UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

[Moll]

I don't think experts that appeared in the trial should be called "Prosecution" or Defence" ones.

Experts don't "take sides"
they are professionals who are very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

And both Prosecution and Defence could cross examine them,
asking all kinds of "difficult" questions,
trying to convince the Jury to their view.

That is how I see this matter.

JMO

Agreed, Dotta, and that was very much one of Dr Hammond's points.

 

[DianaWW]

I have read the article by Dr Phil Hammond (his pseudonym there is "MD") in Private Eye and seen the TV programme in which he, not Gill, is the main narrator. I think it's a mistake to dismiss them and people should at least read and watch before making dismissive comments. Phil Hammond is a respected doctor and journalist who was a consultant for many years and he has changed his mind on the LL case.

I was convinced of LL's guilt while following these threads before, but I felt uneasy after hearing some of Dr Hammond's points. He is at pains to say he doesn't know whether LL is innocent of any of the crimes of which she has been convicted, but he does not think the trial was fair. He would like to see a system in which the court appointed a range of experts, because it appeared from the programme that many medics are extremely unwilling to appear as defence witnesses in such cases as a result of previous cases where careers were ruined. He also asks why the defence did not present Hall's written reports to the jury. I had previously thought the absence of defence expert witnesses was compelling evidence against LL: now I am not so sure. And other statisticians besides Gill think the statistics were wrongly used.

I know there was other evidence that convinced many of her guilt but think it's important not to close one's mind completely. I would not take the summary given by Parker Knoll above as the last word (my impression was completely different) but watch the programme on My5 and form your own opinion.

What statistics do you think were used incorrectly? Bearing in mind that they didn’t pick and choose which cases to include on that spreadsheet. The experts assisting the police identified the cases they found to be suspicious, it was only then that the spreadsheet was created and LL found to be present for every one. Why would they include any cases that weren’t deemed to be suspicious? That was as far as statistical evidence went, it was a very small part of the trial.

Richard Gill posted on these threads before the trial started and decided she was innocent before he had heard a single piece of evidence. I therefore believe he is biased.

Has Dr Phil Hammond examined every piece of medical evidence that the trial experts had access to? The answer is no. I also read the article. And once again, like the others, the information that was included was cherry picked, and so much was left out. Why?

Liz Hull wrote an excellent article on why these sudden influx of articles in support of her are inaccurate and included a lot of the additional information that none of the others did. Bearing in mind she was one of the only journalists to attend every day of the trial. Dr Hammond did not.

The court was able to appoint a range of experts. Is there evidence that suggests otherwise? Just because the majority of them agreed, doesn’t mean that the court refused to appoint any. I do not think it is common practice to give witness notes to jury members. There was an opportunity for Michael Hall to be called to give evidence and her defence barrister Myers decided not to. That is not evidence of an unfair trial, he would have had is reasons, and is one of the best KCs in the country.

Additionally, 4 appeal judges in total examined the the trial in detail during the appeal process and deemed it to be sound. Does Dr Phil Hammond have a better understanding of the legal process than they do? JMO.

 

[Moll]

What statistics do you think were used incorrectly? Bearing in mind that they didn’t pick and choose which cases to include on that spreadsheet. The experts assisting the police identified the cases they found to be suspicious, it was only then that the spreadsheet was created and LL found to be present for every one. Why would they include any cases that weren’t deemed to be suspicious? That was as far as statistical evidence went, it was a very small part of the trial.

Richard Gill posted on these threads before the trial started and decided she was innocent before he had heard a single piece of evidence. I therefore believe he is biased.

Has Dr Phil Hammond examined every piece of medical evidence that the trial experts had access to? The answer is no. I also read the article. And once again, like the others, the information that was included was cherry picked, and so much was left out. Why?

Liz Hull wrote an excellent article on why these sudden influx of articles in support of her are inaccurate and included a lot of the additional information that none of the others did. Bearing in mind she was one of the only journalists to attend every day of the trial. Dr Hammond did not.

The court was able to appoint a range of experts. Is there evidence that suggests otherwise? Just because the majority of them agreed, doesn’t mean that the court refused to appoint any. I do not think it is common practice to give witness notes to jury members. There was an opportunity for Michael Hall to be called to give evidence and her Myers decided not to. That is not evidence of an unfair trial, he would have had is reasons, and is one of the best KCs in the country.

Additionally, 4 appeal judges in total examined the the trial in detail during the appeal process and deemed it to be sound. Does Dr Phil Hammond have a better understanding of the legal process than they do? JMO.

I'm not expressing any opinion other than that I think he's worth listening to and the programme was not wild and sensationalised as described by another member. I'm not equipped to deal with the medical or statistical evidence at all: do look at the programme and you'll see the statistics question being discussed by an academic.
Incidentally the Private Eye article, is, unusually, available online: Special Report: The Lessons of the Lucy Letby Case

 

[DianaWW]

I'm not expressing any opinion other than that I think he's worth listening to and the programme was not wild and sensationalised as described by another member. I'm not equipped to deal with the medical or statistical evidence at all: do look at the programme and you'll see the statistics question being discussed by an academic.
Incidentally the Private Eye article, is, unusually, available online: Special Report: The Lessons of the Lucy Letby Case

As I said, I have read the article, and don't find any of the information included to give me any concern with regards to her guilt for the reasons I gave above. I do believe that she had a fair trial and that the jury reached the correct decision. If any new evidence comes to light, I will read it with an open mind, but none of the articles, TV programmes, or anything else that have come out since have provided that. They are just giving opinions that I feel are incomplete, as they have not reviewed all of the evidence. But that is JMO of course.

 

[callmehenry]

Linking for those who might be susbscribers to MailPlus -

It's time for this Lucy Letby is innocent madness to stop: I sat through almost every day of her two trials. Here's the evidence I believe proves her guilt, writes LIZ HULL​

It's time for this Lucy Letby is innocent madness to stop: LIZ HULL

For anyone who doesn’t have mail+ but does have an iPhone, you can get past the paywall by clicking on the Aa near the web address bar and clicking show reader