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

But you're reading it or hearing it to mean that Letby hasn't let him speak to her defence team, which isn't what he's saying.

I mean he could technically be saying that but the odds of that are absolutely tiny, I can't see any barrister taking on such a high profile case without being allowed to speak to the previous defence team, that just risks huge embarrassment later on. He's using very clever words by making out he's puzzled, there are some who understand what he's saying, but unfortunately there are some who take that to mean that Letby didn't let him speak to her previous defence, but then on the other side of that there's the group who are puzzled themselves who will find McDonalds words about being puzzled to strengthen their own opinion about how something wasn't right with this trial, so it was very clever wording.

For me the assumption comes from the fact that you recommended the podcast when someone asked for what to watch/read etc from someone intelligent (or something like that) who was able to counter all the new arguments coming out......and the fact you have referenced tattle many times and made out how so well informed they are compared to us lot.

Yeah the ones where they go through the evidence for each baby during the actual trial, I've not listened to many since then (didn't know they'd done others until recently) I just listened to the new Dr Hall one because I did see people talking about that.

Mark McDonald has definitely said (I’m not sure how recently) that he doesn’t know why her previous team didn’t call any of the experts they instructed. And I can see why he might rather we think that he doesn’t know.

I see…

What's your theory?

Yes - I am fairly sure he said it in interview early on, around or before Shoo Lee's press conference in February.

My assumption is that he hasn't asked for the exact weighting of factors that led Myers / Letby to this decision, and, as you say, that there's no advantage in doing so for him. But there is nothing stopping him from having the conversation with either or both of them should the need arise.

Meanwhile, having seen the evidence from the pre-trial expert witness conference and having presumably read the court transcript, I'm sure he was able to join the dots. But why would he want any official knowledge of it, when he can simply get on and tell the press he doesn't know.

It's all a bit of a red herring, I think.

I saw today that the new documentary apparently claims that in Shoo Lee’s email recruiting his panel he said ‘we might be her last hope’.

If that’s true then as far as I’m concerned this makes a complete nonsense of his claims that the panel were all rigorously independent and would have published their findings whether they were supportive of her case or not. Clearly they were always going to find in her favour as why would anyone who thought that the prosecution experts were correct have got involved after reading that? Interested to know what others think though.

As in, if she's innocent, we might be her last hope? I don't see the problem.

You can't reset to zero. Once somebody is convicted, you can't recruit people to work pro bono without the suggestion that they may be innocent. Otherwise, what would they be doing getting involved? How could they even get hold of the files?

The commitment to announce whether or not they found evidence of deliberate harm is the most they could do in these circumstances.

Where was that anyway though please @rubbishatballet ? Interested to read more about the new documentary.

Why does their conclusion make you think that they couldn't have been open-minded going in? I don't get it.

Can you rephrase this part?

Clearly they were always going to find in her favour as why would anyone who thought that the prosecution experts were correct have got involved after reading that?

I'm listening to the podcast now to see what he says on it and if I've listened to it before. Then I'll try and have a search for where else I might've heard him say it.

Because he’s starting out with a really clear agenda? It certainly doesn’t scream scientific rigour. He claims he wrote to all the best in the world, but I can’t see how anyone on that circulation list who didn’t share his obvious agenda would have chosen to get involved.

And do we even know that he had actually seen all the evidence at this point to be so convinced of her innocence that he could describe the panel as her last hope? Let’s not forget that he’s talking about a convicted serial killer here.

I’d be incredibly interested to see whether the CoA has anything to say about the validity of the panel’s evidence after this, assuming the CCRC refers back.

A Liz Hull article I’m afraid… <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/2025.09.20-062247/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15115707/Is-naughty-nurse-tried-kill-Chilling-words-child-parents-believe-targeted-Lucy-Letby-LIZ-HULL-reveals-shattering-testimony-bizarre-behaviour-haunts-still.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.is/2025.09.20-062247/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15115707/Is-naughty-nurse-tried-kill-Chilling-words-child-parents-believe-targeted-Lucy-Letby-LIZ-HULL-reveals-shattering-testimony-bizarre-behaviour-haunts-still.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline

What's the clear agenda? To see if the evidence would stand up to scrutiny? It seems like he just wanted them to be open-minded?

The CoA will cope just fine. It is perfectly reasonable to approach a case with a suspicion that the conviction is unsafe (which Lee had from the misuse of his paper) and a suspicion that the person convicted may be innocent. There is no way you get hold of medical files in any other circumstances, because you'll have to be working with the defence.

Lee and his experts needed to see the files to form a scientific judgement they could stand by, but of course they started from the strong possibility that the conviction was dubious. Why else would they do any work on it?

I'm not seeing how else this could have happened. I am very surprised at your surprise here.

Thanks - can't be helped!

Why would you need to be convinced of someone's innocence to say something might be someone's last hope though?

He wouldn’t be using emotive language like ‘last hope’ if he truly expected them to be impartial.

You're quoting a single sentence. For all one know, the drift of the letter may have been, if she's innocent, this may be her last hope. If she's guilty, the conviction should be placed on a proper scientific footing and not on pseudo-science.

But it doesn't matter. If he asked them to look for the most likely cause of death, and they produced that, it does not matter if he already suspected (along with many less expert) that there were serious problems with the conviction. You can't ask people to give their time free to a random hypothetical exercise, and nor can you have access to medical files to conduct it. Obviously they need to be considering whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred for the exercise to take place at all. In which case yes, logically, they might have been her last hope.

Unless he was writing that he wanted them to invent evidence rather than scrutinise it, I just can't see the problem.

I suppose the alternative is that Lee could have persuaded the experts to take part in an exercise without knowing what it was about, but I don't think the Court of Appeal would expect eminent professionals to give up their time for nothing on that basis!

Oh ok, apologies, I am tired and misread your post and thought he had said 'we might be her last hope' in the new documentary, I see now that you said he said it in the email.

Still though, the case itself is emotive, she's been convicted of killing and harming babies, so I genuinely don't believe that saying 'we might be her last hope was emotive enough that it would cause these experts to be biased when assessing the case, just open-minded.

I think this point underlines the flaw in the whole exercise - the experts who agreed to take part must have started (before seeing any evidence) from a position of wanting only to find alternative causes of death/harm. There would be zero motivation for them to give up their time for free just to end up supporting convictions that have already been settled via lengthy trial and two refused applications to the CoA.

Oh good god. Seriously?

Must they? If anyone asks me to undertake an investigation at work I am only interested in the facts. I’m happy to disappoint or annoy the requester if my findings don’t support their initial views. It’s extraordinary to assume the panel members would do otherwise.

Yes.