Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation

[ITMA2000]

Wow! Pot, kettle, black? Need a new investigation?
Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation during trial | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15637071/Child-killer-Lucy-Letby-appoints-new-barrister-trial-sexual-grooming-teenager.html

Oh dear. This type of skeleton in the closet is definitely worse than anything the Letbyists have managed to dig up on the prosecution witnesses. And I thought Mark Mcdonald was bad...

Don't be silly, obviously skeletons in the legal teams closet are not in any way worse than skeletons among the prosecution witnesses.

Even the top mod over at the lucy letby sub said it was a dirty headline and that this was very poor from Liz Hull and that's saying something because she normally salivates over everything 😅

People on the prosecutions side may personally believe that the accused is innocent and people on the defences side may believe that the person is guilty, this guy might believe she did it for all you know, so scandals about people in the legal team aren't relevant unless the scandal is related to their work.

Am I misreading that link? He stood trial and was acquitted. He also, did not give any evidence at LL's trials and doesn't appear to have been involved in anything to do with her trial until she recently engaged him.

How does it have any bearing?

LL may not have even aware that he had previously been accused when she appointed him. Or maybe he is open about it and maybe doing pro-bono work because he realises what a nightmare it is to be falsely accused. Who knows?

FF - If you have such faith that the justice system/jury trial always gets it right, how do you square presumably inferring that he was wrongly acquitted and therefore his appointment reflects badly on LL? Is it enough for you that people are simply accused to attribute guilt?

No you read it right, @Firefly1987 just got excited.

The only interesting thing about it is and how it compares to Lucy Letby is that the circumstantial evidence against him was much stronger than the evidence against LL and yet he was acquitted, and that's true for many acquittals.

Yet Lucy Letby is locked up with 15 whole life sentences based on weak evidence, much of which has now been completely discredited and yet we have people thinking oh but there was handover sheets and she was always around (in her place of work), leave her to rot and fuming at those who think this case needs to be looked at again.

That article is gutter level reporting and shocking even for Hull.

Tbf they don't always write the article headline themselves. Maybe wrong but also there has been plenty of ridiculous headlines on the other side. It is the Daily Mail when all said and done. So it's fair to be honest. He is still legally able to represent her which is also fair.
I wonder if Mm is lining him up/ testing him for appeal.

She'd be entitled to a KC so probably not.

Ahh ok.

When I was notified of an update to this thread my thoughts were "Uh, oh, what's FF posted now"

I was not disappointed.

The use of “he allegedly…” in the present tense is problematic given he was tried and acquitted though

I get that. Though he did admit to being there with a 15 y old but thats a moral issue not a legal though I suppose.
I mean I think the jury have it right with LL however it looks on the surface it was wrong here with this guy- definitely morally . I don't know the details so can't say for sure. Another case in the news today that has gobsmacked me. Which the jury has surprised me. There is a case against jury trials here and male vs female.

Yes it's unclear if the sexual act actually happened or not, it sounds like it did, but this guy said the 15 year old made the first advances 🥴 He also said the boy asked him to bring condoms to the meeting, but according to him he admits meeting the boy but denied that he planned any sexual contact 🤔🤔

Are you talking about the young girl and the rape trial of the 3 boys?

Yes awful case. Again would like to read the court transcripts. These should be public in my opinion.

Only read a bit about it but the closing speech from one of the boys barristers was disgraceful it seems that young teenage boys are allowed to assume consent? doesn't seem to line up with the actual law in England.

The only interesting thing about it is and how it compares to Lucy Letby is that the circumstantial evidence against him was much stronger than the evidence against LL and yet he was acquitted, and that's true for many acquittals.

Strange because I was going to say the opposite that it proves how strong the evidence was against LL! I just think it looks really bad for her out of the ALL the legal representatives she could've chosen. Most people know not to go anywhere near someone accused of something like that. I mean it's not in dispute he was in the car with a random 15yr old is it?

Agreed. It is a pretty shocking headline, I'm a bit surprised about her stooping to this level but the Letbyists have played dirty this whole time so why not?

I'm glad she called her what she is though-a child killer.

Yet he appears to have had plenty of work since it happened so either people who need representation don't care because the main concern is their case or else they don't really delve into their solicitors past because whether they're a scumbag or not isn't actually relevant to their case.

Do you think it's a bad look for anyone else who he represented or just for Lucy Letby?

Not everyone agrees with you, no matter how many times you say it.

@NorfolkandBad yes I think I'm aware of that by now! Just glad she's not changing her headlines to appease the masses.

I mean other people don't have much of a choice. They don't have a lot of the public behind them and a massive PR campaign. Presumably she had other options. She should've stuck with her original barrister. It was her best chance.

I don't usually care about delving into the backgrounds of these people but the pro-Letby side started it so it's only fair.

I started off doubting all the evidence but only wanting to see a fair trial and a good conviction - guilty or not, your posts have done the opposite of what you probably intended, I am now convinced she is innocent.

@NorfolkandBad you do you. Pretty pathetic if you ask me but there you go.

This is just for inquests, and I'm sure I read that they have no option available to them to rule them as anything other than murder due to the convictions, maybe someone can confirm?

If that is the case I don't think people will be exactly lining up to do the inquests, i mean when they're ruled as murder no doubt you will think that means she's lost another case, when really it's just a formality.

Open to correction on the details of this if I have misunderstood.

The pro-Letby side started it? Do you know how ridiculous and childish that sounds, backgrounds of expert witnesses can be completely relevant to the case fgs.

The backgrounds of Drs Evans and Hindmarsh go directly to their fitness to be expert witnesses in this particular case, and have a bearing on whether LL had a fair trial.

Dr van Dellen’s fitness to practice has not been called into question by his professional body/bodies, and his private life (however odd, if still legal) is not relevant to these inquests.

I do agree that the choice seems on the surface to be an own goal from a PR point of view, but her team may view his dual expertise and relevant professional experience to be more of a benefit than a risk.