Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

[Vixen]

The defense counsel chose not to all any expert medical witnesses, at all, such as Dr Shoo Lee. He called only the hospital plumber.

It wouldn't just call that ineffective, I would call that incompetence.

Er. Letby had four top barristers plus £1.5m in legal aid. The defence had fourteen to fifteen experts lined up. Think about it. There are three possible reasons none were called. (a) The defence experts largely agree with the prosecution medical experts (it is an objective measurable recorded science after all); (b) Letby herself instructed Myers, KC not to call any of them (Ben Myers is well known for getting his clients off; can't get any more expert than that); or (c) most likely: Letby confessed to Myers and thus he had his hands tied and limited to just letting the prosecution fulfill its onus to provide burden of proof. When Letby changed lawyers, client privilege is supposed to transfer automatically...unless 'client says, no'. It seems Letby has not agreed to waive client privilege, which means junior barrister Mark McDonald is free - as far as Bar Standards are concerned - to keep claiming his client is 'innocent' (which he must not do if he knows otherwise)- HOWEVER, the CCRC and Court of Appeal will certainly expect to see all of the files and this will be Letby's stumbling block. We do know of one expert witness who publicly commented and complained about not being called, as he was physically waiting in court to take the stand and disappointed not to be called. Dr Mike Hall was interviewed by Moritz for her book and his defence thrust was to be similar to Dr. Taylor's - the Canadian guy on Shoo Lee's panel of 'world remowned experts' - who claimed Dr Brearey had pierced a baby's liver and that's what killed him - but the big snag was, the liver puncture was post-mortem and thus could not have been the CAUSE of death. (Brearey was the consultant involved in desperately trying to resuscitate the baby.) What Letby is banking on is going for a pardon without referral to the CoA simply based on 'in the public interest' predicated on manufactured 'outrage' caused by the steady flow of expensive PR (documentaries, newspaper articles, etc.). This PR is not cheap - it is usually a corporate thing, so given Letby's family are ordinary people, someone somewhere with a personal interest in this is funding all of this whipped up 'public outrage'.

 

[catsmate]

Does she have an argument for ineffective defense counsel?

That is a more difficult argument in the UK than the US.
It would be necessary to demonstrate that the level of 'legal incompetence' was such that the incompetence led to identifiable errors that of themselves rendered the trial unsafe or unfair. Mere poor trial preparation or a failure to call certain witnesses is (and this is specifically stated by the CCRC) necessarily enough in itself for the appeal courts to find that a conviction is unsafe.

 

[catsmate]

Er. <Wall of text snipped>

Repetitively pasting the same material without engaging in reasoned debate regarding the flaws in your arguments doesn't impress anyone.

 

[Vixen]

Repetitively pasting the same material without engaging in reasoned debate regarding the flaws in your arguments doesn't impress anyone.

The idea the defence were 'incompetent' is a ridiculous claim. Here is Ben Myers, KC chambers profile:

:

Benjamin Myers KC​

Call 1994
Silk 2014

"Ben is quite simply one of the best practitioners around. He is outstanding in terms of planning out his strategy for a case and then executing this through his advocacy."

Chambers and Partners, 2025 https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/people/benjamin-myers-kc/

I don't believe junior barrister Mark McDonald has ever won a single case. Or at least, there is none on his pages in which he boasts his achievement. https://furnivalchambers.co.uk/barrister/mark-mcdonald/

 

[Rolfe]

The CCRC and the SCCRC are extraordinarily reluctant to support a claim of defective representation. It's pretty well a waste of time even making the submission.

When these bodies were set up the idea was that they would take a fresh, unbiassed look at cases and try to cut to the heart of the arguments to seek truth and justice. It has totally not turned out like that. It's all pettifogging legal rules and an absolute refusal to grant an appeal if they can discern the slightest chance that it might not succeed. I have not been able to find the reference again, but I read that the number of cases referred to the Court of Appeal in Scotland has dropped like a stone since the SCCRC was established. They seem to see it as their job to make sure the Appeal Court isn't bothered unduly by anyone with a claim that might have a ghost of an argument against it, and I think they're getting worse.

 

[catsmate]

The idea the defence were 'incompetent' is a ridiculous claim. Here is Ben Myers, KC chambers profile:

You have not a clue what 'legal incompetence' means, do you?

 

[catsmate]

The CCRC and the SCCRC are extraordinarily reluctant to support a claim of defective representation. It's pretty well a waste of time even making the submission.

The last successful case I know of, on legal incompetence grounds was 2001.

When these bodies were set up the idea was that they would take a fresh, unbiassed look at cases and try to cut to the heart of the arguments to seek truth and justice. It has totally not turned out like that. It's all pettifogging legal rules and an absolute refusal to grant an appeal if they can discern the slightest chance that it might not succeed. I have not been able to find the reference again, but I read that the number of cases referred to the Court of Appeal in Scotland has dropped like a stone since the SCCRC was established. They seem to see it as their job to make sure the Appeal Court isn't bothered unduly by anyone with a claim that might have a ghost of an argument against it, and I think they're getting worse.

I can't find any stats easily and I didn't know anyone currently involved in the Scottish Bar.

 

[Vixen]

You have not a clue what 'legal incompetence' means, do you?

Obviously it won't be to do with the barrister's past reputation. However, you don't get to be on the King's Bench by flouting ethics, standards and protocols. 'Professional incompetence' is a moot point anyway as it wasn't pleaded in either of her appeals, which were rejected.

 

[catsmate]

Obviously it won't be to do with the barrister's past reputation. However, you don't get to be on the King's Bench by flouting ethics, standards and protocols. 'Professional incompetence' is a moot point anyway as it wasn't pleaded in either of her appeals, which were rejected.

So, no you don't have a clue.

 

[Rolfe]

The explanation about the antibody-bound insulin seems to have gone right over someone's head.

 

[catsmate]

The explanation about the antibody-bound insulin seems to have gone right over someone's head.

Or they dodged it's passage....

 

[catsmate]

Two interesting points in today's Guardian.

Judges need to improve their scientific literacy and be “on their guard” about expert witness evidence.

Judge tells colleagues to be ‘on their guard’ over expert witness evidence

Patrick Hodge, supreme court’s deputy president, wants judges to improve their scientific and technical literacy

www.theguardian.com

A point that's blindingly obvious to anyone who's ever had to deal with barristers....


And emergency postnatal/neonatal care at CoCH remains poor.

Emergency care at Lucy Letby hospital falls short of legal standards, CQC finds

Countess of Chester receives urgent warning notice over ‘visibly dirty equipment’ and routine corridor care

www.theguardian.com

Rather supporting the idea that there were other causes for the dead children than a murderous nurse.

 

[Vixen]

Two interesting points in today's Guardian.

Judges need to improve their scientific literacy and be “on their guard” about expert witness evidence.

Judge tells colleagues to be ‘on their guard’ over expert witness evidence

Patrick Hodge, supreme court’s deputy president, wants judges to improve their scientific and technical literacy

www.theguardian.com

A point that's blindingly obvious to anyone who's ever had to deal with barristers....


And emergency postnatal/neonatal care at CoCH remains poor.

Emergency care at Lucy Letby hospital falls short of legal standards, CQC finds

Countess of Chester receives urgent warning notice over ‘visibly dirty equipment’ and routine corridor care

www.theguardian.com

Rather supporting the idea that there were other causes for the dead children than a murderous nurse.

Letby fan Josh Halliday. Quelle surprise.

 

[smartcooky]

Two interesting points in today's Guardian.

Judges need to improve their scientific literacy and be “on their guard” about expert witness evidence.

Judge tells colleagues to be ‘on their guard’ over expert witness evidence

Patrick Hodge, supreme court’s deputy president, wants judges to improve their scientific and technical literacy

www.theguardian.com

A point that's blindingly obvious to anyone who's ever had to deal with barristers....

There was a classic example of this type of thing in this country many years ago. A man by the name of David Dougherty was accused, tried and convicted of sexually assaulting and raping an 11 year old girl, on the basis of DNA (and I'll come back to this later) and her identification of him as the assailant. It turned out in the end that he had been wrongfully convicted when, on appeal, it was shown that the DNA evidence had actually ruled him out.

This was 1993, the early days of DNA in courts in this country. The test had shown that he had some markers in common with the attacker, and was distantly related to the attacker. But the Judge, in his ignorance, had completely misunderstood what this result meant. In his instructions to the jury, he stated that the DNA evidence "pointed both away from and toward the defendant" and that they should not afford such evidence much weight.

This was, of course, a preposterous statement. There is no grey area - its definitive. DNA is either yours or its not, but the judge was not sufficiently versed in the science to understand his mistake, and no-one in the court was either.

 

[Vixen]

The first article (re Judges and expert witnesses) randomly includes the following paragraph:

The case of Lucy Letby, the neonatal nurse convicted of murdering seven babies, has prompted renewed scrutiny of expert witnesses. Lawyers appealing against her conviction argue that the expert evidence presented at her trial was flawed.

...and surprise, surprise, this paragraph links to one of campaigner Josh Halliday's usual pro-MOJ articles. Otherwise, the story has nothing whatever to do with the Letby case but tries to make out to the unwary reader that Letby's case is a foregone case of MOJ because of the expert evidence presented at her trial was flawed. This is completely untrue. Neither the Court of Appeal nor the CCRC has ruled anything of the sort.

As for the second article by Josh Halliday, re the CQC recently finding standards at CoCH 'falling short'. <AHEM> Letby's crimes were almost ten years ago. What on earth has this recent inspection got to do with Letby's convictions? It really is pathetic. "Oh we couldn't care less this person was convicted after a year long trial. Just free her immediately because....er...er...they stopped serving spaghetti bolognese on a Thursday. And she has a couple of cats. Sod the courts, we saw Dawn, Karen and Neena on tele and they say she's a lovely person....And Karen and Neena don't deserve to be reprimanded by Thirlwall. All they're doing is bravely sticking up for the unfairly convicted waif."

 

[catsmate]

Letby fan Josh Halliday. Quelle surprise.

Is there a point buried in this silly knee-jerk reaction? Do you deny what the Care Quality Commission or the deputy president of the UKSC said? Do you have anything vaguely relevant, factual or useful to add to the discussion? Rather than childish irrelevancy.

 

[catsmate]

There was a classic example of this type of thing in this country many years ago. A man by the name of David Dougherty was accused, tried and convicted of sexually assaulting and raping an 11 year old girl, on the basis of DNA (and I'll come back to this later) and her identification of him as the assailant. It turned out in the end that he had been wrongfully convicted when, on appeal, it was shown that the DNA evidence had actually ruled him out.

This was 1993, the early days of DNA in courts in this country. The test had shown that he had some markers in common with the attacker, and was distantly related to the attacker. But the Judge, in his ignorance, had completely misunderstood what this result meant. In his instructions to the jury, he stated that the DNA evidence "pointed both away from and toward the defendant" and that they should not afford such evidence much weight.

This was, of course, a preposterous statement. There is no grey area - its definitive. DNA is either yours or its not, but the judge was not sufficiently versed in the science to understand his mistake, and no-one in the court was either.

I have had experiences with the gross ignorance of barristers. In one case I told one, from the witness box, that his suggested scenario was utter rubbish. And then I explained why.

 

[catsmate]

The first article (re Judges and expert witnesses) randomly includes the following paragraph:


...and surprise, surprise, this paragraph links to one of campaigner Josh Halliday's usual pro-MOJ articles. Otherwise, the story has nothing whatever to do with the Letby case but tries to make out to the unwary reader that Letby's case is a foregone case of MOJ because of the expert evidence presented at her trial was flawed. This is completely untrue. Neither the Court of Appeal nor the CCRC has ruled anything of the sort.

As for the second article by Josh Halliday, re the CQC recently finding standards at CoCH 'falling short'. <AHEM> Letby's crimes were almost ten years ago. What on earth has this recent inspection got to do with Letby's convictions? It really is pathetic. "Oh we couldn't care less this person was convicted after a year long trial. Just free her immediately because....er...er...they stopped serving spaghetti bolognese on a Thursday. And she has a couple of cats. Sod the courts, we saw Dawn, Karen and Neena on tele and they say she's a lovely person....And Karen and Neena don't deserve to be reprimanded by Thirlwall. All they're doing is bravely sticking up for the unfairly convicted waif."

Tge ongoing problems of care at CoCH are extremely relevant, as I pointed out.

 

[Vixen]

Tge ongoing problems of care at CoCH are extremely relevant, as I pointed out.

If you had followed the Thirlwall Inquiry you would be aware that Alison Kelly, director of nursing and executive lead for safeguarding at the Countess of Chester Hospital, on being questioned by silk, Nicholas de Poer, for the Inquiry, confirmed she had appointed the CQC to inspect the NNU at CoCH. In addition, the RCPCH also carried out an inspection (these are quite normal for all hositals not just CoCH as Josh Halliday's article implies as something extraordinary). This was in 2016. This is the relevant date. What report has been brought out recently by CQC has ZERO bearing on CoCH then. It is simply trying to whip up misinformation that it is somehow relevant to Letby's convictions. Ms Kelly is possibly in line for a warning letter from Thirlwall because as Safeguarding Lead, it was her duty to record the concerns of the consultants. Having been told plainly by the consultants of their fears, Ms Kelly by her own account arranged CQC to inspect the unit but she omitted to specify the concerns. In effect, the CQC carried out a generic inspection and reported all clear. Likewise, RCPCH, which IIRC Neena Modi was its head at the time. Again, the executives at the CoCH had been told very clearly the doctors had strong objections to Letby remaining on duty. Once again the inspection team from RCPCH were not informed of these specific concerns. This again was 2016. This is the relevant time period, not 2025, as if it has any relevance, except for Josh Halliday to have an excuse to keep his flavour-of-the-day in the news as an insinuated MOJ.








Question: Why isn't Josh Halliday talking about these CQC and RCPCH inspections of 2016 in respect of Letby rather than one which has no bearing on the case at all? I can answer that for you. The exchange at Thirlwall between Kelly and de Poer tells you that the management were doing everything in their power to suppress and cover up Letby's [then -alleged] gross misconduct and astonishing safety risks to the babies in her care. Trying to make out the hospital was and is substandard to deflect away from Letby's own heinous unchecked criminal behaviour. There is nothing showing Letby as innocent in the CoCH having a bad report from CQC in 2025, as Halliday irresponsibly and recklessly tries to convey to gullible GUARDIAN 'innocence' romanticists.

 

[Vixen]

Is there a point buried in this silly knee-jerk reaction? Do you deny what the Care Quality Commission or the deputy president of the UKSC said? Do you have anything vaguely relevant, factual or useful to add to the discussion? Rather than childish irrelevancy.

Explain what you mean by 'childish irrelevancy'. I would call name calling childish and irrelevant. Do try to stop doing it.