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

[smartcooky]

"Bu...but...she looks so ordinary! She can't possibly have done it as she doesn't look like a murderer."

"Villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged".

 

[Matthew Best]

Don't try playing the "I was only kidding card" with me chum. You're better than that!

FTFY

Oh, I wasn't kidding, I meant it. I just thought it was funny.

 

[Matthew Best]

Utter bollocks!

"They also pointed to a research paper on air embolus in babies, written by scientists from the University of Western Ontario, in Canada

That would be the research paper written by Dr Shoo Lee who 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, yes?

The Dr Shoo Lee whose evidence was not allowed to be presented at appeal.

That research paper?

 

[Vixen]

Reading an article in a New York newspaper or by Peter Hitchens (and now Nadine Dorries is spouting off) is no substitute for following the trial itself.

All the issues were properly brought up at trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of seven counts of murder and several of attempted murder (not of gross professional negligence or manslaughter) and the points brought up at Appeal (including regarding 'statistics') were dismissed. That is all that is required for a person to be definitively convicted.

It really does not matter if someone who has not followed the trial but read a newspaper opinion piece feels it in their bones that Letby is innocent. This is often because they cannot contemplate that people can and do do terrible things, plus there is something romantic about being a saviour to the rescue.

 

[Nessie]

It looks to me that the evidence is clear about Letby's proximity to the deaths, it is the medical evidence that is in dispute.

 

[Vixen]

It looks to me that the evidence is clear about Letby's proximity to the deaths, it is the medical evidence that is in dispute.

What medical evidence specifically is in dispute and by whom?

 

[smartcooky]

The Dr Shoo Lee whose evidence was not allowed to be presented at appeal.

Correct, and that is simply a rule of evidence (Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968)

There are four criteria that fresh evidence at appeal must pass. It must pass all of them...

1. It must be capable of belief
2. It must be sufficient to afford grounds for appeal
3. It must have been admissible at trial (i.e. would the Judge have allowed it to be introduced?)
4. There needs to be a reasonable explanation for why it was not introduced at trial.

The defense may not bring to appeal any evidence that was available at the time of the trial, but which they chose not to present. They offered no explanation for this decision.

The defense had Dr. Shoo's research paper available for the trial, but chose not to present that evidence or call him to testify.

Now, I wonder why that is?

 

[angrysoba]

Correct, and that is simply a rule of evidence (Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968)

There are four criteria that fresh evidence at appeal must pass. It must pass all of them...

1. It must be capable of belief
2. It must be sufficient to afford grounds for appeal
3. It must have been admissible at trial (i.e. would the Judge have allowed it to be introduced?)
4. There needs to be a reasonable explanation for why it was not introduced at trial.

The defense may not bring to appeal any evidence that was available at the time of the trial, but which they chose not to present. They offered no explanation for this decision.

The defense had Dr. Shoo's research paper available for the trial, but chose not to present that evidence or call him to testify.

Now, I wonder why that is?

I don’t know why that is. Why not tell us?

Do you know, or is this just a rhetorical move on your part?

In my humble opinion, if the person who wrote the paper that the medical arguments rest on believes that the medical evidence has been misapplied then I am curious to find out more and wonder if the conviction was unsound.

If you are resting your refusal to consider a re-evaluation of the air embolism argument purely on procedural grounds that seems to be equivalent to arguing against your posts for using ALL CAPS for emphasis.

 

[smartcooky]

I don’t know why that is.

You don't know why the defence choose not to bring in evidence or call certain witnesses? Really? You need this explained to you?

I'll give you a clue.... Cross Examination.

 

[angrysoba]

You don't know why the defence choose not to bring in evidence or call certain witnesses? Really? You need this explained to you?

I'll give you a clue.... Cross Examination.

Cross examination of the author of the paper that that prosecution is relying on?

Could you explain that a little further, please...

 

[smartcooky]

Cross examination of the author of the paper that that prosecution is relying on?

Could you explain that a little further, please...

Oh FFS angrysoba, really?

Just a bit of terminology to make sure you are on the correct page

Probative value: how much the evidence or witness helps the case
Prejudicial effect: how much the evidence or witness hurts the case
Direct Examination: Questioning by the defence counsel or prosecutor who has introduced a witness.
Cross Examination: The questioning by the defence counsel or prosecutor who did not introduce the witness

When the defence are deciding whether to introduce any item of evidence, they will always weigh its probative value against its prejudicial effect.

Similarly, when the defense are deciding whether or not to introduce a witness, they will always weigh any probative value of the witnesses testimony on direct, against the prejudicial effect of what the witness might say under cross-examination.

When defence counsel do not introduce a witness or evidence which, on the face of things, looks like it might tend to help their case, it is almost always because they know something about the witness or evidence that will hurt them, and which they do not wish to revealed in court.

Matthew Best seems to think Dr Shoo's research paper could have been used to impeach the testimony of the crown's medical experts. If that was really the case, then why didn't they introduce it? I mean, a paediatrician throwing shade at the way the prosecution is interpreting HIS research paper! On the face of it, this looks like 89th minute winning goal for the defence. So why didn't they introduce it or him at the trial. The answer can only be that they knew something about it or him they thought might harm their case.

 

[Planigale]

Oh FFS angrysoba, really?

Just a bit of terminology to make sure you are on the correct page

Probative value: how much the evidence or witness helps the case
Prejudicial effect: how much the evidence or witness hurts the case
Direct Examination: Questioning by the defence counsel or prosecutor who has introduced a witness.
Cross Examination: The questioning by the defence counsel or prosecutor who did not introduce the witness

When the defence are deciding whether to introduce any item of evidence, they will always weigh its probative value against its prejudicial effect.

Similarly, when the defense are deciding whether or not to introduce a witness, they will always weigh any probative value of the witnesses testimony on direct, against the prejudicial effect of what the witness might say under cross-examination.

When defence counsel do not introduce a witness or evidence which, on the face of things, looks like it might tend to help their case, it is almost always because they know something about the witness or evidence that will hurt them, and which they do not wish to revealed in court.

Matthew Best seems to think Dr Shoo's research paper could have been used to impeach the testimony of the crown's medical experts. If that was really the case, then why didn't they introduce it? I mean, a paediatrician throwing shade at the way the prosecution is interpreting HIS research paper! On the face of it, this looks like 89th minute winning goal for the defence. So why didn't they introduce it or him at the trial. The answer can only be that they knew something about it or him they thought might harm their case.

I think you forget the very limited funding the defence would have had, and the massive size of the case, the difficulty and expense of getting an expert witness to review the masses of documents. It was over a year of full time work for the prosecution's (retired) expert.

I don't doubt guilt, but I do think that massive and complex cases like this are very difficult to defend against unless you are very wealthy.

 

[Nessie]

What medical evidence specifically is in dispute and by whom?

I have only started to read about this yesterday. I have seen the cause of death as air injections being questioned. My interest was gained by a series of tweets by a Dr Phil Hammond.

 

[Vixen]

Let's take the issue of the insulin overdoses. SOMEONE did indeed apply insulin overdoses to two or more neonatal babies, who either by coincidence or design were each of twins or triplets. Even Letby herself admitted that SOMEONE must have tampered with the insulin dosages for the overdose to occur. The insulin bags were made up in advance by the hospital pharmacists and placed ready for use in the ward refrigerator and carefully controlled as to who had access to the bags. SOMEONE who was on duty the same time as Letby must have wilfully and maliciously tampered with the insulin dosage. Perhaps it was a complete fluke that (a) the babies involved were part of multiple births, (b) the insulin dosages - literally up to 200 bags at a time - had by a strange fluke been mismeasured by the hospital pharmacists and by random sheer coincidence in each case the wrong dosages went to not only the neonatal twin/triplet but was also administered under the responsibility of Nurse Letby. Bloody statistics - don;t prove nuffink! That doesn't mean it was Letby what done it. Noone saw her actually do it, did they? Bloody babies. In any case that would only have been one or two of them. That's not worth a life sentence, eh?

 

[angrysoba]

Oh FFS angrysoba, really?

Just a bit of terminology to make sure you are on the correct page

Probative value: how much the evidence or witness helps the case
Prejudicial effect: how much the evidence or witness hurts the case
Direct Examination: Questioning by the defence counsel or prosecutor who has introduced a witness.
Cross Examination: The questioning by the defence counsel or prosecutor who did not introduce the witness

When the defence are deciding whether to introduce any item of evidence, they will always weigh its probative value against its prejudicial effect.

Similarly, when the defense are deciding whether or not to introduce a witness, they will always weigh any probative value of the witnesses testimony on direct, against the prejudicial effect of what the witness might say under cross-examination.

When defence counsel do not introduce a witness or evidence which, on the face of things, looks like it might tend to help their case, it is almost always because they know something about the witness or evidence that will hurt them, and which they do not wish to revealed in court.

Matthew Best seems to think Dr Shoo's research paper could have been used to impeach the testimony of the crown's medical experts. If that was really the case, then why didn't they introduce it? I mean, a paediatrician throwing shade at the way the prosecution is interpreting HIS research paper! On the face of it, this looks like 89th minute winning goal for the defence. So why didn't they introduce it or him at the trial. The answer can only be that they knew something about it or him they thought might harm their case.

Yes, on the face of it, as you say, it looks like it completely undermines the case against Lucy Letby.

You are right, and we are in agreement.

You ask the same question we are asking of you, and you finally get round to answering it by merely surmising that there is something wrong with Dr Shoo Lee.

It seems to me that you do not know what is wrong with the professional opinion of the author at all, but are guessing that there must be something.

If you can tell me what that something is. And give me an actual answer not one that you presume, then we can rest easily.

Until then, I think it is only fair that we reconsider whether or not Lucy Letby has had a fair trial.

Is that too much to ask?

 

[smartcooky]

I think you forget the very limited funding the defence would have had, and the massive size of the case, the difficulty and expense of getting an expert witness to review the masses of documents. It was over a year of full time work for the prosecution's (retired) expert.

If Matthew Best is to be believed, Dr Shoo Lee's evidence "was not allowed to be presented at appeal".

Firstly, it is relatively inexpensive to submit written evidence at a trial. The defense had the opportunity to submit Dr Lee's evidence in the form of an affidavit. They CHOSE not to do so.

As to the appeal, see my post no. 207, where I stated the four criteria for evidence to be admitted at appeal that was not admitted at trial.

"4. There needs to be a reasonable explanation for why it was not introduced at trial."

"Flying Dr Lee over from Canada would have been really expensive, and beyond the limit of the resources available to my client" is the sort of reasonable explanation that the court would normally be willing to accept.

The defense CHOSE not to make this argument. They never even tried.

I don't doubt guilt, but I do think that massive and complex cases like this are very difficult to defend against unless you are very wealthy.

I do not doubt her guilt either.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, on the face of it, as you say, it looks like it completely undermines the case against Lucy Letby.

You are right, and we are in agreement.

You ask the same question we are asking of you, and you finally get round to answering it by merely surmising that there is something wrong with Dr Shoo Lee.

It seems to me that you do not know what is wrong with the professional opinion of the author at all, but are guessing that there must be something.

If you can tell me what that something is. And give me an actual answer not one that you presume, then we can rest easily.

Until then, I think it is only fair that we reconsider whether or not Lucy Letby has had a fair trial.

Is that too much to ask?

I don't know the answer to THAT question (nor did I even claim to do so). That is a question for the defence counsel - you should ask them

I'm just telling you what it looks like. If Dr Shoo's evidence was so earth-shatteringly vital to the defense, why didn't they call him?

But I do believe she had a fair trial, and that the evidence against her, as presented, was overwhelming.

Its worth noting that in 2013, there were four baby deaths at the unit, and in 2014 there were another four. That rose to 15 deaths and over a dozen life-threatening system collapses for the 13 months from June 2015 to June 2016 when Letby was working there, and the number dropped to one for the remainder of 2016, and three for 2017. If this was just a case of a statistical clumping, and Letby was the only nurse present during that cluster, it defies all reason to suggest she was not involved.

 

[Vixen]

I don't know the answer to THAT question (nor did I even claim to do so). That is a question for the defence counsel - you should ask them

I'm just telling you what it looks like. If Dr Shoo's evidence was so earth-shatteringly vital to the defense, why didn't they call him?

It would have been a Shoo-in.


I'll get my coat.

 

[angrysoba]

If Matthew Best is to be believed, Dr Shoo Lee's evidence "was not allowed to be presented at appeal".

Firstly, it is relatively inexpensive to submit written evidence at a trial. The defense had the opportunity to submit Dr Lee's evidence in the form of an affidavit. They CHOSE not to do so.

As to the appeal, see my post no. 207, where I stated the four criteria for evidence to be admitted at appeal that was not admitted at trial.

"4. There needs to be a reasonable explanation for why it was not introduced at trial."

"Flying Dr Lee over from Canada would have been really expensive, and beyond the limit of the resources available to my client" is the sort of reasonable explanation that the court would normally be willing to accept.

The defense CHOSE not to make this argument. They never even tried.



I do not doubt her guilt either.

We have this, from the Guardian...

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.

Link

 

[angrysoba]

I don't know the answer to THAT question (nor did I even claim to do so).

Then stop with the long-winded explanations of terminology that are not relevant to the point.