Lucy Letby (2)

[Oftenaddled]

Not only the second thread of course, but maybe with them filling so fast it is time to start numbering them?

Haha AL you must be joking.

The jury was fed relentless garbage and probably got fed up with how long it was taking, perfectly natural a clever tactic. Evans is also very good at what he does Goss ignored advice from another judge about how dangerous he is and she was struggling to answer because a witch-hunt would make anyone ill. I am not sure what happened with her defence but she has one now and that is why there wont be any retrial.

I think the police did believe she was guilty at the time, i am sure they now know how wrong they got it and wish they had never heard of Dewi Ewans.

A fair bit of assuming, presuming and hoping here.

If experts were facing questioning from fellow experts, I would certainly have concerns about undeclared conflicts of interest, professional histories, academic hierarchies, personal ambitions, power differentials etc, particularly in niche fields where most experts are likely to already know each other.

And what happens if the expert questioning completely disagrees with what the expert being questioned is saying? Who would adjudicate and how?

We are talking about a hypothetical future system. Naturally one can only presume and hope for rigour in such a case. I can hardly state categorically that a process for scientific scrutiny would indisputably have unearthed the flaws in Hindmarsh's testimony. But we know that flaws were there - by his own admission - and we know that they would have been exposed with an honest answer to fairly obvious questions. (To be fair to Hindmarsh, we have no evidence these questions were ever asked of him). So I find your pessimism about the insulin cases in this scenario unwarranted

And of course your questions should be considered in such a system, as they should in any system, including our current system.

Your final scenario - in which two experts disagree profoundly and no resolution is managed, is of course already possible in our present system, though without the dialogue. I've seen the suggestion that a portion of the judiciary should be required to train to chair and critique such discussions. Other common recourses in this scenario in other fields would include appeal to a third authority, appeal to a relevant professional body, declaration of inability to reach a firm conclusion.

None of these things will ensure that courts will never again get the science wrong. But this system - and I am sure others that might be proposed - would ensure that scientific opinion presented at court has been scrutinised by relevant scientists.

Basically he was talking rubbish digging a bigger hole, i think it is the end of all the bluffing and propaganda and that she will be out soon. Government news channel silence on the subject is the biggest hint of all.

There is nothing else they can do but hold their hands up and say this is some mess which should never have happened. I guess you will see a lot of people point at Dewi and say it is all his fault but i doubt most accept that.

Id like to hear from the doctors, you know those brave superheros that risked everything to stop her.

The agreed expert system would differ from the delays in the system we already have, because the potential for deadlock would create additional delays on top. However, I’m not sure where deadlock between the prosecution and defence is creating an issue currently (as you state) - could you give some examples?

I obviously don’t know who the agreed experts would have been in the system you suggest, but I’m interested why you’re so sure that Dewi Evans (if he hadn’t said he was retiring), or others of his ilk, wouldn’t just move over to becoming experts within that new system anyway? I’ve said before that there are really not many expert witness-trained neonatologists, with the sort of up to date knowledge that lots of posters feel DE was lacking, who are also free to commit 18 months or so to a case like this. How many vetoes of problematic Dewi Evans types would the affected side get in the agreed expert system?

And your point about human behaviour, I’m sorry but that’s such a bizarre position. Do you really credit juries with so little intelligence that without hearing expert evidence they cannot be trusted to consider whether a defendant’s motive may have been jealousy of their ex’s new partner, or that they had intended to commit the crime because they had obsessively searched someone’s social media or they were sometimes witnessed staring menacingly at the victim in public places? Yes, none of this is conclusive on a standalone basis, but it’s really important for a lay jury, or a professional jury, or a judge, or anyone who is given responsibility for deciding if a defendant committed a crime, to try and establish if there was motive and/or intent. I still cannot conceive of what sort of expert could ever provide evidence that relates to any of these examples.

We’ve got no idea what was critical to the convictions, as others keep pointing out to me.

I do not agree that the CoA judgment makes it very clear that the misinterpretation of the Lee and Tanswell paper meant that Dewi Evans’s diagnosis of AE was incorrect.

@IonianNerveGrip didn't refer to deadlock between prosecution and defence specifically.

One may certainly consider where such a system might consume time and resources. One should also then consider where it would save time and resources.

That poster said there is inevitable deadlock and delays in the system we already have - who is the deadlock between and why?

And I’m interested in how the agreed expert system could ever save time. Resources possibly, but only assuming the costs of the legal negotiation and subsequent delays didn’t tip the balance against the saving from removing one side’s expert.

They risked their careers to stop the murders. They knew but weren't believed.

Though never to the extent of ringing the police. It was only the hospital executive who arranged that.

One of the problems with excluding the RCPCH report and grievance results , as well as the prosecution's non disclosure of evidence relating to the coroner, is that it obscured the fact that the consultants had their own interests to protect and their own skin in the game. Certainly, they or at least their leaders seem to have risked their careers by refusing to accept the findings from the RCPCH report. They don't seem to have done so merely by contacting the police about Lucy Letby. After all, the hospital arranged this contact

It is an almost unbelievable tale these doctors tell, to be fair.

You could have a panel of (non-biased) experts. You could have 10 panels of non-biased experts and they'd still find her guilty every time after listening to all the evidence. The problem with this case is people want her out whether she did it or not at this point. That's the only result they'll be satisfied with. Not "we ran the trial again with a panel of experts and they still found her guilty"-not good enough, it has to go to exoneration before Christmas whether she's guilty or not just because "I'm sure I'm right and I'm such a good judge of character and she's a lovely nurse and those doctors are evil."

The CoA judgment narrative makes it very clear that the judges thought rashes were relevant to the diagnosis of AE. But they are not, except for Lee’s sign, which is diagnostic of arterial AE.

AE is very unlikely in the indictment cases because of the pressure that would have been required for the embolus to cross the heart, and in any case Lee’s sign was not documented.

For the CoA judges to be going on about rashes at all in their judgment shows their lack of understanding. Yes, some of the babies had rashes, but as rashes (except for Lee’s sign) are not diagnostic of AE, the rashes are irrelevant.

Do you actually ever read anything people write here about their concerns. Perfectly clearly articulated, backed up with reasoning and the input of highly credible and credentialed experts? If you ever have, how do you justify saying what you’ve said here? I get you believe she’s guilty, but argue the points. There’s no need to lower yourself to blatant lying. Seriously, you’re making yourself look ridiculous.

How will you decide which experts are non-biased?

I have no opinion on Letby’s character. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence of murders having been committed, let alone evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty.

I think you have totally lost the plot you have completely gone now.

There was never any evidence. Not now, not then, never it was all garbage the Welshman made up to collect the jackpot.

I am 100 per cent sure no one wants anyone guilty getting away with it.

I am 100 per cent sure no one wants anyone guilty getting away with it.

@ByAzureMentor and yet that's what would happen if you got your wish and she was released.

How will you decide which experts are non-biased?

Well exactly, it'd be difficult wouldn't it? But I think we can safely cross Jane Hutton, Richard Gill and Shoo Lee and friends off the list for a start.

I don’t think there is sufficient evidence of murders having been committed, let alone evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty.

OK but there are plenty of people who are extremely confident she's guilty, can't you just trust their opinion even if you can't see it yourself?

So you'd accept a trial that had absolutely everything asked for and ran exactly the way you want and still came out "guilty" then?

The case has been completely and utterly dismantled, every day more stories are coming out about the court case and the so called investigation.

I think you are utterly delusional but i will say one thing it is entertaining, i hope you stick around for when she gets out which is going to be soon have you been working on the excuses ? the public that support her are to blame right ?

Unlike you I don’t have an emotional attachment to the verdict, so if she’d had a fair trial and actual evidence existed that a) there were murders and b) she was the murderer, I’d obviously be fine with her being found guilty and incarcerated for life.

Same.

That's not what was asked. There wouldn't be different evidence or more evidence there were murders you'd just have a jury of professionals or whatever people have claimed would be better interpreting the evidence. So if they saw the evidence that the jury saw and STILL found her guilty-you'd accept that?

What would you do if that jury found her not guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

@FrippEnos I think that'd be very unlikely but I'd accept it.