Lucy Letby case #22

[Tofino]

These are the experts we’ve heard in the case so far

Dr Dewi Evans
Dr Sandie Bohin
Professor Owen Arthurs
Professor Sally Kinsey
Professor Peter Hindmarsh

We are also expecting reviewing pathologist Dr Andreas Marnerides to give evidence eventually.

All of these expert individual reports have all come to similar conclusions. Even if Evans did tout for business, it doesn’t explain how he managed to persuade them all to come to the same conclusion too just so he could get some business!

Bearing in mind they are all basing their reports on the clinical evidence available and multiple staff testimonies, even across different hospitals. All of which, again, support the expert findings.

It’s a huge reach that Dr Evans is just making all of this fit for his own personal gain. Surely he’s not that influential.

 

[DellaC]

Also why would any of them risk their medical licence by lying under oath? All those years of studying and graft to throw it all away?

 

[Tofino]

I thought this too.

Also (I know nothing about this) would he not be paid for compiling the initial report regardless of his findings? Granted there would probably be further payment for taking the stand for the prosecution. But if that is the case, if his findings suited the defence he could have just as easily stood for them instead and still got his pay cheque . BM does do a good job of making me question everything though!

I suppose the argument could be if he had found no suspicious circumstances then the case may never have got to court as CPS wouldn’t have enough evidence? But then it’s a ridiculous argument really because clearly they have other medical experts coming to the same conclusions. So the argument doesn’t really stand, for me.

 

[Wackie Jeaver]

Yes, that 'sounds like my kind of case' sounds exactly to me as if it's a response to a previous email. Wonder why that didnt get brought up?

 

[craig84]

Yes, that 'sounds like my kind of case' sounds exactly to me as if it's a response to a previous email. Wonder why that didnt get brought up?

Medic denies ‘touting for job’ helping Lucy Letby police probe

A MEDIC has denied “touting” for the job of assisting a police probe into baby deaths and “giving them what they wanted”, the murder trial…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

According to this report it looks like he contacted the NCA first

In his message to “Nick” at the NCA's national injuries database, Dr Evans wrote: “Incidentally I've read about the high rate of babies in Chester and that the police are investigating.

"Do they have a paediatric/neonatal contact? I was involved in neonatal medicine for 30 years including leading the intensive care set-up in Swansea. I've also prepared numerous neonatal cases where clinical negligence was alleged.

“If the Chester police had no-one in mind I'd be interested to help. Sounds like my kind of case.

“I understand that the Royal College (of Paediatrics and Child Health) has been involved but from my experience the police are far better at investigating this sort of problem.”

 

[avabella]

I’ll get slaughtered no doubt - but this is exactly the kind of thing that *would* put a doubt in my mind about an expert witness. And I guess that’s the job of the defence and some peoples heads they may turn or not. To go ‘touting’ (for want of a better word) for work/opportunity to work on a case, does feel a little ‘opportunistic’ - in my opinion

 

[Danica Catrick]

She wasn’t put on admin duties until after the next set of twins though I’m sure?

What I’m getting at is who is in charge of that unit and discipline? Taking the bigger picture out of it, this was a competency issue. So why wasn’t there any processes put in place to ensure competency?

My overwhelming impression is that LL was a really tit nurse, and I've started to wonder why this wasn't addressed long before the murders. She continually left her assigned patients to stick her nose in to "more exciting" cases, and was clearly oblivious to the mood of bereaved parents. That's when she wasn't busy WhatsApping her mates or searching people on Facebook...

Good teamwork, an ability to follow instructions, warmth and empathy all strike me as vital to the role of a nurse, and LL appears to have none of these things.

(Obviously there are many more skills you need to be a nurse, these are just things I can immediately see she doesn't possess)

 

[DellaC]

I’ll get slaughtered no doubt - but this is exactly the kind of thing that *would* put a doubt in my mind about an expert witness. And I guess that’s the job of the defence and some peoples heads they may turn or not. To go ‘touting’ (for want of a better word) for work/opportunity to work on a case, does feel a little ‘opportunistic’ - in my opinion

Opportunistic doesn't make him wrong though or any less of an expert.

We need more than that surely to discredit his viewpoint?

 

[avabella]

Opportunistic doesn't make him wrong though or any less of an expert.

We need more than that surely to discredit his viewpoint?

No you’re right, but it does put - for me - a question mark over why he would want to insert himself in the investigation? Is it an altruistic need for justice? A shot of glory in a massive, massive story?
The expert witnesses gave it big licks in the case of the girl accused of shaking the baby in America (her name escapes me right now) , but later retracted it to say he was arrogant and tunnel visioned on one bias.
Again, just my opinion, but it’s such a little detail that does for me, sow that little seed of doubt.

 

[MmmB777]

Can’t see anything wrong with what is said, if anything it’s literally proof he didn’t know of Letby or that this was going to become a serial murder case. I just cannot see how anybody including the jury would see this and find it more suspicious than all Letby’s behaviour and the idea this is all based on some money making scheme by an expert witness is honestly laughable.

 

[gimmethattea]

Even if he was touting for the job, they used multiple experts and it still doesn't take away from the fact that Lucy Letby had all these coincidences of babies suddenly deteriorating, dying or being with left complex needs, searched these families on Facebook, at times seemed to be inappropriate and took home paperwork that should never have left the hospital.

 

[avabella]

So right away, they’ve put ‘Nick’ in inverted commas, indicating that there’s a previous relationship there.

Secondly, he’s already read about the high rates of baby deaths at Chester - and he knows the police are investigating. Do the police investigate clinical negligence? I’m not sure they do. Therefore, he would have had an inclination that this could become huge.

It just all sounds a bit touty and ‘pick me, pick me’ - which again - makes me question why. It doesn’t feel impartial.

 

[Takemetoyourbuffet]

No you’re right, but it does put - for me - a question mark over why he would want to insert himself in the investigation? Is it an altruistic need for justice? A shot of glory in a massive, massive story?
The expert witnesses gave it big licks in the case of the girl accused of shaking the baby in America (her name escapes me right now) , but later retracted it to say he was arrogant and tunnel visioned on one bias.
Again, just my opinion, but it’s such a little detail that does for me, sow that little seed of doubt.

Louise Woodward? She was from round here too

 

[MmmB777]

Even if he was touting for the job, they used multiple experts and it still doesn't take away from the fact that Lucy Letby had all these coincidences of babies suddenly deteriorating, dying or being with left complex needs, searched these families on Facebook, at times seemed to be inappropriate and took home paperwork that should never have left the hospital.

I’ve spoken a few times about a very close relative being an expert witness. They are particularly knowledgable in one area, hence why they’re an expert witness. If they were in touch with police (regularly are, regularly work with the same forces up and down the country because once they do a job and see that they’re great (working with victim, giving evidence in court that very few people can hack, explaining things to police) then they often use them again. If there was something in the news that was her specific area of knowledge, it would not be some corrupt suspicious thing to say, I’d be happy to work this case where said skill is needed, it’s my kind of case. It would make total sense. Once they’d got themselves into the cluster duck of a case that would take up years of their life they’d regret it (fairly frequent feeling expressed ).
The idea DE has some personal incentive to get this case to go one way or the other or that he has somehow managed to misrepresent things that are literally there in notes, in X-rays is just laughable.

Also really annoying to have all this rit and not the account from Prof SK today

Speaking to said relative, whose opinions on this are very sweary they said he will be on the NCA database, he was clearly already on it. Because knowledgable and good at his job which is a public service. Presumably people are allowed to be on first name terms with people they work with

 

[dual2099]

No you’re right, but it does put - for me - a question mark over why he would want to insert himself in the investigation? Is it an altruistic need for justice? A shot of glory in a massive, massive story?
The expert witnesses gave it big licks in the case of the girl accused of shaking the baby in America (her name escapes me right now) , but later retracted it to say he was arrogant and tunnel visioned on one bias.
Again, just my opinion, but it’s such a little detail that does for me, sow that little seed of doubt.

Louise Woodward? I followed that case.

The thing with that case though was we were talking one incident. The difference with this case is we are seeing repeated patterns of similar incidents.

I think the judge overruled the jury’s verdict in the end. He wasn’t convinced by their expert opinion and don’t forget in America it’s trial by television as everything is reported and trials are televised. There would have been a huge pressure in that case to get a conviction.

yes, we could argue that Lucy Letby is unlikely to get a really fair trial as most people will be swayed by emotion in this case or cases.But at least in the UK we have restrictions on reporting, no televised trials and I’m sure there will have been huge progress in terms of expert evidence. I think theLouise Woodward case was 1997?

 

[Tofino]

So right away, they’ve put ‘Nick’ in inverted commas, indicating that there’s a previous relationship there.

Secondly, he’s already read about the high rates of baby deaths at Chester - and he knows the police are investigating. Do the police investigate clinical negligence? I’m not sure they do. Therefore, he would have had an inclination that this could become huge.

It just all sounds a bit touty and ‘pick me, pick me’ - which again - makes me question why. It doesn’t feel impartial.

But it’s his job? He’s done stuff for the NCA prior to this. The NCA didn’t have to give him the job if they felt he wasn’t suitable.

Do you think the NCA would have told him the shift patterns of all the nurses so he made sure the ones he found suspicious were only Lucy’s? Or did he just get lucky?

This is just getting into conspiracy theory territory. Ben Myers saying ‘you gave them what they want’ meaning NCA wanted to pin this on Lucy for no good reason and Dewi Evans was the man to make sure it was done. WHY??

 

[avabella]

If expert witnesses work with police regularly - and are paid - then it makes sense that they will naturally have some form of a bias. That’s not discrediting their evidence or their knowledge however.
---

But it’s his job? He’s done stuff for the NCA prior to this. The NCA didn’t have to give him the job if they felt he wasn’t suitable.

Do you think the NCA would have told him the shift patterns of all the nurses so he made sure the ones he found suspicious were only Lucy’s? Or did he just get lucky?

This is just getting into conspiracy theory territory. Ben Myers saying ‘you gave them what they want’ meaning NCA wanted to pin this on Lucy for no good reason and Dewi Evans was the man to make sure it was done. WHY??

I’m pretty sure he’s not completely daft - if it’s got to the point that police are investigating, and it’s moved on from purely clinical negligence, I’m sure he’s savvy enough to know that his evidence will be required to prosecute someone.

 

[Tofino]

One question I have, has Ben Myers been sitting on this email all this time? Probably not a coincidence he decided to wait until the evidence became more compelling.

 

[dual2099]

One question I have, has Ben Myers been sitting on this email all this time? Probably not a coincidence he decided to wait until the evidence became more compelling.

I personally think it all sounds very desperate. I don’t think it really helps the defence in any way.

I think it’s compelling in this case and really goes against the defence is we are talking repeated patterns and behaviours. It would take a lot to conspire against one nurse for this many incidents, one or two yes, but this many?

Surely it’s his job, we simply don’t know the context of the email.
The other experts agree with him…

 

[Ridandroo]

I personally think it all sounds very desperate. I don’t think it really helps the defence in any way.

I think it’s compelling in this case and really goes against the defence is we are talking repeated patterns and behaviours. It would take a lot to conspire against one nurse for this many incidents, one or two yes, but this many?

Surely it’s his job, we simply don’t know the context of the email.
The other experts agree with him…

It’s not his defence though… he hasn’t started his defence yet. It’s just cross examination. All he has to do is put a little nugget of doubt in one or two jurors heads and then that’s it… not guilty.