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 #36

[Marantz4250b]

Expert witness 'changed mind' over deaths, say Lucy Letby lawyers

The nurse was convicted of the murders of seven babies and the attempted murder of seven more.

www.bbc.co.uk

Breaking news key witness has changed his mind over what caused deaths of 3 babies

I'm just reading through that - madness, absolute madness. We are now to believe that the main prosecution witness has changed his mind along with entirely new causes of death for some babies are now being given;

Lead expert not reliable so Letby’s convictions ‘unsafe’​

Dr Dewi Evans had told the jury Letby had injected air down a nasal gastric tube, leading to the death of three babies.
But her barrister Mark Mcdonald said Dr Evans has changed his mind on baby C, baby I and baby P.
Mr McDonald continued: “Dr Evans had said to the jury that Lucy Letby had injected air down a nasal gastric tube and this had led to the death of the three babies.
“This was repeated to the Court of Appeal, who may have been misled when they ruled on the application for leave against the convictions.
“Dr Evans has also said that he has revised his opinion in relation to Baby C and has written a new report, a new report that he has given to the police, months ago now.
“Despite numerous requests, the prosecution has yet to give this report to the defence.
“The defence will argue that Dr Evans is not a reliable expert, and given that he was the lead expert for the prosecution, we say that all the convictions are not safe.”
He spoke alongside Dr Richard Taylor, a neonatologist from Victoria, British Columbia, Dr Roger Norwich, a consultant paediatrician, and Peter Elston, who is a statistician.

Letby’s barrister claims there is ‘no evidence of deliberate harm' in some of the babies deaths​

The defence team has reports from two neonatologists that it claims count as fresh evidence in the cases in relation to Baby C and Baby O.
Mr McDonald read a statement from Dr Neil Aiton and Dr Silvena Dimitrova that said: “Our reports demonstrate that there are identifiable medical reasons why both babies became unwell, sadly did not respond to resuscitation and subsequently passed away.
“We have set out clearly within our reports evidence showing that these babies could not reasonably be described as ‘well’ or ‘stable’. Neither should their deteriorations be described as ‘unexplained’.
“Our reports contain carefully justified new evidence which has not been presented before – either in court – or as part of previous examinations of these cases by multiple sources.
“It is not our role to determine any impact this new evidence might have on the legal process.
“Although some of the medical information within the reports is complex, it is possible to draw clear and sound conclusions which we believe will stand up to scrutiny: in this respect we are completely happy for our report to be subject to appropriate independent expert critical analysis.
“We have provided evidence that Baby O died due to issues related to the resuscitation. Baby C died due to problems caused by failing placental function at the end of the pregnancy.
“We have seen no evidence of deliberate harm to these babies by anyone.”

Lucy Letby’s lawyers seek fresh appeal after saying expert ‘changed mind’ over deaths

Lucy Letby’s barrister Mark McDonald said he will take the ‘exceptional, but necessary, decision’ to apply to reopen her case

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

How do they now expect this to be believed when the original defence team could not come to these conclusions in the first place? It was hardly because they were short on time as it was years between her being arrested and the trial starting.

You don't just get to have an entire new trial because you change the evidence you want to use.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Evans changed the date if attack and method. From air embolus via nasogastric to air embolism via intravenous. He also changed the date of attack. Is a bit suspicious to me. Ones very drastic and sudden the other takes a while. Need the reasoning. Apparently they have also had experts find natural causes of death for a few of them.

 

[Tortoise]

McDonald seems to have missed the jury instructions.

"Mr Justice Goss told jurors it was not their role to “resolve every conflict in the evidence”.

He said: “It would, you may think, be a remarkable and exceptional case in which a jury could say we know everything about what happened in any case and why.

“You are not detectives.

“If you are sure that someone on the unit was deliberately harming a baby or babies, you do not have to be sure of the precise harmful act or acts. In some instances there may have been more than one.

“To find the defendant guilty, however, you must be sure that she deliberately did some harmful act to the baby the subject of the count on the indictment and the act or acts was accompanied by the intent and, in the case of murder, was causative of death.”

Letby jurors told to set aside emotion as baby murders trial winds up

The judge says Mr Myers "repeatedly expressed his opinions" on the merits of the expert evidence, questioning and challenging them. He says that is his right, but it is up to the jury to determine the reliability of the expert evidence.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 3 - judge's summing up

Judge: 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. As with any witness it is for you to decide whether you accept some or all of the evidence of an expert witness. It is your view as to the significance and reliability of this evidence that is important.

And the previous Court of Appeal ruling
Further, when considering whether Dr Evans’ evidence was sufficiently reliable to be admitted (one of the criteria for admissibility identified in what is now para 7.1.1 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2023) it was material, as the judge pointed out, that Dr Evans’ expert opinion was given in ignorance of other potentially incriminating material relied on at the trial. It was also material that there was other expert evidence which supported Dr Evans’ conclusions (indeed as the prosecution asserted, almost all of Dr Evans’ opinions were corroborated by another expert). We should add that the suggestion made in this context that Dr Bohin was simply basing her opinions on those of Dr Evans, rather than reaching her own conclusions, is not supported by evidence. And it would be wrong to imply that her bona fides, or that of the other prosecution experts for that matter, should be doubted simply because she or they agreed with Dr Evans’ conclusions in certain respects.

...

It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove the precise manner in which she had acted. To impose such a burden on the prosecution would be wrong in law: as the single judge said, it would confuse proof of the relevant fact, that harm had been deliberately caused, with the evidential route (encompassing all of the circumstantial evidence, not merely the medical evidence) by which that fact could be proved. That may be illustrated by the reflection that, taken to its logical extreme, the defence submission would appear to mean that the jury would not have been entitled to convict if – in addition to the evidence adduced by the prosecution – the applicant had given evidence admitting that she had intentionally and unlawfully killed a baby, but declined to say how precisely she had done so.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

 

[Tortoise]

Evans changed the date if attack and method. From air embolus via nasogastric to air embolism via intravenous. He also changed the date of attack. Is a bit suspicious to me. Ones very drastic and sudden the other takes a while. Need the reasoning. Apparently they have also had experts find natural causes of death for a few of them.

He didn't change the date. He thought the air in the stomach the day before baby C died was suspicious originally, but he said it didn't lead to the baby's collapse or death. All of this was flushed out in the trial and was clarified by the judge in his summing up.

Here is a REFRESHER of Dr Evans' evidence for baby C, where he gave a differential diagnosis of cause of death before the jury found her guilty:

Dr Evans said what was being discussed, on June 12, there was a "distinct possibility" Child C had excess air in the stomach from CPAP belly.
He was "still stable" from a respiratory point of view.
He tell the court: "However the air went in, it would have been insufficient to splinter the diaphragm on the 12th, as he would've collapsed and died on the 12th."
The air which had gone in was 'insufficient' to cause a collapse. There was 'nothing to suggest' the excess air was enough on June 12.
He says the two events on June 12 and 13 "are quite different" in the way they happened.
Mr Myers said that it was Dr Evans's view, a couple of months ago, there was deliberate harm on June 12.
"That was a possibility, yes it was."

Mr Myers asks Dr Evans what evidence there is to support that air had been injected into the stomach on June 13.
Dr Evans: "The baby collapsed and died."
Asked to explain further, Dr Evans says it was part of a differential diagnosis.
He said there were three clinical scenarios - injecting air into the stomach that interfered with his breathing, or that air was injected intraveneously, or from a combination of the two, which Dr Evans says "sounds awful".
Dr Evans says, from his perspective, from an academic point of view, he would not be able to rule out any one of those three scenarios.

Dr Evans says none of the normal processes described why a baby collapsed.
He adds, for further medical information, he would prefer to defer the matter to the radiologist and pathologist.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 1

 

[Sweeper2000]

He didn't change the date. He thought the air in the stomach the day before baby C died was suspicious originally, but he said it didn't lead to the baby's collapse or death. All of this was flushed out in the trial and was clarified by the judge in his summing up.

Here is a REFRESHER of Dr Evans' evidence for baby C, where he gave a differential diagnosis of cause of death before the jury found her guilty:

Dr Evans said what was being discussed, on June 12, there was a "distinct possibility" Child C had excess air in the stomach from CPAP belly.
He was "still stable" from a respiratory point of view.
He tell the court: "However the air went in, it would have been insufficient to splinter the diaphragm on the 12th, as he would've collapsed and died on the 12th."
The air which had gone in was 'insufficient' to cause a collapse. There was 'nothing to suggest' the excess air was enough on June 12.
He says the two events on June 12 and 13 "are quite different" in the way they happened.
Mr Myers said that it was Dr Evans's view, a couple of months ago, there was deliberate harm on June 12.
"That was a possibility, yes it was."

Mr Myers asks Dr Evans what evidence there is to support that air had been injected into the stomach on June 13.
Dr Evans: "The baby collapsed and died."
Asked to explain further, Dr Evans says it was part of a differential diagnosis.
He said there were three clinical scenarios - injecting air into the stomach that interfered with his breathing, or that air was injected intraveneously, or from a combination of the two, which Dr Evans says "sounds awful".
Dr Evans says, from his perspective, from an academic point of view, he would not be able to rule out any one of those three scenarios.

Dr Evans says none of the normal processes described why a baby collapsed.
He adds, for further medical information, he would prefer to defer the matter to the radiologist and pathologist.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 1

Cheers T, I remember that now. I'm getting the impression that Mcdonald and crew today aren't actually presenting anything new. I remember dr Evans changing things but actually thought it was sound way back when so is this actually a non issue then? It's already been sorted through and they are not actually presenting anything new? Perhaps excepting the fresh cod? I am also getting the impression that Mcdonald is not addressing the collective nature of the charges and we went through that as well too much.

 

[ColourPurple]

Cheers T, I remember that now. I'm getting the impression that Mcdonald and crew today aren't actually presenting anything new. I remember dr Evans changing things but actually thought it was sound way back when so is this actually a non issue then? It's already been sorted through and they are not actually presenting anything new? Perhaps excepting the fresh cod? I am also getting the impression that Mcdonald is not addressing the collective nature of the charges and we went through that as well too much.

Exactly. There’s nothing new here. Evans always said Baby C’s death was either air injected into the stomach, air injected intravenously or both! But the judge made it clear the jury didn’t need to know exactly how she had harmed the babies anyway. Evans didn’t need to clarify and really should’ve known better than to try to explain to the LL fan club, who were always going to twist anything he said.

Of course they’ll ignore the fact that Baby C died in room 1 with LL cot-side within 6 minutes of LL ending a text conversation where she was furious that she wasn’t in room 1 and that somebody she considered less qualified had been asked to look after Baby C in room 1 instead! If ever one of the murders demonstrated exactly what she meant when she wrote “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them” it was Baby C!

They’ll also ignore that she had to be told several times to go back to her own allocated baby and to leave the family room where Baby Cs family were with him waiting for him to pass, after nothing more could be done for him. And as for her telling them to put him in the cold cot as they’d “said their goodbyes” to quote LL, there are no words! And then of course as soon as she finished her shift she searched for Baby C’s parents on Facebook. It’s little details like this that give the fuller picture.

This press “conference” was just damage limitation after the announcement that LL had been interviewed about more deaths and collapses. As the police said any charges wouldn’t be until the new year, her “team” knew they had limited time to try to change public opinion. And obviously that was far more important than giving her victims’ families some peace over Xmas. The fact that a serial killer of babies has her own spin doctors is absolutely sickening!

 

[mrC]

if this true she certanly has grounds for appeal Lucy Letby latest: Lawyers demand fresh appeal after key witness changes mind

 

[Marantz4250b]

This press “conference” was just damage limitation after the announcement that LL had been interviewed about more deaths and collapses. As the police said any charges wouldn’t be until the new year, her “team” knew they had limited time to try to change public opinion. And obviously that was far more important than giving her victims’ families some peace over Xmas. The fact that a serial killer of babies has her own spin doctors is absolutely sickening!

The whole thing is extremely bizarre. Pressers arranged by defence teams (either team, for that matter) are never a thing here so why did this happen? We don't do justice by press-release in the UK and I wonder whether this is going to end up getting her team into bother with the regulating bodies or even the courts themselves?

Justice is carried out by the courts, not the Red Tops!

 

[mrC]

here the actull press conference courtesy of the Daily Mirror

 

[Tortoise]

The whole thing is extremely bizarre. Pressers arranged by defence teams (either team, for that matter) are never a thing here so why did this happen? We don't do justice by press-release in the UK and I wonder whether this is going to end up getting her team into bother with the regulating bodies or even the courts themselves?

Justice is carried out by the courts, not the Red Tops!

I think maybe the fans are pressuring him and he wanted to give them something to keep them busy on X until new charges drop. It must be embarrassing to find nothing new, after all the hype.

 

[Sweeper2000]

What in the name of flying duckery are the defence doing announcing a big reveal to come up with nothing? It's still a solid conviction. Even with med experts backing the new supposed causes of death it still does not really challenge it. That is strange.

 

[mrC]

well i doubt they would reavel everything at the press it would be a pretty useless lawyer who did that

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think I'll get a serious chuckle if this doesn't get past the initial appeal stages. It's not looking like it will.

 

[CS2C]

Great live show @CS2C , thank you very much!

A reading of the actual court transcripts of Lucy Letby's 2018, 2019 and 2020 police interviews, for babies A, B and C, plus a refresher of the relevant transcripts of prosecution closing speech, (incidentally Lucy Letby's own words showing the errors in Aviv's New Yorker piece)

Aww thanks Tortoise, I only just saw this.

 

[Tortoise]

Aww thanks Tortoise, I only just saw this.

I only caught the second half, so I'll be going back to watch the first half later. I'm guessing you covered baby A at the beginning, or did you start at baby B?

 

[CS2C]

This is Child A and is a bit more professional than the live stream.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think maybe the fans are pressuring him and he wanted to give them something to keep them busy on X until new charges drop. It must be embarrassing to find nothing new, after all the hype.

Yes, agreed here.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Can anyone explain to me how Mcdonald has stated in CS2C video that for teh first time in his 20 odd years of being a barrister that a prosecution witness changed his evidence "after" the conclusion of the trial when it's really not the case? I find it difficult to believe that he would make an error of that magnitude almost like he doesn't know the trial.

 

[ColourPurple]

The whole thing is extremely bizarre. Pressers arranged by defence teams (either team, for that matter) are never a thing here so why did this happen? We don't do justice by press-release in the UK and I wonder whether this is going to end up getting her team into bother with the regulating bodies or even the courts themselves?

Justice is carried out by the courts, not the Red Tops!

Well her most vocal fans never had any respect for UK law during the trial and it looks like nothing has changed since the fan club joined forces with McDonald. He’s literally just allowed one of his “team” to publicly accuse a doctor of killing Baby O

In another news the Royal Society of Medicine has made it clear that it had nothing to do with the event and doesn’t endorse it or its contents.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1868710477636731049