To be surprised this potential miscarriage of justice isn’t given more prominence

[Snowintheforest]

Expert 'changed mind' over deaths, say Letby lawyers https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyv3jlzme90o

If it is the case that she could be innocent it doesn’t really bear thinking about.

From the BBC website - their headline has that exact phrase, " expert denies he changed his mind"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo

Here you are

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/05/lucy-letby-stunned-by-death-of-baby-she-is-accused-of-murdering

The quote about only crying for herself was just an assertion from the prosecution lawyer.

The headline says that!

The expert didn't!

There is no basis for an appeal.

Appeals are granted on the basis that new evidence has emerged, which isn’t the case.

Plenty of new evidence has emerged since the conviction. It's also grounds for review of there are doubts about expert witnesses.

The expert witness may have changed his mind about changing his mind but since he's done so on the record to the media, it's going to be very hard to argue that his testimony was reliable.

It's all about her though - she says “I found [Child E’s] death very traumatic"

Not about the babies.

The expert witness may have changed his mind about changing his mind

He hasn't though. He said of the lawyer: "Mark McDonald's observations regarding my evidence is unsubstantiated, unfounded, inaccurate."

it is in the public interest for a retrial .

No, it’s in Lucy Letby’s interest, nobody else’s.

McDonald addressed dozens of points in the press conference? Which is Evans complaining about?

He could deny changing his mind very easily. He hasn't. People are just reading the headline.

If he did deny it, the statements he has made to the Sun, the BBC, C5 would find him out very quickly. If you read his statement, there's no denial.

Except he hasn’t. He’s flatly denied having changed his opinion. Do keep up.

I find that a stretch but I don't think this is a point worth arguing about - it's not possible to judge people on whether they cry. It's interesting that the myth that she didn't cry about the babies took hold. Obviously when people cry it's in response to their own emotions about a situation - that's universal.

Where? Can you quote it?

It's not in the press statement. Honestly. I wouldn't bother making the point if he had denied it. It's only in the headline.

I wouldn't believe him anyway, but anyone who would should read what he actually said.

I presume the Lucy Letby appreciation society would like for her to be released and again be in charge of tiny vulnerable babies again?

Would you be happy for her to be looking after your premature baby?

Do people genuinely believe that she wouldn’t ever harm a fly and would you genuinely have no doubts about leaving a baby in her care?

Tell the BBC!

If she wins an appeal, there will always be a shadow of suspicion. Could I shake that off? Who knows? But our standard is innocent unless proved guilty, and she should not be in prison if there is reasonable doubt in that score.

They aren't on this thread telling me it's in the article! Bit of a shocker from them, but it happens a lot with headlines. The reporters don't write them after all.

But our standard is innocent unless proved guilty, and she should not be in prison if there is reasonable doubt in that score.

Yes, it is and she has been found guilty, in a court of law, twice, by a jury, twice.

She had a multi million pound defence that most criminals could only dream of, by one of the best barristers in the country.

There is no reasonable doubt, this is your hobby horse because you see yourself as a justice fighter to the middle classes.

You know nothing about me.

I listened to some of the hearing. The expert - a British qualified consultant doctor working in Canada - has not ‘changed his mind’ because he was not involved in the initial trial. He has begun to look at the evidence only recently and has raised some alarming funds, including:

1. evidence of clinical negligence on the part of a doctor in the car of one baby
2. evidence that the glucose measurement was taken from a contaminated sample in another baby
3. evidence that the expert relied on by the CPS relied solely on the expert account of one person who approached them to volunteer his services, and they accepted the offer without investigation into this unusual contact and without appointing anyone else using their normal appointment procedures.
4. There are more than 60 professionals in all manner of relevant fiends across several countries raising concerns about this case - both the way it was conducted and the credibility of the verdict.

Can't think of much worse? How about your baby has been murdered/left permanently disabled and some ignorant twats are constantly making MN posts about their murderer being innocent!! Give your head a wobble!

Yes, that's all significant and a great summary.

Just to say, the expert who changed his mind is the prosecution witness in point 3, who told the press he had changed his mind on three cases after the trial concluded.

He didn't just change his mind after the fact, he changed it on the stand during the trial. So his written statement doesn't correspond with his oral evidence. Presumably he stands by his oral evidence, as that was later, but the Court of Appeal referred to the reason he gave in written evidence in its refusal of permission to appeal.

I can't keep up on what he currently says is the cause of death of the baby that he said was definitely killed by air in the stomach, as proven by an x ray showing air in its stomach, until it was shown that Letby was not on duty between that baby being born and that x ray being taken. Is that the one when CPS filled in the gap by saying that perhaps Letby had come in on her day off and added the air before the x ray was taken?

Private Eye has covered this case extensively, and is growing ever more contemptuous of the expert evidence presented at trial.

Yes. In that one case he has now presented three possible causes of death / deterioration.

You could be really charitable and say that he was so unclear that the prosecution went with the wrong charge, but the fact remains.

Letby is convicted of a method of murder that Evans told the court was based on sound evidence, and which he has since says was unheard of and did not directly cause any deaths and did not happen in the way he described.

It's not in anyone's interest to treat him as reliable witness. And the prosecution stated at the first trial that their entire case depended on him and would collapse without him.

The doctor in the hearing that’s just happened (about whether there is grounds for the rejection of an appeal to be overturned) said something about this. I’m not a doctor, so forgive the vagueness. Essentially, there was an injection given by a doctor. It was not for air. It was an inappropriate procedure that was not needed and the injection site was too high, causing laceration of the liver. This explains the blood. There was no evidence of the air that was hypothesised about. He talked about the % of oxygen snd nitrogen and how they are absorbed into the body.

Hmm.

I think having my baby murdered in hospital by someone who was meant to be looking after them; going through a trial; having years of people saying she's innocent (cause she's young and white and pretty); having to see the face of my baby's murderer every single fucking day on the news and splashed over newspapers and being defended over and over and over again all over social media by people who think they know more than those at the multiple trials and appeals she has had could be worse.

But that's just me. Maybe that isn't so bad to you.