Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind pt. 5

[Typicalwave]

New thread

Part 4 here - https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5400564-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind-thread-4?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Originally started by @kittybythelighthouse

I think you are clutching at straws here. Of course, any of us could ask if anything the hospital did or didn't do was really necessary. But we can't pretend they ran out of time to do a procedure they didn't attempt, and which they later conceded was necessary.

There was no need to wait for the child's condition to worsen, and nobody is suggesting the test should have happened after the child went into cardiorespiratory arrest. That was too late, and that's nowhere proposed. As the learning section implies, the trigger for testing should have been the persistence of the problem, not worsening - and it persisted all the day before the collapse.

Leaving the page from Dr Brearey and Eirian Powell's review here for reference. I really don't think there's any ambiguity here. The hospital noted that they should have repeated tests on baby C and hence - Evans to the contrary - there was time for them to do so.

The care review followed other reviews of the child's death, and the post mortem. In any case, there is nothing extraordinary about saying that there is time to test or transfer a child presenting with a problem at 9.30am well before they die at 11pm.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence/inq0001888-draft-paper-from-the-countess-of-chester-hospital-titled-position-paper-neonatal-unit-mortality-2013-2016/

It’s almost as if Evans only included/paid attention to bits of the evidence that fitted the narrative he wanted

Not sure why my post was hidden mumsnet but others allowed.

Anyway as an aside. Has anyone watched the Tale of Amanda Knox on Disney. If we think our justice system was bad. Italy was shocking.

Sometimes links to certain sites aren't allowed, did it contain a link?

I only watched a few episodes, but I'm very familiar with the case and followed it from very early on, agree completely, they do have guaranteed appeals though which is a plus, but it seems because of that that they just seem to find people guilty first and let them fight it through appeal.

That is true. Strange seeing the accusef being able to rebuff in court to when they want to.

You’re right, despite what others are saying.

What has been said between LL and BM remains privileged, and the privilege belongs to LL. If LL doesn’t want to tell MM something covered by her privilege, then MM can’t get that information from BM.

If I understand you correctly, that’s what you’re saying, and it’s correct.

This is what I thought too and Liz Hull was the correct. But others say not. So I am confused.

She doesn't need to waive full privilege, she can allow, and most likely definitely has allowed MM to speak to BM.with some kind of other limited waiver where the privilege is only waived between legal teams and can not be shared with anyone else. She does not need to waive full privilege unless the CRCC ask her to.

Yes, that's right. And she can also just talk to McDonald about Myers's strategy herself, as he would probably have explained it to her.

jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_waiver_of_privilege%3F

I don’t know whether Liz Hull was right because I don’t know what she said. But I do know that there is a limit to the information that her previous legal team can hand over to her new team. Anything covered by LPP, they need LL’s consent. So that may affect how much MM actually knows about why experts weren’t called, if the reasons why arose from things said between LL and her lawyers.

That is possible, but McDonald would surely not bother with the case if his client wouldn't share information with him. And she definitely doesn't need to waive legal privilege to do that.

I think this mystery has been pretty much solved. The defence experts couldn't explain the insulin cases at that time. Myers asked if they could go up case by case, so that he could, for example, put Hall up to answer questions on baby A but not baby F. After the judge refused, he didn't put Hall up at all.

Separately, he hoped he had discredited Evans thoroughly in cross examination. To some extent, he probably had. None of the cases relying principally on Evans's evidence got a unanimous guilty verdict. Myers's tactics weren't that puzzling and may have come quite close to succeeding.

No she’s not correct. LL does not have to waive privilege for all purposes - she can ask BM to share information with MM without affecting LPP.

Actually I’ve never found the fact that no defence expert evidence, apart from the plumber, was called, particularly mysterious or puzzling. I’m very conscious of there being many situations that place limits on what evidence it is wise or even possible to call, depending on what those witnesses are able to say and what the instructions from the client are. I’ve always seen it as a symptom, rather than a cause, of the weaknesses in the defence case.

Did BM have Dr Hall or anyone advising him on anything during the cross examination?

I am sure that I read he used Dr Hall's reports to help him in the cross examination, but I would have to try to remember where. It makes sense though - more likely by far than him turning himself into an expert in neonatology within a few months. He asked pretty sound technical questions, at great length.

Yes I agree, the reason I asked was because I had read an article with an expert witness who said he had worked on cases where he was never called but he did advise the barrister all through the proceedings so I was wondering if BM did have anyone at the time, he obviously was well prepared but I wonder if he didn't have a medical expert there beside him then would he have even picked up on certain things when they were said or not said.

Well I know Hall attended every day and was surprised not to be called, which was many weeks into the trial. So it sounds as if they would quite naturally have been working together.

I suppose that if Myers made the decision not to call Hall late in the trial, Myers may have previously thought he'd have more opportunity to go into depth later when he did call him.

The letter another judge wrote advising Goss that Evans was problematic came during the trial, for example. Perhaps without it, Myers would have called Hall, but he was likely hoping at least some of the jury would consider Evans unreliable.

I seem to also remember the the judge refused Meyers application to have the evidence ordered in a way that meant for each expert the prosecutor an defence followed each other sequentially - instead all the prosecution was heard first and then some time later all the defence?

Isng obe of yhd issues that even is a barrister uses an expert witnesses views none of it can be taken as evidence?

Well yes, an expert withess being willing to Hd hobest aboyg yhd limits of what csn and cannot be conpletely proved or disproved is going to seem weak to a lau just against an expert withess who is forthright, unequivocal and disinclined to be truthful about the limits of science.

I kind of stopped wondering about the defence strategy when I had the opportunity to read the transcripts of Evans testimony. I found it extremely difficult to believe that anyone listening found him in any way credible, and that has only been compounded by hearing him speak. It’s since become clear that relying on him rendering his own evidence unbelievable wasn’t enough as we still have frequent examples of people who genuinely seem to believe that prosecution allegations are the truth, and who lack the ability to listen carefully and critically analyse what they are hearing. So Myers gave the jury too much credit. I thought that whilst he clearly understood what was going on himself, he often failed to drive his point home. They needed it spelling out unfortunately and he was rather polite when he exposed the inconsistencies. Also Evans wouldn’t accept anything Myers said even when it was obvious, and he was often allowed by the judge to avoid answering the question and launch into some convoluted and irrelevant speech. I also read that when the jury asked for clarification on something they were given short shrift by the judge even though they are allowed to ask questions.

The more I hear about this trial the more it should like there needs to be an overhaul of the justice system.

It seems to me to be pretty irrelevant whether anyone thinks she's guilty or innocent; this trial should be looked at by an independent body to find out why it was so badly handled and put in place measures that prevent it happening again.

People who believe she is guilty should be just as angry about the behaviour of the judge, police and witnesses, because it is due to their inappropriate behaviour that the trial is under question.

And we should all be concerned if a trial isn't carried out correctly; because another time it could be you or someone you love in that situation.

What is the issue with J Beales's behaviour?

Yes. His flip flopping, his ridiculous belief that it was malfeasance from the outset, his determination to then find it via circular reasoning and exclusion of ‘all causes’ until he came to one’s that are impossible to prove or disprove, causes wgere there could be multiple plausible factors aside from ‘murder’ of causes that have never occurred - how anyone can take him seriously is beyond me.