McDonald’s session will explore the complexities of expert evidence in Letby’s case, offering invaluable guidance on how expert witnesses can provide the most credible evidence in court.
Is it just me or does this actually sound like he's trying to not so subtly manipulate the way in which expert testimony is given and how expert witnesses arrive at their conclusion in the hope of getting the results he wants for Letby and the rest of his murdering no-hoper's?
This all seems rather seedy to me, possibly bordering on professional impropriety.
All my own opinion, for the avoidance of doubt!