Lucy Letby bombshell as new memo from sole medical witness threatens to blow prosecution's case wide open.

[MissJoGrant]

This seems like a pretty major development.

www.lbc.co.uk/crime/lucy-letby-bombshell-new-memo-sole-medical-witness-nurse-conviction/

The only way forward is the one Letby's new defence team are taking - to compile as much new evidence as they can and refer it to the CCRC who may order a fresh appeal.

And there gaslighting..

Years ago I raised some concerns about a Dr which weren't addressed and in retaliation he started bullying me.

When I complained to my manager I was told that the Dr just wanted to push me to achieve my full potential because he saw such great things in me and he was probably ND and didn't realise how he was coming across. I felt like a discriminatory bitch. But the bullying got worse and worse.

In the end lots of things came out about him and the Dr was not only struck off but went to prison.

One of 3 colleagues of mine who have gone to prison in my 30 year career.

Investigations which are starting from the premise that she killed babies, so they are doing no different than has already been done - looking in hindsight for evidence of a pre-determined fact. I don't know whether she is guilty or not, but I have serious doubts about the safety of the conviction. It is, however, right and proper that the doubts are taken seriously - our justice system is imperfect, it has got "facts" wrong before, and it should always be open to challenge and question. "Online forensic experts and social media sleuths" - or their equivalent - have been responsible for freeing wrongly convicted people in the past, and long may they be.* *As the saying goes "Inquiry is fatal to certainty."

Evidence given by her colleagues to the Thirlwall enquiry has shown that most of the nurses did not have any concerns about Letby's competence or conduct. They thought that any increase in deaths was due to the fact they were treating sicker babies coupled with staff shortages and poor hospital upkeep.

The former head of nursing at the trust made a statement following Letby's conviction describing her as convincing and calculated. She has now denounced that statement and says that she thinks Letby is innocent.

Given the convictions and the huge publicity around this case, it is not surprising that some of Letby's colleagues have changed their opinion. But the evidence available is that, at the time, most if not all of her nursing colleagues thought Letby was a good, conscientious nurse.

Ok thanks hopefully they get somewhere with this.

As @PhilippaGeorgiou points out, these investigations are based on the premise that Letby is guilty and are looking for evidence to support that. And real experts, not online forensic experts or social media sleuths, have already challenged some of this. For example, evidence was given to the inquiry that dislodged breathing tubes occur generally in less than 1% of shifts, but the incidence went up to 40% on shifts when Letby was on duty. Many neonatologists have stated that the 1% figure is not credible, with extensive scientific evidence showing that up to 80% of breathing tubes become dislodged in newborns. It has also been pointed out that there was a national product recall of breathing tubes for newborns in the year in question.

I know this from personal experience. A doctor once lied and pretty much accused me of a negligent act that harmed a patient. Fortunately a consultant surgeon spoke up for me and basically said the accusation was rubbish and I had done nothing of the sort. If he hadn’t supported me I could have been facing a disciplinary procedure.

Were they poor or just not experts in the causes of death in premature babies. It can be difficult and expensive to contradict the states experts. The idea is they are there to state facts. Everyone is nodding along with the panel of expert doctors in their field but that’s because they deliberately stuck their head above the parapet. Can you imagine the cost of trying to pay them to attend a trial. Hundreds of thousands of pounds I’d assume. There have been multiple wrongful convictions over the years based on flawed testimony of an expert witness. For example the women convicted of murdering their own children as had the misfortune to have more than one child die from SIDS. Expert says must be being killed so off to prison they go. Discredited now but I’m sure it’s cold comfort to the women wrongly convicted of murdering their own children.

She used solicitors the family had used before. As I understand it, they had little experience in criminal cases, so may have given poor advice.

Looking at the way the case went and the defence's failure to call any expert witnesses of their own, I suspect they thought that they had successfully discredited Evans' evidence. That would be consistent with the fact that they asked the judge to strike out his evidence. I have come across cases where defence barristers in this situation have avoided calling their own experts as they think it may add credibility to the prosecution's witness by showing they think they have something to fight against. That may be what happened here, but I don't have any inside information so I don't know for sure.

Indeed. It completely destroyed Sally Clark. She was targeted by other prisoners whilst in jail as she was, in their eyes, a child killer, a solicitor and the daughter of a police officer. Even when her conviction was overturned, she was unable to come to terms with what had happened and turned to alcohol, which led to her death 4 years after her conviction was overturned at the age of just 42.

There are many other cases where faulty evidence by prosecution experts has led to people being wrongly convicted. Even if the defence puts up its own experts, are judges and juries who don't have any training in the relevant disciplines the right people to decide on this evidence? I don't know the answer to that question.

In theory it shouldn't matter as experts are required to give their professional opinion, not support the side that called them. But that doesn't work when we get experts like Evans (the doctor who gave evidence against Letby) who has talked about how he has only ever lost one murder trial and that loss rankles. Any expert who talks about winning or losing cases has, in my view, lost sight of their responsibilities as an expert witness. You should give your expert opinion and not worry about whether it helps or hinders the side that called you. You don't win or lose cases. You simply present your evidence.

Could she change to a better defence team at this point? Some who are well versed in this kind of case.

It’s an incredibly high profile case.

She has already changed. She instructed a new defence team last year.

Poor Sally Clark. I’d read about her before as Professor Meadows is held up as an example of how not to use statistics. I suspect this case will probably be looked at similarly in years to come.

She has changed to a new defence team, but that's only been possible because they and all the medical experts working on this case are doing it without payment.

Thanks @prh47bridge. That is the most credible explanation I’ve come across.
I also think @crumblingschools that it’s worth looking at the behaviour of the judge. I’ve seen a suggestion that if a judge thinks you’re guilty, he will rule as much as possible that defence evidence is inadmissible. This video is worth looking at and his others on the case.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rRudI8fwNi0

I would be very interested to know why Ben Myers took the approach he did but of course he’s not going to say anything at this stage.
However no doubt it will all be revealed, once Lucy is free and the commentary and enquiry focuses change from ‘how could the worst ever baby killer be allowed to get away with it?’ to ‘how could the worst ever miscarriage of justice have been allowed to happen?’

She already has.

However no doubt it will all be revealed, once Lucy is free and the commentary and enquiry focuses change from ‘how could the worst ever baby killer be allowed to get away with it?’ to ‘how could the worst ever miscarriage of justice have been allowed to happen?’

If that happens, she will have to serve a very long time before it becomes the worst ever misaccriage of justice. If she is innocent, then I would hope she is proved to be so before it becomes that - Birmingham 6 (17 years), Guildford 4 (14 years), Maquire 7 (14 years), Victor Nealon (17 years), Sam Hallam (8 years), Andy Malkinson (17 years), and if you fancy going for volume what about the Post Office?

Here's a fun fact that many people do not realise - if you refuse to say you are guilty you will not be considered for parole. I know of one person (and there are undoubtedly others) who after several years in prison changed their "plea" to guilty for the simple reason that it was the only way that they would be considered for release. In some of those cases above, the length of time they served was directly a result of refusing to admit guilt!

My point is it will be called the worst ever miscarriage (it is already) and there will be hand wringing on those terms, just like she has been called the worst ever baby killer etc.

I can’t even begin to imagine what being labelled a mass killer of babies and spending even 1 night behind bars feels like if you are innocent….. there certainly seems to be enough evidence to cast doubt on the conviction.

Those poor people who had to wait years in prison to get justice, and the fact that this happened in the past should serve as a warning that the justice system does not always get it right.

And the over-analysis of every single aspect of life.

Often by completely unqualified individuals and even worse, some who are but having zero access to any actual documentation on Lucy nor having met her let only assessed her or met any family members, colleagues or friends make a few quid with their 'tell us, as a Psychologist what's your analysis of Lucy? appearances on the news, podcasts or YouTube channels.

I think about my life a lot, things i've done, mistakes I've made, how I behave now or in the past, how I decorate my home, my childhood, employment, social and relationship history and how it could be twisted to mean something that it really doesn't when accused of a crime.

And I think that would apply to everyone.

Didn’t stop them blaming baby deaths (according to the expert panel with shoo Lee that were due to their incompetence) on a nurse tho.

Management really didn't silence the doctors. They had constant meetings with them, listened, engaged, commissioned reports. They arranged the meetings that led to the report to the police, and to these emails.

They just didn't agree with the doctors, and they didn't share their suspicions of Letby.

She already has. It's the new team who are putting forward all of the new evidence and arguments to the CCRC.

I think it is a shame she seemed to have such an inept team first time around. If they had done their job properly then perhaps we wouldn't be where we are today.

Nor did they think any of the accusations against LL were evidenced.