VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #28

[Jazmania]

They wouldn't know what the expert's findings would be until they instructed them.

That they met before trial was confirmed in the podcast.

The judge said -

"Although you know that experts were instructed on behalf of the defence and there were meetings between experts, the only witnesses from whom you have heard were called by the prosecution."



The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020

Pre-hearing discussion of expert evidence​

19.6.—(1) This rule applies where more than one party wants to introduce expert evidence.

(2) The court may direct the experts to—

(a)discuss the expert issues in the proceedings; and

(b)prepare a statement for the court of the matters on which they agree and disagree, giving their reasons.

Was it just the prosecution experts who met, or did the defence experts meet the prosecution ones? Surely the strength in the prosecution's case is that the experts reached the same conclusions pretty much independently. If they met up to discuss things beforehand this seems a bit out of sorts

 

[esther43]

I think it's really significant that the defence had their own expert witnesses lined up but didn't call any - apart from the plumber

Did he though? I seem to recall Myers saying
"We are the only people who will stand up for Lucy Letby - no-one else."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence closing speech

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[esther43]

This hospital was run appallingly IN MY OPINION!!

That is why the alleged serial killer could operate in such "murky waters" for a year!

And guess what?
She was employed in Safety Office
And management still fought Consultants and wanted to bring her back to the unit.

I have no further comments.

Just My Opinion

I always thought there was a certain irony in her getting sent to the patient safety office.

 

[katydid23]

I think it's really significant that the defence had their own expert witnesses lined up but didn't call any - apart from the plumber, obvs. I'm trying to think of any circumstances under which that that it is not utterly terrible for the defence but having difficulty.

It would be interesting to know whether this was a change of tack by the defence or that their experts decided they were having nothing to do with them any more? I suspect that perhaps her own evidence had the effect of totally undermining what they were going to say.

I think it was either
[A]. their scheduled witnesses were not accepted by the court's criteria as verified trial experienced medical experts OR
they may have become too uncomfortable to be siding with the defendant after her week long testimony.

Just speculation on my part...

 

[katydid23]

Did he though? I seem to recall Myers saying
"We are the only people who will stand up for Lucy Letby - no-one else."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence closing speech

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

But that could indicate that he did have someone lined up but they pulled out ---thus he made that statement about no one else being willing to stand up for her?

 

[Dotta]

But that could indicate that he did have someone lined up but they pulled out ---thus he made that statement about on one else being willing to stand up for her?

But what do you mean "someone lined up"?

It is customary to present Experts at the beginning of the trial, as Prosecution did.

Do you mean someone could just jump into in the middle of the trial?

But we already talked about it many months ago.

And these "phantom" Defence Experts did NOT show up after all.

As predicted.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

But what do you mean "someone lined up"?

It is customary to present Experts at the beginning of the trial, as Prosecution did.

Do you mean someone could just jump into in the middle of the trial?

But we already talked about it many months ago.

And these "phantom" Defence Experts did NOT show up after all.

As predicted.

JMO

NO, the defense does not present their experts until the prosecution rests their case.

It is customary for them to be brought forward, at the same time the plumber was brought forward. It is not jumping into the middle of the trial---it is jumping in at the appropriate time for the defense experts to testify, at the start of the defense case.

 

[Dcflag]

I think it was either
[A]. their scheduled witnesses were not accepted by the court's criteria as verified trial experienced medical experts OR
they may have become too uncomfortable to be siding with the defendant after her week long testimony.

Just speculation on my part...

It’s this really. Or that their expert/s have nothing to say or present that would help her case and show reasonable doubt or her innocence.

If he had someone he could put on the stand that would give even the TINIEST reasonable doubt, that wouldn’t be ripped to shreds by a cross, he would’ve done it. I mean he put a plumber up there after all and it has the most insignificant bearing on the charges.

I think his biggest challenge is likely he couldn’t find an expert who would under cross be able to say confidently that the prosecutions versions of events aren’t a reasonable possibility. Therefore no matter what doubt they were able to introduce, at the end during the cross they’re only ever going to have to concede that the prosecutions medical versions of events are just as plausible. Because they are, as demonstrated by the several medical experts by agreeing with each other.

 

[Dotta]

NO, the defense does not present their experts until the prosecution rests their case.

It is customary for them to be brought forward, at the same time the plumber was brought forward. It is not jumping into the middle of the trial---it is jumping in at the appropriate time for the defense experts to testify, at the start of the defense case.

But Defence KNEW all evidence before the trial.

And knew the "Prosecution's Experts", so they could prepare themselves for cross examination of them.

And the Prosecution has the same right to know other Experts in advance.

That is why they must be presented at the beginning of the trial.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

4:01pm

Legal teams, members of the public and press, and Lucy Letby have returned to court, along with the trial judge.

4:03pm

The trial judge informs the jurors they can go home for today, and will resume deliberations at 10.30am.
The jurors are urged not to discuss the case with anyone, including each other, until they have returned to the deliberation room tomorrow.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 10 - judge's summing up, jury out

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

How long did they actually deliberate today? Did they take a lunch break out of that time from 1:03 to 4:01?

 

[katydid23]

How long usually after a verdict does the thread close on here pls?

They don't really ever close. They may go cold for awhile, but things happen and people check back in.

If found guilty, f am sure she will appeal, so the thread heats up then. and there may be other news, from her that stirs things up.

 

[katydid23]

But Defence KNEW all evidence before the trial.

And knew the "Prosecution's Experts", so they could prepare themselves for cross examination of them.

And the Prosecution has the same right to know other Experts in advance.

That is why they must be presented at the beginning of the trial.

JMO

I'm not sure how it works in the UK< but in the States the defense has some latitude and can bring in witnesses in their defense case, in response to what they heard on the stand from the prosecution. IMO,MOO

 

[Kemug]

"We'll outline his [the judge's] reminder that although experts were instructed for both the prosecution and the defence, only the prosecution called their experts to give evidence"

RSBM
A ha!

 

[Kemug]

So could the fact that no witnesses/experts were called by the Defence (sorry Mr Plumber!) be grounds for appeal?

 

[Parker Knoll]

In order to run the “ poor defence at original trial “ angle at appeal she would have to sack her legal team and bring in fresh representation who would then have the unenviable task of attempting to try to get leave to Appeal based on that point ( and/or others )
She would get precisely nowhere imho.

 

[marynnu]

They don't really ever close. They may go cold for awhile, but things happen and people check back in.

If found guilty, f am sure she will appeal, so the thread heats up then. and there may be other news, from her that stirs things up.

I'm not sure about an appeal. There would have to be new evidence I think.

 

[minusfour]

I've had a couple of posts removed from these threads because I just couldn't quite get my head around the sub judice issue, so I haven't been posting. I have, however, been reading along. Thank you all for the wonderful discussions and information. Everyone I have spoken to, (in my "real life") knows we are officially on "verdict watch" now. I'm with you all in spirit!

 

[JosieJo]

I do not like this waiting game already

 

[Tortoise]

How long did they actually deliberate today? Did they take a lunch break out of that time from 1:03 to 4:01?

Monday 10th - day 1 - deliberations 2-4pm (2 hours)

I will be leaving later this morning for my overnight trip to Manchester!

See you all tomorrow night.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I do not like this waiting game already

Give yourself a break, go to cockington for a week or sumfin.