UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #3

[cuecard]

It starts to create a little nub of doubt with the jury a regards Dr Evans current expertise and hence the reliability of his 'expert opinion'.

It will all depend on how people view it and I suppose that's the aim. Dr. Evans' comments on his expertise and/or experience did not make me doubt his expert opinion in any way so far.

 

[arrogantcat]

Are we to infer his primary income depends on how many days he can bill clients for his expertise and a case that goes to court can be quite profitable.

Perhaps, but as a consultant he is well past the usual retirement point and is unlikely to be relying on that income to live. If he were still in clinical practice it’s likely he would only be doing minimal hours. Eg, I’ve known some work only one day a month to keep their active status.

I doubt there’s much for the prosecution to dig into there.

 

[notsure]

In what way?

I can understand why the prosecution have called upon Dr Evans since he has experience in providing evidence in challenging cases. Also, although he is no longer ‘clinical’, he will likely keep himself up-to-date with changes in practice/guidelines etc. I’m sure this is an ‘issue’ the prosecution will have foreseen (the defence calling into question his relevancy/being ‘outdated’)

His answers to me seem very well thought out this far.

From the way he reiterated his lack of current experience on a neonatal ward, didn't know the Phillips machine monitor, and spent most of his time as an "expert witness."

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The gist of the defence questioning seems to be that Dr Evans is out of date.

Also that intubating tiny babies is not easy and the environment adds stressors.

As an aside, I used to read the daily blog of a paramedic working in central London and through that came to understand that intubating adult people is a very tricky thing and can lead to all sorts of problems. Someone I know of was killed when the tube cut his trachea and flooded his lungs with blood.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't think the defence are challenging the authenticity (as in claiming it wasn't written by LL) of the note.

They will probably try to show that the note has been misinterpreted (i.e. it is just the confused writings of a distressed and anguished woman).

The police and prosecution would have tested and scoured that note over and over. They are sure LL wrote it. The issue is what does it demonstrate.

If LL doesn't take the stand I think they are largely restricted, in that they can only put forward an interpretation of it in opening and closing arguments.

 

[1345]

It starts to create a little nub of doubt with the jury as regards Dr Evans current expertise and hence the reliability of his 'expert opinion'.

The very basis of the fact there are any murders at all rests, it seems, primarily upon this man's opinion (I think one other doctor was mentioned in the opening remarks, but primarily it was Dr Evans) discredit him and there isn't even a crime to answer for.

The other main aspect will be how they selected which crashes on the ward were intentional and which were routine. The defence will no doubt argue that a crash where LL wasn't present was considered routine, but a crash where she was present was considered intentional, they only need to find one crash where she wasn't present, sufficiently similar to the ones for which she is charged so they can say "Look, they cherry picked crashes where she was present for the charges"

 

[merrypason]

Without a doubt! Will be interesting to see who they have.

This is always my issue with any ‘expert testimony’, especially in the medical field. Lay people tend to assume medical science is made up of black and white answers, but so much of our current understanding and practice deals in shades of grey.
The same test results can get 5 different interpretations from 5 different doctors, and that’s before you add the weight of a high profile court case to the process.

It’s why we call it ‘a second opinion’ - because medicine is as much an art as a science.

So it usually comes down to ‘which expert did the jury like best’, which never feels entirely rational and objective to me.

100% agree with this. It does all boil down to who appears more believable to the jury.

But if LL's own team, in that specific environment on those exact machines also agreed with the prosecution expert's view that all those instances were unusual and rare for them - that adds weight.

 

[merrypason]

The very basis of the fact there are any murders at all rests, it seems, primarily upon this man's opinion (I think one other doctor was mentioned in the opening remarks, but primarily it was Dr Evans) discredit him and there isn't even a crime to answer for.

The other main aspect will be how they selected which crashes on the ward were intentional and which were routine. The defence will no doubt argue that a crash where LL wasn't present was considered routine, but a crash where she was present was considered intentional, they only need to find one crash where she wasn't present, sufficiently similar to the ones for which she is charged so they can say "Look, they cherry picked crashes where she was present for the charges.

There are two experts who did the reviews.

The other one is a younger woman who was head of neonatology somewhere south England I think. They both reached similar conclusions reviewing the cases separately. She still practices.

 

[JosieJo]

It starts to create a little nub of doubt with the jury as regards Dr Evans current expertise and hence the reliability of his 'expert opinion'.

Yes I absolutely know the aim ...but I'm not convinced he succeeded based on what we heard ...if the Dr stood his ground and explained why he was indeed up to date the aim of Myers wouldn't have much effect.
No matter how inexperienced the Jurors may or may not be they will mostly be aware of the role of the prosecution and Defence and are capable of deciding what they think

 

[Tortoise]

Without a doubt! Will be interesting to see who they have.

This is always my issue with any ‘expert testimony’, especially in the medical field. Lay people tend to assume medical science is made up of black and white answers, but so much of our current understanding and practice deals in shades of grey.
The same test results can get 5 different interpretations from 5 different doctors, and that’s before you add the weight of a high profile court case to the process.

It’s why we call it ‘a second opinion’ - because medicine is as much an art as a science.

So it usually comes down to ‘which expert did the jury like best’, which never feels entirely rational and objective to me.

I didn't get the impression from defence opening speech that they plan on bringing in experts of their own, but I could have misinterpreted. I remember thinking, ah so they will be relying on cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to undermine the prosecution's case. As I say, I could be mistaken.

ETA - it was this quote from yesterday

"2:21pm

"There is plenty of disagreement" between the prosecution expert evidence and the defence."

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

I noted he didn't say the defence experts.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Perhaps because he had the time for it?

Absolutetly,

I know chap who is an expert witness for Health and Safety incidents involving outdoor pursuits. He's in is 60's and is still and active instructor, therefore up to date with current instructional methods, equipment, technique, legislation etc.

An expert witness who is still active in their field, if only part-time, and reliably up-to-date must be optimum.

Although they may be hard to come by.

 

[Dotta]

Mr Myers's remarks seem quite scathing.

And off-putting to me.

But anyone appearing as an expert in Court must be thick skinned and carry on with their task.

Moo

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yes I absolutely know the aim ...but I'm not convinced he succeeded based on what we heard ...if the Dr stood his ground and explained why he was indeed up to date the aim of Myers wouldn't have much effect.
No matter how inexperienced the Jurors may or may not be they will mostly be aware of the role of the prosecution and Defence and are capable of deciding what they think

He did stand his ground well, going by the court updates.

Although, I think Mr Myers KC will have succeeded in planting that little seed of.... 'how up to date is this fella?'

This may be a little noise in the juries ear when Dr Evans gives his opinion on causation.

MOO

 

[YaYa_521]

This thread will close in 5 minutes.

 

[bbsaz]

It does make me wonder why they chose Dr Evans as their expert, seeing that he hasn't had extensive recent hands-on experience on a neonatal ward.

He stopped clinical practice 7years before the first case (2015), so I think the line the prosecution are trying about him being out of date is nonsense

 

[bbsaz]

What I think I spotted in there was a point about the fact that the machine in question could indeed introduce air into the stomach as a simple consequence of its use. That air would be bled out through the NGC. If I'm recalling correctly as I've been skimming a lot of this stuff. Everything up to now has seemed to suggest that air being introduced was extremely rare. It would appear that that is not the case.

Also perhaps significant is that this doctor has zero experience with the machine in question.

Not with cpap, his inexperience is with the monitor brand

 

[YaYa_521]

This thread is now closed. Click below to continue the discussion in Thread #4.

UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4

Sky News link: Healthcare worker arrested on suspicion of murdering eight babies Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION* thread Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3

www.websleuths.com