Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

New thread for those following or wishing to comment - originally started by @kittybythelighthouse.

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts/prosecution-letby-babies-f-l.pdf

Trial transcript - first few pages

podcast interview with Ranj Persaud - Sept 5th 2023.

DE: And then, a little later in 2018, I reviewed two more cases, and these were the insulin poisoning cases, and these had not been suspected by anyone before this. And it’s only thanks to Cheshire Police’s methodical way of looking at cases that both insulin poisonings were the second of a pair of twins. And they asked me, Look, just look at the notes. We’ve not had any concerns about this, but let’s look at the notes just to cover all the options. And I discovered that the insulin level in both babies was higher than anything I’ve heard of or read about. So, clearly, this was a baby who’d received insulin and should not have. And this was in the sixth case, Baby F in our trial. And this gave us a smoking gun. We could now show that there was something going on here that one had suspected before, because, of course, if you inject air into the blood circulation, you can’t see it, you can't test for it. It’s very difficult to prove. But one could now prove that there was a poisoner on the ward, as the prosecution put it.

DE: Right. Clearly I can’t answer that. We do use insulin in babies, because babies sometimes run a glucose value that’s too high and therefore may require a bit of insulin to get the metabolic state stable. And insulin is available, it’s in the fridge. One can draw up a little bit of insulin quite easily, inject it into an intravenous bag of 500 mL of fluid. Why you do it, I have no idea. But what I think is important is that there was more than one way where these babies were harmed.

Does this say he suggested it? No, he may he may have not. But he was coearly fully on board with the idea that bags could be contaminated bia injection and be undetectable.

The defence was reliant on legal aid once LL’s house sale money ran out. While equality of arms is a thing, in practice the prosecution has the machinery of the state: police, forensic labs, disclosure officers, CPS lawyers, etc at its disposal.

Was Letby ever self-funding her defence? Do you have a source for this? That would be highly unusual in a case like this. And yes equality of arms is a thing, and it’s a thing which is taken seriously even if you choose to dismiss it ‘in practice’.

The prosecution has far more time to build their case (given that the investigation starts well before the defendant has reason to instruct a defence). The defence can absolutely end up overwhelmed and under-resourced compared to the prosecution.

Well obviously the prosecution has to build their case before charging - I’m not sure how this is unfair?!

The defence only gets disclosure once proceedings are underway, often after the Crown has had years to build the case. Letby, once arrested, naively engaged the local solicitor who managed her house sale. They almost certainly were way out of their depth in a historically massive criminal trial like this one. While Myers is a very good KC, a barrister is dependant on their team for research and fact finding.

Myers (or at the very least his junior) would have been instructed very early on so will have had ample opportunity to advise on building the defence case. And I believe this is her solicitor, so whilst the same firm may have done her conveyancing, she was represented by a specialist criminal solicitor - https://russellrussell.co.uk/a-bit-about-us/our-people/richard-thomas.

Why do you think they will have been out of their depth? Criminal defence solicitors are generally “high street” and very used to dealing with whatever comes in. It’s quite usual for people arrested for the first time for very serious offences to stick with either a local firm that they happen to know, or whoever happens to be duty solicitor when they are arrested. A lot of it is about how comfortable you feel with your solicitor and being able to establish a trusted relationship. Certainly that’s my experience anyway. It’s instructing the right counsel that’s particularly key, and either the solicitors will know the local chambers well and who to instruct from there for different sorts of cases/defendants or in big cases like this they might take advice from a trusted local (senior) junior counsel or other peers on which of the ‘big dog’ London KCs to instruct.

The prosecution had a larger team and much more time. As we’ve seen on several occasions (like with Jayaram’s overlooked email) the defence were likely simply overwhelmed with massive amounts of material to comb through, most of it likely barely relevant. They were outgunned in every way.

Do you know for sure that the CPS had a bigger team working on this? How many people did they have and how many did the defence have?

LL had to sell her house.

“And yes equality of arms is a thing, and it’s a thing which is taken seriously even if you choose to dismiss it ‘in practice’.”

I’m not “dismissing it” I’m pointing out that in practice equality of arms is not often (if ever) total equality in real terms, because it isn’t. This is factual and widely known. Feel free to research it.

“Myers (or at the very least his junior) would have been instructed very early on so will have had ample opportunity to advise on building the defence case.”

How long were the prosecution building a case? Here’s a hint: when did the police investigation start?

Myers was not instructed until years afterward.

“And I believe this is her solicitor, so whilst the same firm may have done her conveyancing, she was represented by a specialist criminal solicitor”

She called her conveyancing solicitor at first and this is where her initial advice came from. A criminal solicitor (who came on later) who may never have handled a murder case let alone one of such historic proportions. Most criminal trials deal with petty theft, assault, etc etc. Not once in a century massive murder cases.

“Do you know for sure that the CPS had a bigger team working on this? How many people did they have and how many did the defence have?”

Yes, they had a bigger team. Again, feel free to research it.

https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/ll-part-18-what-happened-to-baby

This is quite detailed about Baby F.

If the information is correct, and it seems to have been reproduced from the trial, it's quite enlightening.

If the insulin was supposed to be the "smoking gun" it appears to be firing blanks.

I’m assuming she had to sell her house as she had no income and couldn’t pay the mortgage. I’m almost certain it wasn’t to self-fund her defence though (which would have been completely unnecessary) - do you have a source for that? Am happy to stand corrected if so.

I don’t need to research equality of arms and how it is applied thanks, I have working knowledge of it.

It would be an extremely rare criminal defence solicitor who is working at partner level and has been qualified for nearly twenty years who has never handled a murder case. Perhaps someone who only specialises in fraud cases or something? I agree that cases like Letby’s are not the norm but I’m sorry to say that more murders are committed in the general population than you seem to realise. When I worked for a similarly sized criminal defence firm in a not particularly Gotham-like city, I can’t remember any time when there wasn’t at least one murder case running (along with plenty of rapes, CSA, multi-million pound drug rings and other very serious crimes). At one point we notably had four murders running at the same time, which I admit was a lot. While I was there we also had a couple of very high media profile and unusual cases (eg a child who had murdered another child). A bit like the cab rank rule for barristers, you deal with whoever turns up at the police station.

And are you sure that her conveyancing solicitor gave her substantive advice on criminal proceedings? How do you know this? Again, it sounds incredibly unlikely particularly when their firm had an actual criminal department. Are you sure they didn’t just refer her to them when she called? Or just say something like sit tight I’ll get someone to you and don’t say anything until they get there?

Finally I’m not sure that the information about the relative size of the defence and prosecution teams is publicly available but you seem to know, so why don’t you tell me?

I'm most of the way through a video on YouTube on a channel called Lucy Letby analysis.

It's an interview with Michele Worden and it's very interesting indeed.

One thing that has been mentioned is practice restrictions on Hindmarsh.

Among other interesting things about the calibre of the prosecution experts, and a particular nursing witness registered in Wales.

Very interesting. Very interesting indeed.

Clearly none of us here have access to her accounts. However, as someone who keeps saying they have “working knowledge” of how the legal system works I’d expect you to know that if an individual in receipt of legal aid has assets above a threshold (sometimes as low as £16,000), they can be required to contribute toward the costs. Given the total bill here was over £1m it is very likely that she was required to contribute her assets to the costs.

Either way it doesn’t really make a difference to the overall point, which is that equality of arms is often, in practice, not that equitable at all. I’m far from the first person to raise this issue, though it seems to be a surprise to you. The state being able to wield outsize power against a defendant is troubling to many as a matter of principle well outside of this case. I’m not interested in having a back and forth with you about whether or not equality of arms is an actual reality in practice. A lot of scholars, lawyers, and judges have also argued that EoA in British courts is often in practice theory, rather than reality. If this idea feels like news to you and you’d like to know more, I can direct you their writings on the topic. Perhaps you don’t agree with them, or me, but you might feel differently about that should you ever find yourself in the dock.

“It would be an extremely rare criminal defence solicitor who is working at partner level and has been qualified for nearly twenty years who has never handled a murder case.”

First of all, there is murder and then there’s this. Secondly, are you sure about that? If they aren’t living in Santa Carla, murder capital of the world, it’s totally possible. And Chester isn’t Santa Carla, murder capital of the world.

If we take the national average as a starting point (1 homicide every 1-2 years in a town that size), the ballpark over 20 years would be around 10–15 homicides total in Chester across a 20 year period. So not that bad at all really.

“Finally I’m not sure that the information about the relative size of the defence and prosecution teams is publicly available but you seem to know, so why don’t you tell me?”

Ffs. You’re just being wearisome now. I’m not interested in combing back through my notes to prove a minor point about resource imbalance to you when you can’t even ask nicely. For a start we know that NJ had two junior barristers. Myers had one. The CPS had the full support of police investigators, disclosure officers, and administrative staff, including all of the in-kind benefits accessible to such a body. Letby’s solicitors were from a small private practice relying on legal aid. Unless you’re being less than truthful about your working knowledge of these things none of this should be particularly controversial.

All of this attitude. Christ almighty.

https://inews.co.uk/news/media/bbc-holds-urgent-review-after-lucy-letby-documentary-errors-3882532?srsltid=AfmBOoqT6OUp54saB1qvOoc9kOdForxsuAcIJT2xHnoDe_9DnqZaHEuH

Good article.

And yes equality of arms is a thing, and it’s a thing which is taken seriously even if you choose to dismiss it ‘in practice’.

What exactly do you mean by this @rubbishatballet, in the context of the point you were responding to? It's rather vague. Were you just talking about the fact that legal aid exists, or is there something more specific?

Clearly none of us here have access to her accounts. However, as someone who keeps saying they have “working knowledge” of how the legal system works I’d expect you to know that if an individual in receipt of legal aid has assets above a threshold (sometimes as low as £16,000), they can be required to contribute toward the costs. Given the total bill here was over £1m it is very likely that she was required to contribute her assets to the costs.

I would still be surprised if she’s had to contribute to costs in a case like this.

“It would be an extremely rare criminal defence solicitor who is working at partner level and has been qualified for nearly twenty years who has never handled a murder case.”

First of all, there is murder and then there’s this. Secondly, are you sure about that? If they aren’t living in Santa Carla, murder capital of the world, it’s totally possible. And Chester isn’t Santa Carla, murder capital of the world.

If we take the national average as a starting point (1 homicide every 1-2 years in a town that size), the ballpark over 20 years would be around 10–15 homicides total in Chester across a 20 year period.

So not that bad at all really.

From LL’s solicitors’ website - “If you’ve been arrested or you’re facing prosecution, you need the help of an experienced criminal defence solicitor who can give you specialist legal advice. We represent clients in Blackpool, Bolton, Bury, Chester, Liverpool, central Manchester, Preston, Rochdale, Warrington and Wigan, as well as clients based in other areas of the country.”

So even if we nominally allocate only Liverpool, Warrington and Wigan to the Chester office and all the others to the Manchester office (although not even sure how it would work for duty rotas where they may well all provide cross-cover for all areas), then I think that puts a slightly different spin on your data.

“Finally I’m not sure that the information about the relative size of the defence and prosecution teams is publicly available but you seem to know, so why don’t you tell me?”

Ffs. You’re just being wearisome now. I’m not interested in combing back through my notes to prove a minor point about resource imbalance to you when you can’t even ask nicely. For a start we know that NJ had two junior barristers. Myers had one. The CPS had the full support of police investigators, disclosure officers, and administrative staff, including all of the in-kind benefits accessible to such a body. Letby’s solicitors were from a small private practice relying on legal aid. Unless you’re being less than truthful about your working knowledge of these things none of this should be particularly controversial.
All of this attitude. Christ almighty.

Firstly, I’m pretty content that I’m not the one displaying attitude here.

Secondly, your post is showing naivety about the constraints that public sector organisations have been working under since 2010. It sounds like you believe that the full resources of the CPS were poised and available at the drop of a hat to provide input whenever needed, and that really won’t have been the case. Access to police investigators and disclosure officers wasn’t needed by the defence anyway so why even mention them? And no idea what you mean by the in-kind benefits accessible to such a body - can you elucidate?

There will have been a core team working on this case and I would have been interested to know how this compared to the size of the team working on the defence. But honestly, really don’t worry about it.

Means test for LA in the crown court https://www.efbw.co.uk/site/services/funding-and-legal-aid/#:~:text=Full%20means%20test,-If%20the%20outcome&text=If%20your%20annual%20disposable%20income,eligible%20for%20Crown%20Court%20cases.

You guys are mad about what I'm calling the convicted baby killer? Seriously? I need to screenshot this madness for posterity.

We're not mad, however the flinging of pejorative insults undermines any serious argument you make, and is distasteful.

To which you'll probably bluster that what Lucy has done is much worse than distasteful etc etc, so I've saved you the bother. You're welcome.

It was because they'd established the insulin was infused more slowly than via injection-the nutrient bags were basically the only possibility. I just listened to that part in the "Unmasking Lucy Letby" book on audible but I can't remember who proposed the theory. I don't think it was Evans but I could be wrong, I'll see if I can find it again.

Distasteful after what's been said about consultants, experts, journalists, yeah all right then 🙄how do you expect me to react about the possibility of a baby being physically harmed in such a violent way? Which is what I made that comment about. Like sorry I let my emotions run away with me! What a terrible person I must be...

Just one expert saying I can't see any evidence of harm here could have made all the difference.

How do you guarantee that if she actually DID kill and harm babies?

Dr Hall said there were aspects of the prosecution case he disagreed with (such as the health of the babies) not necessarily all of them! You get him on the stand and he can't agree something wasn't deliberate harm and it's game over. It only looks like she had a bad defence because NOTHING could've helped her. She got the best damn defence she could've got with what they had to work with.

“I would still be surprised if she’s had to contribute to costs in a case like this.”

On what basis? I’d be surprised if she weren’t expected to contribute on a case like this.

“even if we nominally allocate only Liverpool, Warrington and Wigan to the Chester office and all the others to the Manchester office (although not even sure how it would work for duty rotas where they may well all provide cross-cover for all areas), then I think that puts a slightly different spin on your data.”

As it happens not by much, no. If the field is widened then so is the pool of solicitors. I’ll let you work out the rest. Do you think many people accused of having committed murders in Manchester are asking for a solicitor in Chester btw?

“Firstly, I’m pretty content that I’m not the one displaying attitude here.”

Lol.

“It sounds like you believe that the full resources of the CPS were poised and available at the drop of a hat to provide input whenever needed and that really won’t have been the case.”

Are you suggesting that the CPS didn’t treat this case, this historic, massive, set of charges as an overwhelming priority? Do you think they could afford to lose this case? One of us is certainly showing naivety.

“Access to police investigators and disclosure officers wasn’t needed by the defence anyway so why even mention them? And no idea what you mean by the in-kind benefits accessible to such a body - can you elucidate?”

Sigh. It seems like you really do want to be pointed towards the multitude of writings on this subject by scholars, journalists, politicians, and judges after all.

“There will have been a core team working on this case and I would have been interested to know how this compared to the size of the team working on the defence. But honestly, really don’t worry about it.”

I won’t be worrying about it at all. Again, you are free to research to your heart’s content. I’m not interested in being given busy work on a side issue which isn’t in contention by anyone serious anyway. You’ll do fine by yourself. Enjoy!

It’s really interesting to me that you still do not see how (or apparently even where) you have also been strong in your words, if not more so. Here’s a clue: I wasn’t talking about the expert panel.

@Kittybythelighthouse I was going to ask you to spell it out as I literally had no idea who you were talking about as I can't recall having strong words about anyone involved in the case except the serial killer. Thanks to a PP I was able to decipher you were in fact talking about the serial killer 🙄she's the ONLY person anyone on here is concerned about. This thread gets crazier by the day.

They needed an alternative to direct injection because:

A: There were no puncture wounds from injection.
B: Letby wasn’t actually there.

Just to be clear, I haven’t said anything negative about anyone who was A: doing their job properly and B: not behaving in a morally outrageous way that actively harms society whilst also not doing their job properly.

Anyone else has opened themselves up to commensurate reproach from the public (including me) and they have no right to expect otherwise. They have got off very lightly thus far. I am not the first to criticise them though, nor will I be the last, and that is frankly the very least of their problems.

Firefly1987

She got the best damn defence she could've got with what they had to work with.

So it would change if her defence somehow came up with other experts and evidence?

Which is what is happening.

“It only looks like she had a bad defence because NOTHING could've helped her.”

It sounds like you’re trotting out an old argument from last year. This one no longer works given we now know that, to the extreme contrary, eminent experts who hold senior positions in the world’s best research and teaching hospitals have looked at everything the prosecution looked at (and indeed Dr Hall) and concluded that there were no murders at all. So now what?

Just to be clear, I haven’t said anything negative about anyone who was A: doing their job properly and B: not behaving in a morally outrageous way that actively harms society whilst also not doing their job properly.

Are you sure that's still the case if Lucy is in fact guilty?

You see, if I was the investigating officer, and this idea was put to me, I would have wanted to examine a TPN bags, and tested out whether it could be tampered with without detection. I would also want to see a representation if how much insulin would be needed to produce the results postulated, not just figures on paper.

I would want to see where the TPN bags were kept, where the insulin was kept, and accurate records of insulin quantities on the ward at the time. I might also want to observe a comparable shift in real time with a similar number of babies / staff present, and be walked through exactly how the shift in question went down in accordance with all notes and records kept.

That's what I would expect. Did this happen do we know? I mean, as it was a long time after the event, it couldn't be treated exactly like a fresh crime scene forensically, but it might have been helpful in some way to establish plausibility.