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.

What I would like in this country is a very robust justice system, if there is doubt about a not guilty or guilty verdict based circumstantial evidence then it needs to be scrutinised.

The fact of a baby being born whilst LL was off duty, not having come into contact with LL until after the X-ray being taken (ever) showing air in her lungs - to me that needs looking at. At the time the prosecution said - well she may have come into the hospital on her day off - yet they didn't have proof even though they all were issued sipe cards. Everyone know that tailgating happens, but without cctv evidence of tailgating or other proof it appears flimsy and quite the opposite of beyond doubt

I did nothing of the sort.
My first post on this thread was responding to you.

you tagged on a thread that was asking for that - re read the thread you've attached - you might want to be pedantic and now say well it wasn't actually me that said that - but you added to the chain.

How do you think anyone is going to prove a negative if there isn't one? It's not even clear who you want the credentials for?

Dr Andrew Garrett
Sarah Cumbers
Peter Green

The point that I’m making is no one would doubt I did this if it was me because I’m Black. HTH

There's a new article in The Guardian today that gives a really clear overview of why there is so much noise about the expert evidence used in this case: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/my-kind-of-case-intense-focus-falls-on-lucy-letby-trial-expert-witness The situation with the evidence for Baby C is particularly mind-boggling.

Exactly. She wasn’t even there so how on Earth can she have harmed baby c???

And the poor baby with liver damage, which they think was done by one of the consultants (who reported LL) when he inserted a cannula .

Some very revealing statements from the expert witness there.

"Well without being too blase about it, it’s only difficult if you don’t know the answer, OK ... Trouble is you don’t get evidence: air embolus doesn’t leave any marks, you see"

“Something must have happened,” he said. “I know that’s not a very scientific term.”

"Lucy Letby murdered Baby C. Get that into your head.”

It’s chilling. How could she have murdered baby c, she wasn’t there. I did read that they based the investigation on only suspicious /excess deaths when she was on duty - ignoring the other suspicious / excess deaths that she wasn’t there for or couldn’t have been responsible for . Much like the door swipe data inaccuracy seems like the case of baby c was an oversight and if they’d looked into it I expect they would have not included that particular case. They had LL at the centre of the investigation rather than every single suspicious/ excess death. It’s flawed from the outset.

Absolutely. You have emails where the consultants worry, in good faith I think but in a scientific ignorance, that if the hospital investigates too many unexpected collapses they won't see Letby at enough of them. They were struck by the coincidence that she was on shift for so many deaths, and after that they just floundered into the clutches of the Charlatan Evans

It may be the case that the babies died due to vulnerabilities of prematurity that the hospital, resources, consultants and nursing staff were inadequately able to cope with.

That parents may have brought medical negligence claims.

Finding a scapegoat increases parental distress but makes all culpability disappear.

There is no objective evidence of murder. The law does not proceed by finding a likely candidate for murder and then orchestrating circumstantial evidence so that a jury finds them guilty.

The guilty verdict may please the crowd but is a threat to justice. This is why it won't go away. It sets a dangerous precedent.

And the poor baby with liver damage, which they think was done by one of the consultants (who reported LL) when he inserted a cannula .

where has this information come from? and who is "they"

Drs Neil Aiton and Svilena Dmitrova, working from the full medical and legal records.

news.sky.com/story/lucy-letbys-lawyers-say-expert-witness-has-changed-his-mind-on-cause-of-death-of-three-babies-13274948

It's in the public interest because we should have confidence in our justice system. It doesn't sound like Letby was a good nurse, but there hasn't been clear evidence that she murdered any babies (or from my understanding that the babies were murdered).

I also don't understand how the expert witness scheme works and what it means if no one will take the stand for you. How can that be a fair trail?

It may be that an appeal will be allowed after the inquiry finishes.

I did not follow the case closely but the conviction really is looking less and less safe, to me, and that Guardian article (which makes clear that the expert seems to have fundamentally failed to understand has legal duty to be objective) is alarming. Regardless of Letby's guilt or otherwise, he seems a total clown.