|
Post by ChesterStokie on Sept 10, 2024 11:58:26 GMT
Lucy Letby is guilty. Letby and her legal representatives did not defend what she did or did not do - Letby and her KC simply relied upon diminishing the case for the prosecution and it failed somewhat dramatically. One of the key pieces of evidence prosecutors used against Letby was a chart showing that Letby was the only nurse present for the 25 suspicious cases prosecutors said were connected to Letby. As Northy has said above, there were other neonatal deaths which occurred during the time span, but Letby was not charged with these as she was not working at the time. But to be the only nurse present at the same time that 25 babies die is substantial circumstantial evidence in itself. Now, Letby's friend Dawn Howe and Letby’s defence lawyer, Ben Myers KC, had argued that sub-optimal care at the hospital had been behind the deaths, and Dawn Howe claimed Letby had been the victim of a “conspiracy”. Dawn Howe named a ‘Gang of Four’ consultants who had apportioned the blame onto Letby. But there is no physical evidence of that and it certainly wasn't presented to the court at the trial by Myers KC. The key witness at Letby's second trial was a doctor who claimed he saw Letby standing next to an infant whose oxygen levels were dropping and Letby was doing nothing about it. The doctor intervened but the baby died three days later at a different hospital. Evidence of this was presented to the court. Of all those nurses who have said they have resigned - they are very few in number and only very few people on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester think she is innocent. The only reason some people still believe in Letby's innocence is precisely due to the same trick Donald Trump has used since 2016 - that if you throw enough shit hard and long enough at someone or something to discredit them or it, then some people will believe it irrespective of the absence of evidence. Some people have for so long been pedalling a narrative that Letby was being blamed by consultants who were making excuses for their own mistakes despite no evidence of it ever existing or being presented to the court. Literally all of the evidence presented in court pointed to Letby. If there is any evidence which suggests she is innocent, I'd suggest Myers KC gets off his well-paid arse and puts it before the Criminal Cases Review Commission so that the commission can refer Letby's case back to an appeals court - but it can only do so if Myers KC puts forward the evidence and then if the CCRC finds that it represents new evidence that could have changed the verdict had the jury known about it. May I ask how you know that 'only very few people on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester think she is innocent' Do the rest of the people on the neonatal unit think she is guilty or are some of them not sure either way?
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Sept 10, 2024 13:04:35 GMT
For what it's worth - as a fellow Cestrian and someone whose daughter was born at the Countess I've taken an interest and discussed the case a lot (including with paediatricians - but from other hospitals). I've yet to find anybody who thinks she is innocent.
It appears to me that the usual conspiracy theorists who think it's cool to stick their oar in based on "facts" in a single spurious document they've skim read are getting way too much attention, which of course - is what they want.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 10, 2024 13:04:37 GMT
Ive been reading the first bit of this inquiry, which said in 2016 letby was moved from night to day shifts as she had been present for 6 out of 9 collapses
it raises a question for me. Why did the hospital not have security cameras installed
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 10, 2024 14:26:34 GMT
I'm not conflating anything or offering any conspiracy theory whatsoever. All I have done, is said that the incompetence of the police over one single piece of evidence (demonstrating whether Letby was alone or not) was staggering. You've then gone off at a massive tangent arguing something that is completely irrelevant to what I actually said. And I responded by saying that the CPS make their decision to prosecute, based on the evidence that is put in front of them, surely that is not such a difficult concept to grasp? Go back and READ what I've actually said and I don't come back to me with a reply based around something which you THINK I've said. You wrongly said "Police had wrongly thought that the swipe data showed nurses leaving the neonatal unit and going into the labour ward, when in fact they were returning to the neonatal unit" and that moreover "This is utterly staggering incompetence in a trial of such magnitude. Virtually beyond comprehension". You were wrong about the role of the Police - nothing to do with incompetence. The Police simply collated evidence through their investigations and gave it to the CPS who made the decision to prosecute. The retrial court found that fault lay with the hospital for unintentionally providing the Police with incomplete records. You were wrong about the use of swipe data and failed to mention it was corrected at the second trial. Purely corrective. Don't take it personally. I've already asked you once to actually READ what I've written and you've AGAIN failed to do so. I didn't say what you've suggested I said at all, that is a QUOTE from another source, the two are very different things. You've already been accused of being nonsensical by another poster during this exchange and in all honesty, I'm not going to waste any more of my time replying to your nonsense any longer. Please don't take it personally.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 10, 2024 14:34:43 GMT
Lucy Letby is guilty. Letby and her legal representatives did not defend what she did or did not do - Letby and her KC simply relied upon diminishing the case for the prosecution and it failed somewhat dramatically. One of the key pieces of evidence prosecutors used against Letby was a chart showing that Letby was the only nurse present for the 25 suspicious cases prosecutors said were connected to Letby. As Northy has said above, there were other neonatal deaths which occurred during the time span, but Letby was not charged with these as she was not working at the time. But to be the only nurse present at the same time that 25 babies die is substantial circumstantial evidence in itself. Now, Letby's friend Dawn Howe and Letby’s defence lawyer, Ben Myers KC, had argued that sub-optimal care at the hospital had been behind the deaths, and Dawn Howe claimed Letby had been the victim of a “conspiracy”. Dawn Howe named a ‘Gang of Four’ consultants who had apportioned the blame onto Letby. But there is no physical evidence of that and it certainly wasn't presented to the court at the trial by Myers KC. The key witness at Letby's second trial was a doctor who claimed he saw Letby standing next to an infant whose oxygen levels were dropping and Letby was doing nothing about it. The doctor intervened but the baby died three days later at a different hospital. Evidence of this was presented to the court. Of all those nurses who have said they have resigned - they are very few in number and only very few people on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester think she is innocent. The only reason some people still believe in Letby's innocence is precisely due to the same trick Donald Trump has used since 2016 - that if you throw enough shit hard and long enough at someone or something to discredit them or it, then some people will believe it irrespective of the absence of evidence. Some people have for so long been pedalling a narrative that Letby was being blamed by consultants who were making excuses for their own mistakes despite no evidence of it ever existing or being presented to the court. Literally all of the evidence presented in court pointed to Letby. If there is any evidence which suggests she is innocent, I'd suggest Myers KC gets off his well-paid arse and puts it before the Criminal Cases Review Commission so that the commission can refer Letby's case back to an appeals court - but it can only do so if Myers KC puts forward the evidence and then if the CCRC finds that it represents new evidence that could have changed the verdict had the jury known about it. May I ask how you know that 'only very few people on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester think she is innocent' Do the rest of the people on the neonatal unit think she is guilty or are some of them not sure either way? Sister works there. From what I gather most are more bothered about the public perception it's all created around the Trust. There's definitely more to it than has been reported but the vast majority of stuff is plain rubbish. Including that from Whatsisface Spencer above.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 10, 2024 14:56:19 GMT
For what it's worth - as a fellow Cestrian and someone who's daughter was born at the Countess I've taken an interest and discussed the case a lot (including with paediatricians - but from other hospitals). I've yet to find anybody who thinks she is innocent. It appears to me that the usual conspiracy theorists who think it's cool to stick their oar in based on "facts" in a single spurious document they've skim read are getting way too much attention, which of course - is what they want. That's exactly what the mood of the place is around The Countess. I also agree with your second point. Legal chancers, the lot of them.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 10, 2024 15:30:54 GMT
You stated " The three Court of Appeal judges threw out this appeal because there was no prosecution expert evidence diagnosing air embolus on the basis of skin discolouration alone."That is factual incorrect no matter how much you wish to deny it that it was the basis for the denial of an Appeal The Appeal Court Judges ruled Dr Shoo Lee’s testimony was not admissible by the Court of Appeal, with the judges because the defence could have called him in the trial. The judges added that the prosecution’s expert witnesses did not solely rely on skin discoloration to indicate the condition. The first part of the Judges ruling gives weight to Dr Lee's testimony as credible but said *Evans Expert Testimony was "consistent with" an air embolism. Consistent with in Law is a long way detached from proof and means it can be considered but under Bayes’s theorem the negative is also true. By adding that the prosecution expert evidence Evans didn't rely on air embolism alone acknowledges that the discoloration theory can be challenged but by concluding it had no bearing on the Jury's deliberation is perverse * An "Expert Witness" function is often misunderstood, I'm not saying necessarily by you. They neither act for the Prosecution nor the defence but are to assist the Jury to establish evidence as a matter of fact In a separate trial to Letbys a different Court of Appeal Judge took a rather unusual step and excoriated Evans as an Expert Witness because "he makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion" This is a complete anathema of how an "Expert Witness" should conduct themselves. The Appeal Court Judges in Letbys case must have been aware of Lord Justice Jackson's reprimand to Evans and the reasons why but chose to overlook it Refusing permission last December, Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Jackson said Dr Evans’ report was “worthless” and “makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”.
He went on: “He either knows what his professional colleagues have concluded and disregards it or he has not taken steps to inform himself of their views.
“Either approach amounts to a breach of proper professional conduct.
“No attempt has been made to engage with the full range of medical information or the powerful contradictory indicators.
“Instead the report has the hallmarks of an exercise in ‘working out an explanation’ that exculpates the applicants.
“It ends with tendentious and partisan expressions of opinion that are outside Dr Evans’ professional competence and have no place in a reputable expert report.
“For all those reasons, no court would have accepted a report of this quality even if it had been produced at the time of the trial.”
www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23312472.lucy-letby-trial-judge-described-expert-witness-report-worthless/
I’ve directly quoted the text from the Court of Appeal judgement, provided the direct link and told you exactly which page and point I’ve got the text from. Instead of providing me with links to the Guardian and the Chester Standard go and look at the source material, like I have, and if you’ve got basic comprehension skills you should quickly realise that what I’ve said is not factually incorrect at all. I can’t believe you’re still trying to dispute this point. You’re the one who’s wrong here. You’ve then gone onto a completely different point which is the Lord Justice Jackson reprimand over the quality of a report for a completely different case. You say “The Appeal Court Judges in Letby’s case must have been aware of Lord Justice Jackson’s reprimand and the reasons why and chose to overlook it” Again I implore you to go directly to the source material that I have linked because I’ve read quite a bit of it and covered this particular aspect of the appeal. The judges were indeed aware of the reprimand and it’s directly addressed in the Court of Appeal judgment, there’s a lot of information so I’m going to paraphrase but you can look for yourself as it starts on page 24 of the judgement. The three judges ruled that Dr Evans was suitably qualified, or put another way it is not arguable that he lacked the necessary expertise. This is the case when examining his credentials and the evidence he gave during the course of the trial. The judgment goes into detail about his qualifications. The judges say any objections to the admissibility of Dr Evans should have been made before the evidence is given and not afterwards because otherwise there is the risk of the trial process being derailed. Almost all of Dr Evans opinions were corroborated by another expert. Points 120, 121 and 122 on pages 30 and 31 specifically addresses the contention around the concerns over Dr Evans and the reprimand but essentially it was for the jury to assess the reliability of Dr Evans when taking into account all the evidence in the case. As such when taking into account everything it wasn’t considered that this ground of appeal was arguable. Point 122 is interesting because Dr Evans argues that the criticisms in the Jackson reprimand were based on a false premise, it wasn’t intended to be a report submissble to court or a witness statement. It was just a letter to the solicitors in the care case and had been used without his consent. In case you missed the Court of Appeal judgement link I provided initially here it is again. www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdfWithout trying to relitigate the whole trial on the MB there are in my view statements of fact and law which were either incorrectly interpreted evidence wrongfully excluded in both the Trial and the 2 Appeals and procedural issues wrongly interpreted I say again the Appeal Court Judges were wrong to dismiss Shoo Lee's air embolism evidence because the Jury relied on other evidence and that the defence could have called him at the Trial, this is perverse This was not the case in Babies A B D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discoloration. Evans relied on Shoo Lee's 1989 paper on the subject to reach his conclusions although previous autopsy's had found no evidence. Lee's rebuttal evidence of Evans Expert Evidence was that the skin discolorations noted by Evans according to Lee does not point to an air embolism as the skin discolorations would be an entirely different colour It may be unsurprising that Evans reached that conclusion as he was a qualified Pediatrician although not practicing for many years but was not a Neonatologist like Lee. Evans was also part of and directed some of the Police investigation to determine even if a crime had been committed and reviewed a substantial amount of Medical Case Files some of which formed the basis of the charges being laid against Letby although previous autopsy's had not reached the same conclusion. Evans should not then have been then called as an expert which a role which must remain impartial but he was giving Expert Evidence on conclusions he had already made and which were subsequently disputed by Lee whose body of work Evans had relied upon. Truly Bizarre. Evans credibility as an Expert Witness was also challenged during the trial on his credentials to be an Expert Witness as he was a Pediatrician not a Neonatologist, this was dismissed by the Trial Judge. There are many eminent Doctors and Statisticians who have grave concerns about the shift pattern evidence presented to the Jury because it only included when Letby was on Duty and did not record all spike patterns throughout the entire period. In addition we now find that the process of elimination evidence being Letby was the only one present is fatally flawed as the Police evidence presented misinterpreted people leaving not entering the Neonatal Unit. Finally as we are dealing with the realms of circumstantial evidence the Judge who reviewed and dismissed Letby's first Appeal was Sir Robin Spencer KC who prosecuted Sally Clark in that Miscarriage of Justice when convicted of murdering her two sons I still maintain that I am unsure of Letby's Guilt or innocence but to me there are too many imponderables and it should be referred to the CCRC for a full review
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 10, 2024 15:38:52 GMT
I’ve directly quoted the text from the Court of Appeal judgement, provided the direct link and told you exactly which page and point I’ve got the text from. Instead of providing me with links to the Guardian and the Chester Standard go and look at the source material, like I have, and if you’ve got basic comprehension skills you should quickly realise that what I’ve said is not factually incorrect at all. I can’t believe you’re still trying to dispute this point. You’re the one who’s wrong here. You’ve then gone onto a completely different point which is the Lord Justice Jackson reprimand over the quality of a report for a completely different case. You say “The Appeal Court Judges in Letby’s case must have been aware of Lord Justice Jackson’s reprimand and the reasons why and chose to overlook it” Again I implore you to go directly to the source material that I have linked because I’ve read quite a bit of it and covered this particular aspect of the appeal. The judges were indeed aware of the reprimand and it’s directly addressed in the Court of Appeal judgment, there’s a lot of information so I’m going to paraphrase but you can look for yourself as it starts on page 24 of the judgement. The three judges ruled that Dr Evans was suitably qualified, or put another way it is not arguable that he lacked the necessary expertise. This is the case when examining his credentials and the evidence he gave during the course of the trial. The judgment goes into detail about his qualifications. The judges say any objections to the admissibility of Dr Evans should have been made before the evidence is given and not afterwards because otherwise there is the risk of the trial process being derailed. Almost all of Dr Evans opinions were corroborated by another expert. Points 120, 121 and 122 on pages 30 and 31 specifically addresses the contention around the concerns over Dr Evans and the reprimand but essentially it was for the jury to assess the reliability of Dr Evans when taking into account all the evidence in the case. As such when taking into account everything it wasn’t considered that this ground of appeal was arguable. Point 122 is interesting because Dr Evans argues that the criticisms in the Jackson reprimand were based on a false premise, it wasn’t intended to be a report submissble to court or a witness statement. It was just a letter to the solicitors in the care case and had been used without his consent. In case you missed the Court of Appeal judgement link I provided initially here it is again. www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdfWithout trying to relitigate the whole trial on the MB there are in my view statements of fact and law which were either incorrectly interpreted evidence wrongfully excluded in both the Trial and the 2 Appeals and procedural issues wrongly interpreted I say again the Appeal Court Judges were wrong to dismiss Shoo Lee's air embolism evidence because the Jury relied on other evidence and that the defence could have called him at the Trial, this is perverse This was not the case in Babies A B D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discoloration. Evans relied on Shoo Lee's 1989 paper on the subject to reach his conclusions although previous autopsy's had found no evidence. Lee's rebuttal evidence of Evans Expert Evidence was that the skin discolorations noted by Evans according to Lee does not point to an air embolism as the skin discolorations would be an entirely different colour It may be unsurprising that Evans reached that conclusion as he was a qualified Pediatrician although not practicing for many years but was not a Neonatologist like Lee. Evans was also part of and directed some of the Police investigation to determine even if a crime had been committed and reviewed a substantial amount of Medical Case Files some of which formed the basis of the charges being laid against Letby although previous autopsy's had not reached the same conclusion. Evans should not then have been then called as an expert which a role which must remain impartial but he was giving Expert Evidence on conclusions he had already made and which were subsequently disputed by Lee whose body of work Evans had relied upon. Truly Bizarre. Evans credibility as an Expert Witness was also challenged during the trial on his credentials to be an Expert Witness as he was a Pediatrician not a Neonatologist, this was dismissed by the Trial Judge. There are many eminent Doctors and Statisticians who have grave concerns about the shift pattern evidence presented to the Jury because it only included when Letby was on Duty and did not record all spike patterns throughout the entire period. In addition we now find that the process of elimination evidence being Letby was the only one present is fatally flawed as the Police evidence presented misinterpreted people leaving not entering the Neonatal Unit. Finally as we are dealing with the realms of circumstantial evidence the Judge who reviewed and dismissed Letby's first Appeal was Sir Robin Spencer KC who prosecuted Sally Clark in that Miscarriage of Justice when convicted of murdering her two sons I still maintain that I am unsure of Letby's Guilt or innocence but to me there are too many imponderables and it should be referred to the CCRC for a full review Isnt there some sort of circumstantial conflict of interest or somthing that should not have allowed Spencer to review this case
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 10, 2024 15:40:33 GMT
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf[/quote]Without trying to relitigate the whole trial on the MB there are in my view statements of fact and law which were either incorrectly interpreted evidence wrongfully excluded in both the Trial and the 2 Appeals and procedural issues wrongly interpreted I say again the Appeal Court Judges were wrong to dismiss Shoo Lee's air embolism evidence because the Jury relied on other evidence and that the defence could have called him at the Trial, this is perverse This was not the case in Babies A B D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discoloration. Evans relied on Shoo Lee's 1989 paper on the subject to reach his conclusions although previous autopsy's had found no evidence. Lee's rebuttal evidence of Evans Expert Evidence was that the skin discolorations noted by Evans according to Lee does not point to an air embolism as the skin discolorations would be an entirely different colour It may be unsurprising that Evans reached that conclusion as he was a qualified Pediatrician although not practicing for many years but was not a Neonatologist like Lee. Evans was also part of and directed some of the Police investigation to determine even if a crime had been committed and reviewed a substantial amount of Medical Case Files some of which formed the basis of the charges being laid against Letby although previous autopsy's had not reached the same conclusion. Evans should not then have been then called as an expert which a role which must remain impartial but he was giving Expert Evidence on conclusions he had already made and which were subsequently disputed by Lee whose body of work Evans had relied upon. Truly Bizarre. Evans credibility as an Expert Witness was also challenged during the trial on his credentials to be an Expert Witness as he was a Pediatrician not a Neonatologist, this was dismissed by the Trial Judge. There are many eminent Doctors and Statisticians who have grave concerns about the shift pattern evidence presented to the Jury because it only included when Letby was on Duty and did not record all spike patterns throughout the entire period. In addition we now find that the process of elimination evidence being Letby was the only one present is fatally flawed as the Police evidence presented misinterpreted people leaving not entering the Neonatal Unit. Finally as we are dealing with the realms of circumstantial evidence the Judge who reviewed and dismissed Letby's first Appeal was Sir Robin Spencer KC who prosecuted Sally Clark in that Miscarriage of Justice when convicted of murdering her two sons I still maintain that I am unsure of Letby's Guilt or innocence but to me there are too many imponderables and it should be referred to the CCRC for a full review [/quote] It's the only thing to do in light of these obvious flaws in the case. I want to be very certain the conviction is correct. Particularly when someone is going to spend the rest of their life in prison with zero chance of release.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 10, 2024 17:30:49 GMT
Without trying to relitigate the whole trial on the MB there are in my view statements of fact and law which were either incorrectly interpreted evidence wrongfully excluded in both the Trial and the 2 Appeals and procedural issues wrongly interpreted I say again the Appeal Court Judges were wrong to dismiss Shoo Lee's air embolism evidence because the Jury relied on other evidence and that the defence could have called him at the Trial, this is perverse This was not the case in Babies A B D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discoloration. Evans relied on Shoo Lee's 1989 paper on the subject to reach his conclusions although previous autopsy's had found no evidence. Lee's rebuttal evidence of Evans Expert Evidence was that the skin discolorations noted by Evans according to Lee does not point to an air embolism as the skin discolorations would be an entirely different colour It may be unsurprising that Evans reached that conclusion as he was a qualified Pediatrician although not practicing for many years but was not a Neonatologist like Lee. Evans was also part of and directed some of the Police investigation to determine even if a crime had been committed and reviewed a substantial amount of Medical Case Files some of which formed the basis of the charges being laid against Letby although previous autopsy's had not reached the same conclusion. Evans should not then have been then called as an expert which a role which must remain impartial but he was giving Expert Evidence on conclusions he had already made and which were subsequently disputed by Lee whose body of work Evans had relied upon. Truly Bizarre. Evans credibility as an Expert Witness was also challenged during the trial on his credentials to be an Expert Witness as he was a Pediatrician not a Neonatologist, this was dismissed by the Trial Judge. There are many eminent Doctors and Statisticians who have grave concerns about the shift pattern evidence presented to the Jury because it only included when Letby was on Duty and did not record all spike patterns throughout the entire period. In addition we now find that the process of elimination evidence being Letby was the only one present is fatally flawed as the Police evidence presented misinterpreted people leaving not entering the Neonatal Unit. Finally as we are dealing with the realms of circumstantial evidence the Judge who reviewed and dismissed Letby's first Appeal was Sir Robin Spencer KC who prosecuted Sally Clark in that Miscarriage of Justice when convicted of murdering her two sons I still maintain that I am unsure of Letby's Guilt or innocence but to me there are too many imponderables and it should be referred to the CCRC for a full review Isnt there some sort of circumstantial conflict of interest or somthing that should not have allowed Spencer to review this case I used the word circumstantial slightly provocatively because even the prosecution admit the evidence against Letby is circumstantial. It is more coincidental that Spenser was assigned to review the Letby Trial as he was the next one on the rank but because of his involvement in a previous notorious miscarriage of Justice arising out of the death of two children Spenser should have recused himself if he felt he was unable to review Letby's Trial objectively given his previous form but nothing legally prevented him doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 10, 2024 20:19:32 GMT
I’ve directly quoted the text from the Court of Appeal judgement, provided the direct link and told you exactly which page and point I’ve got the text from. Instead of providing me with links to the Guardian and the Chester Standard go and look at the source material, like I have, and if you’ve got basic comprehension skills you should quickly realise that what I’ve said is not factually incorrect at all. I can’t believe you’re still trying to dispute this point. You’re the one who’s wrong here. You’ve then gone onto a completely different point which is the Lord Justice Jackson reprimand over the quality of a report for a completely different case. You say “The Appeal Court Judges in Letby’s case must have been aware of Lord Justice Jackson’s reprimand and the reasons why and chose to overlook it” Again I implore you to go directly to the source material that I have linked because I’ve read quite a bit of it and covered this particular aspect of the appeal. The judges were indeed aware of the reprimand and it’s directly addressed in the Court of Appeal judgment, there’s a lot of information so I’m going to paraphrase but you can look for yourself as it starts on page 24 of the judgement. The three judges ruled that Dr Evans was suitably qualified, or put another way it is not arguable that he lacked the necessary expertise. This is the case when examining his credentials and the evidence he gave during the course of the trial. The judgment goes into detail about his qualifications. The judges say any objections to the admissibility of Dr Evans should have been made before the evidence is given and not afterwards because otherwise there is the risk of the trial process being derailed. Almost all of Dr Evans opinions were corroborated by another expert. Points 120, 121 and 122 on pages 30 and 31 specifically addresses the contention around the concerns over Dr Evans and the reprimand but essentially it was for the jury to assess the reliability of Dr Evans when taking into account all the evidence in the case. As such when taking into account everything it wasn’t considered that this ground of appeal was arguable. Point 122 is interesting because Dr Evans argues that the criticisms in the Jackson reprimand were based on a false premise, it wasn’t intended to be a report submissble to court or a witness statement. It was just a letter to the solicitors in the care case and had been used without his consent. In case you missed the Court of Appeal judgement link I provided initially here it is again. www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdfWithout trying to relitigate the whole trial on the MB there are in my view statements of fact and law which were either incorrectly interpreted evidence wrongfully excluded in both the Trial and the 2 Appeals and procedural issues wrongly interpreted I say again the Appeal Court Judges were wrong to dismiss Shoo Lee's air embolism evidence because the Jury relied on other evidence and that the defence could have called him at the Trial, this is perverse This was not the case in Babies A B D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discoloration. Evans relied on Shoo Lee's 1989 paper on the subject to reach his conclusions although previous autopsy's had found no evidence. Lee's rebuttal evidence of Evans Expert Evidence was that the skin discolorations noted by Evans according to Lee does not point to an air embolism as the skin discolorations would be an entirely different colour It may be unsurprising that Evans reached that conclusion as he was a qualified Pediatrician although not practicing for many years but was not a Neonatologist like Lee. Evans was also part of and directed some of the Police investigation to determine even if a crime had been committed and reviewed a substantial amount of Medical Case Files some of which formed the basis of the charges being laid against Letby although previous autopsy's had not reached the same conclusion. Evans should not then have been then called as an expert which a role which must remain impartial but he was giving Expert Evidence on conclusions he had already made and which were subsequently disputed by Lee whose body of work Evans had relied upon. Truly Bizarre. Evans credibility as an Expert Witness was also challenged during the trial on his credentials to be an Expert Witness as he was a Pediatrician not a Neonatologist, this was dismissed by the Trial Judge. There are many eminent Doctors and Statisticians who have grave concerns about the shift pattern evidence presented to the Jury because it only included when Letby was on Duty and did not record all spike patterns throughout the entire period. In addition we now find that the process of elimination evidence being Letby was the only one present is fatally flawed as the Police evidence presented misinterpreted people leaving not entering the Neonatal Unit. Finally as we are dealing with the realms of circumstantial evidence the Judge who reviewed and dismissed Letby's first Appeal was Sir Robin Spencer KC who prosecuted Sally Clark in that Miscarriage of Justice when convicted of murdering her two sons I still maintain that I am unsure of Letby's Guilt or innocence but to me there are too many imponderables and it should be referred to the CCRC for a full review You stated above “This was not the case in babies A, B, D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discolouration”. This claim you’ve made is demonstrably false as I’ll show using the examples of babies A, B, D and M as you’ve specified. The appeal judges are absolutely correct that there was no prosecution expert evidence diagnosing air embolus on the basis of skin discolouration. Baby A - pages 13, 14 and 15 - Collapsed suddenly when in a stable condition - No evidence of infection or lack of oxygen and the modest fluid loss which has resulted from the delay in putting the line up had not been sufficient to cause the sudden onset unexpected collapse - Professor Arthurs said the babies imaging showed gas you would normally expect to see however there was a line of gas just in front of the spine which is unusual in the absence of a bony fracture or overwhelming sepsis. - Dr Marnerides identified the presence of an air bubble at post-mortem historolgy of the brain and lungs Baby B - pages 15 and 16 - collapsed suddenly when in a stable condition - pale with blotchy skin - cyanosed in appearance - 3 different medical professionals identifying skin discolouration. 2 of them saying they had never seen anything like it before. The skin discolouration appeared the disappeared. - sudden apnoea - no evidence of sepsis or problem with lungs Baby D - pages 16 and 17 - skin discolouration of a type which had never been seen in a neonate before - multiple collapses - Professor Arthurs identified striking black line from left to right in front of the spine which was either gas in the aorta or the inferior vena cava. He’d never seen this quality of gas in one of the main great vessels where no reason (for example, sepsis or trauma) could be found. - Dr Marnerides said there was presence of gas in the large intra abdominal vessel which could not be explained by infection or body decomposition - baby was born with pneumonia but had stabilised and was recovering at the time of her collapse Baby M - pages 17, 18 and 19 - skin discolouration in the form of blotches that would flit about appearing and disappearing - no evidence of infection or any other cause for the collapse - sudden collapse - prolonged arrest in a baby that had been well followed by a speedy recovery. The speedy recovery was as confusing as the collapse Point 41 on page 11 of the appeal judgement says the following referring to the Lee and Tanswell paper. ‘The authors noted that “the presenting signs of pulmonary vascular embolism were usually sudden and dramatic”. The most common signs included “sudden collapse with either pallor or cyanosis, hypotension, bizarre ECG irregularities varying from tachycardia to bradycardia” The authors also noted blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor”. In several of the cases and in one of the authors own cases “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” had been observed.’ I’ve checked this directly with the source material and it is quoted correctly. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2658851/I’m not clued up when it comes to the medical terminology but don’t need to be point out that sudden collapses, present in every one of the cases you specified as only relying on skin discolouration, are a common sign of air embolisms. Then there are the cases where there are unexplainable gas and air bubbles. So yeah your claim just is just blatantly wrong. I would go into your other comments but this is quite time consuming and frankly I can’t be bothered right now.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 10, 2024 20:44:55 GMT
Without trying to relitigate the whole trial on the MB there are in my view statements of fact and law which were either incorrectly interpreted evidence wrongfully excluded in both the Trial and the 2 Appeals and procedural issues wrongly interpreted I say again the Appeal Court Judges were wrong to dismiss Shoo Lee's air embolism evidence because the Jury relied on other evidence and that the defence could have called him at the Trial, this is perverse This was not the case in Babies A B D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discoloration. Evans relied on Shoo Lee's 1989 paper on the subject to reach his conclusions although previous autopsy's had found no evidence. Lee's rebuttal evidence of Evans Expert Evidence was that the skin discolorations noted by Evans according to Lee does not point to an air embolism as the skin discolorations would be an entirely different colour It may be unsurprising that Evans reached that conclusion as he was a qualified Pediatrician although not practicing for many years but was not a Neonatologist like Lee. Evans was also part of and directed some of the Police investigation to determine even if a crime had been committed and reviewed a substantial amount of Medical Case Files some of which formed the basis of the charges being laid against Letby although previous autopsy's had not reached the same conclusion. Evans should not then have been then called as an expert which a role which must remain impartial but he was giving Expert Evidence on conclusions he had already made and which were subsequently disputed by Lee whose body of work Evans had relied upon. Truly Bizarre. Evans credibility as an Expert Witness was also challenged during the trial on his credentials to be an Expert Witness as he was a Pediatrician not a Neonatologist, this was dismissed by the Trial Judge. There are many eminent Doctors and Statisticians who have grave concerns about the shift pattern evidence presented to the Jury because it only included when Letby was on Duty and did not record all spike patterns throughout the entire period. In addition we now find that the process of elimination evidence being Letby was the only one present is fatally flawed as the Police evidence presented misinterpreted people leaving not entering the Neonatal Unit. Finally as we are dealing with the realms of circumstantial evidence the Judge who reviewed and dismissed Letby's first Appeal was Sir Robin Spencer KC who prosecuted Sally Clark in that Miscarriage of Justice when convicted of murdering her two sons I still maintain that I am unsure of Letby's Guilt or innocence but to me there are too many imponderables and it should be referred to the CCRC for a full review You stated above “This was not the case in babies A, B, D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discolouration”. This claim you’ve made is demonstrably false as I’ll show using the examples of babies A, B, D and M as you’ve specified. The appeal judges are absolutely correct that there was no prosecution expert evidence diagnosing air embolus on the basis of skin discolouration. Baby A - pages 13, 14 and 15 - Collapsed suddenly when in a stable condition - No evidence of infection or lack of oxygen and the modest fluid loss which has resulted from the delay in putting the line up had not been sufficient to cause the sudden onset unexpected collapse - Professor Arthurs said the babies imaging showed gas you would normally expect to see however there was a line of gas just in front of the spine which is unusual in the absence of a bony fracture or overwhelming sepsis. - Dr Marnerides identified the presence of an air bubble at post-mortem historolgy of the brain and lungs Baby B - pages 15 and 16 - collapsed suddenly when in a stable condition - pale with blotchy skin - cyanosed in appearance - 3 different medical professionals identifying skin discolouration. 2 of them saying they had never seen anything like it before. The skin discolouration appeared the disappeared. - sudden apnoea - no evidence of sepsis or problem with lungs Baby D - pages 16 and 17 - skin discolouration of a type which had never been seen in a neonate before - multiple collapses - Professor Arthurs identified striking black line from left to right in front of the spine which was either gas in the aorta or the inferior vena cava. He’d never seen this quality of gas in one of the main great vessels where no reason (for example, sepsis or trauma) could be found. - Dr Marnerides said there was presence of gas in the large intra abdominal vessel which could not be explained by infection or body decomposition - baby was born with pneumonia but had stabilised and was recovering at the time of her collapse Baby M - pages 17, 18 and 19 - skin discolouration in the form of blotches that would flit about appearing and disappearing - no evidence of infection or any other cause for the collapse - sudden collapse - prolonged arrest in a baby that had been well followed by a speedy recovery. The speedy recovery was as confusing as the collapse Point 41 on page 11 of the appeal judgement says the following referring to the Lee and Tanswell paper. ‘The authors noted that “the presenting signs of pulmonary vascular embolism were usually sudden and dramatic”. The most common signs included “sudden collapse with either pallor or cyanosis, hypotension, bizarre ECG irregularities varying from tachycardia to bradycardia” The authors also noted blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor”. In several of the cases and in one of the authors own cases “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” had been observed.’ I’ve checked this directly with the source material and it is quoted correctly. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2658851/I’m not clued up when it comes to the medical terminology but don’t need to be point out that sudden collapses, present in every one of the cases you specified as only relying on skin discolouration, are a common sign of air embolisms. Then there are the cases where there are unexplainable gas and air bubbles. So yeah your claim just is just blatantly wrong. I would go into your other comments but this is quite time consuming and frankly I can’t be bothered right now. Do you believe it should just be left here and leave her in prison for the rest of her days. Or are you happy to let it play out in a retrial taking account of the recent concerns raised?
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 10, 2024 21:05:12 GMT
You stated above “This was not the case in babies A, B, D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discolouration”. This claim you’ve made is demonstrably false as I’ll show using the examples of babies A, B, D and M as you’ve specified. The appeal judges are absolutely correct that there was no prosecution expert evidence diagnosing air embolus on the basis of skin discolouration. Baby A - pages 13, 14 and 15 - Collapsed suddenly when in a stable condition - No evidence of infection or lack of oxygen and the modest fluid loss which has resulted from the delay in putting the line up had not been sufficient to cause the sudden onset unexpected collapse - Professor Arthurs said the babies imaging showed gas you would normally expect to see however there was a line of gas just in front of the spine which is unusual in the absence of a bony fracture or overwhelming sepsis. - Dr Marnerides identified the presence of an air bubble at post-mortem historolgy of the brain and lungs Baby B - pages 15 and 16 - collapsed suddenly when in a stable condition - pale with blotchy skin - cyanosed in appearance - 3 different medical professionals identifying skin discolouration. 2 of them saying they had never seen anything like it before. The skin discolouration appeared the disappeared. - sudden apnoea - no evidence of sepsis or problem with lungs Baby D - pages 16 and 17 - skin discolouration of a type which had never been seen in a neonate before - multiple collapses - Professor Arthurs identified striking black line from left to right in front of the spine which was either gas in the aorta or the inferior vena cava. He’d never seen this quality of gas in one of the main great vessels where no reason (for example, sepsis or trauma) could be found. - Dr Marnerides said there was presence of gas in the large intra abdominal vessel which could not be explained by infection or body decomposition - baby was born with pneumonia but had stabilised and was recovering at the time of her collapse Baby M - pages 17, 18 and 19 - skin discolouration in the form of blotches that would flit about appearing and disappearing - no evidence of infection or any other cause for the collapse - sudden collapse - prolonged arrest in a baby that had been well followed by a speedy recovery. The speedy recovery was as confusing as the collapse Point 41 on page 11 of the appeal judgement says the following referring to the Lee and Tanswell paper. ‘The authors noted that “the presenting signs of pulmonary vascular embolism were usually sudden and dramatic”. The most common signs included “sudden collapse with either pallor or cyanosis, hypotension, bizarre ECG irregularities varying from tachycardia to bradycardia” The authors also noted blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor”. In several of the cases and in one of the authors own cases “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” had been observed.’ I’ve checked this directly with the source material and it is quoted correctly. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2658851/I’m not clued up when it comes to the medical terminology but don’t need to be point out that sudden collapses, present in every one of the cases you specified as only relying on skin discolouration, are a common sign of air embolisms. Then there are the cases where there are unexplainable gas and air bubbles. So yeah your claim just is just blatantly wrong. I would go into your other comments but this is quite time consuming and frankly I can’t be bothered right now. Do you believe it should just be left here and leave her in prison for the rest of her days. Or are you happy to let it play out in a retrial taking account of the recent concerns raised? Miscarriages of justice happen but wrongful convictions only get overturned when the accused is shown to be innocent because new evidence proves they couldn’t have done it or that someone else did it. Neither of those options are realistic for Letby.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 10, 2024 21:16:50 GMT
Do you believe it should just be left here and leave her in prison for the rest of her days. Or are you happy to let it play out in a retrial taking account of the recent concerns raised? Miscarriages of justice happen but wrongful convictions only get overturned when the accused is shown to be innocent because new evidence proves they couldn’t have done it or that someone else did it. Neither of those options are realistic for Letby. That isn't strictly true is it? The evidence doesn't have to PROVE that the accused COULDN'T have done it but rather, it only has to demonstrate, that the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt has no longer been met.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 10, 2024 21:25:56 GMT
Do you believe it should just be left here and leave her in prison for the rest of her days. Or are you happy to let it play out in a retrial taking account of the recent concerns raised? Miscarriages of justice happen but wrongful convictions only get overturned when the accused is shown to be innocent because new evidence proves they couldn’t have done it or that someone else did it. Neither of those options are realistic for Letby. Fair enough. Personally the concept of someone rotting in prison forever for something that isn't how its been relayed to us makes me very uncomfortable indeed. Obviously you can't keep retrialing forever. But I've read enough to make me think okay lets have a full review and remove the doubt. If that proves she's guilty then fair enough..
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 10, 2024 23:29:43 GMT
Without trying to relitigate the whole trial on the MB there are in my view statements of fact and law which were either incorrectly interpreted evidence wrongfully excluded in both the Trial and the 2 Appeals and procedural issues wrongly interpreted I say again the Appeal Court Judges were wrong to dismiss Shoo Lee's air embolism evidence because the Jury relied on other evidence and that the defence could have called him at the Trial, this is perverse This was not the case in Babies A B D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discoloration. Evans relied on Shoo Lee's 1989 paper on the subject to reach his conclusions although previous autopsy's had found no evidence. Lee's rebuttal evidence of Evans Expert Evidence was that the skin discolorations noted by Evans according to Lee does not point to an air embolism as the skin discolorations would be an entirely different colour It may be unsurprising that Evans reached that conclusion as he was a qualified Pediatrician although not practicing for many years but was not a Neonatologist like Lee. Evans was also part of and directed some of the Police investigation to determine even if a crime had been committed and reviewed a substantial amount of Medical Case Files some of which formed the basis of the charges being laid against Letby although previous autopsy's had not reached the same conclusion. Evans should not then have been then called as an expert which a role which must remain impartial but he was giving Expert Evidence on conclusions he had already made and which were subsequently disputed by Lee whose body of work Evans had relied upon. Truly Bizarre. Evans credibility as an Expert Witness was also challenged during the trial on his credentials to be an Expert Witness as he was a Pediatrician not a Neonatologist, this was dismissed by the Trial Judge. There are many eminent Doctors and Statisticians who have grave concerns about the shift pattern evidence presented to the Jury because it only included when Letby was on Duty and did not record all spike patterns throughout the entire period. In addition we now find that the process of elimination evidence being Letby was the only one present is fatally flawed as the Police evidence presented misinterpreted people leaving not entering the Neonatal Unit. Finally as we are dealing with the realms of circumstantial evidence the Judge who reviewed and dismissed Letby's first Appeal was Sir Robin Spencer KC who prosecuted Sally Clark in that Miscarriage of Justice when convicted of murdering her two sons I still maintain that I am unsure of Letby's Guilt or innocence but to me there are too many imponderables and it should be referred to the CCRC for a full review 1. You stated above “This was not the case in babies A, B, D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discolouration”. This claim you’ve made is demonstrably false as I’ll show using the examples of babies A, B, D and M as you’ve specified. 2. Point 41 on page 11 of the appeal judgement says the following referring to the Lee and Tanswell paper. ‘The authors noted that “the presenting signs of pulmonary vascular embolism were usually sudden and dramatic”. The most common signs included “sudden collapse with either pallor or cyanosis, hypotension, bizarre ECG irregularities varying from tachycardia to bradycardia” The authors also noted blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor”. In several of the cases and in one of the authors own cases “ bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” had been observed.’I’ve checked this directly with the source material and it is quoted correctly. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2658851/I'll keep it short as your attention span is limited To be fair you have almost reached the core and obvious reason why the conviction is unsound but you have yet to fully join the dots 1. If you claim to have read the transcript in detail I'm finding it difficult to understand why you have not understood point 124 which was the case to dismiss even before it reached the Jury on the basis that the charge related to Babies A B D and M or Counts 1 2 4 and 16 if you prefer were entirely based on the air embolism evidence 2 At point 170 Page 43 Lee explains that "the ONLY skin discoloration specific to air embolism is when "bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” had been observed" (Point 41 that you have quoted above failed to say the highlighted is the ONLY manifestation which can be attributed to air embolism) At point 171 also Page 43 "The core point raised by this evidence, it is submitted, is that the prosecution Witness (Evans) wrongly diagnosed air embolism on a variety of skin discoloration, whereas Dr Lee's evidence establishes that ONLY bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background had been observed"
So there we have it, the Prosecution "Expert Witness" Evans, relying on Lee and Tanswell 1989 Paper on Air Embolisms misinterprets the findings of the Paper and presents it to the Jury in evidence who rely on his Independent Expert Witness Testimony. The co-author of the Paper Lee in oral testimony points out to the Appeals Court that Evans has misrepresented their findings on skin discoloration and wrongly gave testimony that other skin discoloration can cause air embolism. The Appeal Court Judges dismissed this statement of fact as being inadmissible because Lee could have made this correction at the original trial. They went on to say that air embolism wasn't the only reason for Letby's conviction which is false if you read point 124 of the transcript. Truly Astonishing.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 11, 2024 10:33:59 GMT
1. You stated above “This was not the case in babies A, B, D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discolouration”. This claim you’ve made is demonstrably false as I’ll show using the examples of babies A, B, D and M as you’ve specified. 2. Point 41 on page 11 of the appeal judgement says the following referring to the Lee and Tanswell paper. ‘The authors noted that “the presenting signs of pulmonary vascular embolism were usually sudden and dramatic”. The most common signs included “sudden collapse with either pallor or cyanosis, hypotension, bizarre ECG irregularities varying from tachycardia to bradycardia” The authors also noted blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor”. In several of the cases and in one of the authors own cases “ bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” had been observed.’I’ve checked this directly with the source material and it is quoted correctly. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2658851/I'll keep it short as your attention span is limited To be fair you have almost reached the core and obvious reason why the conviction is unsound but you have yet to fully join the dots 1. If you claim to have read the transcript in detail I'm finding it difficult to understand why you have not understood point 124 which was the case to dismiss even before it reached the Jury on the basis that the charge related to Babies A B D and M or Counts 1 2 4 and 16 if you prefer were entirely based on the air embolism evidence 2 At point 170 Page 43 Lee explains that "the ONLY skin discoloration specific to air embolism is when "bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” had been observed" (Point 41 that you have quoted above failed to say the highlighted is the ONLY manifestation which can be attributed to air embolism) At point 171 also Page 43 "The core point raised by this evidence, it is submitted, is that the prosecution Witness (Evans) wrongly diagnosed air embolism on a variety of skin discoloration, whereas Dr Lee's evidence establishes that ONLY bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background had been observed"
So there we have it, the Prosecution "Expert Witness" Evans, relying on Lee and Tanswell 1989 Paper on Air Embolisms misinterprets the findings of the Paper and presents it to the Jury in evidence who rely on his Independent Expert Witness Testimony. The co-author of the Paper Lee in oral testimony points out to the Appeals Court that Evans has misrepresented their findings on skin discoloration and wrongly gave testimony that other skin discoloration can cause air embolism. The Appeal Court Judges dismissed this statement of fact as being inadmissible because Lee could have made this correction at the original trial. They went on to say that air embolism wasn't the only reason for Letby's conviction which is false if you read point 124 of the transcript. Truly Astonishing.
I never said my attention span was limited just that it was time consuming to respond, mainly because my responses have been via mobile phone. Point 124 "The submission of no case to answer was aimed at counts 1, 2, 4 and 16 (cases in which the prosecution alleged that air embolus was the sole cause of the death or collapse of the child concerned)"You say above " They went on to say that air embolism wasn't the only reason for Letby's conviction which is false if you read point 124 of the transcript. Truly Astonishing" The judges didn't say this at all, but please feel free to quote it directly if you can prove so. You're conflating things which shouldn't be conflated. You have also stated "This was not the case in babies A, B, D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discolouration”. This is just not true which I've gone into great detail over, I've got no idea where you've got this notion from so quote it, if you can. The claim that air embolus was the sole cause of the death or collapse is obviously not the same as the claim that skin discolouration was the sole reason for diagnosis of air embolus. This is so blatantly obvious. It is not claimed by the defence anywhere in point 124 or the subsequent points 126, 127 or 128 that skin discolouration was the sole reason for the diagnosis and subsequent conviction. Again feel free to directly quote where this was apparently said. Let's look at what the defence argument actually was for the submission of no case to answer, it was for three reasons which are covered in points 126 to 128. 1) It was submitted that the scientific basis for air embolus is so weak that it fails to provide the level of reliability required to support those allegations. 2) It was submitted that the available research relevant to air embolus was extremely limited. 3) It was submitted that none of the expert witnesses who had given evidence as to the general theory or diagnosis of air embolus had sufficient clinical expertise to enable them to give expert evidence as to those matters. Now within point 3 is the point you raise " Dr Evans had no clinical experience of diagnosing air embolus; he relied primarily on the Lee and Tanswell paper; and he gave inconsistent evidence as to the characteristics of air embolus" This is an argument made by Ben Myers which you have seemingly accepted at face value but does the argument actually stand up to scrutiny? Let's see. Point 40 - Dr Evans produced his “Review of Published Literature regarding Air Embolus in the Newborn Infant” in July 2019 by which time he had provided over 40 reports for the police investigation. The document reviewed 18 studies or case reports drawn from the world literature where death had been attributed to air embolus. He observed that the individual cases reported in the various papers demonstrated features similar to those observed by the members of clinical staff called to resuscitate the infants at the unit. Point 41 - Dr Evans noted the handful of reports in which skin discolouration had been observed. In one such study the baby was reported t o have become cyanotic with grunting and a mottled skin. Another study referred to the infant’s skin turning “blue black with blotchy redness” with “extremely pale” feet.It's interesting to note that Myers initially argued the Lee and Tanswell paper shouldn't have been relied on by the prosecution. Point 135 - "In the written grounds of appeal it was argued that the Lee and Tanswell paper should not have been relied upon as it was by prosecution witnesses. The paper was said to be of little application to the trial of the applicant: it was not designed to explore the link between air embolus and skin discolouration" However when it comes the oral submissions Ben Myers has subsequently changed his argument. Point 136 "In his oral submissions Mr Myers now however argues that the specific skin discolouration mentioned in the Lee and Tanswell paper (“bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background”) can properly be treated as diagnostic of air embolus, but that no other type of discolouration can be regarded as diagnostic or pathognomonic of air embolus." Now lets look at what the judges said in response to Myers. Point 142 - "We again observe that, in the submissions to this court, it was at least tacitly accepted that cases noted in the Lee and Tanswell paper which showed a type of skin discolouration other than “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” were indeed cases of air embolus." Point 143 - "We see the force of the argument that the limits of scientific knowledge would not permit a reliable diagnosis of air embolus to be made solely on the basis of a particular type of discolouration, other than the very specific type recorded in the Lee and Tanswell paper. We are not however able to accept the submission that that is what the prosecution expert witnesses did." Point 144 - "As is apparent, there are recurring features: for example, the sudden and unexpected collapse of a baby who was otherwise reasonably healthy; the failure of techniques of resuscitation which could be expected to be successful if the cause were something other than air embolus; the dramatic and highly unusual changes in skin colouration; and the coincidence of other babies also suffering sudden collapses, most strikingly in the cases of twin siblings. As is also apparent, neither Dr Evans nor Dr Bohin diagnosed air embolus in any case on
the sole basis of skin discolouration. On the contrary, each expressly disclaimed any ability to do so in any of the cases they were considering: see, for example, the summaries of these witnesses’ evidence in paras 52 to 54, 58, 59, 65 to 67, 72, 73, 78 to 81, 85 to 88, and 96 and 97; and in particular Dr Bohin’s explicit acceptance in the last of those paragraphs that a wide variety of skin discolouration had been observed and that “there is not one single thing that you can say is definitely pathognomonic of air embolus”. It's not me that's failed to understand point 124. It's you. It also should be pointed out that point 124 and everything discussed up to this point in the post is included in Ground 2, which is challenging the judges ruling. Dr Lee's testimony is fresh evidence included in Ground 6 and you cannot challenge a judges ruling with fresh evidence because it wasn't something he had to consider. Ground 6 - The fresh evidence Before getting into the appeal stuff it's worth outlining what is said in the Lee and Tanswell paper. Under the diagnosis section it says "The presenting signs of pulmonary vascular air embolism were sudden and dramatic. The most common signs included sudden collapse, with either pallor or cyanosis" It also says "Blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor were noted in several cases and, in one of our own cases we noted bright pink vessels against a cyanosed cutaneous background" Point 173 - "Because they may have many causes, pallor, cyanosis and mottling of the skin are not in themselves diagnostic of air embolus, and should not be used alone to make that diagnosis. He stated that the only cutaneous sign which is itself sufficient to make the diagnosis in a baby is the bright pink blood vessels superimposed on blue skin which was observed in one of the cases which he reported in the Lee and Tanswell paper" The bit in bold is not something that was specified in the original paper, you can't misinterpret something that was never even there to begin with. 181 - "It is a striking feature of this application that the Lee and Tanswell paper did not in itself say anything about the diagnostic status of an observation of “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background.” Rather, it referred to a variety of cutaneous discolouration; attributed the striking discolouration noted in one case to “direct oxygenation of erythrocytes adjacent to free air in the vascular system, while the tissues continued to be poorly perfused and oxygenated”; and said that the “most distinctive sign” of pulmonary vascular embolism, present in half of the cases, was the finding of free air when blood was withdrawn from the umbilical arterial catheter. It is only in the proposed fresh evidence that Dr Lee explicitly makes the point which is relied upon."182 - It is not clear to us why a discolouration which was previously treated as consistent with air embolus is now said to be specifically diagnostic of air embolus. Given that many of the rare cases of air embolus in neonates are likely to occur in neonatal units, and given that the two studies referred to by Dr Lee collectively refer to well over 100 cases of acknowledged air embolus, it is to the layman surprising that in the last 35 years only one, or perhaps two, cases have been reported of the specific bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed skin. 187 - Dr Evans and Dr Bohin relied on the differing forms of skin discolouration observed in individual babies as consistent with air embolus. Their evidence in that regard was in our view entirely consistent with the observational study in the Lee and Tanswell paper, and with Dr Lee’s review of 64 cases since that paper was written. Indeed, Mr Myers realistically accepts that skin discolouration – other than the one type which Dr Lee states is pathognomonic of air embolus – is indicative of circulatory collapse which may be associated with air embolus, and that air embolus may be associated with a variety of skin discolouration. In short, the prosecution witnesses did not fall into the error which the proposed fresh evidence seeks to assert they made. The proposed evidence is therefore irrelevant and inadmissible.189 - Similarly, Dr Lee’s evidence would provide a basis for challenging a witness who diagnosed air embolus on the basis of excluding other causes and then asserting that it must be a case of air embolus because no other explanation could be identified. But again, that was not the basis on which the prosecution witnesses reached their opinions: they made findings which were consistent with air embolus and which collectively could not be explained by natural causes or any other possible alternative explanation.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 11, 2024 15:50:01 GMT
I'll keep it short as your attention span is limited To be fair you have almost reached the core and obvious reason why the conviction is unsound but you have yet to fully join the dots 1. If you claim to have read the transcript in detail I'm finding it difficult to understand why you have not understood point 124 which was the case to dismiss even before it reached the Jury on the basis that the charge related to Babies A B D and M or Counts 1 2 4 and 16 if you prefer were entirely based on the air embolism evidence 2 At point 170 Page 43 Lee explains that "the ONLY skin discoloration specific to air embolism is when "bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” had been observed" (Point 41 that you have quoted above failed to say the highlighted is the ONLY manifestation which can be attributed to air embolism) At point 171 also Page 43 "The core point raised by this evidence, it is submitted, is that the prosecution Witness (Evans) wrongly diagnosed air embolism on a variety of skin discoloration, whereas Dr Lee's evidence establishes that ONLY bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background had been observed"
So there we have it, the Prosecution "Expert Witness" Evans, relying on Lee and Tanswell 1989 Paper on Air Embolisms misinterprets the findings of the Paper and presents it to the Jury in evidence who rely on his Independent Expert Witness Testimony. The co-author of the Paper Lee in oral testimony points out to the Appeals Court that Evans has misrepresented their findings on skin discoloration and wrongly gave testimony that other skin discoloration can cause air embolism. The Appeal Court Judges dismissed this statement of fact as being inadmissible because Lee could have made this correction at the original trial. They went on to say that air embolism wasn't the only reason for Letby's conviction which is false if you read point 124 of the transcript. Truly Astonishing.
I never said my attention span was limited just that it was time consuming to respond, mainly because my responses have been via mobile phone. Point 124 "The submission of no case to answer was aimed at counts 1, 2, 4 and 16 (cases in which the prosecution alleged that air embolus was the sole cause of the death or collapse of the child concerned)"You say above " They went on to say that air embolism wasn't the only reason for Letby's conviction which is false if you read point 124 of the transcript. Truly Astonishing" The judges didn't say this at all, but please feel free to quote it directly if you can prove so. You're conflating things which shouldn't be conflated. You have also stated "This was not the case in babies A, B, D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discolouration”. This is just not true which I've gone into great detail over, I've got no idea where you've got this notion from so quote it, if you can. The claim that air embolus was the sole cause of the death or collapse is obviously not the same as the claim that skin discolouration was the sole reason for diagnosis of air embolus. This is so blatantly obvious. It is not claimed by the defence anywhere in point 124 or the subsequent points 126, 127 or 128 that skin discolouration was the sole reason for the diagnosis and subsequent conviction. Again feel free to directly quote where this was apparently said. Let's look at what the defence argument actually was for the submission of no case to answer, it was for three reasons which are covered in points 126 to 128. 1) It was submitted that the scientific basis for air embolus is so weak that it fails to provide the level of reliability required to support those allegations. 2) It was submitted that the available research relevant to air embolus was extremely limited. 3) It was submitted that none of the expert witnesses who had given evidence as to the general theory or diagnosis of air embolus had sufficient clinical expertise to enable them to give expert evidence as to those matters. Now within point 3 is the point you raise " Dr Evans had no clinical experience of diagnosing air embolus; he relied primarily on the Lee and Tanswell paper; and he gave inconsistent evidence as to the characteristics of air embolus" This is an argument made by Ben Myers which you have seemingly accepted at face value but does the argument actually stand up to scrutiny? Let's see. Point 40 - Dr Evans produced his “Review of Published Literature regarding Air Embolus in the Newborn Infant” in July 2019 by which time he had provided over 40 reports for the police investigation. The document reviewed 18 studies or case reports drawn from the world literature where death had been attributed to air embolus. He observed that the individual cases reported in the various papers demonstrated features similar to those observed by the members of clinical staff called to resuscitate the infants at the unit. Point 41 - Dr Evans noted the handful of reports in which skin discolouration had been observed. In one such study the baby was reported t o have become cyanotic with grunting and a mottled skin. Another study referred to the infant’s skin turning “blue black with blotchy redness” with “extremely pale” feet.It's interesting to note that Myers initially argued the Lee and Tanswell paper shouldn't have been relied on by the prosecution. Point 135 - "In the written grounds of appeal it was argued that the Lee and Tanswell paper should not have been relied upon as it was by prosecution witnesses. The paper was said to be of little application to the trial of the applicant: it was not designed to explore the link between air embolus and skin discolouration" However when it comes the oral submissions Ben Myers has subsequently changed his argument. Point 136 "In his oral submissions Mr Myers now however argues that the specific skin discolouration mentioned in the Lee and Tanswell paper (“bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background”) can properly be treated as diagnostic of air embolus, but that no other type of discolouration can be regarded as diagnostic or pathognomonic of air embolus." Now lets look at what the judges said in response to Myers. Point 142 - "We again observe that, in the submissions to this court, it was at least tacitly accepted that cases noted in the Lee and Tanswell paper which showed a type of skin discolouration other than “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” were indeed cases of air embolus." Point 143 - "We see the force of the argument that the limits of scientific knowledge would not permit a reliable diagnosis of air embolus to be made solely on the basis of a particular type of discolouration, other than the very specific type recorded in the Lee and Tanswell paper. We are not however able to accept the submission that that is what the prosecution expert witnesses did." Point 144 - "As is apparent, there are recurring features: for example, the sudden and unexpected collapse of a baby who was otherwise reasonably healthy; the failure of techniques of resuscitation which could be expected to be successful if the cause were something other than air embolus; the dramatic and highly unusual changes in skin colouration; and the coincidence of other babies also suffering sudden collapses, most strikingly in the cases of twin siblings. As is also apparent, neither Dr Evans nor Dr Bohin diagnosed air embolus in any case on
the sole basis of skin discolouration. On the contrary, each expressly disclaimed any ability to do so in any of the cases they were considering: see, for example, the summaries of these witnesses’ evidence in paras 52 to 54, 58, 59, 65 to 67, 72, 73, 78 to 81, 85 to 88, and 96 and 97; and in particular Dr Bohin’s explicit acceptance in the last of those paragraphs that a wide variety of skin discolouration had been observed and that “there is not one single thing that you can say is definitely pathognomonic of air embolus”. It's not me that's failed to understand point 124. It's you. It also should be pointed out that point 124 and everything discussed up to this point in the post is included in Ground 2, which is challenging the judges ruling. Dr Lee's testimony is fresh evidence included in Ground 6 and you cannot challenge a judges ruling with fresh evidence because it wasn't something he had to consider. Ground 6 - The fresh evidence Before getting into the appeal stuff it's worth outlining what is said in the Lee and Tanswell paper. Under the diagnosis section it says "The presenting signs of pulmonary vascular air embolism were sudden and dramatic. The most common signs included sudden collapse, with either pallor or cyanosis" It also says "Blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor were noted in several cases and, in one of our own cases we noted bright pink vessels against a cyanosed cutaneous background" Point 173 - "Because they may have many causes, pallor, cyanosis and mottling of the skin are not in themselves diagnostic of air embolus, and should not be used alone to make that diagnosis. He stated that the only cutaneous sign which is itself sufficient to make the diagnosis in a baby is the bright pink blood vessels superimposed on blue skin which was observed in one of the cases which he reported in the Lee and Tanswell paper" The bit in bold is not something that was specified in the original paper, you can't misinterpret something that was never even there to begin with. 181 - "It is a striking feature of this application that the Lee and Tanswell paper did not in itself say anything about the diagnostic status of an observation of “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background.” Rather, it referred to a variety of cutaneous discolouration; attributed the striking discolouration noted in one case to “direct oxygenation of erythrocytes adjacent to free air in the vascular system, while the tissues continued to be poorly perfused and oxygenated”; and said that the “most distinctive sign” of pulmonary vascular embolism, present in half of the cases, was the finding of free air when blood was withdrawn from the umbilical arterial catheter. It is only in the proposed fresh evidence that Dr Lee explicitly makes the point which is relied upon."182 - It is not clear to us why a discolouration which was previously treated as consistent with air embolus is now said to be specifically diagnostic of air embolus. Given that many of the rare cases of air embolus in neonates are likely to occur in neonatal units, and given that the two studies referred to by Dr Lee collectively refer to well over 100 cases of acknowledged air embolus, it is to the layman surprising that in the last 35 years only one, or perhaps two, cases have been reported of the specific bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed skin. 187 - Dr Evans and Dr Bohin relied on the differing forms of skin discolouration observed in individual babies as consistent with air embolus. Their evidence in that regard was in our view entirely consistent with the observational study in the Lee and Tanswell paper, and with Dr Lee’s review of 64 cases since that paper was written. Indeed, Mr Myers realistically accepts that skin discolouration – other than the one type which Dr Lee states is pathognomonic of air embolus – is indicative of circulatory collapse which may be associated with air embolus, and that air embolus may be associated with a variety of skin discolouration. In short, the prosecution witnesses did not fall into the error which the proposed fresh evidence seeks to assert they made. The proposed evidence is therefore irrelevant and inadmissible.189 - Similarly, Dr Lee’s evidence would provide a basis for challenging a witness who diagnosed air embolus on the basis of excluding other causes and then asserting that it must be a case of air embolus because no other explanation could be identified. But again, that was not the basis on which the prosecution witnesses reached their opinions: they made findings which were consistent with air embolus and which collectively could not be explained by natural causes or any other possible alternative explanation. This is indeed getting tedious particularly as you have ignored point 170 and 171 My last go around At Point 170 Lee explains in his testimony that to correctly use Lee and Tanswell Paper to show an air embolism then "bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” have to be observed" At Point 171 In Lee's evidence"The core point raised by this evidence, it is submitted, is that the prosecution Witness (Evans) wrongly diagnosed air embolism on a variety of skin discoloration, whereas Dr Lee's evidence establishes that ONLY bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background had been observed"
It is really not that difficult, Evans used Lee and Tanswell 1989 Paper in Court to support his theory of air embolism but he either misinterpreted genuinely or otherwise the substance of the Paper in so far as it can only be a cause when pink discoloration is present yet Evans diagnosed air embolism in a variety of skin discoloration. Lee in his evidence to the Appeal Court directly said Evans was misusing his and Tanswell findings and the 3 Appeal Court Judges found nothing remarkable in this and struck out Lee's evidence because he didn't make it at the original trial. I find this extraordinary
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 11, 2024 17:11:45 GMT
I never said my attention span was limited just that it was time consuming to respond, mainly because my responses have been via mobile phone. Point 124 "The submission of no case to answer was aimed at counts 1, 2, 4 and 16 (cases in which the prosecution alleged that air embolus was the sole cause of the death or collapse of the child concerned)"You say above " They went on to say that air embolism wasn't the only reason for Letby's conviction which is false if you read point 124 of the transcript. Truly Astonishing" The judges didn't say this at all, but please feel free to quote it directly if you can prove so. You're conflating things which shouldn't be conflated. You have also stated "This was not the case in babies A, B, D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of the skin colour discolouration”. This is just not true which I've gone into great detail over, I've got no idea where you've got this notion from so quote it, if you can. The claim that air embolus was the sole cause of the death or collapse is obviously not the same as the claim that skin discolouration was the sole reason for diagnosis of air embolus. This is so blatantly obvious. It is not claimed by the defence anywhere in point 124 or the subsequent points 126, 127 or 128 that skin discolouration was the sole reason for the diagnosis and subsequent conviction. Again feel free to directly quote where this was apparently said. Let's look at what the defence argument actually was for the submission of no case to answer, it was for three reasons which are covered in points 126 to 128. 1) It was submitted that the scientific basis for air embolus is so weak that it fails to provide the level of reliability required to support those allegations. 2) It was submitted that the available research relevant to air embolus was extremely limited. 3) It was submitted that none of the expert witnesses who had given evidence as to the general theory or diagnosis of air embolus had sufficient clinical expertise to enable them to give expert evidence as to those matters. Now within point 3 is the point you raise " Dr Evans had no clinical experience of diagnosing air embolus; he relied primarily on the Lee and Tanswell paper; and he gave inconsistent evidence as to the characteristics of air embolus" This is an argument made by Ben Myers which you have seemingly accepted at face value but does the argument actually stand up to scrutiny? Let's see. Point 40 - Dr Evans produced his “Review of Published Literature regarding Air Embolus in the Newborn Infant” in July 2019 by which time he had provided over 40 reports for the police investigation. The document reviewed 18 studies or case reports drawn from the world literature where death had been attributed to air embolus. He observed that the individual cases reported in the various papers demonstrated features similar to those observed by the members of clinical staff called to resuscitate the infants at the unit. Point 41 - Dr Evans noted the handful of reports in which skin discolouration had been observed. In one such study the baby was reported t o have become cyanotic with grunting and a mottled skin. Another study referred to the infant’s skin turning “blue black with blotchy redness” with “extremely pale” feet.It's interesting to note that Myers initially argued the Lee and Tanswell paper shouldn't have been relied on by the prosecution. Point 135 - "In the written grounds of appeal it was argued that the Lee and Tanswell paper should not have been relied upon as it was by prosecution witnesses. The paper was said to be of little application to the trial of the applicant: it was not designed to explore the link between air embolus and skin discolouration" However when it comes the oral submissions Ben Myers has subsequently changed his argument. Point 136 "In his oral submissions Mr Myers now however argues that the specific skin discolouration mentioned in the Lee and Tanswell paper (“bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background”) can properly be treated as diagnostic of air embolus, but that no other type of discolouration can be regarded as diagnostic or pathognomonic of air embolus." Now lets look at what the judges said in response to Myers. Point 142 - "We again observe that, in the submissions to this court, it was at least tacitly accepted that cases noted in the Lee and Tanswell paper which showed a type of skin discolouration other than “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” were indeed cases of air embolus." Point 143 - "We see the force of the argument that the limits of scientific knowledge would not permit a reliable diagnosis of air embolus to be made solely on the basis of a particular type of discolouration, other than the very specific type recorded in the Lee and Tanswell paper. We are not however able to accept the submission that that is what the prosecution expert witnesses did." Point 144 - "As is apparent, there are recurring features: for example, the sudden and unexpected collapse of a baby who was otherwise reasonably healthy; the failure of techniques of resuscitation which could be expected to be successful if the cause were something other than air embolus; the dramatic and highly unusual changes in skin colouration; and the coincidence of other babies also suffering sudden collapses, most strikingly in the cases of twin siblings. As is also apparent, neither Dr Evans nor Dr Bohin diagnosed air embolus in any case on
the sole basis of skin discolouration. On the contrary, each expressly disclaimed any ability to do so in any of the cases they were considering: see, for example, the summaries of these witnesses’ evidence in paras 52 to 54, 58, 59, 65 to 67, 72, 73, 78 to 81, 85 to 88, and 96 and 97; and in particular Dr Bohin’s explicit acceptance in the last of those paragraphs that a wide variety of skin discolouration had been observed and that “there is not one single thing that you can say is definitely pathognomonic of air embolus”. It's not me that's failed to understand point 124. It's you. It also should be pointed out that point 124 and everything discussed up to this point in the post is included in Ground 2, which is challenging the judges ruling. Dr Lee's testimony is fresh evidence included in Ground 6 and you cannot challenge a judges ruling with fresh evidence because it wasn't something he had to consider. Ground 6 - The fresh evidence Before getting into the appeal stuff it's worth outlining what is said in the Lee and Tanswell paper. Under the diagnosis section it says "The presenting signs of pulmonary vascular air embolism were sudden and dramatic. The most common signs included sudden collapse, with either pallor or cyanosis" It also says "Blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor were noted in several cases and, in one of our own cases we noted bright pink vessels against a cyanosed cutaneous background" Point 173 - "Because they may have many causes, pallor, cyanosis and mottling of the skin are not in themselves diagnostic of air embolus, and should not be used alone to make that diagnosis. He stated that the only cutaneous sign which is itself sufficient to make the diagnosis in a baby is the bright pink blood vessels superimposed on blue skin which was observed in one of the cases which he reported in the Lee and Tanswell paper" The bit in bold is not something that was specified in the original paper, you can't misinterpret something that was never even there to begin with. 181 - "It is a striking feature of this application that the Lee and Tanswell paper did not in itself say anything about the diagnostic status of an observation of “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background.” Rather, it referred to a variety of cutaneous discolouration; attributed the striking discolouration noted in one case to “direct oxygenation of erythrocytes adjacent to free air in the vascular system, while the tissues continued to be poorly perfused and oxygenated”; and said that the “most distinctive sign” of pulmonary vascular embolism, present in half of the cases, was the finding of free air when blood was withdrawn from the umbilical arterial catheter. It is only in the proposed fresh evidence that Dr Lee explicitly makes the point which is relied upon."182 - It is not clear to us why a discolouration which was previously treated as consistent with air embolus is now said to be specifically diagnostic of air embolus. Given that many of the rare cases of air embolus in neonates are likely to occur in neonatal units, and given that the two studies referred to by Dr Lee collectively refer to well over 100 cases of acknowledged air embolus, it is to the layman surprising that in the last 35 years only one, or perhaps two, cases have been reported of the specific bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed skin. 187 - Dr Evans and Dr Bohin relied on the differing forms of skin discolouration observed in individual babies as consistent with air embolus. Their evidence in that regard was in our view entirely consistent with the observational study in the Lee and Tanswell paper, and with Dr Lee’s review of 64 cases since that paper was written. Indeed, Mr Myers realistically accepts that skin discolouration – other than the one type which Dr Lee states is pathognomonic of air embolus – is indicative of circulatory collapse which may be associated with air embolus, and that air embolus may be associated with a variety of skin discolouration. In short, the prosecution witnesses did not fall into the error which the proposed fresh evidence seeks to assert they made. The proposed evidence is therefore irrelevant and inadmissible.189 - Similarly, Dr Lee’s evidence would provide a basis for challenging a witness who diagnosed air embolus on the basis of excluding other causes and then asserting that it must be a case of air embolus because no other explanation could be identified. But again, that was not the basis on which the prosecution witnesses reached their opinions: they made findings which were consistent with air embolus and which collectively could not be explained by natural causes or any other possible alternative explanation. This is indeed getting tedious particularly as you have ignored point 170 and 171 My last go around At Point 170 Lee explains in his testimony that to correctly use Lee and Tanswell Paper to show an air embolism then "bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” have to be observed" At Point 171 In Lee's evidence"The core point raised by this evidence, it is submitted, is that the prosecution Witness (Evans) wrongly diagnosed air embolism on a variety of skin discoloration, whereas Dr Lee's evidence establishes that ONLY bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background had been observed"
It is really not that difficult, Evans used Lee and Tanswell 1989 Paper in Court to support his theory of air embolism but he either misinterpreted genuinely or otherwise the substance of the Paper in so far as it can only be a cause when pink discoloration is present yet Evans diagnosed air embolism in a variety of skin discoloration. Lee in his evidence to the Appeal Court directly said Evans was misusing his and Tanswell findings and the 3 Appeal Court Judges found nothing remarkable in this and struck out Lee's evidence because he didn't make it at the original trial. I find this extraordinary I haven’t ignored points 170 and 171 though … this is getting really silly now. I’ve gone into a lot of detail in the previous post about why the three judges deemed Dr Lee’s new evidence irrelevant and inadmissible but you haven’t engaged with any of it. That’s up to you but the information is all there. Putting that aside I need you to concede a couple of other points that you’ve also not engaged with. “They went on to say that air embolism wasn’t the only reason for Letby’s conviction” You cannot provide a quote for this and should concede that it is false. Also when you’ve claimed …. “This was not the case in babies A, B, D and M where Letby was convicted on the sole evidence of Evans interpretation of skin discolouration” There is no such claim or quote in the appeal judgement and as such you need to concede your claim is false. I’m more than happy for you to prove me wrong by providing the direct quotes though.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Sept 11, 2024 17:51:24 GMT
You've got some fucking patience Rick.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 11, 2024 19:30:55 GMT
open.spotify.com/episode/5XpX9FCNY270ErMnoQDYRA?si=JKgYHLowQs2wqrBwCQ8USQThis a decent podcast by Barrister Tim Owens KC who has spent 40 years as a defence lawyer and worked on many cases which he has successfully referred back to the Court of Appeal and CCRC. The fresh Dr Lee evidence is discussed he doesn’t think there is any issue with the way the Court of Appeal have ruled.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Sept 11, 2024 20:23:25 GMT
From another Barrister
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 11, 2024 21:39:58 GMT
Those even vaguely familiar with the trial will be aware of the prosecution evidence Dr Ravi Jayaram gave against Letby This is the same Dr Jayaram who along with 99 other Doctors in 2005 signed a letter of support for the notorious Dr Roy Meadow whose corrupt statistical evidence led to Sally Clark's and others wrongful conviction Just saying www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/letter-hundred-doctors
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 12, 2024 8:19:58 GMT
Just to further address the Dr Lee fresh evidence about air embolism diagnosis because wannabee definitely didn't think I had and as such it might still be unclear to anyone else.
Point 170
'Dr Lee explained why an infant suffering an air embolus becomes pale and then cyanosed (blue) as the skin and organs in the body are deprived
of blood supply and oxygen'
“Since the air bubbles are quickly absorbed and disappear, the effect is transient, often lasting only seconds or minutes. Consequently, the pale or white skin discolorations are often described as migrating, as patches appear and disappear. However, pale or white patchiness of the skin are non-specific, and can also be due to transient blood vessel dilation and contraction in the skin caused by other conditions (eg hypothermia, sepsis, allergy, virus, immune reaction). It is very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish pale or white skin discoloration due to air embolus from other causes. The only skin discoloration that is specific to air embolus is “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background”(ref: Lee and Tanswell, 1989). Air embolus can occur without any skin discoloration.”
Point 171
'The core point raised by this evidence, it is submitted, is that prosecution witnesses wrongly diagnosed air embolus on the basis of a variety of skin discolouration, whereas Dr Lee’s evidence establishes that only “bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background” is truly diagnostic of air embolus.'
Point 173
'He explained how reduced oxygen, and reduced perfusion of the skin, may lead to a baby’s skin displaying pallor, cyanosis or mottling. Air embolus is one of the many causes of a reduction in the flow of blood in the area of the skin: it causes circulatory collapse, which in turn results in discolouration of the skin. Because they may have many causes, pallor, cyanosis and mottling of the skin are not in themselves diagnostic of air embolus, and should not be used alone to make that diagnosis. He stated that the only cutaneous sign which is itself sufficient to make the diagnosis in a baby is the bright pink blood vessels superimposed on blue skin'
Point 174
'As with his review of cases in 1989, he again found skin discolouration in about 10 per cent of cases. He reiterated his view that only one type of skin discolouration can be diagnostic of air embolus.'
Point 175
'Dr Lee stated that air embolus is a very rare and specific condition and should not be diagnosed by excluding other causes of death or collapse and concluding that it must be a case of air embolus because nothing else could be found.'
Based on all of the above, for illustrative purposes I'm going to break down what Dr Lee has said about skin discolouration into 'A' and 'B'.
A) skin displaying pallor, cyanosis or mottling.
B) bright pink blood vessels superimposed on blue skin.
Because 'A' can be caused by a number of different conditions it isn't sufficient on it's own to diagnose Air Embolus just by excluding other causes. 'B' is specific to Air Embolus and as such is sufficient for diagnosis.
What the defence and Dr Lee were making the case for is that the prosecution case has taken the 'A' without the presence of 'B', excluded all other causes and diagnosed Air Embolus. The defence are saying this is a wrong diagnosis.
The issue here and the reason the fresh evidence has been thrown out is that isn't what the prosecution have done. Before explaining why I want to refer back to some of the bits I've highlighted in bold above. 'Air Embolus can occur without any skin discoloration' and Dr Lee 'found skin discolouration in about 10 per cent of cases'.
So, quite clearly there are other ways of diagnosing Air Embolus which do not involve skin discolouration.
Again for illustrative purposes I'm going to break things down by '1' and '2'.
1) The defence say the prosecution has taken 'A' excluded all other causes and wrongly diagnosed Air Embolus because 'B' isn't there.
2) The judges say the prosecution has taken 'A' and provided evidence for other ways of diagnosing which do not involve skin discoloration in addition to ruling out all other causes.
Point 190 really rams this point home;
'For that reason, we see considerable force in Mr Johnson’s submission that the evidence relating to Baby A illustrates why the applicant’s approach is misguided. The evidence showed that in life, Baby A had air bubbles in his brain and lungs; and immediately after his death, a lot of air was found in his great vessels. All those findings were consistent with, though not diagnostic of, air embolus. Baby A collapsed and died in circumstances very similar to those of his twin sister the following night. The applicant was present on both occasions. There was ample evidence on which the jury were entitled to find that she had poisoned two other babies with insulin. In short, the circumstantial evidence and medical evidence has to be considered in its totality, not reduced to a single issue as to skin discolouration as a basis for diagnosis.'
The defence has aimed at the wrong target, a swing and a miss. '1' is obviously not the basis on which the prosecution witnesses formed their opinions.
Not only that but the evidence could and should have been submitted at the trial.
Point 185
'the suggested widening of the prosecution experts’ evidence as to the significance of other forms of discolouration was not something which only occurred at or near the end of the prosecution case: on the contrary, most of the evidence which is criticised in this regard had been given by the time the trial was adjourned over Christmas, and all save the evidence relating to one baby had been given by early February 2023, almost three months before the applicant began giving her evidence. We note that the defence were continuing to obtain and serve evidence from another expert witness whilst the applicant was giving evidence. If the defence were aggrieved by the suggested widening of the prosecution case, it was plainly open to them to ask that expert witness to address the issue, or to seek evidence from Dr Lee'
I really can't see anything 'astonishing' or 'extraordinary' about the appeal judges decision in this respect.
This next bit is purely speculative from me but I think if this fresh evidence had been allowed and put before a jury it would have harmed the defences case under cross-examination. The eyewitness testimony for babies A and M have descriptions that at the very least resemble ‘B’ which could add even more weight to the evidence that the babies were deliberately harmed and, if they were it could have only been Letby.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 12, 2024 9:14:06 GMT
An absolutely withering takedown of the recent Guardian article which said the notes were written on the advice of councillors and her GP.
This guy has the police interview transcripts from all 3 arrests and recorded the entire cross-examination. She’s asked time and time again what’s led her to write such things down, not once does she say it was on the advice of a therapist or occupational help like the article suggests, she confirms multiple times the notes are her own way of dealing with things.
The closest she gets at any point is when confirms she went to her GP for help and and just had some antidepressants.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 12, 2024 12:42:01 GMT
I'm naturally rather suspicious of anyone with any sort of degree from The Open University.
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Sept 12, 2024 12:47:41 GMT
I'm naturally rather suspicious of anyone with any sort of degree from The Open University. How dare you! *they were excellent for me.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 12, 2024 12:52:31 GMT
I'm naturally rather suspicious of anyone with any sort of degree from The Open University. How dare you! *they were excellent for me. And Steve Backshall.. and plenty of other successful people. The list of open university alumni is actually quite impressive, I've just looked..
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 12, 2024 12:59:47 GMT
Rick
I'm open minded about Letby's Guilt or innocence
You and I are reading different interpretations in Trial and Appeal evidence
That Doctor Lee disagrees with Evans conclusions is a fact, he doesn't say they are wrong but wrong to look for other causes
At least 24 Eminent Doctors, Nurses and Statisticians are so perturbed about how some of the evidence was presented that they wrote to the Heath Secretary
That in itself doesn't constitute evidence as i pointed out Ravi Jayaram one of the key prosecution witnesses against Letby some years earlier signed an open letter in support of Dr Roy Meadow
The Jury were tasked with deciding on very complex Medical and Statistical evidence, some of the latter has now been found to be incorrect
What im suggesting and have always done is that CCRC review all the Trial and Appeal evidence to ensure the Verdict is safe.
I also think the Thirwell enquiry is starting from the wrong place but I suspect it will be difficult to change the terms of reference now.
No hard feelings mate
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 12, 2024 13:23:49 GMT
An absolutely withering takedown of the recent Guardian article which said the notes were written on the advice of councillors and her GP. This guy has the police interview transcripts from all 3 arrests and recorded the entire cross-examination. She’s asked time and time again what’s led her to write such things down, not once does she say it was on the advice of a therapist or occupational help like the article suggests, she confirms multiple times the notes are her own way of dealing with things. The closest she gets at any point is when confirms she went to her GP for help and and just had some antidepressants. I know people with mental health issues who have been advised to use postal notes for their feelings as well as for writing down things they should feel positive about. A good friend of mine who took an overdose regularly did it and amongst those notes were some disconcerting things which she thought about herself which were absolutely not true. I find the video and the tone of the narrator to be quite distasteful to be honest. I couldn't really listen to it for too long but maybe it's just the exert which I listened to.
|
|