|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 9, 2024 11:27:25 GMT
This is how the discussion went (in full). 1. "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." 2. This is utterly staggering incompetence in a trial of such magnitude. Virtually beyond comprehension ... 3. The CPS decided to proceed based on the evidence, NOT the Police. 4. The CPS acted on the (completely and very significantly) wrong evidence that the police supplied them with. This piece of evidence wasn't suspect, it wasn't open to interpretation, it was in fact, COMPLETELY wrong it was actually the complete OPPOSITE of what the police had suggested it was. I don't think I really should need to explain why this is significant. As Ariel Manto has pointed out this error was corrected in the 2nd trial. It’s also not the reason the CPS decided to go ahead with the prosecution. And I haven't said anything to the contrary have I? And as for the rest of your post, I haven't offered any opinion on Letby whatsoever. I've criticised one isolated element of the police inquiry, and that's erm, it.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 9, 2024 11:30:45 GMT
Lol. I'm asking for it to be reviewed properly in further detail so I'm hardly supportive of witch hunts. Your response literally makes zero sense.. 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 (or you, if you feel so inclined given your expert legal opinion) 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 (or someone else) 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. That's exactly what the new barrister is currently doing. You just keep your dunking chair in storage for now 👍
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 11:56:19 GMT
As Ariel Manto has pointed out this error was corrected in the 2nd trial. It’s also not the reason the CPS decided to go ahead with the prosecution. And I haven't said anything to the contrary have I? And as for the rest of your post, I haven't offered any opinion on Letby whatsoever. I've criticised one isolated element of the police inquiry, and that's erm, it. That’s fine, as you were.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 9, 2024 12:06:02 GMT
The jury listened to ten months of evidence and not a snapshot of sensationalist headlines. The jury at the second trial were fully aware of the supposed 'wrong evidence' yet still convicted Letby. An appeal has also failed. In the absence of forensic proof there will always be doubts about a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The original jury, after hearing all the evidence over ten months convicted her and I'm absolutely sure that they wouldn't have made that decision lightly. If, as you say, there are doubts over evidence that could bring about a conviction then a not guilty verdict must always be the outcome given that criminal conviction is based upon "beyond reasonable doubt".
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 12:32:49 GMT
The jury listened to ten months of evidence and not a snapshot of sensationalist headlines. The jury at the second trial were fully aware of the supposed 'wrong evidence' yet still convicted Letby. An appeal has also failed. In the absence of forensic proof there will always be doubts about a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The original jury, after hearing all the evidence over ten months convicted her and I'm absolutely sure that they wouldn't have made that decision lightly. If, as you say, there are doubts over evidence that could bring about a conviction then a not guilty verdict must always be the outcome given that criminal conviction is based upon "beyond reasonable doubt". People getting too wrapped up in the circumstantial evidence stuff. You can’t just say oh it’s circumstantial and so there must be doubts, so it can’t possibly be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Many crimes are committed without anyone watching so quite often circumstantial evidence is the only evidence available. In order to secure a criminal conviction the jury will have to find that beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Several types of circumstantial evidence are usually required to meet the standard of proof required which must have happened in the Letby case.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 9, 2024 12:36:22 GMT
jury trials are the cornerstone of our legal system
its easy to make circumstantial evidence fit the narrative. the jury then decide on whose narrative is more compelling. they sometimes get it wrong
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 9, 2024 12:37:15 GMT
its quite telling with so many murder convictions there is a lack of physical evidence
sureley she isnt that clever
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Sept 9, 2024 12:42:43 GMT
Lol. I'm asking for it to be reviewed properly in further detail so I'm hardly supportive of witch hunts. Your response literally makes zero sense.. 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 (or you, if you feel so inclined given your expert legal opinion) 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 (or someone else) 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. in fairness it would do, the CPS are hardly likely to present evidence that shows she didnt do it! and i do feel evidence is a silly word in this case, it was statistical analysis they provided in lieu of evidence as there simply was no actual evidence its a damn shame for the parents who despite the trials being over will be having to relive it all over and over again this thread has descended into utter farce and needs leaving to rest unless there is future developments
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 13:01:12 GMT
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 (or you, if you feel so inclined given your expert legal opinion) 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 (or someone else) 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. in fairness it would do, the CPS are hardly likely to present evidence that shows she didnt do it! and i do feel evidence is a silly word in this case, it was statistical analysis they provided in lieu of evidence as there simply was no actual evidence its a damn shame for the parents who despite the trials being over will be having to relive it all over and over again this thread has descended into utter farce and needs leaving to rest unless there is future developments It’s not true that it’s based on statistical evidence. The jury did not spend 10 months looking at statistics. Most of the evidence relates to how the babies died. The reason the Letby has been convicted is because the evidence they have seen shows that there was foul play involved in the deaths of at least 7 babies. The only way Letby is possibly innocent is if there was no foul play involved. The defence had experts look at the evidence presented by the CPS and decided to call none of them up as a witness. Why would that be?
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Sept 9, 2024 13:04:18 GMT
in fairness it would do, the CPS are hardly likely to present evidence that shows she didnt do it! and i do feel evidence is a silly word in this case, it was statistical analysis they provided in lieu of evidence as there simply was no actual evidence its a damn shame for the parents who despite the trials being over will be having to relive it all over and over again this thread has descended into utter farce and needs leaving to rest unless there is future developments It’s not true that it’s based on statistical evidence. The jury did not spend 10 months looking at statistics. Most of the evidence relates to how the babies died. The reason the Letby has been convicted is because the evidence they have seen shows that there was foul play involved in the deaths of at least 7 babies. The only way Letby is possibly innocent is if there was no foul play involved. The defence had experts look at the evidence presented by the CPS and decided to call none of them up as a witness. Why would that be? as i have said before the case bears striking similarities to other cases that have been overturned years later, the main bulk of evidence is statistical, no weight was given to the fact that babies on that ward were seriously ill with complex medical issues maybe i just hate the idea that somebody in that position could really do that but then i remember Harold Shipman either way lets not lose sight of the immensely sad situation behind the case and those living with it everyday
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 13:11:36 GMT
It’s not true that it’s based on statistical evidence. The jury did not spend 10 months looking at statistics. Most of the evidence relates to how the babies died. The reason the Letby has been convicted is because the evidence they have seen shows that there was foul play involved in the deaths of at least 7 babies. The only way Letby is possibly innocent is if there was no foul play involved. The defence had experts look at the evidence presented by the CPS and decided to call none of them up as a witness. Why would that be? as i have said before the case bears striking similarities to other cases that have been overturned years later, the main bulk of evidence is statistical, no weight was given to the fact that babies on that ward were seriously ill with complex medical issues maybe i just hate the idea that somebody in that position could really do that but then i remember Harold Shipman either way lets not lose sight of the immensely sad situation behind the case and those living with it everyday m How exactly have you determined that “no weight was given to the fact that babies on that ward were seriously ill with complex medical issues”? The fact that Letby was cleared on two counts and the jury were unable to agree on five others indicates the complete opposite of what you’re saying.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 9, 2024 14:20:31 GMT
as i have said before the case bears striking similarities to other cases that have been overturned years later, the main bulk of evidence is statistical, no weight was given to the fact that babies on that ward were seriously ill with complex medical issues maybe i just hate the idea that somebody in that position could really do that but then i remember Harold Shipman either way lets not lose sight of the immensely sad situation behind the case and those living with it everyday m How exactly have you determined that “no weight was given to the fact that babies on that ward were seriously ill with complex medical issues”? The fact that Letby was cleared on two counts and the jury were unable to agree on five others indicates the complete opposite of what you’re saying. Rick I'd appreciate your views on this article in the new yorker which has now been blocked in the uk. The article garnered alot of international attention when first released and was accessible in the uk for a long time. archive.is/al9i8Does this add any doubt at all?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 9, 2024 14:24:25 GMT
Anybody challenging the possibility of a miscarriage of justice needs to read the above article.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 9, 2024 14:25:36 GMT
m How exactly have you determined that “no weight was given to the fact that babies on that ward were seriously ill with complex medical issues”? The fact that Letby was cleared on two counts and the jury were unable to agree on five others indicates the complete opposite of what you’re saying. Rick I'd appreciate your views on this article in the new yorker which has now been blocked in the uk. The article garnered alot of international attention when first released and was accessible in the uk for a long time. ************ Does this add any doubt at all? Anyone quoting the now infamous New Yorker article is a blundering idiot who can't think for themselves. The sort of people who usually base their legal knowledge and fact checking on The Sun or Daily Mail. Plus - you may want to consider that in sharing that article in the UK when it's been explicitly barred may place you in contempt of court. Let's hope nobody does anything as stupid as sharing it.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 9, 2024 14:36:33 GMT
Rick I'd appreciate your views on this article in the new yorker which has now been blocked in the uk. The article garnered alot of international attention when first released and was accessible in the uk for a long time. ************ Does this add any doubt at all? Anyone quoting the now infamous New Yorker article is a blundering idiot who can't think for themselves. The sort of people who usually base their legal knowledge and fact checking on The Sun or Daily Mail. Plus - you may want to consider that in sharing that article in the UK when it's been explicitly barred may place you in contempt of court. Let's hope nobody does anything as stupid as sharing it. What articles of the daily mail and the sun have been blocked? I know Julian Assange was held captive for a number of years in the UK but that sort of contradicts the point you're making. And why are you a blundering idiot if you quote a source which has won 8 Pulitzer Prizes in the last decade?
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Sept 9, 2024 14:56:17 GMT
as i have said before the case bears striking similarities to other cases that have been overturned years later, the main bulk of evidence is statistical, no weight was given to the fact that babies on that ward were seriously ill with complex medical issues maybe i just hate the idea that somebody in that position could really do that but then i remember Harold Shipman either way lets not lose sight of the immensely sad situation behind the case and those living with it everyday m How exactly have you determined that “no weight was given to the fact that babies on that ward were seriously ill with complex medical issues”? The fact that Letby was cleared on two counts and the jury were unable to agree on five others indicates the complete opposite of what you’re saying. from my own readings inlcuding the article that has since been blocked in the UK from the New Yorker, John Sweeney has also written pieces on this based on his previous work on cases like this, its very compelling to make you think twice and it really has me im not here too argue with anybody over it, its a really emotive subject if she did it she should have a long slow life but a miscarriage of justice would be worse for all concerned in this case
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 9, 2024 15:00:02 GMT
Anyone quoting the now infamous New Yorker article is a blundering idiot who can't think for themselves. The sort of people who usually base their legal knowledge and fact checking on The Sun or Daily Mail. Plus - you may want to consider that in sharing that article in the UK when it's been explicitly barred may place you in contempt of court. Let's hope nobody does anything as stupid as sharing it. What articles of the daily mail and the sun have been blocked? I know Julian Assange was held captive for a number of years in the UK but that sort of contradicts the point you're making. And why are you a blundering idiot if you quote a source which has won 8 Pulitzer Prizes in the last decade? The New Yorker article (however good the publication is) is an opinion piece; anyone repeatedly treating it as though it's evidential (which it is not) is box of frogs mad. Assange was different as he wasn't on trial in the UK. The courts blocked The New Yorker article during the Letby retrial in the UK for a reason - the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which applies as soon as criminal proceedings are active in England and Wales. That starts from the moment someone is arrested, through to a warrant being issued, being charged, an appeal is lodged, or if they face a retrial. The trial judge made a special reporting restriction under the Contempt of Court Act, (a Section 4(2) order). That also restricted what could be reported by the media to avoid “substantial risk” of prejudice. It was a temporary ban on reporting, lifted at the court’s discretion, usually at the end of a trial or series of trials.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 9, 2024 15:26:24 GMT
Rick I'd appreciate your views on this article in the new yorker which has now been blocked in the uk. The article garnered alot of international attention when first released and was accessible in the uk for a long time. ************ Does this add any doubt at all? Anyone quoting the now infamous New Yorker article is a blundering idiot who can't think for themselves. The sort of people who usually base their legal knowledge and fact checking on The Sun or Daily Mail. Plus - you may want to consider that in sharing that article in the UK when it's been explicitly barred may place you in contempt of court. Let's hope nobody does anything as stupid as sharing it. As Conservative MP David Davies used Parliamentary Privaledge to Quote from the New Yorker Magazine and he is indeed a blundering idiot you could be on to something The reason the article was not available in UK as when it was published in May Letby was facing a retrial on some charges in June and publishing it would have been a contempt of Court. Some other blundering idiots took to X to imply the reason it was banned was because it portrayed British Criminal Justice in a poor light. Once a judge imposes reporting restrictions they don't remove them unless requested to do so, i doubt the New Yorker Magazine will go to the trouble of applying to have the prohibition removed, which would be a matter of routine now all trials and appeals have been completed. As such there is no danger in receiving a sanction for sharing the New Yorker Magazine Article now and only a blundering idiot would think there was.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 9, 2024 16:09:49 GMT
Rick I'd appreciate your views on this article in the new yorker which has now been blocked in the uk. The article garnered alot of international attention when first released and was accessible in the uk for a long time. ************ Does this add any doubt at all? Anyone quoting the now infamous New Yorker article is a blundering idiot who can't think for themselves. The sort of people who usually base their legal knowledge and fact checking on The Sun or Daily Mail. Plus - you may want to consider that in sharing that article in the UK when it's been explicitly barred may place you in contempt of court. Let's hope nobody does anything as stupid as sharing it. The article in the New York Times was barred on the run up for her retrial of the attempted murder of baby K. After the trial the barring was lifted. This article by Science on Trial is worth a read ……. rexvlucyletby2023.com/
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 9, 2024 16:45:24 GMT
Anyone quoting the now infamous New Yorker article is a blundering idiot who can't think for themselves. The sort of people who usually base their legal knowledge and fact checking on The Sun or Daily Mail. Plus - you may want to consider that in sharing that article in the UK when it's been explicitly barred may place you in contempt of court. Let's hope nobody does anything as stupid as sharing it. The article in the New York Times was barred on the run up for her retrial of the attempted murder of baby K. After the trial the barring was lifted. This article by Science on Trial is worth a read ……. rexvlucyletby2023.com/Having read that if there isn't a full detailed review into this case then there's a real problem. Staggering stuff..
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 9, 2024 16:55:28 GMT
Anyone quoting the now infamous New Yorker article is a blundering idiot who can't think for themselves. The sort of people who usually base their legal knowledge and fact checking on The Sun or Daily Mail. Plus - you may want to consider that in sharing that article in the UK when it's been explicitly barred may place you in contempt of court. Let's hope nobody does anything as stupid as sharing it. The article in the New York Times was barred on the run up for her retrial of the attempted murder of baby K. After the trial the barring was lifted. This article by Science on Trial is worth a read ……. rexvlucyletby2023.com/"It was only after the consultants who were running the neonatal unit became the subject of a critical report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) that they went on to file a report." If this proves to be a miscarriage of justice then those consultants should be the next on trial. A clear motive there.
|
|
|
Post by Tom_stokiepmre89 on Sept 9, 2024 19:21:24 GMT
m How exactly have you determined that “no weight was given to the fact that babies on that ward were seriously ill with complex medical issues”? The fact that Letby was cleared on two counts and the jury were unable to agree on five others indicates the complete opposite of what you’re saying. Rick I'd appreciate your views on this article in the new yorker which has now been blocked in the uk. The article garnered alot of international attention when first released and was accessible in the uk for a long time. archive.is/al9i8Does this add any doubt at all? Long article but definitely worth a read. Gun to head - innocent
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 9, 2024 22:16:59 GMT
m How exactly have you determined that “no weight was given to the fact that babies on that ward were seriously ill with complex medical issues”? The fact that Letby was cleared on two counts and the jury were unable to agree on five others indicates the complete opposite of what you’re saying. Rick I'd appreciate your views on this article in the new yorker which has now been blocked in the uk. The article garnered alot of international attention when first released and was accessible in the uk for a long time. archive.is/al9i8Does this add any doubt at all? “The case against her gathered force on the basis of a single diagram, shared by the police, which circulated widely in the media.” This is so obviously incorrect. When the suspicious collapses and deaths were first identified by Dewi Evans he had no idea what the rotas looked like. The cases were assigned to individual detectives who investigated in isolation and when they returned to discuss the outcomes similarities were identified one of them being that Letby was present at all of them. It is the unexplained and unexpected nature of the deaths that set them apart from other deaths and most of the trial was spent showing that the deaths were unnatural. For context there were 9 other deaths on the neonatal ward around the same time and none of them were unexplained or unexpected. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13818707/amp/lucy-letby-trial-nine-babies-deaths-excluded.htmlThe Court of Appeal ruling also makes it clear that Letby’s case was not prosecuted on the basis of statistical probability. The article outlines that there were 6 prosecution experts and at least two defence experts who were all consulted and all worked for the NHS. One of the defence experts expected to be called up to testify but wasn’t. Why? Surely only logical explanation is that the defence thought it would harm her case rather than help it. Why do the 6 prosecution experts agree? I also find it strange that the article suggests that there are other examples in the UK where failures of care and supervision have led higher death rates. Equally strange is the fact that only two defence witnesses were called. Letby herself and the hospitals plumber who spoke unsanitary conditions. I haven’t seen anything to explain how unsanitary conditions may have potentially caused unexpected and unexplained collapses in babies. None of the babies died of sepsis and neither the collapses nor recoveries were consistent with infection. Quite a bit of the article is spent outlining that Letby was normal and also a really good and conscientious nurse. I don’t find any of that particularly relevant. Serial killers are more likely to appear normal than mentally unstable. I also find it somewhat bizarre that the prosecution laid out evidence that Letby falsified several medical documents in order to hide her involvement. The New Yorker article doesn’t even make any reference to this. It’s way too significant to just leave out when you’re suggesting someone is potentially innocent. The article raises concerns over the air embolism aspect of the case put forward and the fact that the author of a paper that was used to diagnose rashes as consistent with air embolisms has since reviewed summaries of each pattern of skin discolouration and said that none of the rashes were symptomatic of air embolism. Putting aside the fact that this wasn’t raised in the initial two trials it was raised in the Court of Appeal before the three judges and the author Dr Lee was called to appear on behalf of the defence. The prosecution disagreed and said that the rashes were consistent with air embolism and that it could be proved using Dr Lee’s own diagnostic method. Now I’m not sure what summaries of the rashes Dr Lee is referring to but the prosecution argued that he hadn’t been shown any of the eyewitness testimony from the trail, or any of the babies records and so wasn’t qualified to weigh in. 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. I wasn’t surprised that the fact that none of the evidence relied on rashes alone was not included in the article. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727jgdm7r4oI’ve already touched on why the convictions weren’t based on statistics and as such any such arguments can be easily dismissed. This was made crystal clear to me when Proffesor Jane Hutton laid out numerous concerns with the statistical evidence in court only to be told by journalists that had sat through the entire trial that all of the concerns had been established and dealt with during the trial. podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-trial-of-lucy-letby-the-inquiry/id1711621408?i=1000668570658When it comes to the insulin poisoning this is interesting because there were three unanimous guilty decisions and two of them were where it was identified there were high levels of insulin so you’d expect that evidence to have been particularly persuasive. The below is taken directly from the Court of Appeal document. “In both cases of the poisoning, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Professor Hindmarsh, a consultant in paediatric endocrinology. He gave evidence in the case concerning baby F, that the blood tests demonstrated that he had been given exogenous insulin over a period of 17 hours and that the insulin had been administered at a consistent level over that time. One bag which was already running had been spiked. Another bag of stock insulin had also been contaminated. The same person must have contaminated both as the level of insulin added to the two bags was very similar. In the case of baby L, Professor Hindmarsh said that the baby’s hypoglycaemia had continued from 9 April until around 15:00 on 11 April and that the only way in which the hypoglycaemia could have been induced was via the administration of insulin in the feed. He calculated that either 2 or 3 bags had been contaminated. At trial the integrity of the blood samples was challenged by Mr Myers. However in her evidence at the trial, the applicant admitted that both babies had been poisoned by insulin but denied she was the poisoner.” I wasn’t at all surprised to see that whilst the article raised concerns over the validity of the testing it didn’t mention at all that Letby admitted there was insulin poisoning …. If you want to look at the Court of Appeal judgment here’s the link www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdfIn summary, I don’t think much of the article at all. The more I’ve read about it the more I’m convinced she’s guilty.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 9, 2024 23:53:27 GMT
The article raises concerns over the air embolism aspect of the case put forward and the fact that the author of a paper that was used to diagnose rashes as consistent with air embolisms has since reviewed summaries of each pattern of skin discolouration and said that none of the rashes were symptomatic of air embolism. Putting aside the fact that this wasn’t raised in the initial two trials it was raised in the Court of Appeal before the three judges and the author Dr Lee was called to appear on behalf of the defence. The prosecution disagreed and said that the rashes were consistent with air embolism and that it could be proved using Dr Lee’s own diagnostic method. Now I’m not sure what summaries of the rashes Dr Lee is referring to but the prosecution argued that he hadn’t been shown any of the eyewitness testimony from the trail, or any of the babies records and so wasn’t qualified to weigh in. 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. I wasn’t surprised that the fact that none of the evidence relied on rashes alone was not included in the article. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727jgdm7r4oThis is categorically incorrect Dr Lee who Co-authored the Paper on Air Embolisms which the expert witness Evans relied on as cause or contributing factor in the deaths of 5 babies did give evidence at Letbys Appeal disputing the findings of Evans. Of course Lee's evidence too was disputed but the Court of Appeal didn't even consider Lee's evidence and instead ruled it inadmissible on the grounds that Lee could have given his evidence at the original trial. I have said previously that I have no idea if Letby is Guilty or Innocent, i wasn't at her trial and can admit I might struggle to understand some of the evidence presented as did the Jurors who sometimes took days to comprehend some of the technical circumstantial evidence in the absence of any other evidence. The Court of Appeal ruling to declare Dr Lee's evidence as inadmissible may have grounding in legal precedent but does not follow natural justice. The Appeal Court compounded their error in ruling on a point of Law in my opinion when they further concluded that Lee's evidence should be inadmissible because the Jury didn't reach its verdict exclusively on the now disputed Expert Witness Evidence. In this case the Appeal Court Judges are presuming that the Jury would not have given weight to Lee's evidence and has egregiously exceeded their authority The other half of Evans’s (CPS Expert Witness) opinion on air embolism was that air was injected into babies’ veins to cause harm. This opinion was accepted as a cause or contributory factor by the jury in five murder verdicts. In some cases, the prosecution said babies had been harmed by both methods.
Evans’s view drew on skin discolorations observed in several of the babies. He referenced a 1989 academic paper by Drs Lee and Tanswell on air embolism in the bloodstream in babies. That paper described skin discoloration that indicated air embolism in babies caused by high-pressure ventilation – quite different circumstances to allegedly injecting air at normal pressure. A second expert witness, Dr Sandie Bohin, reached similar conclusions.
The surviving author of that paper, Dr Shoo Lee, who retired recently from a career as one of Canada’s top neonatologists, was not called by the defence for the first trial but he did give expert testimony in Letby’s appeal in April. Lee said that in his view none of the descriptions of the babies’ skin discolorations used by the prosecution witnesses matched the kind that characterised air embolism. Lee’s testimony was not admissible by the court of appeal, with the judges saying 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.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 10, 2024 6:01:27 GMT
The article raises concerns over the air embolism aspect of the case put forward and the fact that the author of a paper that was used to diagnose rashes as consistent with air embolisms has since reviewed summaries of each pattern of skin discolouration and said that none of the rashes were symptomatic of air embolism. Putting aside the fact that this wasn’t raised in the initial two trials it was raised in the Court of Appeal before the three judges and the author Dr Lee was called to appear on behalf of the defence. The prosecution disagreed and said that the rashes were consistent with air embolism and that it could be proved using Dr Lee’s own diagnostic method. Now I’m not sure what summaries of the rashes Dr Lee is referring to but the prosecution argued that he hadn’t been shown any of the eyewitness testimony from the trail, or any of the babies records and so wasn’t qualified to weigh in. 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. I wasn’t surprised that the fact that none of the evidence relied on rashes alone was not included in the article. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727jgdm7r4oThis is categorically incorrect Dr Lee who Co-authored the Paper on Air Embolisms which the expert witness Evans relied on as cause or contributing factor in the deaths of 5 babies did give evidence at Letbys Appeal disputing the findings of Evans. Of course Lee's evidence too was disputed but the Court of Appeal didn't even consider Lee's evidence and instead ruled it inadmissible on the grounds that Lee could have given his evidence at the original trial. I have said previously that I have no idea if Letby is Guilty or Innocent, i wasn't at her trial and can admit I might struggle to understand some of the evidence presented as did the Jurors who sometimes took days to comprehend some of the technical circumstantial evidence in the absence of any other evidence. The Court of Appeal ruling to declare Dr Lee's evidence as inadmissible may have grounding in legal precedent but does not follow natural justice. The Appeal Court compounded their error in ruling on a point of Law in my opinion when they further concluded that Lee's evidence should be inadmissible because the Jury didn't reach its verdict exclusively on the now disputed Expert Witness Evidence. In this case the Appeal Court Judges are presuming that the Jury would not have given weight to Lee's evidence and has egregiously exceeded their authority The other half of Evans’s (CPS Expert Witness) opinion on air embolism was that air was injected into babies’ veins to cause harm. This opinion was accepted as a cause or contributory factor by the jury in five murder verdicts. In some cases, the prosecution said babies had been harmed by both methods.
Evans’s view drew on skin discolorations observed in several of the babies. He referenced a 1989 academic paper by Drs Lee and Tanswell on air embolism in the bloodstream in babies. That paper described skin discoloration that indicated air embolism in babies caused by high-pressure ventilation – quite different circumstances to allegedly injecting air at normal pressure. A second expert witness, Dr Sandie Bohin, reached similar conclusions.
The surviving author of that paper, Dr Shoo Lee, who retired recently from a career as one of Canada’s top neonatologists, was not called by the defence for the first trial but he did give expert testimony in Letby’s appeal in April. Lee said that in his view none of the descriptions of the babies’ skin discolorations used by the prosecution witnesses matched the kind that characterised air embolism. Lee’s testimony was not admissible by the court of appeal, with the judges saying 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.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question
Wait, come on now. You’ve highlighted a section of my post saying it’s categorically incorrect. This is information I have taken directly from the Court of Appeal judgment, which I’ve linked. You can go and look for yourself. You don’t actually need to though because right under the last highlighted bit of your response it says. “The judges added that the prosecutions expert witnesses did not solely rely on skin discolouration to indicate condition”. So what I’ve said isn’t categorically incorrect at all. You can surely see the issue here can’t you, there are other indicators of air embolisms causing the conditions, which the trial and appeal judgement went into detail on. So it’s absolutely an issue that Mr Lee wasn’t called up to the trials in the first place, but when he has been called up for the appeal he’s talking SOLELY about skin discolourations based on summaries. Go to point 187 on page 47 of the judgement appeal. The judges say even if the applicant could persuade them there was a reasonable failure to include Dr Lee’s testimony at trial, she faces a further - and in their view insuperable obstacle. The fresh evidence is aimed at a mistaken target. The core of the proposed evidence is that save for one very specific form of discolouration, it would be wrong to diagnose air embolus on the basis of skin discolouration alone. But as they said when considering ground two there was NO prosecution expert evidence diagnosing air embolus on the basis of skin colour alone. You can read through exactly how the experts have come to the conclusion that there were air embolisms and the judges say the conditions talked about in court are consistent the information in Dr Lee’s paper. So, no I’m absolutely not incorrect on this, the insuperable (impossible to overcome) obstacle in the view of the three appeal judges is that the fresh evidence was not properly addressing the evidence established in court.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 10, 2024 8:10:20 GMT
This is categorically incorrect Dr Lee who Co-authored the Paper on Air Embolisms which the expert witness Evans relied on as cause or contributing factor in the deaths of 5 babies did give evidence at Letbys Appeal disputing the findings of Evans. Of course Lee's evidence too was disputed but the Court of Appeal didn't even consider Lee's evidence and instead ruled it inadmissible on the grounds that Lee could have given his evidence at the original trial. I have said previously that I have no idea if Letby is Guilty or Innocent, i wasn't at her trial and can admit I might struggle to understand some of the evidence presented as did the Jurors who sometimes took days to comprehend some of the technical circumstantial evidence in the absence of any other evidence. The Court of Appeal ruling to declare Dr Lee's evidence as inadmissible may have grounding in legal precedent but does not follow natural justice. The Appeal Court compounded their error in ruling on a point of Law in my opinion when they further concluded that Lee's evidence should be inadmissible because the Jury didn't reach its verdict exclusively on the now disputed Expert Witness Evidence. In this case the Appeal Court Judges are presuming that the Jury would not have given weight to Lee's evidence and has egregiously exceeded their authority The other half of Evans’s (CPS Expert Witness) opinion on air embolism was that air was injected into babies’ veins to cause harm. This opinion was accepted as a cause or contributory factor by the jury in five murder verdicts. In some cases, the prosecution said babies had been harmed by both methods.
Evans’s view drew on skin discolorations observed in several of the babies. He referenced a 1989 academic paper by Drs Lee and Tanswell on air embolism in the bloodstream in babies. That paper described skin discoloration that indicated air embolism in babies caused by high-pressure ventilation – quite different circumstances to allegedly injecting air at normal pressure. A second expert witness, Dr Sandie Bohin, reached similar conclusions.
The surviving author of that paper, Dr Shoo Lee, who retired recently from a career as one of Canada’s top neonatologists, was not called by the defence for the first trial but he did give expert testimony in Letby’s appeal in April. Lee said that in his view none of the descriptions of the babies’ skin discolorations used by the prosecution witnesses matched the kind that characterised air embolism. Lee’s testimony was not admissible by the court of appeal, with the judges saying 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.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question
Wait, come on now. You’ve highlighted a section of my post saying it’s categorically incorrect. This is information I have taken directly from the Court of Appeal judgment, which I’ve linked. You can go and look for yourself. You don’t actually need to though because right under the last highlighted bit of your response it says. “The judges added that the prosecutions expert witnesses did not solely rely on skin discolouration to indicate condition”. So what I’ve said isn’t categorically incorrect at all. You can surely see the issue here can’t you, there are other indicators of air embolisms causing the conditions, which the trial and appeal judgement went into detail on. So it’s absolutely an issue that Mr Lee wasn’t called up to the trials in the first place, but when he has been called up for the appeal he’s talking SOLELY about skin discolourations based on summaries. Go to point 187 on page 47 of the judgement appeal. The judges say even if the applicant could persuade them there was a reasonable failure to include Dr Lee’s testimony at trial, she faces a further - and in their view insuperable obstacle. The fresh evidence is aimed at a mistaken target. The core of the proposed evidence is that save for one very specific form of discolouration, it would be wrong to diagnose air embolus on the basis of skin discolouration alone. But as they said when considering ground two there was NO prosecution expert evidence diagnosing air embolus on the basis of skin colour alone. You can read through exactly how the experts have come to the conclusion that there were air embolisms and the judges say the conditions talked about in court are consistent the information in Dr Lee’s paper. So, no I’m absolutely not incorrect on this, the insuperable (impossible to overcome) obstacle in the view of the three appeal judges is that the fresh evidence was not properly addressing the evidence established in court. 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/
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 10, 2024 10:17:26 GMT
Wait, come on now. You’ve highlighted a section of my post saying it’s categorically incorrect. This is information I have taken directly from the Court of Appeal judgment, which I’ve linked. You can go and look for yourself. You don’t actually need to though because right under the last highlighted bit of your response it says. “The judges added that the prosecutions expert witnesses did not solely rely on skin discolouration to indicate condition”. So what I’ve said isn’t categorically incorrect at all. You can surely see the issue here can’t you, there are other indicators of air embolisms causing the conditions, which the trial and appeal judgement went into detail on. So it’s absolutely an issue that Mr Lee wasn’t called up to the trials in the first place, but when he has been called up for the appeal he’s talking SOLELY about skin discolourations based on summaries. Go to point 187 on page 47 of the judgement appeal. The judges say even if the applicant could persuade them there was a reasonable failure to include Dr Lee’s testimony at trial, she faces a further - and in their view insuperable obstacle. The fresh evidence is aimed at a mistaken target. The core of the proposed evidence is that save for one very specific form of discolouration, it would be wrong to diagnose air embolus on the basis of skin discolouration alone. But as they said when considering ground two there was NO prosecution expert evidence diagnosing air embolus on the basis of skin colour alone. You can read through exactly how the experts have come to the conclusion that there were air embolisms and the judges say the conditions talked about in court are consistent the information in Dr Lee’s paper. So, no I’m absolutely not incorrect on this, the insuperable (impossible to overcome) obstacle in the view of the three appeal judges is that the fresh evidence was not properly addressing the evidence established in court. 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.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 10, 2024 11:01:41 GMT
Typically, as with all conspiracy theories, you are either deliberately or unfortunately conflating fact with fiction. The Police's role is to present the evidence to the CPS as it finds it, and the CPS then decides whether to prosecute. You're wrong about the swipe data - swipe data relating to one door crucial in tracking nurses' and doctors' movements in the intensive care ward had been "mislabelled". The Police were provided with faulty evidence during the first trial, and this was corrected during the second trial (it was the prosecution KC which referred to this to establish mismanagement within the hospital, NOT the defence KC). To be clear - the CPS confirmed that the discrepancy related to one door in the neonatal unit and was subsequently corrected for the retrial. That data was then amended for the retrial, which showed the nurse had returned within moments. This meant that Letby was not alone at the time the prosecution originally argued she was. At the retrial, both sides accepted that the mistake was genuine, leading to Letby being convicted of Baby K's attempted murder. You seem to have a confused picture of the role of the CPS. The CPS decides which cases should be prosecuted; determines the appropriate charges in more serious or complex cases, and advises the police during the early stages of investigations; prepares cases and presents them at court; and provides information, assistance and support to victims and prosecution witnesses. Prosecutors (CPS) are objective and independent. When deciding whether to prosecute a criminal case, CPS lawyers must follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors which means that to charge someone with a criminal offence and put them before a court, prosecutors (CPS) must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that prosecuting is in the public interest.
The CPS is staffed by barristers and legal experts who sift through the evidence provided by Police to establish whether a case (and successful prosecution) can be brought. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant on each charge and it is the CPS which considers whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. They must also consider what the defence case may be and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. A "realistic prospect of conviction" is the only objective test, which means that a jury or a bench of magistrates will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. If the case does not pass the CPS' initial evidential stage, the CPS makes sure the prosecution does not go ahead, no matter how important or serious the case may be. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 10, 2024 11:05:17 GMT
The article in the New York Times was barred on the run up for her retrial of the attempted murder of baby K. After the trial the barring was lifted. This article by Science on Trial is worth a read ……. rexvlucyletby2023.com/"It was only after the consultants who were running the neonatal unit became the subject of a critical report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) that they went on to file a report." If this proves to be a miscarriage of justice then those consultants should be the next on trial. A clear motive there. Great. Is anyone approaching the CCRC with any of this, or is someone else going to write another conspiracy article on the back of it instead?
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Sept 10, 2024 11:50:12 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. So it is acceptable that the Police take evidence from an interested party in the case (the hospital) and take it completely at face value without doing any due diligence on that evidence to check its authenticity, accuracy and completeness?
|
|