• Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.

Lucy Letby - this has the potential to be huge

I’m afraid I don’t look to David Davis for facts nor do I trust his opinion:

www.independent.co.uk

Former Brexit secretary ridiculed for remarks that suggest he does not understand Brexit negotiations

Former Brexit secretary wrongly states UK could enter transition period without reaching deal, in comments described as 'unbelievable'
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

Perhaps the reason the Defence said very little about the notes is the same reason the only expert witness they called was a plumber? Namely, they knew that the Prosecution would cross-examine them and Letby and predicted that that wouldn’t go well…
 
Inka said:
I’m afraid I don’t look to David Davis for facts nor do I trust his opinion:

www.independent.co.uk

Former Brexit secretary ridiculed for remarks that suggest he does not understand Brexit negotiations

Former Brexit secretary wrongly states UK could enter transition period without reaching deal, in comments described as 'unbelievable'
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

Perhaps the reason the Defence said very little about the notes is the same reason the only expert witness they called was a plumber? Namely, they knew that the Prosecution would cross-examine them and Letby and predicted that that wouldn’t go well…
Click to expand...
I find all this trial (any trial) stuff really interesting. It's really brought into the public eye how trials, evidence and how a version of events is presented. When in reality all there really is is the truth. The truth should be the only aim of all parties.
 
Amity Island said:
The truth should be the only aim of all parties.
Click to expand...
Sadly that's not how our justice system is structured. (Probably "sadly", anyway. I'd like to imagine a justice system structured to try to establish the truth would be a better one than our adversarial one, but I'm not that sure it would be. I'm sure it wouldn't necessarily be better.)

It does seem that statistical and scientific evidence isn't handled all that well in courts. Hence the 2011 consultation https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/expert-evidence-in-criminal-proceedings/ (most of which wasn't implemented).

So while I think David Davis is generally a bit of a twit, I think it's conceivable that he might be right to be concerned in this particular case.
 
Amity Island said:
I find all this trial (any trial) stuff really interesting. It's really brought into the public eye how trials, evidence and how a version of events is presented. When in reality all there really is is the truth. The truth should be the only aim of all parties.
Click to expand...

Well, it should be, but the Defence have to defend - and yet they didn’t have a single medical expert stand up and give evidence for Letby. The Prosecution had a number of experts. I presume the Defence didn’t call any because it was likely they wouldn’t have helped Letby’s case.

As for what Davis says about the statistics chart - that’s simply not true. The police anonymised the babies that had died, then Dewi Evans looked through the anonymised deaths and made a list of suspicious ones. Each of these alleged suspicious deaths was investigated separately by one or more detectives for each death - all separate teams. Then they came together to discuss their findings, baby by baby, and - shockingly - one person appeared connected to each of those suspicious deaths: Letby.
 
Inka said:
Well, it should be, but the Defence have to defend - and yet they didn’t have a single medical expert stand up and give evidence for Letby. The Prosecution had a number of experts. I presume the Defence didn’t call any because it was likely they wouldn’t have helped Letby’s case.

As for what Davis says about the statistics chart - that’s simply not true. The police anonymised the babies that had died, then Dewi Evans looked through the anonymised deaths and made a list of suspicious ones. Each of these alleged suspicious deaths was investigated separately by one or more detectives for each death - all separate teams. Then they came together to discuss their findings, baby by baby, and - shockingly - one person appeared connected to each of those suspicious deaths: Letby.
Click to expand...
I just saw a short article this morning about lay people juries. The are saying that lay people are unlikely to be knowledgeable enough to be able to interpret or challenge expert witnesses. They may propose a different format for complicated cases.
 
Amity Island said:
I just saw a short article this morning about lay people juries. The are saying that lay people are unlikely to be knowledgeable enough to be able to interpret or challenge expert witnesses. They may propose a different format for complicated cases.
Click to expand...

It’s the job of the opposing side to question and challenge expert witnesses, and it’s the job of both sides (and the judge) to clarify testimony.

And what about the total misrepresentation of the facts surrounding the statistics/list? That’s what a lot of these conspiracy sites blather on about. Davis was wrong in what he said. More than that, it wasn’t statistical evidence that convicted Letby.
 
This is an interesting topic. As far as I'm concerned LL was found guilty, "banged up" & held accountable. Logic dictates if you done nuffin wrong, the accusation against will trip up on the account & fail.
 
www.bbc.co.uk

Lucy Letby inquiry: 'Tubes dislodged' during placement at other hospital

Lucy Letby worked two placements at Liverpool Women's Hospital in 2012 and 2015.
www.bbc.co.uk

“Babies' breathing tubes were dislodged at an unusual rate during Lucy Letby's placements at Liverpool Women's Hospital, the public inquiry into her crimes has heard.
The Thirlwall Inquiry at Liverpool Town Hall has been hearing opening statements from lawyers representing the families of babies whom the former nurse was charged with attacking.
Letby's criminal convictions all relate to her time working on the Neonatal Unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016. But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.

Richard Baker KC, representing the families of 12 babies, said that Liverpool Women's Hospital had conducted its own audit into Letby's time there. He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.

"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said. “It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."

The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.

Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
 
Satan’s little helper said:
This is an interesting topic. As far as I'm concerned LL was found guilty, "banged up" & held accountable. Logic dictates if you done nuffin wrong, the accusation against will trip up on the account & fail.
Click to expand...

We would all hope that judge jury prosecution and defence all handle the case competently and no errors or omissions are made. Sadly we DO know that things go wrong.

Following Oliver Campbell’s 1991 conviction, his first appeal failed, following that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) rejected an appeal to re-investigate the case. It took 34 years for him to be declared innocent.

Andrew Malkinson's conviction had him jailed for 17 years, and Paul Blackburn's conviction saw him jailed for 25 years. Both men were innocent - details here.

Over 700 people were prosecuted. Over 230 postmaster/postmistresses were viewed as correctly convicted and sent to jail (we all know that story). According to wiki, at least 100 of those convictions have been overturned.

Nothing will take the pain away from those parents. But in any emotive case, there will be underlying pressures to say 'yes we caught a person and they are paying for their crimes'. These underlying pressures make it all the more important to ensure that no mistakes are made either in the handling of the evidence, court case, or witnesses.
I can't comment on guilt, innocence or evidence. I won't claim to know better than 'experts'. But people who class themselves as experts are asking questions.
For me a trial and evidence should be unquestionably correct, but in the face of current questions this trail and/or evidence are clearly not unquestionable. I believe questions asked should be reviewed in a fair unbiased way. If the answer to the alleged expert is a cleaned up version of "you're talking out of your bum mate" then fair enough.
 
At Letby’s trial, Dr. Ravi Jayaram was said to have caught the nurse “virtually red handed” dislodging a breathing tube from a baby, but documents leaked to the Telegraph show that the consultant paediatrician did not mention the incident when interviewed at the time.


www.telegraph.co.uk

Doctor who helped convict Letby previously said there was ‘no objective evidence’ against her

At nurse’s trial, Dr Ravi Jayaram was said to have caught her ‘virtually red handed’ dislodging a breathing tube from a baby
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Lucy Letby was not present when a baby she was convicted of killing was harmed, a BBC investigation has found. The Telegraph reports.
 
Thanks @Amity Island but I’ve been reading the court transcripts.

On the night Baby C died, Letby was supposed to be in a different room looking after different babies. She was annoyed about this (because she wanted to be in Room 1 where Baby C was). Somehow, despite not being scheduled to be there, she was found in Room 1. She initially denied she was there - until the police showed her evidence that she sent her texts from there.

This is also the baby that, after the death, Letby had to be removed from the Family Room by another nurse (because of her intrusive, ghoulish behaviour).
 
Satan’s little helper said:
It’s my understanding at the time, concerns were raised about the nurse higher in the chain of command regarding possible alleged wrongdoing. But nothing was followed up? So I’m assuming a live streamed account in this enquiry would dispel these elements.


From memory they are something like 50/60% reliable? Jeremy Kyle show claimed 90% accuracy. & it’s well documented debacle regarding the sorry tragic results of “guests” submitting to “that.”
Click to expand...
There are also many complex issues surrounding whether or not people tell 'the truth', including: 1) People may have differing views of what 'the truth' is; 2) People may tell lies even if they're not guilty of the crime(s) of which they're being accused; 3) People (such as Stefan Kiszko) may confess to crimes of which they're not guilty; 4) Witnesses (including police officers) similarly may not always tell the objective truth.
 
Bruce Stephens said:
Sadly that's not how our justice system is structured. (Probably "sadly", anyway. I'd like to imagine a justice system structured to try to establish the truth would be a better one than our adversarial one, but I'm not that sure it would be. I'm sure it wouldn't necessarily be better.)

It does seem that statistical and scientific evidence isn't handled all that well in courts. Hence the 2011 consultation https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/expert-evidence-in-criminal-proceedings/ (most of which wasn't implemented).

So while I think David Davis is generally a bit of a twit, I think it's conceivable that he might be right to be concerned in this particular case.
Click to expand...
The French system aims to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial: who knows which is better?
 
Satan’s little helper said:
This is an interesting topic. As far as I'm concerned LL was found guilty, "banged up" & held accountable. Logic dictates if you done nuffin wrong, the accusation against will trip up on the account & fail.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately miscarriages of justice do happen - although I have no idea whether or not that's the case with Lucy Letby. There's also the issue that someone may indeed have done something "wrong" but not be guilty of the specific crime(s) of which they're convicted. Presumably the more serious the (alleged) crime, the more scrutiny we need to give to the legal processes surrounding that alleged crime? Letby's alleged crimes (and punishment) are right at the top end of seriousness and so it seems appropriate that the relevant legal processes are examined in great detail.
 
CliffH said:
Unfortunately miscarriages of justice do happen - although I have no idea whether or not that's the case with Lucy Letby. There's also the issue that someone may indeed have done something "wrong" but not be guilty of the specific crime(s) of which they're convicted. Presumably the more serious the (alleged) crime, the more scrutiny we need to give to the legal processes surrounding that alleged crime? Letby's alleged crimes (and punishment) are right at the top end of seriousness and so it seems appropriate that the relevant legal processes are examined in great detail.
Click to expand...
Whatever the deal is? Lets be thankful there isn’t capital punishment any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top