David Allen Green on Lucy Letby trial

[Mirabai]

A thoughtful piece on the problem if the prosecution presents unsound expert evidence and the defence elects (for good or bad reasons) not to present their own expert evidence.

https://davidallengreen.com/2024/07/the-lucy-letby-case-some-thoughts-and-observations-what-should-happen-when-a-defence-does-not-put-in-their-own-expert-evidence-for-good-reason-or-bad

Finally a very impartial, legally based, knowledgeable blog on this matter. Easy to follow and understand to lay members.

Thanks for sharing.

The most recent Private Eye podcast (called Page94) is very thoughtful on this too.

It's very interesting.

Dr Shoo Lee wasn't asked to give evidence during the trial but the defence did try to use evidence from him in the appeal.

But it's also interesting that the prosecution didn't call him, Did they speak to him before the trial? Or did they just take this paper from 1989 that Dewi Evans had found and just run with it and not bother speaking to the actual expert who had wrote the paper?

Shoo Lee wouldn’t have done the prosecution case any good at all as his paper was not on intentional use of air embolism administered intravenously or via nasogastric tube but on pulmonary vascular embolism as a consequence of positive pressure ventilation.

Equally his study merely notes a “blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor” (ie paleness) in terms of rashes - and a single case of “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” - which was not reported in any of the contemporaneous clinical notes - but Jayaram added it to his testimony at the trial.

Maybe not but as they were using his paper to prove her guilt then I feel that he should have been consulted and his opinion should have mattered.

Of course that would mean that all along the way (probably before the actual trial) that people were concerned with finding out the actual truth, rather than just trying to secure a conviction.

From the article you posted
It is for the prosecution to prove their case, and not for the defence to disprove it.

It is thereby for the prosecution to ensure that the expert evidence on which it seeks to rely is as sound as possible.

The prosecution cannot shrug off this responsibility and say that it can be cured by the defence expert witnesses.

And there is concern that the prosecution expert evidence in the Letby case was not sound to begin with.

I'm not sure what exactly their responsibility is but it seems like there are serious issues here if the prosecution can just use a paper and decide it means something that it doesn't and they don't have to really try their very best to establish the actual facts and truth.

There was also the 'whoosh' test mentioned on one of the Telegraph articles, another very interesting thing that should have been considered.

I’ve no idea why they or anyone thinks his paper supported any of their claims.

How can a paper on vascular embolisms caused by ventilation with no particular characteristic rashes be used to support cases un-connected to ventilation with mottled purple rashes?

I'm not sure what exactly their responsibility is but it seems like there are serious issues here if the prosecution can just use a paper and decide it means something that it doesn't and they don't have to really try their very best to establish the actual facts and truth.

And the court will just accept their word for it and call it “science”. The upshot is that claims or arguments can pass as legally valid that would not hold up as scientifically valid. What apparently qualifies as scientific “evidence” or “proof” in the legal sphere would not pass muster in a scientific one.

Which indicates that jury trials are not the place to try science heavy cases such as these, or at least not without considerable reform.

And the court will just accept their word for it and call it “science”. The upshot is that claims or arguments can pass as legally valid that would not hold up as scientifically valid. What apparently qualifies as scientific “evidence” or “proof” in the legal sphere would not pass muster in a scientific one.

Just crazy really!
And as I said in previous threads it seems like something that would have happened decades before, incredible that that was allowed in 2023.

When I say court I really mean the judge in this scenario. He’s the one in charge.

Prosecution don't merely suggest air embolism as a possibility consistent with the evidence, Evans and Bohim actively diagnose it retrospectively AND say it was deliberate.

Many reasons as to why that is not a valid inference. The issue seems to be the judge didn’t understand what is a valid scientific inference and what isn't. Because all of the air embolism stuff should have been thrown out along with the dodgy stats.

Interestingly as we know a previous judge had Evans’ number.

Another substack from the same author which details the submission from the defence when they tried to get the air embolism evidence thrown out.

emptycity.substack.com/p/new-the-lucy-letby-trial-ruling-on

@Mirabai
Was it just the judge who ruled on that? or if he's unsure is there scope for him to seek advice himself? Or is he expected to seek advice himself if unsure? or is it literally all down to whether the one judge is satisfied or not?

I know I’ve just found that today.

By the sound of it he just makes it up himself.

He seems to justify the air embolism evidence on the basis of the fact that air embolisms exist, and that the data on them is limited.

But it’s not that limited! As I understand it air embolisms can be diagnosed at the time (eg surgical procedures and decompression) and can be diagnosed by autopsy by certain criteria - just not by the criteria produced at trial. I don’t understand why he can’t see that inconsistent discolourations and a bubble on an X-ray don’t do the job.

Wouldn't it be fascinating to know if any of the original jurors were reading all of the latest on this now and if any of them were having doubts now?

It's looking more and more like Judge Goss should have struck out the air embolism theory as being too unreliable scientifically.

A side point. As I understand it Sarrita Adams was writing articles for science on trial saying that the air embolism theory was baseless scientifically. She was given warnings about contempt of court. It has been said that Judge Goss did other reading outside of the case to fill in the background. Maybe he got confused.

I haven't had a chance to listen to the 'we need to talk about Lucy Letby' podcast yet but I see Michael McConville now has a new podcast called 'the other side of Lucy Letby' which is discussing the scientific validity of claims made by the prosecution and expert witness.

https://shows.podcastle.ai/the-other-side-of-lucy-letby-moNCdp3O/the-golden-thread-vwQxxlwp

Listen to the “We need to talk about LL” first as it takes you through the background, the RCPCH report etc.

“The Other Side” builds on that and goes through each baby’s case in detail.

https://x.com/drphilhammond/status/1817844095416447317

Interview with a medico-legal expert who is part of a group trying to ensure she gets a fair trial.

https://gsy.bailiwickexpress.com/gsy/news/interview-sark-doctor-looking-exonerate-lucy-letby/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Yc9KaUcdORcqpLBJ0gFOfMLRdh4juseyHNuiJYfuCiSpj5652kTXzATE_aem_fgezD3Fz9uZ-WhM1aW0VsA#.ZquXJnbMKM8