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

[catsmate]

I see @Vixen is back to the 'wall of text' tactic rather than actually engaging.

 

[Vixen]

I see @Vixen is back to the 'wall of text' tactic rather than actually engaging.

Please concentrate on the topic and not me.

 

[smartcooky]

I see @Vixen is back to the 'wall of text word salad' tactic rather than actually engaging.

FTFY

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

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.

My guess with the first one is that quite a few senior judges have realised the original trial and appeal will become known as the travesties they were pretty soon.

 

[catsmate]

My guess with the first one is that quite a few senior judges have realised the original trial and appeal will become known as the travesties they were pretty soon.

Very probably. But the ongoing issues with inexpert testimony in court are vastly more general and widespread.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

He gave evidence in court that he later recanted.

The expert on whose paper he relied says he made a basic error in interpreting it.

He is not reliable.

It's not so much Evans recanted as he switched from one alleged method of murder to another he had earlier discounted once it became obvious the first proposed method was an impossibility.

The man is so incapable of envisioning a scenario where the person the peelers finger is actually innocent that he should be permanently dibarred from givin expert testimony, he cannot be impartial or independent, two necessary qualities of expert witnesses set down in UK court rules.

 

[jeremyp]

A new report from the BBC

The flaws in medical evidence on all sides of the Lucy Letby case

Barrister Mark McDonald claims to have the backing of a panel of world class experts who say there is no evidence any babies were deliberately harmed

www.bbc.co.uk

Presents a slightly more nuanced view than the ITV documentary. However, in the cases it discusses, it still seems to show there isn't enough evidence to say there were any murders, never mind whether Letby did any of them.

 

[Vixen]

Who needs a trial when we have PR influencers? Most of them foreign in this case. Canadian 'world renowned expert' Dr. Taylor has to qualify his credentials as having been originally British and trained at Barts.

 

[angrysoba]

A new report from the BBC

The flaws in medical evidence on all sides of the Lucy Letby case

Barrister Mark McDonald claims to have the backing of a panel of world class experts who say there is no evidence any babies were deliberately harmed

www.bbc.co.uk

Presents a slightly more nuanced view than the ITV documentary. However, in the cases it discusses, it still seems to show there isn't enough evidence to say there were any murders, never mind whether Letby did any of them.

It is always dangerous to watch documentaries to become informed in contentious cases like this. It is far too easy to be sucked into the narrative.

On the other hand, that BBC article does a good job of showing how there seem to be disagreements all round about how the babies died.

 

[Vixen]

It is always dangerous to watch documentaries to become informed in contentious cases like this. It is far too easy to be sucked into the narrative.

On the other hand, that BBC article does a good job of showing how there seem to be disagreements all round about how the babies died.

The byline writer, Jonathan Coffey, was the co-author of the Letby book, with Judy Moritz. He took the line of being pro-innocence, whilst Moritz was pro-guilt. I presume they thought a dialectical view would help clarify matters. It comes across to me as their wanting to appeal to both pro - and anti-guilt readers. I guess there is a lot of mileage in this for crime reporters in terms of public fascination. But it is clear to me Mark McDonald is a showboat barrister. He doesn't seem to care his 'expert' Dr Richard Taylor falsely accused Dr. Brearey of killing Baby O at a live-recorded public press conference and ranting that he doesn't know how Brearey sleeps at night. McDonald has now taken a more balanced view but hasn't had the decency to set the record straight that he no longer agrees with Taylor about the cause of Baby O's death.

 

[catsmate]

It is always dangerous to watch documentaries to become informed in contentious cases like this. It is far too easy to be sucked into the narrative.

On the other hand, that BBC article does a good job of showing how there seem to be disagreements all round about how the babies died.

The BBC piece was a prelude to this evening's rather incoherent Panorama.

 

[Pixel42]

Guardian review of last night's Panorama.

Lucy Letby: Who to Believe? review – just when you thought this case couldn’t get any more confusing …

Panorama’s new investigation into the convicted nurse is muddled and stuffed with conflicting theories. It feels more like radio phone-in bickering than serious journalism

www.theguardian.com

 

[Darat]

Guardian review of last night's Panorama.

Lucy Letby: Who to Believe? review – just when you thought this case couldn’t get any more confusing …

Panorama’s new investigation into the convicted nurse is muddled and stuffed with conflicting theories. It feels more like radio phone-in bickering than serious journalism

www.theguardian.com

That review seems to be criticising the programme for not just telling everyone she is guilty or not guilty, she's complaining about how it didn't simplify the complicated stuff, to me she sounds as if she wants to be spoon-fed. Sorry but the real world is complicated.

 

[lionking]

I’m really seeing a lot of similarities to the false imprisonment of Lindy Chamberlain. Awkward demeanour, saying things that are easily misconstrued, being “weird”, not fitting standard roles, the police needing a quick result and dodgy forensic evidence.

For what it’s worth I saw through the Baby Azaria miscarriage of justice very early. It’s taken longer for Letby, but it’s clear to me now. The intransigence of the UK justice system is still powerful, but the evidence of an unsafe conviction keeps mounting up.

ETA trial by tabloid as well

 

[catsmate]

That review seems to be criticising the programme for not just telling everyone she is guilty or not guilty, she's complaining about how it didn't simplify the complicated stuff, to me she sounds as if she wants to be spoon-fed. Sorry but the real world is complicated.

I disagree. I found it incoherent, not in exclusively supporting one viewpoint but in hopping around from point to point and failing to actually explain much.

 

[catsmate]

I’m really seeing a lot of similarities to the false imprisonment of Lindy Chamberlain. Awkward demeanour, saying things that are easily misconstrued, being “weird”, not fitting standard roles, the police needing a quick result and dodgy forensic evidence.

For what it’s worth I saw through the Baby Azaria miscarriage of justice very early. It’s taken longer for Letby, but it’s clear to me now. The intransigence of the UK justice system is still powerful, but the evidence of an unsafe conviction keeps mounting up.

ETA trial by tabloid as well

Don't forget dubious "expert" witnesses. Remember Cameron?

 

[smartcooky]

I disagree. I found it incoherent, not in exclusively supporting one viewpoint but in hopping around from point to point and failing to actually explain much.

For those of us old enough to remember, it seemed a lot like an episode of James Burke's "Connections". They too, often jumped from point-to-point, with no seemingly obvious connection from any point to any other point. The difference though is that Burke brought the hammer down and nailed the connections quite dramatically in the last few minutes of each episode, but this Panorama program just left you hanging, waiting for the punchline that never came.

 

[catsmate]

For those of us old enough to remember, it seemed a lot like an episode of James Burke's "Connections".

That is an intersting point, I was great fan of Connections.

They too, often jumped from point-to-point, with no seemingly obvious connection from any point to any other point. The difference though is that Burke brought the hammer down and nailed the connections quite dramatically in the last few minutes of each episode, but this Panorama program just left you hanging, waiting for the punchline that never came.

This. Panorama failed to draw the links between the points.

 

[lionking]

Don't forget dubious "expert" witnesses. Remember Cameron?

Indeed. The parallels with the Chamberlain case just gets stronger.

Yes, I know it proves nothing, other than determined and biased investigators and prosecutors exist.

 

[catsmate]

Indeed. The parallels with the Chamberlain case just gets stronger.

Yes, I know it proves nothing, other than determined and biased investigators and prosecutors exist.

It does address the "She was convicted. End of story" argument.