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!

Yes that was one of them and as you say who are 'Expert Witness'?

And obviously to be a short term locum cons in community paediatrics he'd have to be on the medical register

I don’t know all the ins and outs of this case, and I’m sure there’s lot more evidence to look through during the court case. That said the evidence so far doesn’t appear 100% solid and seems very circumstantial.

A big part of me also doesn’t want to believe anyone is capable of these crimes.

Part of me can’t help but wonder though, what if LL really hasn’t committed these crimes? … How awful it would be to be accused of and if she is found to be innocent at the end of the case, how on earth would she be able to move on from this?

Expert witness' duties are to the court, not to the instructing party.

You do realise he was a practitioner for 30 years+ and retired?

Like I said earlier, he was still in practice when LL was trsining and would have known and used the same equipment and processes.

The alleged crimes took place 6-7 years ago, don't forget.

@Chloefairydust "........A big part of me also doesn't want to believe anyone is capable of these crimes........"

Me too.
Why? Why? Oh why could/would anyone do such a dreadful thing ?

This.

And people seem to be overlooking the fact that this is a six month trial.

Many, many experts and witnesses will be called up.

His words are only one small piece of the jigsaw the jury will make decisions from.

There is no legal definition of "expert", an expert is literally anyone who says they are an expert and can convince a solicitor to instruct them as one (for example, with clinical experts, there is no specific minimum training or qualification needed, although obviously you cannot call yourself by a protected term like doctor or dentist if you are not one). But once you accept instruction to be an expert in a case you automatically (legally) have very specific duties and responsibilities. The most fundamental is your duty to the court rather than your instructing party/parties. I think that lots of people do not understand his aspect of our adversarial system.

I agree that there are probably going to be gazillions of experts in this case. This one doctor will have been called to say something (or some things) very specific. What this is is not going to be evident now, but it will be, many months from now, when the prosecution KC quotes it while summing up their case.

Carl Sagan’s adage states that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

The claims against LL are utterly extraordinary. If convicted, she will be the UK’s most prolific serial killer of children, overtaking that of Hindley and Brady.

Extraordinary, watertight evidence will surely need to be provided by the prosecution to achieve a conviction.

@lizziesiddal79 I agree that extraordinary evidence should be needed, but given the emotive nature of the case and what appears to be lots of circumstantial evidence (I cannot see that the prosecution has a single piece of incontrovertible, beyond reasonable doubt, factual evidence, unless they are for some reason keeping it for later), I would not be surprised to see a conviction by the jury but a successful appeal later...just my feeling so far. There is a long long way to go.

@theDudesmummy they don't need one big blow the case out of the water piece of evidence though. It's not a tv drama.

It's more like a jigsaw, showing how all the pieces fit together to make the picture of what you are alleging happened. It takes meticulous building and the tying together of strands. For both sides. The jury decide if the prosecutions whole jigsaw picture is sufficient.

I agree with @theDudesmummy I’ve not seen any un-ambiguous, incontrovertible proof thus far. Unfortunately some murder cases don’t provide any.

A jigsaw comprised of many circumstantial pieces is still a circumstantial jigsaw.

@RoachTheHorse I know that, that is exactly why I say that I have a feeling they could get a conviction, at least at first instance, in this case.

They are days into a 6 month trial. Of course you haven't seen the evidence yet.

Posters are simply commenting on the evidence thus far.

I always thought an expert witness was simply someone who was giving evidence in their professional capacity, and was thus being paid to do so. As opposed to a lay witness, who is an ordinary person who happened to see/know something. It doesn’t specifically relate to their knowledge on the subject. Is that not right?

@Upwardtrajectory no, a professional witness is a completely different thing from an expert witness.

There had been lots of other signs (going back to her childhood) that there was something wrong with Allitt. Very large red flags throughout her training in fact.

I think it's unwise to comment on her, as it could easily lead to speculation about Letby's guilt or innocence whilst the trial is still ongoing. This is a huge investment - in timescale as well as financially and emotionally - for a great many people, and it would be unforgivable if something happened to prejudice a fair trial.

All I will say is this: Letby has a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Allitt was convicted. And yes, then, just as now, I found it impossible to contemplate how someone could do such a terrible thing.

You know about Allit's childhood with the benefit of what we know now.

What? The NHS are scapegoating her? Behave.

All trials are prejudiced now. We're told too much but in fairness, the media have kept this quiet.

There are probably virtuallly no trials that have that. Even a confession isn’t always incontrovertible proof beyond reasonable doubt.

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!

just as well giving evidence in court is in no way comparable to that then.

Why muddy up waters on here?

Professional witnesses are witnesses of fact like many other witnesses of fact and are distinct from expert witnesses, it's a dichotomy.

Dewi Evans to my knowledge is not a witness of fact as he was not directly imvolved in the care of the victims or events relevant to this trial.

Here is more about medical witnesses - professional (ie witnesses of fact) or expert witnesses.

I've to say if somebody wanted to do something nefarious, wouldn't it be pretty stupid to be so obviously in the proximity? Then the milk with child G. That simply would be a dumb move. So obviously out of the norm.

It would be like sticking a huge 'look at me' sticker on your forehead. So it makes me more inclined to be skeptical.

That's assuming a person was thinking rationally/was not in an impaired state of mental health