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

What are you on about?

What do you want MM to say? Do you think he ought to announce the date LL gave her old legal team permission to share papers with the new one? Why would he need to do that?

It’s hardly his fault Liz Hull doesn’t understand the concept of legal privilege.

Has it been confirmed that it would be opposed? I remember the 2 initial articles that came out said different things, one said that Myers was allowed to bring it to the jury and didn't, and the other said the opposite.

Do you have a link to that episode? I've not heard it before despite being accused of being Liz Hull herself or some sort of superfan.

If it's with Jane Hutton I'd be very interested, I love to see/hear her getting all irate!

What is strangely silent about that?

You DO realise that if she wouldn't grant him access to her old legal team that he would be hardly be likely to take the case don't you?

Most people do understand Shoo Lee’s work.

Most people understand that Lee’s sign is the only skin change that is diagnostic of air embolism, and it’s only diagnostic of arterial AE which is extremely unlikely, but not wholly impossible, to be caused by a venous AE crossing to the arterial system.

Most people understand that all the other rashes allegedly observed
a) aren’t Lee’s sign, so don’t indicate AE
b) may indicate hypoxia causes by other problems, including sepsis.

I’m just going on what’s in the linked article, which may be inaccurate.

It might be the 'addressing the doubters' episode unless she was on again. I can't listen again to check as I'm not paying for it 😅

I just looked up the other article and now I think I read it wrong and read 'the prosecution said they would oppose' as the prosecution said they would not oppose, because both articles match now and say that the prosecution would oppose!

Sorry for the mix up!

despite being accused of being Liz Hull herself or some sort of superfan

This is inevitable given your apparent level of personal investment coupled with the quality and nature of your contributions. You are disproportionately exercised, at times spiteful, and yet you share no original opinions.

If it's with Jane Hutton I'd be very interested, I love to see/hear her getting all irate! really? Why?

Many contributors here have developed their concerns due to personal knowledge and understanding of the medical, legal or statistical issues with the case, or as a result of having read and understood the various concerns of a wide range of credible experts. I don’t see comparable personal fervour, just strong arguments for the investigation of a potential miscarriage of justice. You’re telling people who have read and understood Shoo Lee’s paper for themselves that Liz Hull has all the answers.

Of course it would have been opposed, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been granted despite that opposition. The only reason I can think of for not seeking disclosure is because Letby's barrister thought there was no prospect the order would be granted (which would indicate the investigation wasn't relevant to Hindmarsh's evidence), or he thought it wouldn't make any difference for the jury to know.

Given that it seems incredible that the jury wouldn't take something like that into consideration when assessing the credibility of an expert witness, I can only assume Myers was convinced the order wouldn't be granted. That can only suggest that whatever investigations Hindmarsh was under, they had nothing to do with the subject on which he gave evidence.

Whether or not that was the right call is obviously open to question. It's hard to assess the actions of a barrister or legal team when you don't see the reasons for decisions being made, but a lot of theirs seem inexplicable to an outside perspective.

You didn't read it wrong - the Guardian initially said would oppose w@hile the Times said wouldn't oppose. The Times must have fixed it!

I recommend watching the latest Lucy Letby Ananalysis video on Wayney Squiers who was victimised for questioning the dogma around SBS cases, as it goes into alot of issues around expert witnesses in general, and rather proves that Lucy Letby hasn't singke handedly ruined the playing field for them by her case alone.

there was no prospect the order would be granted (which would indicate the investigation wasn't relevant to Hindmarsh's evidence)

That's only true if the judge always grants orders that have merit. The judge has rejected some clearly valid requests, like the defense request for the full list of cases reviewed by investigators and for the methodology of choosing cases. Seeing that, the defense barrister may have been "picking his battles" in deciding what to push for.

There was a really weird moment when Nick Johnson made the case for allowing Dewi Evans's testimony, after Judge Jackson wrote criticising him. He argued that the prosecution case would collapse if Evans was removed.

Now to me that would be an argument for disallowing Evans's testimony - he's that important, but we've received these criticisms? - but Johnson seems to have expected it to work in the other direction.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15691691/Silver-killer-true-crime-ITV-elderly-couples-deaths-criticised-harmful-police-say-families-did-not-want-ahead.html

So the pro-letby Stephanie Davies who believes there wasn't a serial killer at Countess of Chester but WAS one killing elderly couples in the North West has managed to get people to take her seriously enough to make a documentary about her insane claims. Guess ITV will pick up anything.

If only she'd consulted a statistician I'm sure they would've told her that 5 cases over that many years isn't a statistically significant spike=no serial killer. Where's Jane Hutton when you need her?!

I have no interest in it really but in the very little that I've read about it the murder suicides did seem highly unusual and the methods of suicide were extremely bizarre for suicides, so there's more reason to think there was a serial killer there than in the Lucy Letby case. Not saying there was a serial killer, but that the circumstances were highly unusual ,so I can see why someone might think that a serial killer might be at large when the 'murderer' in the 'murder suicides' were slitting their own throats.

It wasn't a 'spike' that caused her to be suspicious, it was the extreme nature of the deaths.

It wasn't a 'spike' that caused her to be suspicious, it was the extreme nature of the deaths.

@kkloo I don't think statisticians take that into account at all which is my problem with a lot of them.

This is exactly what happened at COCH-nothing to do with spikes or statistics but the nature of the deaths and collapses.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/crime-desk/article-15692267/sandie-bohin-expert-witness-lucy-letby-medical-evidence-defenders-wrong.html

The tides beginning to turn and the guilty side are speaking out now. The Letby side have already played all their cards. It'll all be over soon.

It's literally just the same podcast interview with Sandi Bohin rehashed into a few articles.

No it isn't, there was an extreme level of violence in the deaths of those elderly people. At least one set were originally investigated as murder.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/540396.stm

also @Firefly1987 Sandi Bohin wasn't even prepared to go to court if the CPS had decided to prosecute for more charges.

She only appears to be speaking out now because she wants people to think that her reputation being destroyed is because of the LL MOJ campaign, which we can see isn't true as many of the complaints are from before then.

She has nothing to say there that's new, and nothing particularly logical. It turns out that her reports were sent to the national CPS for new charges. The CPS declined the charges for lack of evidence. So it doesn't look likely that she'll have much influence on the future of the case. She is dogmatic but not convincing.

I realise that, it'll help change public opinion having these sorts of articles though. I can already tell from the DM comments people are swaying back towards guilty. Like I said before, the public are fickle!

No complaints were upheld about her clinical care. From what she said it was about tone in letters etc. which I can believe. I expect anyone with a career that long to have a few complaints against them.

You’re obviously being rather selective. A bit like you do on here. The first 25 or so definitely sway towards MOJ.

I did see a couple that were just on your level - highly suspicious that Shoo Lee knows what happens when you inject air into a baby, and would you let her look after your child 🤣