Final paragraph: Right comment (there are undoubtedly issues with maternity care nationwide, which have been recognised). Still, wrong platform. Wrong person. Makes some sense when applied to managers who covered up for Letby, who should actually be 'sacked and sued'.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
No I hadn’t heard anything about it until your post and I just saw it on Reddit too. But not watched it. Dimitrova was on it?! This is just bizarre.
McDonald was invited on it but pulled out because he forgot he was on holiday?
Phrased as travel commitments
.
He’s probably gone for a quick mini break to see all his death row punters.
Clown.
Clown.
There is a remove paywall link on Reddit. It was more balanced then I thought it would be with some interesting points. Two panel members supported the original verdict with two against. It was mentioned that there had only been four other reported deaths of babies born to mum's with anti-phospholipid dying of blood clots. The defence had a statistical experts but decided not be call her. One of the panel members said one in four identical twins die in the first month of life but neglected to mentioned these will be very premature ill triplets not 33 week 2kg babies.
I really don’t think this tells us much though even if it was a genuinely random sample of the public who knew nothing. It’s not like the defence claims were properly cross examined. It’s not like Letby gave evidence herself which we all know she had no credibility.
It’s just yet another publicity stunt.
Did you notice the way Rose i think it was didn't want to deal with minute details (air embolism). I can only imagine it's because he would have had no answers. That King chap was dreadful wouldn't want him as a barrister. I thought Snowdon and the other chap did really well, they certainly knew a hell of a lot more than Rose and King
David Davies was in the audience for the unherd debate and falsely claimed that Ken Macdonald thought it was an unsafe conviction.
A former midwife who was made redundant from COCH in 2007 claimed that Letby would have needed to use 15 vials of insulin and would have been stockpiling them
Dimitrova questioned what the guilty panelists qualifications were neglecting to ask the same of Rose and King, demonstrating her bias yet again.
The were mostly Letbyists in the audience but there was one guy at the end who said he had never been a room with so many conspiracy theorists before
A former midwife who was made redundant from COCH in 2007 claimed that Letby would have needed to use 15 vials of insulin and would have been stockpiling them
Dimitrova questioned what the guilty panelists qualifications were neglecting to ask the same of Rose and King, demonstrating her bias yet again.
The were mostly Letbyists in the audience but there was one guy at the end who said he had never been a room with so many conspiracy theorists before
Yes he was obviously swerving the questions because he didnt know the "minute technicalities" and couldn't answer the question.
It absolutely is a stunt. I have watched the whole
thing now. I thought Snowdon came actually the best. He said Ll is taking everyone for fools. Nobody had changed their mind by the end of it.
he's the go-to barrister for all the wrong causes - defending Southport rioters, prosecuting climate change protesters. Sometimes pops up on GB news.
Rose has already presented his proclivity for sneakiness when he blogged about the Jayaram email without mentioning it was available for the defence to use as a ground of appeal.
I haven’t actually watched any of it! It sounds like it would be infuriating from the things said about it.
Hi guys, I followed Letby's trial on here with the excellent work of @Tofino and others, and I posted intermittently during her trial. I am 100% convinced of her guilt - her own testimony completely condemned her. I haven't really been following the details of the calls for a retrial because I find it all completely distasteful. However, I just wanted to ask something that I picked up on here a couple of days ago: is it true that Letby isn't working with MacDonald on the appeal? I seem to have picked up on here that she has refused him access to her defence papers and other material not in the public domain already?
If this is the case, how does MacDonald justify this in terms of why she isn't fully behind them and wanting to co-operate with people who will supposedly prove her innocence?
If this is the case, how does MacDonald justify this in terms of why she isn't fully behind them and wanting to co-operate with people who will supposedly prove her innocence?
I think what you’ve picked up on is her right to legal privilege.
So her trials and permissions to appeal were all done with Ben Myers KC. Myers and her defence team are not allowed to discuss her defence (what expert reports they received, what the reports said. why they didn’t call anyone to give evidence etc) unless she waives legal privileges.
McDonald is her new barrister (not a KC) working on her case going forwards. It’s no longer Ben Myers. But Letby hasn’t waived privileges (confirmed by McD) so he has none of that information on her previous defence strategy.
What this means, is when McDonald presents to the CCRC or Court of Appeal his ‘new evidence’, one of the first things he will be asked is why this wasn’t called at trial originally. Is it really new? Or did you already know this and chose not to call it?
And I think his only answer will be ‘I don’t know, Letby won’t tell me’ although he will try to fluff around it.
It sounds like it will make it very difficult for him to argue her case that this is new evidence. Expert shopping is also frowned upon. A new expert opinion on the same evidence called at trial is not new evidence . But it isn’t stopping him from trying.
We have discussed why, if you are innocent, would you not allow your new defence barrister to know absolutely everything that happened in the original trials. You would want them to look at every little thing to see if anything went wrong or something was missed that he could use.
- Status