Lucy Letby in the news

[Viviennemary]

I've just been watching the BBC news and apparently some experts have been questioning the validity of Lucy Letbys conviction. I must say when I read the details of the trial she did sound 100% guilty. But it would be a tragedy if she is innocent Personally I don't think she is but who knows. Somebody on the news said the only person who knows is Lucy Letby.

that these new supportive experts are better placed to know what’s what than the prosecution experts at her trial.

Well, that's the crux of the issue, the prosecution's EW is being called into doubt.

No EW is infallible.

Small local solicitor with no history of largescale case with complex medical evidence.

Or will you complain that the jury just didn’t understand the evidence

Not just in relation to LL, but more generally, I think that with evidence becoming more complex especially in cases such as fraud and medical situations, the jury system of 12 of your peers needs to be looked at. Average reading age is 9-11, is it realistic to expect the average member of the public to be able to understand the evidence.

I have a degree, I wouldn't fancy it.

In Australia, Chris Dawson who was being tried for the murder of his wife Lynne (The Teacher's Pet podcast) chose to have a judge only trial citing the high interest in the case meant he would not get a fair jury trial.

I wonder why the UK can't have a similar system, either by choice (permission would still need to be granted) or due to the complexity.

Yes. I think Chris Dawson definitely did actually do it - but my absolute conviction of that is exactly why I, and many members of the public, would be unsuitable for a jury in his case!

The LL trial had all that public attention to contend with AND a really complex set of evidence. I do think ideally there would be an alternative system for such cases. IMO a judge alone would not be enough - a panel of neutral experts in the relevant scientific fields should also be part of reaching a verdict.

But this would be impossible for lots of reasons.

It’s unlikely that the whole legal system wrt to how evidence is presented and verdicts reached in trials will be updated before LL’s (highly unlikely imo) retrial, my question is - if the system is so perceived as so unreliable and unfair, is it not likely that the verdict would remain unchanged? And if she was by some miracle found not guilty by a jury this time, then wouldn’t all the same arguments still apply re the jury not understanding the medical evidence properly, only this time it would be the victims’ families and their supporters demanding justice ?

But the point is that many experts believe there were issues with how the evidence was presented at that specific trial. The entire purpose of a new trial would be to avoid the inaccuracies and misleading representations that may have influenced the first trials, and to provide a robust scientific counterpoint to prosecution arguments where one exists.

If the evidence were presented more appropriately in the new trial these experts would not take issue with it in the same way, whether the verdict was guilty or not guilty. Remember, they are not saying that they believe LL is innocent. They are each just saying that they have concerns about how the evidence in their respective areas of expertise was presented at trial.

If there were to be a not guilty verdict yes, that would be deeply upsetting for the families. But in most genuine miscarriages of justice there are victims who deeply believe in the guilt of the accused. That’s not a reason to keep someone in prison if there isn’t evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

We don’t yet know if the LL case is a miscarriage of justice, precisely because it seems the first trials had significant failings.

I don't know exactly how it works but I would imagine that if it did ever get to a retrial that a lot of the medical 'evidence' such as the air embolism theory wouldn't be allowed, or the prosecution would choose not to run with it because they knew the defence were going to tear it apart the next time.

And even if they did allow it, Dewi Evans is 75 I think, he might not even be around if she ever has a retrial. I know Evans said there was another doctor who agreed with the air embolism theory but he died before the trial I believe. Dr Sandie Bohin agreed with the theory but I'm not sure what age she'll be if there is ever a retrial, will she be a standalone expert or will they find another one willing to put their name to the 'air embolism' theory? even though if it gets to a retrial stage that will surely mean that there has been strong rebuttals put forward about it to the CRCC from other experts.

Interestingly I was talking to a senior neonatal nurse the other day and asked her what she thought and what the consensus of her unit was about Letby. She said she has reservations about the verdict, she’s listened to the podcast, read what she can and isn’t convinced that the babies were murdered or if they were that it was Letby. She says the majority of the staff where she works are of the same opinion and there have been conversations along the lines of “this could have been any of us”.

and like me she was very disparaging of the air embolism theory, doesn’t think it’s feasible.

There is so much misunderstanding on this thread regarding the role of expert witnesses. I have been a medical expert witness for over 30 years and we don't 'take sides' or 'support the defence or the prosecution' as has been suggested. Legal teams don't go fishing around for us with the aim of finding people that are 'brave enough' to support their cause.
We have a duty to the court to provide an unbiased opinion that must be underpinned by contemporary evidence. It is up to the legal teams to then decide whether our opinion supports their case (or not) and hence whether to use our evidence in court.
These so called 'experts' that are now challenging the outcome need to ask themselves why their opinions were not sought prior to the trial....

She isn't innocent. If you see the video of her with her drunk friends you can see her shove sideways into her really inebriated friend who then smacks into a wall. If you watch carefully you can see it. She hurts people who are in a vulnerable state. She's absolutely vile.

Where can we watch this video? Do you have a link?

this one? Really? I just see drunk people stumbling round hanging on to each other. She let go of her friend and she stumbles abit. I’m not even convinced it’s her most of the footage is the back of her head. Really if that’s your proof then you are really grasping at straws here.

Ok, I’ve watched it. You are mad.

Dewi Evans very much "took sides", he decided within 10 mins there had been foul play and went out to prove it.

As I quoted him earlier his opinion is "babies don't just die" and he built his opinion on that.

We don't know why the defence didn't call their own expert witnesses.

You’re describing how it’s meant to work. If only.

Not to mention they clearly have a side as they are testifying for one or the other. And paid for by one or the other.

I personally don't know many expert witnesses that would be prepared to lie (to fit a narrative) and subsequently jeopardise their professional standing and reputation for a few grand....It's just not worth it.

I don’t doubt it, and I also don’t think many would be prepared to go out on a limb, beyond their area of genuine expertise, as Dewi Evans appears to have done.

When you read the list of expert witnesses for the prosecution it’s clear Dewi Evans wasn’t the only one. I would think the expert nurses and doctors who worked closely with LL for years were better placed to offer their views on what was going on in that hospital, how unusual the patterns of deaths were, how strange LL’s behaviour was wrt to some of the deaths and other near death incidents. There is a long list of these expert witnesses giving evidence at the Thirwell enquiry next week. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say.

Dewi Evans heard about the case and then emailed the national crime agency offering his services, within 10 minutes of arriving at the police station while casually looking through the notes having a coffee he said he realised that one baby had been intentionally harmed.

Yet he goes around calling everyone else who disagrees with him 'arrogant' 🙄

Yet he goes around calling everyone else who disagrees with him 'arrogant

In the Tortoise podcast he also talks about people being surprised that anyone outside the M25 has a brain cell (or words to that effect). It was quite a weird thing to say.

Dewi Evans helped the police built the case, he decided which babies were intentionally harmed using some as yet to be disclosed criteria and then he was the ‘expert’ witness for the prosecution. I can not understand how anyone can say he’s not biased. Not to mention, he now admitted he was wrong about the evidence he gave where the babies allegedly had gas injected into their tummy. Ive seen a NG tube I always had doubts about how long it would take to get a volume of air through that tube to cause an issue.

It's the lawyers who decide which cases will be the subject of criminal charges, not the expert witness.

Nope not in this case. Dewi Evans reviewed all the medical records for all the babies that had died or suffered collapses and he decided if they were suspicious or not.

previously all the babies who died had autopsies by qualified pathologists who ruled natural causes. Dewi was the one who decided if there was foul play. Him and him alone. Then these deaths were investigated as potential murders/attempted murder.