Three members of Lucy Letby hospital senior leadership team arrested.

[MissJoGrant]

Story here:

Difficult to find uk based neonatologists to give evidence for the defence. The last doctor who did it ended up being struck of the register because she queried the theory behind shaken baby syndrome. Police reported her to the GMC. She did eventually get put back on the GMC register but it ended her career. Doctors since have not come forward for the defence in trial. Why do you think only one on the review panel was from the UK all were from outside the UK. If this was the mafia then the witness being scared for their livihood would be classed as witness intimidation. Dr Lee came forward in her defence but was not allowed to at appeal as his testimony was classed as inadmissable.

This is why we need "experts " to be neutral

Which dr Dewi Evan’s was not. Plus he made over 700k+ as expert Witness.

She did instruct a neonatologist expert witness - Dr Michael Hall. She just chose for him not to give evidence at the trial.

If that is true I am sure she was advised by her defence team. Not saying that advice was right. It would be like asking you to make decisions about the law not sure you or I would be able to make that judgement.

Found this
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/11/lucy-letby-doctor-criticises-judges-opening-remarks-at-inquiry

In that article Dr Michael Hall is quoted as saying "Further, it is my opinion that, because my evidence, and possibly that of other expert witnesses, was not called by the defence, Lucy Letby did not receive a fair trial.”
Unfortunately if the defence doesn't call a particular witness that is no grounds for claiming that the trial was unfair. The defence might be incompetent or misguided but that doesn't make the trial unfair or give grounds for an appeal.

The trouble is he only thinks that ‘some’ elements of the prosecution case didn’t stack up, so would presumably have ended up agreeing with other elements of the prosecution case when under cross-examination.

She has 15 whole life orders. Even if his evidence had cast enough doubt to bring that number down, unless she was cleared of all charges then it wouldn’t make much material difference to her. If they had put him up and he agreed with any elements of the prosecution case for any of the babies then it would have been guaranteed game over for her.

So you can see why the defence might decide to not put him up as without him there could still have been a chance of getting no convictions if the jury had felt that the prosecution case didn’t stack up.

An incompetent defence definitely means an unfair trial.

Her defence was not incompetent. It was led by a KC who is very experienced in criminal law.

https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/people/benjamin-myers-kc/

You stated that an incompetent defence does not mean there was an unfair trial but that’s exactly what it means.

Lucy Letby did not have an incompetent defence. If she had her new barrister would be appealing on the grounds that her trial was unfair because of an incompetent defence but that isn’t being argued.

You’re changing the wording to suit your argument.

You said that an incompetent defence does not mean an unfair trial.

That is what I disputed.

That is what you’re avoiding addressing.

You stated “The defence might be incompetent or misguided but that doesn't make the trial unfair or give grounds for an appeal”

which absolutely not true.

ccrc.gov.uk/inadequate-defence-and-legal-incompetence/

Regardless. Lucy Letby did not have an incompetent defence. Her new barrister would be appealing on grounds of an incompetent defence if they thought there was any chance but they are not because she had an excellent defence team who presented her case well. The sticking point for any defence is the compelling evidence that she killed & injured babies.

“Regardless”

Regardless of what? Your incorrect assertion?

Answer this please,
If someone in prison has been found to have had an inadequate defence, could they use that to get a retrial?

Yes but that isn't the case with Lucy Letby who had an excellent defence.

She didn't have much of a defence at all I thought. The "expert witness" was the plumber. Not much else.

They didn't put up their medical expert witnesses because they thought that their evidence would not support her innocence.

Which might well have been a mistake. She now has a different legal team, if the CCRC sends it back to the Court of Appeal.