Lucy Letby - this has the potential to be huge

[Amity Island]

 

[Inka]

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

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

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…

 

[Amity Island]

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

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

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…

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.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

The truth should be the only aim of all parties.

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.

 

[Inka]

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.

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.

 

[Amity Island]

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.

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.

 

[Inka]

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.

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.

 

[Satan’s little helper]

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.

 

[Inka]

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.”

 

[s'nic]

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.

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.

 

[Amity Island]

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.

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