UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #10

[esther43]

Besides, will Defence call experts of "alternative medicine"???

How can any medical doctor offer explanations other than those we already have heard from impartial medical experts???

JMO

Perhaps if the defence recall the experts then they will do so selectively. E.g will not call back Evans in cases where he has categorically stated that there is no other explanations for the deaths. However in the cases where he has expressed ambivalence, could he potentially be bought back up and questioned more vigorously?
If literally, we have everything from the defence in relation to the charges we've heard so far, then that is an absolute poor show.

 

[Supernovae]

Besides, will Defence call experts of "alternative medicine"???

How can any medical doctor offer explanations other than those we already have heard from impartial medical experts???

JMO

Just because experts are eminent and ostensibly have duties to the court doesn't mean they can't disagree with each other, particularly in a complex case like this one. Other than the insulin cases we're in a lot of relatively uncharted territory.

Prof. Arthurs apparently conceded under cross-examination that "a neonatologist is better placed to comment on positioning of drains and clinical impact"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1621510917124149248

That would be a very odd point for the defence to push if they didn't have a neonatologist. There have also been various points in cross-examination where Myers has put forward points that are technical enough that it's hard to imagine he came up with them all by himself.

 

[Tortoise]

That would be a very odd point for the defence to push if they didn't have a neonatologist.

I think it's in reference to Dr Sandie Bohin's opinion which has already been received for baby H. JMO

"Cross-examined by Letby's barrister, Ben Myers KC, Dr Bohin agreed that Dr Jayaram had inserted the drain in what was technically a 'sub-optimal position'. But she added: 'He did it as a life-saving measure'."

Medics left needle inside baby's chest, Lucy Letby trial hears

"She was also "critical of the way the chest drains were inserted and managed".

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Just because experts are eminent and ostensibly have duties to the court doesn't mean they can't disagree with each other, particularly in a complex case like this one. Other than the insulin cases we're in a lot of relatively uncharted territory.

Prof. Arthurs apparently conceded under cross-examination that "a neonatologist is better placed to comment on positioning of drains and clinical impact"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1621510917124149248

That would be a very odd point for the defence to push if they didn't have a neonatologist. There have also been various points in cross-examination where Myers has put forward points that are technical enough that it's hard to imagine he came up with them all by himself.

Precisely.

Myers has consulted with his own experts and IMO, they have said that (at least in relation to some of the charges), there is at the very least the possibility of some other medical explanation different to what the prosecution’s witnesses have said .

He would be negligent in carrying out his duties as a defence barrister if he hadn’t consulted his own experts to at least sense check what the prosecution is saying. The only reason not to consult medical experts is if LL has confessed to Myers that she is guilty, in which case there is no reason to challenge the medical evidence on whether these collapses (fatal or non fatal) are the result of malicious actions by an individual. And LL clearly hasn’t confessed her guilt to her defence team, so that doesn’t apply.

 

[Tortoise]

Precisely.

Myers has consulted with his own experts and IMO, they have said that (at least in relation to some of the charges), there is at the very least the possibility of some other medical explanation different to what the prosecution’s witnesses have said .

He would be negligent in carrying out his duties as a defence barrister if he hadn’t consulted his own experts to at least sense check what the prosecution is saying. The only reason not to consult medical experts is if LL has confessed to Myers that she is guilty, in which case there is no reason to challenge the medical evidence on whether these collapses (fatal or non fatal) are the result of malicious actions by an individual. And LL clearly hasn’t confessed her guilt to her defence team, so that doesn’t apply.

Experts/specialists can guide barrister's questioning without being called to the stand. No one said he hasn't consulted any. There could be other reasons for not calling their own expert, such as they agree with the prosecutions experts and would have to disclose it under questioning by the prosecution.

 

[Dotta]

The only reason not to consult medical experts is if LL has confessed to Myers that she is guilty, in which case there is no reason to challenge the medical evidence on whether these collapses (fatal or non fatal) are the result of malicious actions by an individual.

What an interesting thought!

I wonder - just in general terms - what is Defence lawyer's duty if a defendant confesses to him/her?
Must the Judge be informed?
And the defence of the perp is simply to make sure he/she gets technically fair trial?

Interesting.

JMO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Besides, will Defence call experts of "alternative medicine"???

How can any medical doctor offer explanations other than those we already have heard from impartial medical experts???

JMO

IMO, you are presenting a false dichotomy. It’s not a case of the prosecution’s impartial medical experts versus the new age alternative theories of any old quack the defence can find .

There is clearly scope for a difference of opinion amongst credible, established medical experts.

I can’t remember which baby it was in relation to, but Dr Bohin was giving evidence and Myers got her to concede in his cross examination that air can be introduced via long lines during the siting procedure. Which to me shows that the medical evidence isn’t the slam dunk regarding the collapses being the result of murder or AM that some people seem to suggest it is.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Experts/specialists can guide barrister's questioning without being called to the stand. No one said he hasn't consulted any. There could be other reasons for not calling their own expert, such as they agree with the prosecutions experts and would have to disclose it under questioning by the prosecution.

There have been comments on here which suggest that Myers is either shooting from the hip in that he is challenging the experts during cross when he has no medical basis for doing so, or that the only medical evidence he could have obtained that would have disagreed with the experts we’ve heard from must have come from some dodgy “doctor” specialising in healing crystals and incense. My point is that he has clearly IMO consulted legitimate experts to inform his questions.

I don’t think that Myers’ experts have agreed with the prosecution’s experts outright . At the very least , based on Myers’ questioning to date, the experts he has consulted with have said that there is the possibility in some of these cases that something other than the medical cause put forth by the prosecution has occurred. It may be that they have said that the chances of that alternative theory being the cause in a given case are somewhat slim, which I agree would probably lead Myers not to call the experts directly. But Myers’ experts can’t have looked at these cases and said “yes, I agree with Drs Evans and Bohin, this was (eg) a deliberately administered air embolism and there is no other plausible explanation” . If Myers’ experts had said that, his questioning and submissions would be very different to what we’ve heard so far .

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

What an interesting thought!

I wonder - just in general terms - what is Defence lawyer's duty if a defendant confesses to him/her?
Must the Judge be informed?
And the defence of the perp is simply to make sure he/she gets technically fair trial?

Interesting.

JMO

In the UK, all barristers of a primary duty to the court. They are not allowed to lie to the court, and cannot mislead the court, either deliberately or recklessly.

The application of that is that if an accused has confessed to the crime to her barrister, the barrister can’t then get up in court and protest the innocence of the accused. Which Myers has done for LL.

 

[DianaWW]

There have been comments on here which suggest that Myers is either shooting from the hip in that he is challenging the experts during cross when he has no medical basis for doing so, or that the only medical evidence he could have obtained that would have disagreed with the experts we’ve heard from must have come from some dodgy “doctor” specialising in healing crystals and incense. My point is that he has clearly IMO consulted legitimate experts to inform his questions.

I don’t think that Myers’ experts have agreed with the prosecution’s experts outright . At the very least , based on Myers’ questioning to date, the experts he has consulted with have said that there is the possibility in some of these cases that something other than the medical cause put forth by the prosecution has occurred. It may be that they have said that the chances of that alternative theory being the cause in a given case are somewhat slim, which I agree would probably lead Myers not to call the experts directly. But Myers’ experts can’t have looked at these cases and said “yes, I agree with Drs Evans and Bohin, this was (eg) a deliberately administered air embolism and there is no other plausible explanation” . If Myers’ experts had said that, his questioning and submissions would be very different to what we’ve heard so far .

But in the event he doesn’t call them to the stand, that would suggest to me that whatever they’ve stated isn’t compelling enough to stand up to the scrutiny of cross examination. So I personally think it would look weak if the defence didn’t call up any experts of their own. JMO.

 

[Tortoise]

There have been comments on here which suggest that Myers is either shooting from the hip in that he is challenging the experts during cross when he has no medical basis for doing so, or that the only medical evidence he could have obtained that would have disagreed with the experts we’ve heard from must have come from some dodgy “doctor” specialising in healing crystals and incense. My point is that he has clearly IMO consulted legitimate experts to inform his questions.

I don’t think that Myers’ experts have agreed with the prosecution’s experts outright . At the very least , based on Myers’ questioning to date, the experts he has consulted with have said that there is the possibility in some of these cases that something other than the medical cause put forth by the prosecution has occurred. It may be that they have said that the chances of that alternative theory being the cause in a given case are somewhat slim, which I agree would probably lead Myers not to call the experts directly. But Myers’ experts can’t have looked at these cases and said “yes, I agree with Drs Evans and Bohin, this was (eg) a deliberately administered air embolism and there is no other plausible explanation” . If Myers’ experts had said that, his questioning and submissions would be very different to what we’ve heard so far .

It's dangerous territory, once the expert is up there s/he can't restrict his/her opinion to what the defence wants him/her to say. IMO

take this for example - from defence opening speech

"Regarding the point of air embolus cases
The defence "accept it is a theoretical possibility", but that "does not establish very much".

For Child C, the defence say it is accepted that someone had injected air as a "theoretical possibility", but that is "a very long way from proving what has taken place"."

Lucy Letby trial recap: Prosecution finishes outlining case, defence gives statement

once the expert is in the witness box the reports are disclosed to the prosecution, IMO.

 

[esther43]

IMO, you are presenting a false dichotomy. It’s not a case of the prosecution’s impartial medical experts versus the new age alternative theories of any old quack the defence can find .

There is clearly scope for a difference of opinion amongst credible, established medical experts.

I can’t remember which baby it was in relation to, but Dr Bohin was giving evidence and Myers got her to concede in his cross examination that air can be introduced via long lines during the siting procedure. Which to me shows that the medical evidence isn’t the slam dunk regarding the collapses being the result of murder or AM that some people seem to suggest it is.

There have been comments on here which suggest that Myers is either shooting from the hip in that he is challenging the experts during cross when he has no medical basis for doing so, or that the only medical evidence he could have obtained that would have disagreed with the experts we’ve heard from must have come from some dodgy “doctor” specialising in healing crystals and incense. My point is that he has clearly IMO consulted legitimate experts to inform his questions.

I don’t think that Myers’ experts have agreed with the prosecution’s experts outright . At the very least , based on Myers’ questioning to date, the experts he has consulted with have said that there is the possibility in some of these cases that something other than the medical cause put forth by the prosecution has occurred. It may be that they have said that the chances of that alternative theory being the cause in a given case are somewhat slim, which I agree would probably lead Myers not to call the experts directly. But Myers’ experts can’t have looked at these cases and said “yes, I agree with Drs Evans and Bohin, this was (eg) a deliberately administered air embolism and there is no other plausible explanation” . If Myers’ experts had said that, his questioning and submissions would be very different to what we’ve heard so far .

But in the event he doesn’t call them to the stand, that would suggest to me that whatever they’ve stated isn’t compelling enough to stand up to the scrutiny of cross examination. So I personally think it would look weak if the defence didn’t call up any experts of their own. JMO.

Absolutely agree. If Myers cannot bring forward others to discredit the medical experts then there has to be an acceptance of foul play.
That's just the first hurdle though, then there's whether the jurors accept the evidence linking each offence specifically to LL.
For that I would hope to see character witnesses, maybe mental health assessments, plus LL taking the stand to explain how things were from her perspective. (Though I know she would be advised not to) As a juror, I would credit her, for getting up and speaking.
If LL was innocent, I would imagine somebody of her background would have independently engaged some support around the challenges she was facing, a therapist for example.
If we end up with all that then maybe, just maybe enough doubt could be cast but for me it still wouldn't take away the fact that there was a serial killer on the ward. MOO

 

[Supernovae]

What an interesting thought!

I wonder - just in general terms - what is Defence lawyer's duty if a defendant confesses to him/her?
Must the Judge be informed?
And the defence of the perp is simply to make sure he/she gets technically fair trial?

Interesting.

JMO

If they do not plead guilty, I believe the lawyer would be "professionally embarrassed" and have to withdraw from the case. They would not breach client confidentiality though.

I’ve been professionally embarrassed. Can I withdraw from a Crown Court case?

I’m representing a client privately in the Crown Court. Following my client’s instructions, I concluded that I’ve been professionally embarrassed and would like to withdraw from the case. Can I do that?

www.lawsociety.org.uk

R v Daniels: returning instructions (via Passle)

Professionally embarrassed? The circumstances in which criminal barristers may return instructions to appear at trial have become clearer following the ...

insights.doughtystreet.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

Both experts are independent.

"Independent medical expert Dr Dewi Evans has returned to give evidence in respect of Child A."

Before that, independent medical expert Dr Sandie Bohin has now been called in to give evidence for Child A. She is detailing to the court her medical and professional background.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 25

Dr Sandie Bohin joined the MSG in 2009 from University Hospitals Leicester where she was Head of Neonatology.

Dr Bohin is a Fellow of the Royal College of Paediatricians and a member of the Neonatal Society and the British Association of Perinatal Medicine.
Dr Sandie Bohin | MSG

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

It's dangerous territory, once the expert is up there s/he can't restrict his/her opinion to what the defence wants him/her to say. IMO

take this for example - from defence opening speech

"Regarding the point of air embolus cases
The defence "accept it is a theoretical possibility", but that "does not establish very much".

For Child C, the defence say it is accepted that someone had injected air as a "theoretical possibility", but that is "a very long way from proving what has taken place"."

Lucy Letby trial recap: Prosecution finishes outlining case, defence gives statement

once the expert is in the witness box the reports are disclosed to the prosecution, IMO.

I absolutely agree . The defence statements for Baby A and C to me suggest that the defence’s experts have advised him that the evidence doesn’t exclude AE, so Myers is challenging those cases on the basis that a theoretical possibility of AE doesn’t equate to LL’s guilt . Whereas for baby Q, in opening statements, Myers said that the defence don’t accept that air was injected , which to me suggests that the expert evidence he has received is stronger .

 

[Tortoise]

I absolutely agree . The defence statements for Baby A and C to me suggest that the defence’s experts have advised him that the evidence doesn’t exclude AE, so Myers is challenging those cases on the basis that a theoretical possibility of AE doesn’t equate to LL’s guilt . Whereas for baby Q, in opening statements, Myers said that the defence don’t accept that air was injected , which to me suggests that the expert evidence he has received is stronger .

I can't see that in relation to child Q, but it's perfectly possible there's another report I haven't seen. Do you have a link please.

I have -

Lucy Letby trial recap: Prosecution finishes outlining case, defence gives statement
"For Child Q, the defence say there was viral-drawn aspirates, indicating a bowel problem, supported by a diagnosis of NEC.
"A poorly funcitioning bowel" had led to Child Q vomiting."


https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...n-alleged-to-have-been-murdered-by-lucy-letby
A baby boy who it is alleged Letby attempted to murder on 25 June 2016 - the day after she allegedly killed Child P.
The defence say there is no evidence that Letby inflicted harm.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I can't see that in relation to child Q, but it's perfectly possible there's another report I haven't seen. Do you have a link please.

I have -

Lucy Letby trial recap: Prosecution finishes outlining case, defence gives statement
"For Child Q, the defence say there was viral-drawn aspirates, indicating a bowel problem, supported by a diagnosis of NEC.
"A poorly funcitioning bowel" had led to Child Q vomiting."


https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...n-alleged-to-have-been-murdered-by-lucy-letby
A baby boy who it is alleged Letby attempted to murder on 25 June 2016 - the day after she allegedly killed Child P.
The defence say there is no evidence that Letby inflicted harm.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580517608603820032

Comments on baby q

(Sorry, you have to scroll down. I tried to take a screen shot but apparently the file was “too big” to be posted).

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580517608603820032

Comments on baby q

(Sorry, you have to scroll down. I tried to take a screen shot but apparently the file was “too big” to be posted).

thank you I've found it now

"re baby Q - the defence don't accept that air was injected. They say he had a bowel problem which is probably what led to him being unwell and vomiting."

https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

I think under cross-examination, if the signs of air embolism are present, or comparable across cases from those where it is accepted in theory, any expert wouldn't be able to exclude it, which is not quite the same as advancing a defence of 'look at these other problems' from cross-examination of the prosecution's experts.

JMO

 

[Supernovae]

I can't see that in relation to child Q, but it's perfectly possible there's another report I haven't seen. Do you have a link please.

I have -

Lucy Letby trial recap: Prosecution finishes outlining case, defence gives statement
"For Child Q, the defence say there was viral-drawn aspirates, indicating a bowel problem, supported by a diagnosis of NEC.
"A poorly funcitioning bowel" had led to Child Q vomiting."


https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...n-alleged-to-have-been-murdered-by-lucy-letby
A baby boy who it is alleged Letby attempted to murder on 25 June 2016 - the day after she allegedly killed Child P.
The defence say there is no evidence that Letby inflicted harm.

Interestingly the one case where he's directly quoted as signalling positive evidence is for child K:

2:55pm

For Child K, the defence say the tube was dislodged, and the prosecution say that was Letby's doing. "Letby does not agree she did that, nor is she seen to have done that."
The prosecution say Child K had been sedated.
The defence say it is disputed, that Child K was able to move, and there would be evidence to follow on that.

BBM.

 

[Supernovae]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

It looks like Dr Bohin is a practicing joint paediatrician/neonatologist, although her practice is somewhat unusual due to the specific issues with being based on Guernsey:

Dr Sandra Bohin | Forensics and Expert Witnesses Magazine

forensicandexpertwitness.co.uk

Dr Sandie Bohin | MSG

www.msg.gg

Guernsey doctor gives evidence in nurse murder trial

Paediatrician Sandie Bohin has appeared in court as an expert witness in the trial of the nurse accused of murdering numerous babies in the UK.

gsy.bailiwickexpress.com