I was aware before, it just seems particularly noticeable in this case.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Lucy Letby
- Thread starter Lenny Rider
- Start date
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,805
I'm not convinced. With our system, we have two biased barristers arguing their case, a neutral judge keeping them to the rules, and a neutral jury making the decision. With the French system, the judge is biased by definition because it was his decision to bring the case to court, and he sits with the jury to influence their decisions.
Letby's problem was that her defence made a mess of things. Specifically in respect of the statistics and the medical evidence.
It's a so-called Swiss cheese issue with a significant number of possible pressures and shortcomings in the prosecution and decision making in the case, including, for example:
dodgy, retired and out of date "expert" witnesses,
misinterpretation of statistics,
no robust defence submitted,
adversarial court system,
mischaracterisation of Letby's notes as diary entries,
the limitations of the jury system,
the emotional heft of a cohort of bereaved and influential parents,
the need to find someone to blame,
a legal hierarchy unable to confront the possibility that the law has made a mistake,
sensationalist media coverage,
the fact that very sick babies shouldn't have been treated at that maternity unit,
heavy and complex workload of the unit versus poor staffing
atient ratios and sub standard working conditions,
powerful consultants defending the possibility that there may have been medical errors i favour of an easy scapegoat,
poor hospital management,
the history of other recent medical murders clouding judgement eg Allot, Shipman etc
dodgy, retired and out of date "expert" witnesses,
misinterpretation of statistics,
no robust defence submitted,
adversarial court system,
mischaracterisation of Letby's notes as diary entries,
the limitations of the jury system,
the emotional heft of a cohort of bereaved and influential parents,
the need to find someone to blame,
a legal hierarchy unable to confront the possibility that the law has made a mistake,
sensationalist media coverage,
the fact that very sick babies shouldn't have been treated at that maternity unit,
heavy and complex workload of the unit versus poor staffing
atient ratios and sub standard working conditions,powerful consultants defending the possibility that there may have been medical errors i favour of an easy scapegoat,
poor hospital management,
the history of other recent medical murders clouding judgement eg Allot, Shipman etc
I know from personal experience. I once received a conviction based on the arresting officer's lies, and also the fact that certain evidence existed which proved he was lying had been withheld. I didn't even know that this evidence existed but for the appeal I asked for certain evidence to be disclosed in which, unknowingly to me, that evidence was contained. When I received it and looked through it, it confirmed that the officer's testimony and statement had been lies and my conviction was quashed.
But if I hadn't asked for that evidence, which I might not have done as I never knew what was in it for sure, I wouldn't have been able to prove he was lying and my conviction would not have been quashed. What raised my suspicions even more and made me even more determined to get it was that when I first asked for it they were reluctant to provide it and still tried to withhold it. It was only when I threatened them with a complaint for withholding evidence that they finally disclosed it.
So it wasn't only the arresting officer who was dishonest but also the police who through that same evidence were aware that their officer was lying but tried to cover up his lies instead of doing the right thing. This probably happens a lot to try and protect the forces' reputations. This was over thirty years ago so things may have improved slightly but only because the police are more accountable than they used to be. But I'm sure it still goes on if they think they can get away with it.
Sirnormangall
Well-known member
- Sep 21, 2017
- 3,342
From what I’ve read the deaths might “simply” be attributed to generally poor standards of care
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
I've sat on many cases where the prosecution has failed to provide disclosure; several of them got dismissed. I was told "off the record" that, in almost all cases, it was due to CPS workloads and/or incompetence rather than deliberate obfuscation.
Sirnormangall
Well-known member
- Sep 21, 2017
- 3,342
I think Private Eye was first to reveal that that the key prosecution witness (Evans?) had since changed his mind on the cause of death. If it’s a miscarriage of justice how on earth would she resume a normal life?
Change at Barnham
Well-known member
What is this about?
That is the main thing that has always made me feel she was guilty.
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,879
Those diaries could just as well be the mind of someone extremely stressed, confused and in crisis as an admission of actual guilt.
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
After doing jury service, I was convinced that if I was innocent of any crime I was ever accused of, I would want to be tried by magistrates. But if I was guilty, I’d definitely want trial by jury.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Are the NSC lawyers on an hourly rate with this thread?
I have acted as an expert witness on a few occasions. On one occasion I was commended by the legal team for talking only about issues that I am supposedly expert, and for sticking to the facts rather than swanking about like some know-all (which is what several high end US medics were doing in one case I was involved with).
The problem is we all feel the need to be useful. At a certain point the 'expert' is invited to offer an 'opinion', which means a judgement based on wisdom and experience rather than quantifiable evidence. Unsurprisingly perhaps I can't do that. When given a chance to think I cannot make a judgement if there is insufficient evidence. An autistic trait. So I am not regarded as a useful idiot in the court cases for which I have expertise. Which of course limits my value to those with a vested interest.
'Expert opinion' therefore is simply opinion. The clue is in the word 'opinion'.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 16,081
Presumably you mean tried by a judge. Magistrates don’t preside at county courts
The Real Neil
New member
- Sep 10, 2020
- 5
A lot of people on here talking about evidence being circumstantial, you have to remember that the critics and medical experts who are questioning the evidence have not seen the victims medical records, only the medical experts who are hired by the courts have, and these are some of the best most specialised doctors in the country. 'Outside experts' are not legally allowed to see the medical records and they are coming to conclusions with limited information.
I have absolutely no doubt she is guilty, and will be locked away for a very very long time.
I have absolutely no doubt she is guilty, and will be locked away for a very very long time.
I’m pretty sure the defence team have access to the medical records and they have got experts to pro bono review the evidence and they have reached a different conclusion to the prosecutions expert.
It also worth noting that the experts now working for the defence are currently working experts of a higher ranking that the retired prosecution witness.
It is also worth noting that the prosecution expert has since the trial changed his mind on the cause of death of three (?) of the babies.
I would strongly suggest reading the Private Eye reports on this. It might change your confidence level in the experts employed by the prosecution.
There were no medical experts hired by the courts. The courts don't hire independent expert witnesses - which is one of the criticisms of the process.
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,805
The notes were not diary entries. A diary is something written at the same time or shortly after the event. These are notes which her psychiatrist advised her to write after she had been charged - she was told to write down whatever she was feeling.
The Real Neil
New member
- Sep 10, 2020
- 5
Apologies, I meant the prosecution, not the courts, point still stands.
Yes.
The problem with the point though is that a) the defence expert who has also seen all the medical notes was (for some reason) not called, and b) the main prosecution expert witness (who boasts that he has 'never lost a case') changed his mind on the method of murder during the trial once it became apparent that Letby had not been involved in any way with one of the babies at the point he initially said the method had been implemented (ie: a new method was suggested so as to fit the timeline) - and has changed his mind on his conclusions in relation to three babies since the trial ended.
He also strongly referenced a report about skin colouring - which the author of the report has since said he misinterpreted.
So - even experts with access to the full records are not infallible.
But the jury were instructed that they did not have to decide how all of the babies were murdered. "Judge Goss directed the jury that if they concluded that Letby had deliberately harmed babies one way, they could also conclude that she had inflicted deliberate harm on others, even if jurors were not certain of her methods."
If you want something shorter to read than the Private Eye stuff (which is a time commitment) then try this article
‘My kind of case’: intense focus falls on Lucy Letby trial expert witness
Dr Dewi Evans’s evidence has been criticised, even ridiculed, but he maintains his work stands up to scrutiny
www.theguardian.com
One particular extract from the above article is (Dr Evans being the lead expert for the prosecution):
Months into the trial, damning criticisms of Evans were made by a senior judge, Lord Justice Jackson, in a different civil case. He dismissed Evans’s report as “worthless” and stated that Evans had breached his expert’s duty by deciding on an outcome he wanted, then “working out an explanation” to achieve it.
“Of greatest concern,” Jackson wrote in the decision, “Dr Evans makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion.” The judge said Evans had either not taken steps to inform himself about other medical experts’ conclusions, or he had disregarded them. “Either approach amounts to a breach of proper professional conduct.”