 was the year Revalidation/ Licence to Practise requirements came into force

For a retiree expert witness that meant IIRC at least one clinical session/week in the speciality of expertise and all the usual membership of peer supervision group, CPD, yearly appraisal etc etc which wasn't always welcome

Elsewhere online he is described as being fully registered and holding a License to Practise tho' no GMC No is apparent

OneFrenchEgg · 15/10/2022 21:06

Elsewhere online he is described as being fully registered and holding a License to Practise tho' no GMC No is apparent

On the expert witness site? His CV suggests he's been a locus paeds consultant after giving up in 2009 - be interesting to see what he says as his history. Not sure how accurate that is.

TwinMum35 · 15/10/2022 21:18

Not sure why some people are taking it to mean he literally isn’t an expert? 🙃

His quoted comments come across as ordinary British modesty. Saying he “knows as much as anyone” on the subject and that he wouldn’t like to refer to himself as an expert is just a polite way of trying not to sound arrogant since people love to hate “experts”