I actually attended both her trials and saw her on the stand (she’s an absolute harridan, by the way).
The evidence against her was overwhelming, detailed and complex. So much more was said in real life than ever made it into the reporting.
For example, the population charts, nursing notes, timed computer records, and eyewitness statements proving where everybody was in that ward at a given time were so complex. It proved that Letby was not merely on shift, but present with a baby for every single charge.
The medical evidence was also very detailed which was missed in live reporting. Every natural alternative cause was considered and thoroughly dismissed.
Her new defence have not brought out anything new. She will not get an appeal. She needs actual new evidence for that. Everything they claim in their report has already been considered and dismissed by the actual medical experts.
Firstly, these self-appointed experts have reviewed nothing, except the opinions of other self-appointed experts who themselves have no access to the evidence, did not attend or follow the trial, and whose own opinions were based on sensationalist media headlines. Her defence have collected some of these opinions of opinions and given them to a bunch of egotistical, unethical doctors to “review”, ie give their fourth hand opinion on.
They don’t even seem to know basic facts. For example the “new evidence” that Letby didn’t switch off the monitor for Baby K/ Baby 11, is based on them learning that another nurse entered the room after the collapse and heard the alarm. If they’d actually followed the trial they would know that Letby was not accused of turning the monitor off, but pausing the alarm for 30-60 seconds. The nurse heard the alarm because it was no longer paused by then. This was not controversial with either the prosecution nor the original defense.
I note that for babies A, D and O, who they deny suffered from air embolus, they have completely ignored the presence of massive amounts of air found in their blood vessels for A and D (including at the IV entry site) and the air bubble in O’s heart.
They claim O died of liver rupture not by blunt force abdominal trauma, but due to birth injury. This is despite him being alive and very well for several days before Letby got back from her Ibiza holiday. “I’ll be back with a bang” she said.
A reminder that Letby did have her own medical experts, but every single one of them agreed with the prosecution experts, with one expert (Michael Hall) agreeing partially. In this country, medical experts’ duties are to the court; they must tell the truth and not take sides, no matter who appoints them. It’s not America.
Letby herself opted to not bring to the stand her only expert who partially disagreed with the prosecution. This is because he had no alternative explanations and would have been ripped to shreds under cross examination, and been forced to admit where he did agree with the prosecution.
Also, Letby had a retrial in June last year, and had the opportunity to dispute her previous convictions with medical evidence, but she declined to do so, evidently because she didn’t want another jury hearing the actual evidence.
Letby’s new barrister Mark McDonald is attempting an American style PR campaign, but our courts don’t work like that. This publicity stunt will actually harm her chances for all the future charges being worked on by Operation Hummingbird, because Letby’s only hope would have been to claim she couldn’t have a fair trial. There’s no hope of that now.
Mark McDonald is a notorious grifter who attaches himself to hopeless serial killers for attention, for example with Ben Geen. He states they are innocent, the media publish his lies, then he finally puts in a shit tier CCRC application which is laughed out of court, then he drops them and moves onto a new serial killer. It’s what he does. This is likely why Letby has not waived client privilege for him (meaning he doesn’t have access to the evidence, either), because she wants a proper KC for actual court cases.
She’s just engaging with him because she knows her case is hopeless and she wants the positive PR to make her life easier in jail. She has nothing else to hope for except improving her reputation.
As for Shoo Lee, his evidence was rejected by the court of appeal. This is because 1) the prosecution experts didn’t actually base their diagnoses on skin discolourations, it was a small part of a wider picture, and 2) his claim that only one type of skin discolouration is diagnostic of air embolism was based on just two babies in his study, and 3) two of Letby’s victims did actually fit his particular diagnostic description but Lee was pettily arguing the toss about this based on semantics.
He has now rewritten his entire paper to be favourable to Letby , paid to have it published, and it has not been peer reviewed. He is a disgrace.