“I would expect my defence barrister to do something about it whenever the prosecutor in an adversarial system said something they're allowed to say but that I didn't like.”
You’d think. But it’s not like the US here. British JS etiquette is entirely different. The BJS fancies itself to be more civilised, but imo the stuffy etiquette is just dreadfully naive in a complex and emotive case like this one. Most British judges (and I get the impression that Goss was one of them) absolutely hate interjections. The expectation (which is entirely unrealistic particularly now when most people are more familiar with the American style frequent “objection!”) is that the jury can be trusted to judge what’s being said and that they are in any case directed not to treat barristers assertions as evidence. Barristers have to stay on the right side of the judge or they won’t get far. Interjections are therefore rare here. Most barristers wait until it’s their ‘turn’, which here turned out to be many months later after 22 cases had been presented.
“The only way someone could say something factually incorrect in a courtroom is if they're lying.”
Not exactly. Yes, they couldn’t tell a barefaced lie about something that is a definite fact - for example the time of death or who was on shift. But they can and absolutely will spin a story out of all the unknowns that gather between all the facts. For example, if nobody knows who was in nursery 1 at precisely 10.52 on a particular date in the NICU the prosecution can allege that this is when Letby struck, but they’re just making that up. It could be when she struck (if she’s guilty) but it could be when she was chatting about Corrie to a colleague in another room etc (if she’s innocent). The prosecution will attempt to present the narrative that fits their story, the defence will attempt to do the opposite. There is no fact being twisted or denied, because nobody knows for a fact what happened in between two moments that are factually recorded - say clocking in at 7 and then medical records show a procedure was done at 11pm etc.
It is these grey in-between-the-facts areas that are always in contention in this case. For example, a PP thinks that because NJ said Letby always attacked babies “shortly after” their parents left, that it is therefore a fact that she always attacked babies shortly after their parents left. The ‘proof’ offered for this was literally a quote from NJ’s cross examination.
That example is by no means a fact and he’s given himself a lot of leeway with the word “shortly” but it is a colourful and shocking allegation to make, which has a narrative impact that we can see actually did work on the PP here, and probably many others. It’s not a fact by any means, let alone an agreed fact, but it’s not a lie either. It’s just an assertion.