Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

Starting this as don’t think we have a new one.

The Sally Clarke case is, of course, the reason the Royal Statistical Society realised there was a need for change and began publicising their concerns about the misuse of stats in criminal law proceedings. They do amazing work.

rss.org.uk/membership/rss-groups-and-committees/sections/statistics-law/

A shame there's still a need for it.

Me too but I think it’s important that convictions are secure and the right people do the time. I don’t think this conviction will be found to be secure.

Yeah well at some point you have to go with the figures you have or throw the statisticians out completely. We'd be waiting til the next century for them to come up with something. Evans gave Peter Elston as much info as he could and he clearly realised the stats weren't looking good for her so just kept asking for more. He's now apparently seen some things not in the public domain and is very worried about her chances and is even falling out with other truthers about it lol. Looks like one of them is waking up to reality at least.

https://x.com/PeterElston1/status/2066185025079464202?s=20

That then put me in a position post trial to be party to things that were not/have not been in the public domain, which enabled further insight. It is both of these that now make me extremely concerned about her prospects, in the same way I was extremely convinced of her innocence in October 2022. This is not about ego or competition. If I’m really frank, I’d say I’m feeling lonely and scared.

And whose to say the rest are not biased? Jane Hutton jumped on the innocence bandwagon because she now has a grudge against the police with how they treated her. So she can't be trusted to be impartial. Gill just wants this to be a repeat of the Lucia De Berk case.

Why would Evans (who should have destroyed data held after the trial, and should not have been handing it around) have all the data needed to conduct a statistical analysis? What he may or may not have given Peter Elston has nothing to do with what the team working with McDonald will have used for their statistics report. That's with the CCRC. There's no need to worry about people waiting for more data. They seem to have had enough to do the job, and if it's considered they need more, the CCRC will be able to request it.

There is no scenario in which there's enough data for the prosecution (or you) to make a valid statistical argument and not enough for the defence to do the same. But that doesn't mean you can calculate the odds of any random sensationalist claim based on some of the data and a shovel full of salt.

Elston is still championing Lucy Letby's innocence. He's talking about her prospects of being released, which is a different question.

Being concerned about someones prospects or chances doesn't mean that the person thinks she's guilty.

Similarly, there are people who think or lean towards guilt who are worried she'll be released.

He's gone about it all the wrong way. He's made it into a circus and his antics have only caused more upset for the victims families. And he also clearly has some grudge with the NHS because he used to work in it. He is not a professional lawyer just an ambulance chaser. Ben Meyers and Nick Johnson have had to defend the worst people in the country but at least they've done it with professionalism. Seriously, how can you not see straight through his slick publicity campaign? He's a salesman.

What would the right way have been?

And what do you mean by He is not a professional lawyer just an ambulance chaser.? You do know he’s a defence barrister, and he’s working pro bono?

I don't think anyone could believe, in this week with the Nottingham report published, that you need a grudge against the NHS to take cases involving medical care. If that was his motivation, he could spend his career on civil litigation and make his fortune. You know the NHS paid out more on maternity claims than maternity care, last financial year?

McDonald attracted dozens of experts to work for the defence for nothing, sustained news coverage for the story in a way that's usually impossible for miscarriages of justice, and drawn wide attention to significant failings in our legal system. If that's going about the case the wrong way, I am sure there are innocents locked up who would like a share in it. In a way he is helping them too, of course, by pointing out flaws in our legal system.

A new article in the Times today, alleging that the doctor acted as expert witness in the two insulin cases admitted in an email that he knew of alternative explanations to poisoning, but decided they were too unlikely and wrote in his evidence and told the courts there were none.

That will be a huge problem for the prosecution case. The CCRC and Court of Appeal will have written evidence that he misled the jury.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-latest-expert-witness-alternative-explanations-babies-ill-5s8w0xkpt

To get on with defending her quietly!

I can't access the article directly but the text is on Reddit at https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/s/4xS1wqj2jl

Who would benefit from that?

These are serious allegations. Please provide your evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you don’t have evidence, stop making these claims.

To be honest, by attacking the man, rather than his legal argument, you are effectively saying you have conceded that he is right.

Put up, or shut up.

And the answer to my other question is?

I think he's handled it the exact way it needs to be handled in the internet age, even if some find it distasteful.

@kkloo hasn't he had a complaint made against him for misconduct? I guess that's all sides who have had experts with complaints against them now. So that would render his opinion useless wouldn't it, we can't have experts with complaints against them.

This needs to be kept loud,
It needs to be loud for the defence to get traction and highlight issues within the defence's case.
And the defence should want it to be loud so they they can stand behind their evidence and show that the system is transparent and honest.

MM sent a letter to the coroner that contained the babies names, the coroner obviously already had the names.

The letter was leaked to the Sunday times, and he completely denies that it was him who did that.

Mark McDonald? He's a barrister not an expert, the two are quite different. And a legal professional having a complaint made against them doesn't mean they aren't pursuing the case in the way most likely to lead to success, no. That's not how it works.

Very interesting.

ETA: Just removed the reddit link as I see you already posted.

Liz Hull reported that the families of the children whose inquests were announced a few months ago complained to the legal regulator about a letter sent to the coroner. It was leaked to the Sunday Times and contained the children's full names. The Sunday Times didn't publish the names. It's not clear that McDonald would be able to request legal status at the inquest for Lucy Letby without naming the children concerned. The press has the children's names on record anyway, from before the reporting restrictions.

Dewi Evans, the Court of Appeal and Thirlwall have all distributed or published the children's names at different points. CoA and Thirlwall redacted. McDonald denies leaking the letter. This is inordinately unlikely to go anywhere.

Yeah of course he denies it 🙄

@IonianNerveGrip I don't see the difference really when the experts in the case (at least Bohin and Hindmarsh) have complaints against them that have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to give evidence. MM has had success in the court of public opinion, that's all.

And journalists don't reveal their sources.

So assuming he did this thing, which didn't result in reporting restrictions being breached, following various occasions when they were breached, the legal regulator isn't going to pin it on him.

I don't assume he did it. But either way, it's not going anywhere.