This is a quote from a senior, practising neonatologist who is well respected in her field: 'The cases all have much more plausible alternative explanations than those alleged. Yet the defence appears not to have made many of these obvious points. Many of the prosecution’s comments are medically illiterate and so too many of the ‘expert’ witness comments. Why weren’t these challenged? Why didn’t the defence have better medical advice or - as Professor Mike Hall is experienced and credible - why didn’t they use the advice they were given to better effect? On the basis of what I’ve seen, this conviction is wholly unsafe. It totally shakes my faith in the competence of the law.” Source Private Eye Special report I suppose it is not surprising that the majority of people finding flaws in the case are from a medical background or are statisticians and those defending the trial are in the legal profession. On balance I trust the medics more than the lawyers!
Not a single piece of compelling evidence and when we look at the evidence as a whole we have to believe that a well liked nurse has decided to start randomly murdering some of the babies in her care for no apparent reason while diligently caring for others. We know the Police uncovered web searches and personal notes yet not a single item suggesting a motive or research into the modi operandi, so we have to start imagining possible motives for ourselves and believe she chose to very her methods for some unknown reason. We also have to believe Dewi Evans, who volunteered his services as an independent witness which was his stock in trade and is NOT an expert (he has even stated this fact himself) miraculously found the causes of deaths that had evaded all the Coroners, pathologists Doctors and Police. I am not one of those believers.
Sorry gents but as much as you presume to be objective you’re not. This very video shows how appeals can fall short with so called intelligent legal professionals evaluating a case. Their default position is the superior nature of the law and its application and they use very little common sense. Despite repeatedly admitting mistakes do happen it’s evident from their comments they don’t actually believe it in this case. As an example of their lack of understanding of the case they accept the insulin argument without questioning the unreliability of the c-peptide test. The default is read the judgement of the case. A judgement that many believe is BS given the full facts. Their inability to step back and look at it objectively without the blinkers of the legal process shows to the rest of us that this is going to be a slow and long road to LL proving her innocence.
@@philipholding the prosecution proved her guilt, she offered nothing in defence. No alternative, no explanation. Two juries have found her guilty after being provided with all the evidence. I’d say those protesting her innocence haven’t read the transcripts in full, or are wilfully ignoring the evidence due to cognitive dissonance. Classic markings of conspiracy theorists.
Let's be honest she was never found to be guilty it was all done on assumption she was just an escape goat for the hospital and its failings in hygiene
This is a very poor handling of the doubts. You both lean extremely heavily on the Court of Appeal decision and frankly don't seem to have understood the experts' doubts. You plainly don't understand the statisticians' points, but I'm not sure I can summarise them in a TH-cam comment. You spend practically zero time on the doubts of medical experts, and none whatsoever on those who challenge the hugely consequential insulin evidence. The list you give at the end of other pieces of evidence (notes etc.) seems to suggest you have little knowledge of the case in general. (The alleged confession was not in a "diary" and appeared alongside outright denials, the FB searches for families were 31 out of over 2,000 for other unrelated people in the relevant period, the documents at her home overwhelmingly did not relate to infants she's alleged to have harmed, etc). I understand that you're inclined to trust those with high status within your own profession, but one cannot evaluate an argument that a system has failed by relying almost entirely on what that system itself has to say.
@@proffessorclueless she had little or no defence, no one would speak up for her, even her staff friends were advised not to as it would be bad for their careers. Typical medics, they always close ranks.
I’m surprised how naively pompous many people in Britain are about this and the legal proceedings. The legal aspect is secondary to the fact that the scope of evidence was dramatically narrowed in a confirmation bias from the start. Remember, the hospital was having way too many unexplained deaths for years and there is no evidence of a single incident of her guilt. Furthermore she had reported on doctor errors and on the doctor spreading rumors about her. So, the legalities will not ultimately matter when the balance of true expert concerns makes this too political and the legalities Will Bend. It was splashed all over world news.
Gentlemen, I have read the court of appeal determination, and I have to say it, and your assertions feel like the legal profession circling the wagons. A very poor, even defective defence, and a trial judge directing the jury to make assumptions? a case entirely based on circumstantial evidence? subjective choosing of statistical evidence, and the discarding of statistics that didn't support the prosecution assumptions. All the post mortems that identified natural causes. Beyond ALL reasonable doubt? How could you suggest that notes her therapist told her to write could be claimed by you to be a diary? Coupled with your very selective picking of an example from those notes/ The Criminal Appeals Act is not objective, it leaves it entirely up to the LJ's to make a subjective decision about admissibility of new evidence, simply not good enough I have no idea whether Lucy Letby is guilty or not, but for the sake of confidence in the entire criminal justice system, this case is screaming from the rooftops for a retrial I am surprised that two eminent trial lawyers such as you could speak from such an entrenched point of view. After Malkinson, and the Post Office, the court of appeal must be far less onerous in its new evidence test, far better that one guilty person should go free, than one guilty person should be imprisoned.
Classic barrister focus on process as opposed to justice. Dismissive of any alternative opinion. Clear lack of awareness as to how a neonatal unit functions. No wonder there are are so many miscarriages of justice, now including Lucy Letby
Lucy Letby is the scapegoat in the biggest NHS cover up of all time. She needs an appeal ASAP, which I have no doubt of the outcome if done properly and fairly.
Explain how the Trust got a whole police taskforce, the CPS and two Juries to just go along with it. I don't even think you've listened to video. She's had two appeals turned down. Know it needs new and compelling evidence not heard at the first trial. You've literally no idea what you're even talking about saying appeal
Obviously, if she has a retrial, what you considered to be right and fair is the verdicts you want. If it's guilty again *already two trials* do you want to keep going until it's the right result for you? If she has ten and it's guilty, you'll want 11. Explain the logistics of the Trust getting a police taskforce to go along with it.
The babies all had a natural cause of death on the death certificate which had been decided by an autopsy. Except one, which was unacertatined. This was never brought up.
20:33 the Judge was wrong to direct the jury that they did not need to be sure about harmful acts for each indictment. Would you expect the Crown to prove a harmful act if you were falsely charged?
20:26 the Judge was wrong to reject ' no case to answer' . The prosecution case is crumbling under scrutiny, so ' no case to answt' is a strong possibility.
they are trying to paint the people who think she maybe innocent as cranks and conspiracy theorists...........look at michael stone ...in prison for 25 years for a crime most people think he did not commit......with these 2 around its not surprising the system is broken
Part of the problem. It is pathetic. An attempt to try and justify the legal system. The very experience KC Meyers let her down badly. Very badly, but why? Why was he so bad, I am now thinkinging it was actually deliberately bad. Unless you are like the New Yorker and have gone thro the trial, you should not be even discussing this. Do you have to refer to her as baby killer Lucy Letby. Hammond was right. If you guys do not understand the simple facts of bias, in the chart, linking shifts to babies harmed, you are both idiotic, should you even be here. THAT CHART should never have been agreed to be presented to the court. It ONLY SHOWED HER SHIFTS! NOTHING ELSE. NO IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED EXCEPT BY IDIOTS. OMG why are you so dense, i dispair!!
Coming from a country where after a judgement the prosecution as well as the defence can appeal without having permission, it seems to me the barrier is laid very high. Remember watching the Depp/Heard trial and diving into the trial of Depp vs the Sun. The judge there said some interesting things like ‘he valued an under oath testimony higher than sound recordings’, and ‘since Heard donated her settlement to charity, the claim she went for financial profit was mute’ (i paraphrase). The entire case leaned heavily (almost exclusively) on Heards testimony . Still Depp wasn’t allowed an appeal when she demonstrably had lied during her testimony. What i also learned in the US there’s a lot of pre-trial decisions, which were enlightening as to why certain things weren’t brought up. i wonder if in the UK there’s also this sort of pre-trial decisions about for instance which evidence can be included. Was the fact 9 more children died not allowed in evidence? Or the RCPCH report? Does the fact the defence accepted the insulin cases as deliberate poisonings block them from later presenting doubts to the jury (like the fact the test itself stating it can not be used to determine exogenous insulin) ? Can the defence call a statistical expert when the prosecution doesn’t claim to use statistics, and there’s no expert to contradict?
I wonder if Letby’s expert was not used as they thought they had reasonable doubt. Experts are expensive and her team has very little money compared to the prosecution’s vast resources.
We all see the world thru our own individual prism, which is formed by our life experiences and occupation. The two presenters are barristers, so are looking at the legal aspects. I'm not a barrister, so I defer to them. I'm a stock market trader, which is a game of probabilities. From a probability angle, there were more deaths than usual one year at an ICU for poorly babies. Half the babies died of natural causes. What about the other half ? Did they die of natural causes as well ? This is what the post mortems said and is the most likely explanation ( Occam's Razor ). Or did they die at the hands of a psycho nurse, who murdered them by a variety of exotic means. This is highly unlikely. A professional statistician would have to calculate the odds ... but they will be enormous ! There are alternative, mundane explanations for all the cases.
A couple of things struck me about how the two speakers conducted their reasoning in this podcast : 1/ Inference of LL’s guilt - she chose to have the same defence team for the second trial + she would have had to forgo client privilege when mentioned together = an *inference* that the defence team knew something that didn’t come out in trial, possibly that she was guilty or had admitted guilt privately to her legal team. Also that she made a choice to use them again so she must have had faith in them/thought they were a good team etc (ie another inference). Actually, we have no idea why she chose the same defence team, nor do we know what her decision-making at that time was based on at all and it is wrong to assume anything about this other than knowing that she made this choice and not another choice. 2/ They were very dismissive of the significance of poor infection control (a leaking soil pipe) and the medical effects of that. They don’t explain why they dismiss this information. 3/ why not listen to all 20 hours of the podcast? Why not list the other discussions around doubts about the safety of the conviction? Why home in on these as fitting into ‘conspiracy theories’? All of them? It’s the quickest way to diss anything these days. But is it fair? Not unless you go through them one by one. I don’t know if LL is innocent or guilty but I do think we should approach the discussions thoroughly and not use inference so freely.
The KCs make the process of the law sound very thorough and considered and silly medical doctors , statisticians, healthcare professionals and scientists just don't understand the complex wonders of our infallible justice system. But in plain speaking terms the court of appeal turned down the testimony of Dr Lee simply because they didn't think it mattered that much in the grand scheme of things. They are not medical experts so are in no position to weigh up the significance of what one particular clinical symptom would or could have on the resultant diagnosis. Also they said well you should have presented this evidence in the original trial too late now tough luck. I'm sorry but that's not good enough. The pressure to release this innocent woman will grow and grow. The public will not stand for the law using technicalities to persecute a fellow British citizen and watch the legal and justice system close ranks to protect itself.
Those 2 guys know exactly what they are doing This video should be kept for reference Is the list of staff at the hospital mentioned As it does have the names of the Jr doctors or consultant that worked in that unit The same time as LL Come on guys what's your angle
Dr Lee accepted he had not assessed any of Letby's victims' medical records, nor had he seen any of the witness testimonies provided by other medical staff. Admissions by the defence's potential medical expert ☝️🙄
@@KingBee24 they should have been treated as such. At this point they had been found guilty at a work grievance process of bullying Lucy. However they were still able to orchestrate the entire investigation from the very start
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 not true. I was there at the leave to appeal and DT Lee had been given an overview of the main points for each case. Dr Lee said that no matter what other details were available it didn't change the fact that the clinical skin signs the COCH Drs said they saw were not indicative of an air embolism. His paper was misused by the prosecution 'experts' in court. No ifs no buts
This is simply vile. Establishment apologists attempting to aid the cover up of incompetence and corruption that is systemic through the entire legal system. When the miscarriage of justice is proven, any judge involved should be sent to prison for a whole life term.
The problem with these two is that, however much they know about law, they are totally out of their depth with the medical evidence, and unaware of the limits of their competence.
The medical evidence was presented and explained consistently and coherently to clarify helping the jury understand that evidence ( it was presented by expert witnesses who are professionals in specialist fields relevant to the discussions ... And their testimony was cross examined by the defence )
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 Except that they weren't 'expert witnesses'. Dr Evans said that had no experience of air embolism, he'd never seen one. Dr. Bohim said that she'd only been aware of one over her entire career. The whole crux of the counter argument is that other highly qualified medical people have challenged the evidence that was presented at court.
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 The medical evidence was highly implausible speculative theory for which there was no scientific evidence. As you will discover in the inevitable retrial.
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 Dr Shoo Lee ( air embolism expert and author of the academic paper used as evidence ) has said he wasn't aware of the case. He lives in Canada so that's understandable. You'll have to ask the others. Maybe they weren't aware of it either ? Most of us didn't know about it 'til it hit the headlines.
The one guy on this podcast is on almost every news item on this case....he is determined for her not to have an appeal...i have to ask him...What if your are wrong??.............have you no feelings??
Have you listened to Dewi Evans' Raj Persuad interview? He appears to acknowledge that the consultants had already hypothesised air embolism in 2016. He repeats the claim that he discovered the insulin results, when Dr Breary also claimed to have done this. Evans says he reviewed the insulin collapses in 2018 'in case', when he had earlier said he'd initially asked for all incidents to be sent to him, not just suspicious ones. Just a few ways it's a mess and riddled at every level with circularity.
The judgement was never going to be allowed. This is because new arguments about some of the expert evidence,is not allowed to be revisited, which means if your defence is woeful, but you do not realise, as an accused person you are doomed. The defence was woeful. The plumber should have been backed by experts in hospital aquired infections, such as epidemiologist, microbiologist, etc. Yes there was a neonatologist professor. Not called - its suggested he was not called as he is honest and would quite possibly have stated 40 to 50% of neonates have no cause for demise. I believe this trial is unfair and i did not sot thro it. As a nurse I can see the medical care was atrocious! Fucking atrocious. Where were the consultants. Evidence of harm such as the chart, which we now know did not show medical staff present at these events or the swipe cards showing wrong data, going against the fact she was alone and proving she was not alone. So guys, YOU ARE OUT OF DATE. The chart was competent in pointing the finger at LUCY LETBY. OR showing her shift days.
Slightly concerning. Yes skin discoloration wasn't the only evidence for air embolism but the other evidence was x rays suggesting air embolism. X rays are not sufficient to confirm diagnosis of AE and are highly open to misinterpretation. Insulin, c peptide ratios used were adult ratios. Preterm neonatal ratios would likely have triggered a hook effect leading to an erroneous low reporting of c peptide which was key in confirming insulin poisoning. Now we also have the swipe data fiasco. So much of the evidence is lacking in credibility and the conspiracy theory line is fast becoming dated
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 Not exactly. She said that she wasn't qualified to say there was insulin poisoning. The barrister was pressing her, saying that was the expert opinion and was she saying it was wrong ... and she eventually said "Well, if that's what the experts say".
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 but was she aware (very unlikely) that that test for cPeptide wasn’t considered reliable by the manufacturer of the test in the first instance
@@KingBee24Nick Johnson KC, cross-examining Letby for a second day, asked her if she agreed that “someone” had “unlawfully” given Child F and Child L insulin. She agreed, saying that the feeding bags must have been tampered with by either someone on the unit or before the bags arrived on the ward. “Insulin has been added by somebody - how or who I can’t comment on, only that it wasn’t me,” she said. “I don’t believe that any member of staff on the unit would make a mistake and give insulin.”
@@Relaxandthink5 Nick Johnson KC, cross-examining Letby for a second day, asked her if she agreed that “someone” had “unlawfully” given Child F and Child L insulin. She agreed, saying that the feeding bags must have been tampered with by either someone on the unit or before the bags arrived on the ward. “Insulin has been added by somebody - how or who I can’t comment on, only that it wasn’t me,” she said. “I don’t believe that any member of staff on the unit would make a mistake and give insulin.”
The Defence was very poor in challenging the scientific evidence by not calling any expert witness to counter those from the Prosecution but in this podcast they seem to minimise the relevance of this because Ben Myers KC for the Defence did robustly challenge the 6 Prosecution witnesses. He probably thought that he had established reasonable doubt but it seems not. It was stated in the podcast that inflicted harm had been proven by the insulin cases so there must have been someone harming babies. But the insulin testing done - they tested for antibodies not actual insulin - is also being challenged by experts. Even the test kit used explicitly states it cannot be used to establish exogenous insulin and follow-up testing needs to be done (it wasn't). This is something which could have been brought up in court had there been someone to present this evidence for the Defence. Also, without going into details, the suggested method of administering insulin seems quite far-fetched. I would suggest that it is the lack of appropriate Defence expert witnesses which has led to the guilty verdicts and from what you say this isn't considered fresh evidence and can't be used to justify an appeal. p.s. I agree with you that the neonatologist mentioned in Private Eye should not have made a judgement after only reading the Prosecution opening statement. On the other hand there are other neonatologists & scientists saying the same who have done a lot more study of the case. I am sure there will be a lot more to come in the next few months.
And Private Eye is hardly a medical journal! So surely not a good source for medical opinion even if the person was a neonatal doctor. Presumably they are paid to contribute which is not the same as writing for a peer-reviewed academic medical journal. No-one is going to cite Private Eye in their undergraduate essays even if the writer is a doctor, let alone allowing it to be a sufficient element of a legal argument (even if only a podcast commentary). Maybe these guys are PE readers but would they have cited a doctor writing journalism for the Sun, Daily Mail, Guardian?
I have not listened to this in full - just read the comments. However, i have also had my own experience of the establishment and from that say... Come on chaps consider ethics, morality, not endless covering up for pals and the system
IMO. To put it bluntly. Letbys' defence was a shit show. Letby didn't stand a chance. For example, the defence failed to challenge the nurse rota spreadsheet. Emphasising and highlighting the times she was on shift when the infants collapsed/ died. But omitted other medics shift patterns. E.g.,doctors etc.
@@VikkiMcGuire How do you know the alternatives are any better. The problem with the appeal system is that you either have to say your lawyers are amazing or terrible, and there is no nuance. If you have an excellent lawyer with some blindspots, perhaps you would still want them on you team with assistance from other lawyers who compliment their skills and fill in the blind spots. But, how do you know what team satisfies this? An if the lawyer admits they were wrong not to present evidence, how would it be admitted into court if the appeal court says being able to submit it before means it can never be submitted. It seems that the case law sets bad precedences and the only solution is for case law to be replaced by better law made in parliament.
@@martineyles so its her defence who are to blame now. She retained them, she turned down offers of help. You’re almost claiming she’s passive in her defence. She’s not.
@@VikkiMcGuire That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that she either has to keep her current defense team and have the court assume they're perfect and deny a retrial, or ditch them entirely if she wants a retrial, with no guarantee the help she is offered is any better. There seems to be no middle ground available.
The Letby trial and subsequent appeal are both thoroughly polluted by the arrogance and hubris of the legal class. Myers, Johnson, Mr Justice Goss, Dame Victoria Sharp, the CPS - each of them sublimely incompetent to be able to assess the statistical and medical foundations which clearly underpin the case, each tragically oblivious to the shortcomings of their own knowledge and skill, and each sublimely overconfident in the mechanics of the justice system. This podcast is nothing but a microcosm of the failing justice system - it offers nothing new or vaguely insightful. The presenters dismiss without good reason the misgivings of persons far more educated in the key matters at hand than themselves and fail to get to grips properly, in any significant depth, with any of the principal reasons why experts have taken issue with this case. In summary, this podcast offers nothing new or insightful - quite frankly, I regret having wasted my time listening to it.
Surely you guys should know a faulty or shoddy defence from one that is pukka. With your collective nous and years on the bench...surely you must know this defence is a dog's brekky? Evidence for the defence has come flooding in online medical, statistical even contrafictory circumstantial. Shows how little the defence tried and for such an important issue as somebody's freedom for the rest of their life. You legal people are going to have to do a lot of work to resurrect the reputation in the publics mind that our legal system is fit for purpose! Nahh..you will just ignore it as you will this comment!
It is my understanding that the law does not seek the truth, rather justice on their terms. It is essential that the truth be established at the original trial as in this case. I am sure Lucy Letby is not the first innocent victim of our learned friends of the law .
If you listened to the last podcast, We need to talk about Lucy Letby, you would know why it finished on that date, and it is not for the reason you allude to.
At 20:15 the 5 grounds for appeal. 1. The Judge was wrong to allow the testimony of a witness with a conflict of interest and who had been severely criticised by a judge in a previous case. In another previous case he accused a mother of harming her daughter while a second opinion diagnosed a genuine medical condition. Clearly strong grounds for appeal.
I think there's much more of a problem with the roster than you're allowing. 1. By showing it in that form it's creating an implied statistical claim that LL's presence exceeded normal rates. 2. This was the basis the consultants concluded she was guilty before Dewi Evans' involvement. 3. Lay people shown that chart clearly interpret it that way.
In the pub recently, they were arguing that if a coin is tossed 20 times and lands on heads each time, then the next time it has more chance of landing on tails. I was amazed that most of them thought this. I tried to explain that the probability is 50%, no matter how many times it's previously landed on heads and most of them couldn't grasp it. The point being that most people don't understand probability ... and that includes lawyers and juries. There's considerable academic research re: the inability of the legal profession to grasp the concept of probability, lots of it online for free ...
I think the chart also misrepresents, or at least risks misrepresenting, the absolute rate that deaths and collapses were occurring. There were about 400 premature babies cared for each year. I don't mean in a flippant 'what about the babies she didn't kill ' way, but if you're trying to judge whether any were killed versus chance, it matters.
@@KingBee24Yes, that's shocking among a group of adults. The roster is arbitrarily started in June 2015 when there were three deaths in a week. After that, it wouldn't be expected to return to lower levels later. So that first week explains a fairly large part of the increased deaths for the whole period.
@@MrApolloTom It is worth noting that the majority of the nursing staff on the roster were either agency or moved on a daily basis from other wards in the hospital while Lucy Letby worked full time plus overtime in the unit. She was one of two nurses actually qualified to care for neonates who worked on the unit so she looked after the most at risk babies. Originally the infamous chart included the medical staff but according to the unit manager their names were removed. One doctor was present for at least as many deaths as Lucy Letby. The chart is of course a Texas sharp shooter fallacy and has no evidential value. Another interesting fact is that over the two years in question there was a UK wide increase in neonatal deaths with other hospitals actually having a higher rate of deaths than the Princess of Chester. The swipe card evidence is meaningless as there was another door to the unit that the staff used that did not require a swipe card to open.
Daily Mail CPS admits it made mistakes with Lucy Letby evidence Story by Emily Cooper • 55m • The Telegraph We made mistakes over Letby evidence, admits CPS Story by Sarah Knapton • 3h
Ken Macdonald KC's comments about circumstantial evidence are just extraordinary, coming from a King’s Counsel. The definition of circumstantial evidence is literally “evidence that does *not* speak for itself” - it is evidence which, to have any probative value, requires the court to draw an inference - that is, to explain what it means in the context of the case, because it does not by itself say anything. It may, sometimes, be fairly easy to draw an inference from circumstantial evidence - defendant walked into a room with a loaded gun, and walked out five minutes later with an empty gun and the dead victim was found inside the room a minute later - but in the Letby case the circumstantial evidence was noting like this. Each piece of circumstantial evidence was weak, the few from which one could draw any positive inference of wrongdoing did not point to the defendant at all, and those that did were matters of pure correlation.
So because the process was sound, and the jury wasn't obviously nobbled, then she should *rightfully* be denied an appeal? No. She's innocent. Not a damn shred of personal evidence pointing to HER. Even if the babies were murdered - doubtful - the evidence does not directly point to HER as the only person who could have done it.
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 It points to a lack of understanding of probabilities, erroneous reliance on unconnected incidents and emotional instead of rational thinking
Id advise looking into the 1997 Oklahoma cluster of neonatal deaths, the state children's hospital I believe. Did they immediately contact the police? No. They got an epidemiology expert in and calmly assessed every member of staff in terms of statistics and patient contact. They then narrowed it down to only 2 nurses. If it was the UK theyd immediately be labelled the "terrible two" and accused of being serial killers. What did they find? Both nurses had the longest nails , a haven for bacteria that then killed the very vulnerable babies. A tragedy to be sure. Now fast forward to countess of Chester and the sewage finding it way onto the floor of the neonatal unit , and in the pipes that run right across the top of it and coming up through the sink where staff wash their hands. The case suddenly looks entirely different. I find it utterly perplexing, how the defence was aware of this and even put the plumber in the witness box, that they didn't get expert testimony on biofilm infections that are number one cause of patient infections in hospitals. It's astounding.
sad part i think she will be realised but not before she has served a fair chunk of time in prison....these 2 on the podcast are part of that unfair system where justice seems to take forever
The legal team persuaded LL to keep with them So that they couldnt be challenged No No No The defence do not have the same budget as the prosecution For one an expert witness can choose his own price for Giving evidence
David Davis has now wrote to the head of Cheshire CPS for answers concerning use of door times by prosecution which were wrong.letby would not have been alone with children as put to the jury as strong evidence of guilt
Was there a case to answer Well the police made the case and presented it Please give us a figure who have applied for miscarriage of justice How many have been successful And more importantly How long it takes to prove miscarriage of justice
stefan klitcho was found guilty on the basis of 2 things a confession unlawfully obtained from a mentally ill man....and 3 young girls witnessed him near the murder scene....when it was about to go to trial the 3 girls admitted they had lied and in their words did it for a laugh...........to get around this the police who couldnt call them as witnesses for obvious reasons read out in court their witness statements......the man spent 27 years in jail before DNA proved the real killer
you would have said that to the guildford 6 birmingham 4 stefan klitscho timothy evans...were they conspiracy theories??...look if she was guilty would i fall off my chair ..no...but if there is a chance she is innocent we shouldnt just ignore all these credible people who have doubts
The reason she didny call sn expert eitnesd to wuestoon the prosecutionnd medical evidence is becsuse her plsn all along has bren to get compensation for ehen its declared a terrible miscarrisge of justice because its already widely known that medicsl scirnce id onsanely complicated. She haf plenty of time to tgink it all through and should be left to rot in rison for the rest of her days for what she dif, no onr rlses fsult exceot hers dor that matter either!
Two male barristers can't see the wood for the trees, and defend their colleagues professionalism at every turn while claiming to be impartial. These two display their arrogance and bias repeatedly, sneering at the credentials of others who find fault with the whole charade which this case has been, who 'weren't aware of the appeal court;s ruling' as if that has any connection to facts and isn't merely the biased opinions of yet more male barristers. Or two these two think the appeal cpourt has god on its side? What I see and hear is a lot of men not stopping to ask themselves if a young woman who had wanted to be a nurse all nher childhood, had studied and become a nurse and worked hard and diligently, apparently to all as if she was keen, professional and carin g, and swas devoted to her patients; some very early babies weho have increasiongly been saved by advanced ,medical prqactises, but left to the likes of Lucy and her mainly female colleagues to keep alive until they had caught up and were stable and not desperately at risk. There were already excess deaths over expected, measured against other similar unitrs, and the causes of this are clearly linked to staff shortages, doctors absent most of the time, and a lot more placed on the shoulders of nurses than should have been. POne doctor in particular appears to have had good reason to want Lucy out of the picture since she had challenged him over the very issues, and he had denied gossiping that she was killing babies, yet that was exactly what she was accused of, and he was the one who alerted the police, who then only needed a suspect to do what they always do, produce evidence for a convicion. In truth there were no murders, and if anyoine was responmsinble for the excess deaths it was the doctors, who were supposedly in charge. They should have been concerned about the deaths and trying to track down what the causes were and how they could be avoided. Not accusing the senior, but still young, nurse Letby or murder. Juries follow directions and are not equipped to see through a plethora of non-evidence to dismiss any likelihood of murder, so in their eyes it was most likely that Lucy did it, failing to understand that no murders had happened. The parents ;likewise simply want closure and the guilty punished, but should be relieved to know their baby wasn't harmed by the nursing staff, but simply didn't make it. I see the doctor involved in setting this all off is now conveniently out of the country. This shouldn't prevent this appalling miscarriage from being corrected one way or another. Not impressed qwioth the critical thinking of thgese two, pretty run of the mill barrister waffle to my ears. Not a scrap of empathy with Letby in the case of her not being guilty, they are quite happy with the innocent going down, the other side of the coin of getting the guilty off scot free. It's the job after all. How apt that beside this stpory today is another of a man wrongly convictied being released after 33 years. There were barristers and a judge and jury involved in in that case too, all doubtless sure of their opinion not being biased, all sure 'evidence' was proof. That's why decisions are supposed to be 'without a shadow of doubt', well there's so much doubt about this one that I was sure at the time that it would all be overturned. I could see it was a case of lynch mob once Lucy had been identified to the police [and thus the tabloid rags who bribe them] as the murderer, all that was then needed was thje hyperbole saved for child killers to make tabloid hacks feel good about themselves. People like that will be among those devoted to having her kept in prison and dismiss all arguments as 'trying to get a killer released'. The prosecution barrister did a professional job or distorting and insinuating, these two can only defend it and conclude justice has been done. Pethetic.
124 views And only 6 comments What is the angle here with those 2 KC members If Tim / Ken Think that they have to defend the judge or the prosecution team You have not done a very good job IMO fyi The plumber was a good witness Let's talk about hidden evidence The list of staff on the unit For some reason the Jr doctors were not on the list also missing the consultants The expert witness that wasn't called Please tell us the reason why the expert was not called This podcast shows exactly why some people don't trust KC Defense or prosecution And some times the KC will change from prosecution to defence You couldn't make it up Circumstantial is week The only good point made is Why was the same team used for appeal When the first team failed to represent LL properly
You said it yourself (12:04). Two of the babies had been harmed according to evidence from the chart. And Lucy Letby was the only person on record as having been present at both. So either it was her or multiple people... And also note, that the CPS has now said there were errors in the data for card punch-in/punch-out. I am astounded at your reasoning.
The two babies who is was alleged had been poisoned with insulin suffered no adverse effects and are still alive. The laboratory who made the test emphasized that it wasn't sufficient to detect for insulin.
Can’t thank you enough for this podcast! It’s the sheer amount of circumstantial evidence, which taken together proves her guilt. Conspiracy theorists who’ve blatantly ignored the evidence, or worse, twisted it, have somehow convinced people like the MD of Private Eye to fall for their preposterous claims, which of all the conspiratorial articles doing the rounds, I’ve found to be the most disappointing. I hope the MD of PE, aka Dr Phil Hammond, can tear himself away from interviewing anonymous neonatologists, (who apparently haven’t had time to look at the evidence but have still concluded the conviction is ‘wholly unsafe’) and manages to watch this podcast before he writes his next article on the matter.
To date, aprox 30 highly qualified medical people have cast doubt on the evidence presented to the jury. It would be foolish not to listen to them. The primary evidence was medical, esp 'air embolism'. Dr Evans said he had no experience of this, he'd never seen one. Dr. Bolin said she'd only been aware of one over her entire career ... so they weren't 'expert witnesses', they were 'medical witnesses' ... not experts of air embolism.
I've twice posted a list of 10 professors and phd's who have raised serious concerns about the medical evidence, but TH-cam has removed them each time. I don't consider highly qualified people like these to be so-called 'conspiracy theorists'.
@@KingBee24 what’s the issue with circumstantial evidence? DNA evidence is circumstantial, as is CCTV evidence. Most cases involve evidence that’s circumstantial.
There is NO emerging widespread concern by anybody who knows anything about the case:- The were NO unqualified Experts in the trial -.the C5 was a load of misrepresentation of the facts - Cover up of what exactly?? Most of the misinformation was culled from the proposal of Fenton and McLachan, who made erroneous assumptions about the case. This whole Fenton - McLachan argument is back to front. 1) Letby was not prosecuted because of 'clusters' and circumstantial evidence trying to find why a 'cluster' happened. These were not clusters of Unexpected Deaths by natural causes but were shown to be causal as follows: 2) Letby was not a viictim/ scapegoat of a conspiracy in the hospital to find a culprit. 3) The opposite is the case and the real scandal and that which people have to be held accountable for - that the NHS is a bureaucracy driven by 'targets' which regards Clinicians as employees. 4) Various members of the consultancy-clinician team found there were Unexpected Deaths and reported their concerns to Management. 5) Management DENIED there was any issue and that there were no Unexpected Deaths as the death rate was 'normal', ie within targets. 6) The Unexpected Deaths continued and the Doctors became increasingly concerned and voiced this again, however, they had all drawn one inference that Letby was involved, although they thought this was incompetence rather than deliberate. 7) The Management again refused to investigate, but now proceeded to Discipline the Doctors demanding they withdraw their allegations and formally write an apology to Letby and so exonerated her. 8) The Management then decided that 'compensation' be given to Letby in the form of promotional Training at Liverpool Women's Hospital. By weird coincidence it was later found that Unexpected Deaths declined in this period and also when she was on holiday.; but this is to jump ahead. 9) So far we see that far from any investigation and scapegoating the procedure adopted by Management was 'nothing to see here, no Unexpected Deaths. we are on target' ie a cover up. 10) On Letby's return the Unexpected Deaths occurred again. At this point the Doctors told the Management they would go to the Police. 11) The Management compromise was to get an independent review as to whether there had been an Unexpected Deaths rate increase. The independent investigation concluded there had been. We are now an awful long way from the story as promoted by Fenton - McLachan and the Letby Defence. This is that there was a cluster of Unexpected Deaths and a witch hunt was initiated to find a culprit to explain it. 12) Now faced with the conclusion of the independent analysis, flying in the face of the Management denials - cover up , a second review by an independent experts was conducted into the Unexpected Deaths which were flagged and decided if these were natural or causal ie circumstances created by conditions on the Ward - nobody was being fingered by this. 13) The second independent expert review decided that some of these were causal and by deliberate action. Some were death by deliberate interventions - as exposed during the trials. These were not 'natural deaths' in a cluster but specifically injuries caused by over-feeding, misintubation, artificial insulin poisoning and air embolisms. None could be explained by airborne infection from poor drain maintenance, which in each case was not an occurrence . Note contra Fenton - McLachan that no individual had been identified in these cases as they were conducted outside of the hospital purely into an analysis of Unexpected Deaths being evaluated. 14) Faced with these two investigations the Management had no option but to report the findings to the Police. The Management were aware of the nexus around Letby, after all they had tried FOUR TIMES at points '5', '7', '12' and '13' to ignore the complaints and information, and so suspended her. Again, coincidentally and retrospectively it was found that the rate of Unexpected Deaths declined once more after this. 15) It was the Police investigation that found that the 'cluster' of Causal Unexpected Deaths at the Ward all implicated Letby was present and further investigation showed that records had been altered retrospectively by her. The Police investigation is that which decided that Letby was a perpetrator and not what the independent reviews, the Doctors or the Management had made allegations of. 16) Again, note this is not the argument fastened on by Fenton-McLachan which is that Letby is a 'victim' to explain a cluster of Unexpected Deaths in general but a quite specific set of individual Causal Unexpected Deaths in particular which Letby was the proven instigator of.
Not even your timeline is correct. Which makes me wonder if you’ve seen any of the details. Do you for instance know: -there were (depending on source) 7 or 10 other neonatal deaths which were left out of the presence chart. Which chart DID play a prominent role during the trial. - the reviews didn’t point at LL. The air embolism, overfeeding, insulin theories only came out after the police investigation started and were the opinion of dr Evans. Actually it baffles me that someone who was in essence (after himself offering his services) active part of the investigation team can at the same time be the prime expert witness. This apart from the fact he was long retired, an expert in mainly child abuse cases (as far as i know), not a neo-natologist. Reporting indicates the other experts did not do any research from scratch, but were only there to corroborate dr Evans. - didn’t look at all reporting, but it seems the prosecution scratched the barrel for every piece of possible evidence. How one can conclude LL put a sharp object in a child’s throat and absolutely rule out the possibility the harm was done by three failed attempts at intubation by a junior doctor (while the consultant present didn’t take over). Looking at child K: nothing fits with the time line, not even after dr. J. changed his witness statement, swipe data were changed. And the third collapse apparently occurred at 6.24, wile the x-ray showing the tube in the right position finished being taken at 6.23. I would suggest it’s more likely something happened when the radiologist repositioned the baby, especially since (at least some) other hospital’s guidelines specifically state the radiologist should ask a nurse to handle the baby and keep attached lines out of the way, and NOT touch the baby themselves. Well, i could go on. Wonder why the defence didn’t call expert witnesses while already during the trial credible people were expressing doubt about the soundness of the evidence. Or e.g. the two other nurses who were present at the child K collapses but not called by the prosecution. Maybe out of court rulings concerning evidence?
@@jopiez1 My time line is correct. It took all of the arguments of the clinicians to get the Management even to take the issue seriously, they covered up for Letby to protect their targets. The detailed independent reviews were what led to the conclusion that there were Unexpected Extra Deaths and that some of these were causal ie not natural. There was no 'scraping of barrel' for evidence as you suggest because the Police had to convince themselves there was a case or even if there was a conscious perpetrator. That they concluded there were incidents that Letby had to provide statements for and that they then discovered her documents storing OF THE VICTIMS and her social media activities at the time of the deaths was coincidental with the independent reviews. NONE of the evidence was challenged and the Defence Counsel hardly bothered to either call these so called experts who have appeared after the Trial nor Cross Examined those of the Prosecution indicates clearly how little could be said for Letby.
@@uingaeoc3905 The independent reviews did NOT indicate Lucy , there was an addendum stating doctors saw a correlation with her presence, but the review didn’t put credence to it. And there WAS scratching of the barrel and leaving out exculpatory evidence. The jury e.g never heard there was another cluster of 3 deaths in January 2016 (might the broad review in February be connected with this?) Don’t know if they ever heard the FB searches were a few dozen out of > 2000. Just like the hand over sheets found at her house were a few out of hundreds unconnected ones. As to not challenged: some great mistakes by the defence to accept the insulin poisoning evidence (lack of medical knowledge), which therefore could not be challenged in appeal. As could the evidence of the writer of the embolism paper. And btw your assertion there’s no widespread doubt : even MP’s are now saying they don’t know about guilt or innocence, but certainly there were serious flaws in the prosecution’s case.
The problem with this case is evident here. Lack of intelligence of legal professionals. A cousin of mine is a successful legal professional - thick as mince. These people should be subject to IQ tests. The process is irrelevant, the truth is paramount. There are many people that are extremely lucky that her father isn't a certain kind of person. Extremely lucky.
Coming from a country where after a judgement the prosecution as well as the defence can appeal without having permission, it seems to me the barrier is laid very high. Remember watching the Depp/Heard trial and diving into the trial of Depp vs the Sun. The judge there said some interesting things like ‘he valued an under oath testimony higher than sound recordings’, and ‘since Heard donated her settlement to charity, the claim she went for financial profit was mute’ (i paraphrase). The entire case leaned heavily (almost exclusively) on Heards testimony . Still Depp wasn’t allowed an appeal when she demonstrably had lied during her testimony. What i also learned in the US there’s a lot of pre-trial decisions, which were enlightening as to why certain things weren’t brought up. i wonder if in the UK there’s also this sort of pre-trial decisions about for instance which evidence can be included. Was the fact 9 more children died not allowed in evidence? Or the RCPCH report? Does the fact the defence accepted the insulin cases as deliberate poisonings block them from later presenting doubts to the jury (like the fact the test itself stating it can not be used to determine exogenous insulin) ? Can the defence call a statistical expert when the prosecution doesn’t claim to use statistics, and there’s no expert to contradict? All those things were known at some time during the trial, but never presented to the jury.
This is going to be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice this country has seen.
"The Post Office scandal on steroids."
This is a quote from a senior, practising neonatologist who is well respected in her field: 'The cases all have much more plausible alternative explanations than those alleged. Yet the defence appears not to have made many of these obvious points. Many of the prosecution’s comments are medically illiterate and so too many of the ‘expert’ witness comments. Why weren’t these challenged? Why didn’t the defence have better medical advice or - as Professor Mike Hall is experienced and credible - why didn’t they use the advice they were given to better effect? On the basis of what I’ve seen, this conviction is wholly unsafe. It totally shakes my faith in the competence of the law.” Source Private Eye Special report
I suppose it is not surprising that the majority of people finding flaws in the case are from a medical background or are statisticians and those defending the trial are in the legal profession. On balance I trust the medics more than the lawyers!
Not a single piece of compelling evidence and when we look at the evidence as a whole we have to believe that a well liked nurse has decided to start randomly murdering some of the babies in her care for no apparent reason while diligently caring for others.
We know the Police uncovered web searches and personal notes yet not a single item suggesting a motive or research into the modi operandi, so we have to start imagining possible motives for ourselves and believe she chose to very her methods for some unknown reason.
We also have to believe Dewi Evans, who volunteered his services as an independent witness which was his stock in trade and is NOT an expert (he has even stated this fact himself) miraculously found the causes of deaths that had evaded all the Coroners, pathologists Doctors and Police.
I am not one of those believers.
Sorry gents but as much as you presume to be objective you’re not. This very video shows how appeals can fall short with so called intelligent legal professionals evaluating a case. Their default position is the superior nature of the law and its application and they use very little common sense. Despite repeatedly admitting mistakes do happen it’s evident from their comments they don’t actually believe it in this case. As an example of their lack of understanding of the case they accept the insulin argument without questioning the unreliability of the c-peptide test. The default is read the judgement of the case. A judgement that many believe is BS given the full facts. Their inability to step back and look at it objectively without the blinkers of the legal process shows to the rest of us that this is going to be a slow and long road to LL proving her innocence.
Revolting isn't it? The process was followed so no need to worry about an innocent woman condemned to life inside.
I keep on reading with this case, 'prove her innocence'. It wasn't for her to prove anything, was it?
you could tell within 2 minutes of the podcast what they thought
@@philipholding the prosecution proved her guilt, she offered nothing in defence. No alternative, no explanation. Two juries have found her guilty after being provided with all the evidence. I’d say those protesting her innocence haven’t read the transcripts in full, or are wilfully ignoring the evidence due to cognitive dissonance. Classic markings of conspiracy theorists.
@@marinka424 I listened to the court reporting every day and went to court to sit in the public gallery. You?
Let's be honest she was never found to be guilty it was all done on assumption she was just an escape goat for the hospital and its failings in hygiene
Staff shortages, and that the hospital wasn’t capable of looking after such poorly babies.
This is a very poor handling of the doubts. You both lean extremely heavily on the Court of Appeal decision and frankly don't seem to have understood the experts' doubts.
You plainly don't understand the statisticians' points, but I'm not sure I can summarise them in a TH-cam comment.
You spend practically zero time on the doubts of medical experts, and none whatsoever on those who challenge the hugely consequential insulin evidence.
The list you give at the end of other pieces of evidence (notes etc.) seems to suggest you have little knowledge of the case in general. (The alleged confession was not in a "diary" and appeared alongside outright denials, the FB searches for families were 31 out of over 2,000 for other unrelated people in the relevant period, the documents at her home overwhelmingly did not relate to infants she's alleged to have harmed, etc).
I understand that you're inclined to trust those with high status within your own profession, but one cannot evaluate an argument that a system has failed by relying almost entirely on what that system itself has to say.
you wouldnt want these 2 defending you
Lazy podcasters. Follow the evidence, not the media. Thumbs down from me guys.
Not surprising that lawyers defend the legal system despite their knowledge of hundreds of cases of miscarriages of justice in the UK.
@@proffessorclueless she had little or no defence, no one would speak up for her, even her staff friends were advised not to as it would be bad for their careers. Typical medics, they always close ranks.
@@proffessorclueless you could almost think they had never heard of any miscarriages
I’m surprised how naively pompous many people in Britain are about this and the legal proceedings. The legal aspect is secondary to the fact that the scope of evidence was dramatically narrowed in a confirmation bias from the start. Remember, the hospital was having way too many unexplained deaths for years and there is no evidence of a single incident of her guilt. Furthermore she had reported on doctor errors and on the doctor spreading rumors about her. So, the legalities will not ultimately matter when the balance of true expert concerns makes this too political and the legalities Will Bend. It was splashed all over world news.
Didn't know "defence barristers" were only supposed to defend the system. Hope you may some day find your humanity.
Gentlemen, I have read the court of appeal determination, and I have to say it, and your assertions feel like the legal profession circling the wagons. A very poor, even defective defence, and a trial judge directing the jury to make assumptions? a case entirely based on circumstantial evidence? subjective choosing of statistical evidence, and the discarding of statistics that didn't support the prosecution assumptions. All the post mortems that identified natural causes. Beyond ALL reasonable doubt?
How could you suggest that notes her therapist told her to write could be claimed by you to be a diary? Coupled with your very selective picking of an example from those notes/
The Criminal Appeals Act is not objective, it leaves it entirely up to the LJ's to make a subjective decision about admissibility of new evidence, simply not good enough
I have no idea whether Lucy Letby is guilty or not, but for the sake of confidence in the entire criminal justice system, this case is screaming from the rooftops for a retrial
I am surprised that two eminent trial lawyers such as you could speak from such an entrenched point of view. After Malkinson, and the Post Office, the court of appeal must be far less onerous in its new evidence test, far better that one guilty person should go free, than one guilty person should be imprisoned.
Classic barrister focus on process as opposed to justice. Dismissive of any alternative opinion. Clear lack of awareness as to how a neonatal unit functions. No wonder there are are so many miscarriages of justice, now including Lucy Letby
Lucy Letby is the scapegoat in the biggest NHS cover up of all time. She needs an appeal ASAP, which I have no doubt of the outcome if done properly and fairly.
Explain how the Trust got a whole police taskforce, the CPS and two Juries to just go along with it. I don't even think you've listened to video. She's had two appeals turned down. Know it needs new and compelling evidence not heard at the first trial. You've literally no idea what you're even talking about saying appeal
Obviously, if she has a retrial, what you considered to be right and fair is the verdicts you want. If it's guilty again *already two trials* do you want to keep going until it's the right result for you? If she has ten and it's guilty, you'll want 11. Explain the logistics of the Trust getting a police taskforce to go along with it.
@@lesley9989 She's had one trial. The second was a continuation of the first.
@@KingBee24 two Juries though. Although I personally thought the retrial was a mistake, but I get it was for Baby K's parents
@@KingBee24 the retrial was an opportunity therefore for any concerns to be included in the defense
Geez guys have you heard of the Post Office scandal ?
The babies all had a natural cause of death on the death certificate which had been decided by an autopsy. Except one, which was unacertatined. This was never brought up.
I'm incredulous that a retired doctor with zero forensic experience was allowed to overturn the conclusions of the three pathologists.
20:33 the Judge was wrong to direct the jury that they did not need to be sure about harmful acts for each indictment.
Would you expect the Crown to prove a harmful act if you were falsely charged?
20:26 the Judge was wrong to reject ' no case to answer' . The prosecution case is crumbling under scrutiny, so ' no case to answt' is a strong possibility.
Two Establishment Lackeys on damage control for the crooked system.
I couldn't agree more - nice try chaps 🙃
these 2 are the problem....
they are trying to paint the people who think she maybe innocent as cranks and conspiracy theorists...........look at michael stone ...in prison for 25 years for a crime most people think he did not commit......with these 2 around its not surprising the system is broken
Part of the problem. It is pathetic. An attempt to try and justify the legal system.
The very experience KC Meyers let her down badly. Very badly, but why? Why was he so bad, I am now thinkinging it was actually deliberately bad.
Unless you are like the New Yorker and have gone thro the trial, you should not be even discussing this.
Do you have to refer to her as baby killer Lucy Letby. Hammond was right. If you guys do not understand the simple facts of bias, in the chart, linking shifts to babies harmed, you are both idiotic, should you even be here. THAT CHART should never have been agreed to be presented to the court. It ONLY SHOWED HER SHIFTS! NOTHING ELSE. NO IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED EXCEPT BY IDIOTS. OMG why are you so dense, i dispair!!
Coming from a country where after a judgement the prosecution as well as the defence can appeal without having permission, it seems to me the barrier is laid very high. Remember watching the Depp/Heard trial and diving into the trial of Depp vs the Sun. The judge there said some interesting things like ‘he valued an under oath testimony higher than sound recordings’, and ‘since Heard donated her settlement to charity, the claim she went for financial profit was mute’ (i paraphrase). The entire case leaned heavily (almost exclusively) on Heards testimony . Still Depp wasn’t allowed an appeal when she demonstrably had lied during her testimony.
What i also learned in the US there’s a lot of pre-trial decisions, which were enlightening as to why certain things weren’t brought up. i wonder if in the UK there’s also this sort of pre-trial decisions about for instance which evidence can be included. Was the fact 9 more children died not allowed in evidence? Or the RCPCH report? Does the fact the defence accepted the insulin cases as deliberate poisonings block them from later presenting doubts to the jury (like the fact the test itself stating it can not be used to determine exogenous insulin) ? Can the defence call a statistical expert when the prosecution doesn’t claim to use statistics, and there’s no expert to contradict?
I wonder if Letby’s expert was not used as they thought they had reasonable doubt.
Experts are expensive and her team has very little money compared to the prosecution’s vast resources.
We all see the world thru our own individual prism, which is formed by our life experiences and occupation. The two presenters are barristers, so are looking at the legal aspects. I'm not a barrister, so I defer to them. I'm a stock market trader, which is a game of probabilities. From a probability angle, there were more deaths than usual one year at an ICU for poorly babies. Half the babies died of natural causes. What about the other half ? Did they die of natural causes as well ? This is what the post mortems said and is the most likely explanation ( Occam's Razor ). Or did they die at the hands of a psycho nurse, who murdered them by a variety of exotic means. This is highly unlikely. A professional statistician would have to calculate the odds ... but they will be enormous ! There are alternative, mundane explanations for all the cases.
A couple of things struck me about how the two speakers conducted their reasoning in this podcast :
1/ Inference of LL’s guilt - she chose to have the same defence team for the second trial + she would have had to forgo client privilege when mentioned together = an *inference* that the defence team knew something that didn’t come out in trial, possibly that she was guilty or had admitted guilt privately to her legal team. Also that she made a choice to use them again so she must have had faith in them/thought they were a good team etc (ie another inference). Actually, we have no idea why she chose the same defence team, nor do we know what her decision-making at that time was based on at all and it is wrong to assume anything about this other than knowing that she made this choice and not another choice.
2/ They were very dismissive of the significance of poor infection control (a leaking soil pipe) and the medical effects of that. They don’t explain why they dismiss this information.
3/ why not listen to all 20 hours of the podcast? Why not list the other discussions around doubts about the safety of the conviction? Why home in on these as fitting into ‘conspiracy theories’? All of them? It’s the quickest way to diss anything these days. But is it fair? Not unless you go through them one by one.
I don’t know if LL is innocent or guilty but I do think we should approach the discussions thoroughly and not use inference so freely.
"The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie."
But what if they don't know it's a lie.
Both firmly set in the lie, reinforced by denial, false consciousness, and Bacon's Four Idols of the Mind
The KCs make the process of the law sound very thorough and considered and silly medical doctors , statisticians, healthcare professionals and scientists just don't understand the complex wonders of our infallible justice system. But in plain speaking terms the court of appeal turned down the testimony of Dr Lee simply because they didn't think it mattered that much in the grand scheme of things. They are not medical experts so are in no position to weigh up the significance of what one particular clinical symptom would or could have on the resultant diagnosis. Also they said well you should have presented this evidence in the original trial too late now tough luck. I'm sorry but that's not good enough. The pressure to release this innocent woman will grow and grow. The public will not stand for the law using technicalities to persecute a fellow British citizen and watch the legal and justice system close ranks to protect itself.
Those 2 guys know exactly what they are doing This video should be kept for reference
Is the list of staff at the hospital mentioned As it does have the names of the Jr doctors or consultant that worked in that unit The same time as LL
Come on guys what's your angle
@@ronm9101 Agreed. Why weren't the doctors and consultants suspects ? They were presumably there for most of these incidents.
Dr Lee accepted he had not assessed any of Letby's victims' medical records, nor had he seen any of the witness testimonies provided by other medical staff.
Admissions by the defence's potential medical expert ☝️🙄
@@KingBee24 they should have been treated as such. At this point they had been found guilty at a work grievance process of bullying Lucy. However they were still able to orchestrate the entire investigation from the very start
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 not true. I was there at the leave to appeal and DT Lee had been given an overview of the main points for each case. Dr Lee said that no matter what other details were available it didn't change the fact that the clinical skin signs the COCH Drs said they saw were not indicative of an air embolism. His paper was misused by the prosecution 'experts' in court. No ifs no buts
This is simply vile. Establishment apologists attempting to aid the cover up of incompetence and corruption that is systemic through the entire legal system. When the miscarriage of justice is proven, any judge involved should be sent to prison for a whole life term.
The problem with these two is that, however much they know about law, they are totally out of their depth with the medical evidence, and unaware of the limits of their competence.
The medical evidence was presented and explained consistently and coherently to clarify helping the jury understand that evidence ( it was presented by expert witnesses who are professionals in specialist fields relevant to the discussions ... And their testimony was cross examined by the defence )
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 Except that they weren't 'expert witnesses'. Dr Evans said that had no experience of air embolism, he'd never seen one. Dr. Bohim said that she'd only been aware of one over her entire career. The whole crux of the counter argument is that other highly qualified medical people have challenged the evidence that was presented at court.
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 The medical evidence was highly implausible speculative theory for which there was no scientific evidence. As you will discover in the inevitable retrial.
@@KingBee24why did they not take the stand on behalf of the defence ?
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 Dr Shoo Lee ( air embolism expert and author of the academic paper used as evidence ) has said he wasn't aware of the case. He lives in Canada so that's understandable. You'll have to ask the others. Maybe they weren't aware of it either ? Most of us didn't know about it 'til it hit the headlines.
The one guy on this podcast is on almost every news item on this case....he is determined for her not to have an appeal...i have to ask him...What if your are wrong??.............have you no feelings??
Have you listened to Dewi Evans' Raj Persuad interview? He appears to acknowledge that the consultants had already hypothesised air embolism in 2016.
He repeats the claim that he discovered the insulin results, when Dr Breary also claimed to have done this.
Evans says he reviewed the insulin collapses in 2018 'in case', when he had earlier said he'd initially asked for all incidents to be sent to him, not just suspicious ones.
Just a few ways it's a mess and riddled at every level with circularity.
The judgement was never going to be allowed. This is because new arguments about some of the expert evidence,is not allowed to be revisited, which means if your defence is woeful, but you do not realise, as an accused person you are doomed.
The defence was woeful. The plumber should have been backed by experts in hospital aquired infections, such as epidemiologist, microbiologist, etc.
Yes there was a neonatologist professor. Not called - its suggested he was not called as he is honest and would quite possibly have stated 40 to 50% of neonates have no cause for demise.
I believe this trial is unfair and i did not sot thro it. As a nurse I can see the medical care was atrocious! Fucking atrocious. Where were the consultants.
Evidence of harm such as the chart, which we now know did not show medical staff present at these events or the swipe cards showing wrong data, going against the fact she was alone and proving she was not alone.
So guys, YOU ARE OUT OF DATE.
The chart was competent in pointing the finger at LUCY LETBY. OR showing her shift days.
She was framed.
Slightly concerning. Yes skin discoloration wasn't the only evidence for air embolism but the other evidence was x rays suggesting air embolism. X rays are not sufficient to confirm diagnosis of AE and are highly open to misinterpretation. Insulin, c peptide ratios used were adult ratios. Preterm neonatal ratios would likely have triggered a hook effect leading to an erroneous low reporting of c peptide which was key in confirming insulin poisoning. Now we also have the swipe data fiasco. So much of the evidence is lacking in credibility and the conspiracy theory line is fast becoming dated
Lucy Letby herself conceded that there was insulin poisoning but denied responsibility
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 Not exactly. She said that she wasn't qualified to say there was insulin poisoning. The barrister was pressing her, saying that was the expert opinion and was she saying it was wrong ... and she eventually said "Well, if that's what the experts say".
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 but was she aware (very unlikely) that that test for cPeptide wasn’t considered reliable by the manufacturer of the test in the first instance
@@KingBee24Nick Johnson KC, cross-examining Letby for a second day, asked her if she agreed that “someone” had “unlawfully” given Child F and Child L insulin. She agreed, saying that the feeding bags must have been tampered with by either someone on the unit or before the bags arrived on the ward.
“Insulin has been added by somebody - how or who I can’t comment on, only that it wasn’t me,” she said. “I don’t believe that any member of staff on the unit would make a mistake and give insulin.”
@@Relaxandthink5 Nick Johnson KC, cross-examining Letby for a second day, asked her if she agreed that “someone” had “unlawfully” given Child F and Child L insulin. She agreed, saying that the feeding bags must have been tampered with by either someone on the unit or before the bags arrived on the ward.
“Insulin has been added by somebody - how or who I can’t comment on, only that it wasn’t me,” she said. “I don’t believe that any member of staff on the unit would make a mistake and give insulin.”
The Defence was very poor in challenging the scientific evidence by not calling any expert witness to counter those from the Prosecution but in this podcast they seem to minimise the relevance of this because Ben Myers KC for the Defence did robustly challenge the 6 Prosecution witnesses.
He probably thought that he had established reasonable doubt but it seems not.
It was stated in the podcast that inflicted harm had been proven by the insulin cases so there must have been someone harming babies. But the insulin testing done - they tested for antibodies not actual insulin - is also being challenged by experts. Even the test kit used explicitly states it cannot be used to establish exogenous insulin and follow-up testing needs to be done (it wasn't). This is something which could have been brought up in court had there been someone to present this evidence for the Defence.
Also, without going into details, the suggested method of administering insulin seems quite far-fetched.
I would suggest that it is the lack of appropriate Defence expert witnesses which has led to the guilty verdicts and from what you say this isn't considered fresh evidence and can't be used to justify an appeal.
p.s. I agree with you that the neonatologist mentioned in Private Eye should not have made a judgement after only reading the Prosecution opening statement. On the other hand there are other neonatologists & scientists saying the same who have done a lot more study of the case. I am sure there will be a lot more to come in the next few months.
judging by these 2 on the podcast there are poor barristers out there....
And Private Eye is hardly a medical journal! So surely not a good source for medical opinion even if the person was a neonatal doctor. Presumably they are paid to contribute which is not the same as writing for a peer-reviewed academic medical journal. No-one is going to cite Private Eye in their undergraduate essays even if the writer is a doctor, let alone allowing it to be a sufficient element of a legal argument (even if only a podcast commentary). Maybe these guys are PE readers but would they have cited a doctor writing journalism for the Sun, Daily Mail, Guardian?
I have not listened to this in full - just read the comments.
However, i have also had my own experience of the establishment and from that say...
Come on chaps consider ethics, morality, not endless covering up for pals and the system
IMO. To put it bluntly. Letbys' defence was a shit show. Letby didn't stand a chance. For example, the defence failed to challenge the nurse rota spreadsheet. Emphasising and highlighting the times she was on shift when the infants collapsed/ died. But omitted other medics shift patterns. E.g.,doctors etc.
Yet she retained them for the appeal? She turned down offers of help from the likes of Richard Gill. Letby did. Why?
@@VikkiMcGuire How do you know the alternatives are any better. The problem with the appeal system is that you either have to say your lawyers are amazing or terrible, and there is no nuance. If you have an excellent lawyer with some blindspots, perhaps you would still want them on you team with assistance from other lawyers who compliment their skills and fill in the blind spots. But, how do you know what team satisfies this? An if the lawyer admits they were wrong not to present evidence, how would it be admitted into court if the appeal court says being able to submit it before means it can never be submitted. It seems that the case law sets bad precedences and the only solution is for case law to be replaced by better law made in parliament.
@@martineyles so its her defence who are to blame now. She retained them, she turned down offers of help. You’re almost claiming she’s passive in her defence. She’s not.
She gave her own testimony @@VikkiMcGuire
@@VikkiMcGuire That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that she either has to keep her current defense team and have the court assume they're perfect and deny a retrial, or ditch them entirely if she wants a retrial, with no guarantee the help she is offered is any better. There seems to be no middle ground available.
The Letby trial and subsequent appeal are both thoroughly polluted by the arrogance and hubris of the legal class. Myers, Johnson, Mr Justice Goss, Dame Victoria Sharp, the CPS - each of them sublimely incompetent to be able to assess the statistical and medical foundations which clearly underpin the case, each tragically oblivious to the shortcomings of their own knowledge and skill, and each sublimely overconfident in the mechanics of the justice system. This podcast is nothing but a microcosm of the failing justice system - it offers nothing new or vaguely insightful. The presenters dismiss without good reason the misgivings of persons far more educated in the key matters at hand than themselves and fail to get to grips properly, in any significant depth, with any of the principal reasons why experts have taken issue with this case. In summary, this podcast offers nothing new or insightful - quite frankly, I regret having wasted my time listening to it.
Surely you guys should know a faulty or shoddy defence from one that is pukka. With your collective nous and years on the bench...surely you must know this defence is a dog's brekky? Evidence for the defence has come flooding in online medical, statistical even contrafictory circumstantial. Shows how little the defence tried and for such an important issue as somebody's freedom for the rest of their life. You legal people are going to have to do a lot of work to resurrect the reputation in the publics mind that our legal system is fit for purpose!
Nahh..you will just ignore it as you will this comment!
It is my understanding that the law does not seek the truth, rather justice on their terms. It is essential that the truth be established at the original trial as in this case. I am sure Lucy Letby is not the first innocent victim of our learned friends of the law .
If you listened to the last podcast, We need to talk about Lucy Letby, you would know why it finished on that date, and it is not for the reason you allude to.
Intrigued why you assert people haven't read the Court of Appeal judgment?
these 2 look down of the likes of us.............they cant possibly be wrong
One more point, then I'll leave you alone: I'd suggest reading the first Sally Clark appeal and comparing it.
I heard that the prosecutor in that miscarriage of justice is now one of the judges who refused Lucy Letby leave to appeal. Is that correct? 🤔
At 20:15 the 5 grounds for appeal.
1. The Judge was wrong to allow the testimony of a witness with a conflict of interest and who had been severely criticised by a judge in a previous case. In another previous case he accused a mother of harming her daughter while a second opinion diagnosed a genuine medical condition.
Clearly strong grounds for appeal.
I think there's much more of a problem with the roster than you're allowing.
1. By showing it in that form it's creating an implied statistical claim that LL's presence exceeded normal rates.
2. This was the basis the consultants concluded she was guilty before Dewi Evans' involvement.
3. Lay people shown that chart clearly interpret it that way.
In the pub recently, they were arguing that if a coin is tossed 20 times and lands on heads each time, then the next time it has more chance of landing on tails. I was amazed that most of them thought this. I tried to explain that the probability is 50%, no matter how many times it's previously landed on heads and most of them couldn't grasp it. The point being that most people don't understand probability ... and that includes lawyers and juries. There's considerable academic research re: the inability of the legal profession to grasp the concept of probability, lots of it online for free ...
I think the chart also misrepresents, or at least risks misrepresenting, the absolute rate that deaths and collapses were occurring.
There were about 400 premature babies cared for each year. I don't mean in a flippant 'what about the babies she didn't kill ' way, but if you're trying to judge whether any were killed versus chance, it matters.
@@KingBee24Yes, that's shocking among a group of adults.
The roster is arbitrarily started in June 2015 when there were three deaths in a week. After that, it wouldn't be expected to return to lower levels later. So that first week explains a fairly large part of the increased deaths for the whole period.
@@MrApolloTom It is worth noting that the majority of the nursing staff on the roster were either agency or moved on a daily basis from other wards in the hospital while Lucy Letby worked full time plus overtime in the unit. She was one of two nurses actually qualified to care for neonates who worked on the unit so she looked after the most at risk babies. Originally the infamous chart included the medical staff but according to the unit manager their names were removed. One doctor was present for at least as many deaths as Lucy Letby. The chart is of course a Texas sharp shooter fallacy and has no evidential value. Another interesting fact is that over the two years in question there was a UK wide increase in neonatal deaths with other hospitals actually having a higher rate of deaths than the Princess of Chester. The swipe card evidence is meaningless as there was another door to the unit that the staff used that did not require a swipe card to open.
Daily Mail CPS admits it made mistakes with Lucy Letby evidence
Story by Emily Cooper
• 55m •
The Telegraph We made mistakes over Letby evidence, admits CPS
Story by Sarah Knapton
• 3h
Circumstantial evidence is not proof of giult
Ken Macdonald KC's comments about circumstantial evidence are just extraordinary, coming from a King’s Counsel. The definition of circumstantial evidence is literally “evidence that does *not* speak for itself” - it is evidence which, to have any probative value, requires the court to draw an inference - that is, to explain what it means in the context of the case, because it does not by itself say anything.
It may, sometimes, be fairly easy to draw an inference from circumstantial evidence - defendant walked into a room with a loaded gun, and walked out five minutes later with an empty gun and the dead victim was found inside the room a minute later - but in the Letby case the circumstantial evidence was noting like this. Each piece of circumstantial evidence was weak, the few from which one could draw any positive inference of wrongdoing did not point to the defendant at all, and those that did were matters of pure correlation.
So because the process was sound, and the jury wasn't obviously nobbled, then she should *rightfully* be denied an appeal? No. She's innocent. Not a damn shred of personal evidence pointing to HER. Even if the babies were murdered - doubtful - the evidence does not directly point to HER as the only person who could have done it.
Who else does it point to ? Why were they not part of the trial ?
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 dear god... To no one one, not to her, not to any individual
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 It points to a lack of understanding of probabilities, erroneous reliance on unconnected incidents and emotional instead of rational thinking
Id advise looking into the 1997 Oklahoma cluster of neonatal deaths, the state children's hospital I believe. Did they immediately contact the police? No. They got an epidemiology expert in and calmly assessed every member of staff in terms of statistics and patient contact. They then narrowed it down to only 2 nurses. If it was the UK theyd immediately be labelled the "terrible two" and accused of being serial killers. What did they find? Both nurses had the longest nails , a haven for bacteria that then killed the very vulnerable babies. A tragedy to be sure.
Now fast forward to countess of Chester and the sewage finding it way onto the floor of the neonatal unit , and in the pipes that run right across the top of it and coming up through the sink where staff wash their hands.
The case suddenly looks entirely different. I find it utterly perplexing, how the defence was aware of this and even put the plumber in the witness box, that they didn't get expert testimony on biofilm infections that are number one cause of patient infections in hospitals. It's astounding.
Did you read the report ? www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf
Free lucy
sad part i think she will be realised but not before she has served a fair chunk of time in prison....these 2 on the podcast are part of that unfair system where justice seems to take forever
Totally innocent
i was 100% on her being guilty but now i am thinking there were no murders in the first place...just poor doctors and a very bad hospital
At 38:33 "the hospital was badly managed" is what a consultant reported to the CEO before the spike in deaths.
Thank you for explaining these things to me.
Put up to this, by colleagues. Ir mates. There is not evidence.
The legal team persuaded LL to keep with them
So that they couldnt be challenged
No No No The defence do not have the same budget as the prosecution
For one an expert witness can choose his own price for Giving evidence
Richard Gill volunteered and was rejected by her defence lawyers ... Why ?
CPS admit "mistakes made in first trial" is this grounds for appeal?
So why was this not addressed at the second trial ? Or admitted as grounds for appeal ?
David Davis has now wrote to the head of Cheshire CPS for answers concerning use of door times by prosecution which were wrong.letby would not have been alone with children as put to the jury as strong evidence of guilt
Was there a case to answer
Well the police made the case and presented it
Please give us a figure who have applied for miscarriage of justice How many have been successful
And more importantly How long it takes to prove miscarriage of justice
stefan klitcho was found guilty on the basis of 2 things a confession unlawfully obtained from a mentally ill man....and 3 young girls witnessed him near the murder scene....when it was about to go to trial the 3 girls admitted they had lied and in their words did it for a laugh...........to get around this the police who couldnt call them as witnesses for obvious reasons read out in court their witness statements......the man spent 27 years in jail before DNA proved the real killer
At 26:33 the most likely cause of death was natural causes, possibly aggravated by unsanitary conditions and under- staffing.
Extraneous variables in the statistical analysis not accounted for
Some people don't want to listen to reason..their conspiracy theories give them a sense of purpose..awful but true..
you would have said that to the guildford 6 birmingham 4 stefan klitscho timothy evans...were they conspiracy theories??...look if she was guilty would i fall off my chair ..no...but if there is a chance she is innocent we shouldnt just ignore all these credible people who have doubts
Conspiracies theories are becoming conspiracy facts all around the world.
The scale of the conspiracy is mind boggling.
@@kennethnormanthompson2740 people being wrongly convicted doesnt fall into to the conspiracy theory...........
If there is a shadow of doubt why is she in prison get real here NHS. Cj not fit for purpose 😮😮
The reason she didny call sn expert eitnesd to wuestoon the prosecutionnd medical evidence is becsuse her plsn all along has bren to get compensation for ehen its declared a terrible miscarrisge of justice because its already widely known that medicsl scirnce id onsanely complicated. She haf plenty of time to tgink it all through and should be left to rot in rison for the rest of her days for what she dif, no onr rlses fsult exceot hers dor that matter either!
Two male barristers can't see the wood for the trees, and defend their colleagues professionalism at every turn while claiming to be impartial. These two display their arrogance and bias repeatedly, sneering at the credentials of others who find fault with the whole charade which this case has been, who 'weren't aware of the appeal court;s ruling' as if that has any connection to facts and isn't merely the biased opinions of yet more male barristers. Or two these two think the appeal cpourt has god on its side?
What I see and hear is a lot of men not stopping to ask themselves if a young woman who had wanted to be a nurse all nher childhood, had studied and become a nurse and worked hard and diligently, apparently to all as if she was keen, professional and carin g, and swas devoted to her patients; some very early babies weho have increasiongly been saved by advanced ,medical prqactises, but left to the likes of Lucy and her mainly female colleagues to keep alive until they had caught up and were stable and not desperately at risk.
There were already excess deaths over expected, measured against other similar unitrs, and the causes of this are clearly linked to staff shortages, doctors absent most of the time, and a lot more placed on the shoulders of nurses than should have been. POne doctor in particular appears to have had good reason to want Lucy out of the picture since she had challenged him over the very issues, and he had denied gossiping that she was killing babies, yet that was exactly what she was accused of, and he was the one who alerted the police, who then only needed a suspect to do what they always do, produce evidence for a convicion. In truth there were no murders, and if anyoine was responmsinble for the excess deaths it was the doctors, who were supposedly in charge. They should have been concerned about the deaths and trying to track down what the causes were and how they could be avoided. Not accusing the senior, but still young, nurse Letby or murder.
Juries follow directions and are not equipped to see through a plethora of non-evidence to dismiss any likelihood of murder, so in their eyes it was most likely that Lucy did it, failing to understand that no murders had happened. The parents ;likewise simply want closure and the guilty punished, but should be relieved to know their baby wasn't harmed by the nursing staff, but simply didn't make it.
I see the doctor involved in setting this all off is now conveniently out of the country. This shouldn't prevent this appalling miscarriage from being corrected one way or another. Not impressed qwioth the critical thinking of thgese two, pretty run of the mill barrister waffle to my ears. Not a scrap of empathy with Letby in the case of her not being guilty, they are quite happy with the innocent going down, the other side of the coin of getting the guilty off scot free. It's the job after all.
How apt that beside this stpory today is another of a man wrongly convictied being released after 33 years. There were barristers and a judge and jury involved in in that case too, all doubtless sure of their opinion not being biased, all sure 'evidence' was proof. That's why decisions are supposed to be 'without a shadow of doubt', well there's so much doubt about this one that I was sure at the time that it would all be overturned.
I could see it was a case of lynch mob once Lucy had been identified to the police [and thus the tabloid rags who bribe them] as the murderer, all that was then needed was thje hyperbole saved for child killers to make tabloid hacks feel good about themselves. People like that will be among those devoted to having her kept in prison and dismiss all arguments as 'trying to get a killer released'. The prosecution barrister did a professional job or distorting and insinuating, these two can only defend it and conclude justice has been done. Pethetic.
124 views And only 6 comments
What is the angle here with those 2 KC members
If Tim / Ken Think that they have to defend the judge or the prosecution team
You have not done a very good job IMO
fyi The plumber was a good witness
Let's talk about hidden evidence The list of staff on the unit For some reason the Jr doctors were not on the list also missing the consultants
The expert witness that wasn't called
Please tell us the reason why the expert was not called
This podcast shows exactly why some people don't trust KC Defense or prosecution And some times the KC will change from prosecution to defence
You couldn't make it up
Circumstantial is week
The only good point made is Why was the same team used for appeal When the first team failed to represent LL properly
If the maintenance guys testimony was so good why was Lucy Letby convicted ?
Who's hiding evidence ? From whom ? Why ?
How many opportunities where there for 'hidden' evidence to be submitted ?!
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 you seem to think that every jury verdict is correct??
You are full of hyperbolical hysteria
You said it yourself (12:04). Two of the babies had been harmed according to evidence from the chart. And Lucy Letby was the only person on record as having been present at both. So either it was her or multiple people... And also note, that the CPS has now said there were errors in the data for card punch-in/punch-out. I am astounded at your reasoning.
The two babies who is was alleged had been poisoned with insulin suffered no adverse effects and are still alive. The laboratory who made the test emphasized that it wasn't sufficient to detect for insulin.
@@KingBee24 i really think there were no murders....just poor doctors and a badly run hospital
Are you both played by the same actor?
Can’t thank you enough for this podcast! It’s the sheer amount of circumstantial evidence, which taken together proves her guilt. Conspiracy theorists who’ve blatantly ignored the evidence, or worse, twisted it, have somehow convinced people like the MD of Private Eye to fall for their preposterous claims, which of all the conspiratorial articles doing the rounds, I’ve found to be the most disappointing. I hope the MD of PE, aka Dr Phil Hammond, can tear himself away from interviewing anonymous neonatologists, (who apparently haven’t had time to look at the evidence but have still concluded the conviction is ‘wholly unsafe’) and manages to watch this podcast before he writes his next article on the matter.
Phil Hammond needs to acquaint himself with details of the case which are irrefutably definitive
To date, aprox 30 highly qualified medical people have cast doubt on the evidence presented to the jury. It would be foolish not to listen to them. The primary evidence was medical, esp 'air embolism'. Dr Evans said he had no experience of this, he'd never seen one. Dr. Bolin said she'd only been aware of one over her entire career ... so they weren't 'expert witnesses', they were 'medical witnesses' ... not experts of air embolism.
I've twice posted a list of 10 professors and phd's who have raised serious concerns about the medical evidence, but TH-cam has removed them each time. I don't consider highly qualified people like these to be so-called 'conspiracy theorists'.
@@viccyvicvicbirdy6464 But they're not, that's the point. They're purely circumstantial.
@@KingBee24 what’s the issue with circumstantial evidence? DNA evidence is circumstantial, as is CCTV evidence. Most cases involve evidence that’s circumstantial.
There is NO emerging widespread concern by anybody who knows anything about the case:-
The were NO unqualified Experts in the trial -.the C5 was a load of misrepresentation of the facts - Cover up of what exactly?? Most of the misinformation was culled from the proposal of Fenton and McLachan, who made erroneous assumptions about the case. This whole Fenton - McLachan argument is back to front.
1) Letby was not prosecuted because of 'clusters' and circumstantial evidence trying to find why a 'cluster' happened. These were not clusters of Unexpected Deaths by natural causes but were shown to be causal as follows:
2) Letby was not a viictim/ scapegoat of a conspiracy in the hospital to find a culprit.
3) The opposite is the case and the real scandal and that which people have to be held accountable for - that the NHS is a bureaucracy driven by 'targets' which regards Clinicians as employees.
4) Various members of the consultancy-clinician team found there were Unexpected Deaths and reported their concerns to Management.
5) Management DENIED there was any issue and that there were no Unexpected Deaths as the death rate was 'normal', ie within targets.
6) The Unexpected Deaths continued and the Doctors became increasingly concerned and voiced this again, however, they had all drawn one inference that Letby was involved, although they thought this was incompetence rather than deliberate.
7) The Management again refused to investigate, but now proceeded to Discipline the Doctors demanding they withdraw their allegations and formally write an apology to Letby and so exonerated her.
8) The Management then decided that 'compensation' be given to Letby in the form of promotional Training at Liverpool Women's Hospital. By weird coincidence it was later found that Unexpected Deaths declined in this period and also when she was on holiday.; but this is to jump ahead.
9) So far we see that far from any investigation and scapegoating the procedure adopted by Management was 'nothing to see here, no Unexpected Deaths. we are on target' ie a cover up.
10) On Letby's return the Unexpected Deaths occurred again. At this point the Doctors told the Management they would go to the Police.
11) The Management compromise was to get an independent review as to whether there had been an Unexpected Deaths rate increase. The independent investigation concluded there had been. We are now an awful long way from the story as promoted by Fenton - McLachan and the Letby Defence. This is that there was a cluster of Unexpected Deaths and a witch hunt was initiated to find a culprit to explain it.
12) Now faced with the conclusion of the independent analysis, flying in the face of the Management denials - cover up , a second review by an independent experts was conducted into the Unexpected Deaths which were flagged and decided if these were natural or causal ie circumstances created by conditions on the Ward - nobody was being fingered by this.
13) The second independent expert review decided that some of these were causal and by deliberate action. Some were death by deliberate interventions - as exposed during the trials. These were not 'natural deaths' in a cluster but specifically injuries caused by over-feeding, misintubation, artificial insulin poisoning and air embolisms. None could be explained by airborne infection from poor drain maintenance, which in each case was not an occurrence . Note contra Fenton - McLachan that no individual had been identified in these cases as they were conducted outside of the hospital purely into an analysis of Unexpected Deaths being evaluated.
14) Faced with these two investigations the Management had no option but to report the findings to the Police. The Management were aware of the nexus around Letby, after all they had tried FOUR TIMES at points '5', '7', '12' and '13' to ignore the complaints and information, and so suspended her. Again, coincidentally and retrospectively it was found that the rate of Unexpected Deaths declined once more after this.
15) It was the Police investigation that found that the 'cluster' of Causal Unexpected Deaths at the Ward all implicated Letby was present and further investigation showed that records had been altered retrospectively by her. The Police investigation is that which decided that Letby was a perpetrator and not what the independent reviews, the Doctors or the Management had made allegations of.
16) Again, note this is not the argument fastened on by Fenton-McLachan which is that Letby is a 'victim' to explain a cluster of Unexpected Deaths in general but a quite specific set of individual Causal Unexpected Deaths in particular which Letby was the proven instigator of.
ken or tim??
Not even your timeline is correct. Which makes me wonder if you’ve seen any of the details.
Do you for instance know:
-there were (depending on source) 7 or 10 other neonatal deaths which were left out of the presence chart. Which chart DID play a prominent role during the trial.
- the reviews didn’t point at LL. The air embolism, overfeeding, insulin theories only came out after the police investigation started and were the opinion of dr Evans. Actually it baffles me that someone who was in essence (after himself offering his services) active part of the investigation team can at the same time be the prime expert witness. This apart from the fact he was long retired, an expert in mainly child abuse cases (as far as i know), not a neo-natologist. Reporting indicates the other experts did not do any research from scratch, but were only there to corroborate dr Evans.
- didn’t look at all reporting, but it seems the prosecution scratched the barrel for every piece of possible evidence.
How one can conclude LL put a sharp object in a child’s throat and absolutely rule out the possibility the harm was done by three failed attempts at intubation by a junior doctor (while the consultant present didn’t take over).
Looking at child K: nothing fits with the time line, not even after dr. J. changed his witness statement, swipe data were changed. And the third collapse apparently occurred at 6.24, wile the x-ray showing the tube in the right position finished being taken at 6.23. I would suggest it’s more likely something happened when the radiologist repositioned the baby, especially since (at least some) other hospital’s guidelines specifically state the radiologist should ask a nurse to handle the baby and keep attached lines out of the way, and NOT touch the baby themselves.
Well, i could go on. Wonder why the defence didn’t call expert witnesses while already during the trial credible people were expressing doubt about the soundness of the evidence. Or e.g. the two other nurses who were present at the child K collapses but not called by the prosecution. Maybe out of court rulings concerning evidence?
@@jopiez1 My time line is correct. It took all of the arguments of the clinicians to get the Management even to take the issue seriously, they covered up for Letby to protect their targets. The detailed independent reviews were what led to the conclusion that there were Unexpected Extra Deaths and that some of these were causal ie not natural. There was no 'scraping of barrel' for evidence as you suggest because the Police had to convince themselves there was a case or even if there was a conscious perpetrator. That they concluded there were incidents that Letby had to provide statements for and that they then discovered her documents storing OF THE VICTIMS and her social media activities at the time of the deaths was coincidental with the independent reviews. NONE of the evidence was challenged and the Defence Counsel hardly bothered to either call these so called experts who have appeared after the Trial nor Cross Examined those of the Prosecution indicates clearly how little could be said for Letby.
@@uingaeoc3905 The independent reviews did NOT indicate Lucy , there was an addendum stating doctors saw a correlation with her presence, but the review didn’t put credence to it.
And there WAS scratching of the barrel and leaving out exculpatory evidence. The jury e.g never heard there was another cluster of 3 deaths in January 2016 (might the broad review in February be connected with this?) Don’t know if they ever heard the FB searches were a few dozen out of > 2000. Just like the hand over sheets found at her house were a few out of hundreds unconnected ones.
As to not challenged: some great mistakes by the defence to accept the insulin poisoning evidence (lack of medical knowledge), which therefore could not be challenged in appeal. As could the evidence of the writer of the embolism paper.
And btw your assertion there’s no widespread doubt : even MP’s are now saying they don’t know about guilt or innocence, but certainly there were serious flaws in the prosecution’s case.
Why do we have to listen to them she was found she done it you tell the mums and dad's she has not done it go on tell them shame on you all
The problem with this case is evident here. Lack of intelligence of legal professionals. A cousin of mine is a successful legal professional - thick as mince. These people should be subject to IQ tests. The process is irrelevant, the truth is paramount. There are many people that are extremely lucky that her father isn't a certain kind of person. Extremely lucky.
Coming from a country where after a judgement the prosecution as well as the defence can appeal without having permission, it seems to me the barrier is laid very high. Remember watching the Depp/Heard trial and diving into the trial of Depp vs the Sun. The judge there said some interesting things like ‘he valued an under oath testimony higher than sound recordings’, and ‘since Heard donated her settlement to charity, the claim she went for financial profit was mute’ (i paraphrase). The entire case leaned heavily (almost exclusively) on Heards testimony . Still Depp wasn’t allowed an appeal when she demonstrably had lied during her testimony.
What i also learned in the US there’s a lot of pre-trial decisions, which were enlightening as to why certain things weren’t brought up. i wonder if in the UK there’s also this sort of pre-trial decisions about for instance which evidence can be included. Was the fact 9 more children died not allowed in evidence? Or the RCPCH report? Does the fact the defence accepted the insulin cases as deliberate poisonings block them from later presenting doubts to the jury (like the fact the test itself stating it can not be used to determine exogenous insulin) ? Can the defence call a statistical expert when the prosecution doesn’t claim to use statistics, and there’s no expert to contradict? All those things were known at some time during the trial, but never presented to the jury.