Another group of experts has now produced a paper calling for urgent review of the case.
Signatories include John Ashton CBE, who was awarded the Crown Prince medal for medical excellence
Mike Bewick - the principal investigator into mortality concerns at Leeds Teaching Hospital’s paediatric cardiac surgery unit.
David Colin-Thome OBE, the national Clinical Director of Primary Care from the Department of Health until 2010
Cambridge statistician Philip Dawid, the defence witness at Sally Clark’s appeal.
And 14 others.
Link:
https://postimg.cc/gallery/tW4bnzZ/
The below is copied from their conclusion page.
Conclusions concerning the Letby trials:
- The first and principal conclusion is that the legal process of all the Letby counts was profoundly flawed, leading to unsafe verdicts, and that this raises serious concerns about the scientific, statistical, and judicial procedures involved.
The Police and CPS investigative process was predicated on unsuitable expert advice, junk science and fake statistics.
- The international panel of 14 experts, plus two insulin experts, each member acting pro-bono responding to a British murder case, is unprecedented in terms of scale and professional expertise. The panel has found no evidence of malfeasance; infant deaths or harm were universally from natural causes or bad medical care. This information could readily have been acquired during the police investigation and subsequent CPS evaluation.
- Police investigative process in the Letby case failed to test adequately the fundamental assumption of malfeasance and should be held to account. Other compelling root causes of infant mortality were not given due weight. What remains benchmarks alarmingly-closely to a medieval witch-hunt.
- The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would appear to carry the principal responsibility for launching the Letby trials without due scientific or statistical foundation. It did not establish or apply due statistical criteria in the Letby case. No identifiable mechanisms were applied to remove confirmation bias. As a detail, on what basis the decision was made to direct the Cheshire Constabulary to terminate contracted expert statistical advice needs to be established.
- The standards criteria for expert witnesses are sound. The Letby case reveals weaknesses in the ability of the legal system to apply these standards and to deal with complex medical, scientific and statistical evidence in criminal cases
The Legal and Judicial systems of England and Wales have been demonstrated to be unequal to complex medical science
- The Letby case is founded on scientific abuse and misapplication in an exceedingly complex and rapidly-developing field of medicine. It involves contributions from a wide range of scientific, medical and bioengineering specialisms. The whole process from investigation through to rejection of the right to appeal, failed to engage robust, reproduceable science. The effort required by numerous world-leading experts in unpicking the evidential fallacies of the Letby case demonstrates that this could never have been achieved by a lay jury faced with 'junk science'" and fake statistics.
- Given that the judge may be seen to have conducted the trial in line with current guidance, the case for a review of how trials based upon such complex medical, scientific and bioengineering issues are founded and conducted would appear compelling. The judicial system should test critically whether opportunities were missed by the judge to identify evidential failings either ahead of or during the trial. A number of issues on admissibility of evidence would appear to have steered court proceedings away from examining the shortcomings of CoCH.
- The learned deliberations by the three CACD judges in the judgement that refused permission to appeal the verdicts of the main trial do not stand up well in terms of scientific, statistical and medical standards. Independent guidance for the Appellate Court on scientific and medical principles could have avoided serious embarrassment.
- Is it safe that a majority of highly-intelligent lawyers, judges and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), be ill-equipped to be 'Intelligent Customers' of medical and scientific matter of any complexity? That legal proceedings, not least criminal trials, should go awry on account of this deficiency is surely unacceptable.
The way ahead
10. The Letby case demonstrates the fragility of the UK justice system in handling cases of scientific complexity, but in doing so it offers a rare opportunity for reform.
11. Letby's case's merits 'exceptional circumstances' treatment by the CCRC. It should be referred to the CACD, and urgently.
12. The Court of Appeal (CACD), in deliberating freshly upon the case, should look beyond current constrained definitions of
'new evidence' and exercise its intellect constructively in a complex medical, scientific and mathematical environment.
13. In addressing complex medical, scientific and mathematical cases, the Justice Department needs to have ready access to high-grade professional advice across the spectrum of professional issues; and it must know when to engage it. This 'due diligence', appropriately referenced, will be much less costly than a trial such as Letby's and the ongoing derivative proceedings.
14. There is a need to rebalance the effort and costs between (1) scientific rigour in preparation and (2) the need for 'finality' of judgement and the currently exceedingly-rigorous criteria to qualify for appeal.
15. injustice is proven, release of Letby cannot be delayed; nor can final closure for the parents of the children subject of this case, they have already suffered excessively. A seven-year delay, of the order endured in the similar cases of Lucy de Berk and Daniella Poggiali (Enclosure 7), would not be acceptable
In sum, 'The case has not only revealed horrors in the way hospitals care for babies. It has exposed deep flaws in the criminal-justice system, and risks further undermining faith in the law'.