- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The defence had expert medical witnesses who wrote reports, there was a pre trial meeting to discuss the agreed and disputed medical evidence. Ben Myers/ Letby then decided not to call any medical witnesses to the stand. We don't actually know why that decision was made, Letby has just given permission for the CCRC to find out. However its very likely because her witnesses mainly agreed with the prosecution.
Thank you that makes sense now.
I’m a bit annoyed the last two Mail podcasts on Letby have been subscriber only. I listened to one with the free trial but that’s expired now. Given the huge amount of misinformation and MoJ campaigning, putting it behind a paywall doesn’t help get the actual facts out there. Certainly those who are sceptical won’t pay for a subscription.
There's a full transcript on Lucy Letby trials Reddit.
Is the public likely to hear why she didn't call any experts now she's waived privilege or is it just for the CCRC? I already have a pretty good idea why she didn't but the truthers need to hear it. Feel like that would stop a lot of the circus.
You would hope, but they would still spin it somehow. They would be added to the rapidly inflating list of people who set Letby up.
I don’t think the CCRC give a detailed judgement like the appeal court do.
But I think I read in their policies that they can agree that waivers are only for the CCRC and not shared or made public to others so it might be McD for that agreed. I’d be surprised if he didn’t tbh. Because he won’t want it made public either.
I think in Judith M’s book, she details a few of the experts (by job not name) that Letby instructed and states that they were in agreement with the prosecution. I think forensic pathologist is one of them.
Yeah. Also radiologist and "insulin expert".
So they can refuse to testify if they agree with the prosecution? Can a lawyer do the same then, if instructed to defend someone and they find the person they are defending is guilty?
I dont think they refused, more like Letby was advised they shouldn't take the stand. As for the lawyer, im not 100% sure but I think they can no longer defend the client if they admit to their guilt
If you're a witness you have to tell the truth. So an expert witness is giving their opinion, the barrister has to try and find experts whose opinion helps the defence.
The personal opinion of the defence barrister doesn't matter. Their job is to present all the evidence for the defence. This ensures that the defendant gets a fair trial. If the defendant is found guilty but their defence was somehow incompetent it could be grounds for a retrial. The general public want those convictions to be as safe as possible and for the defence to therefore be of the highest standard. That's why our system, where barristers can defend and prosecuted, is so good in my opinion. No matter who you are if you're accused of murder you can have a top barrister defending you. In the US that wouldn't happen and the prosecutor is an elected official so their decisions are quite biased based on winning re election.
The personal opinion of the defence barrister doesn't matter. Their job is to present all the evidence for the defence. This ensures that the defendant gets a fair trial. If the defendant is found guilty but their defence was somehow incompetent it could be grounds for a retrial. The general public want those convictions to be as safe as possible and for the defence to therefore be of the highest standard. That's why our system, where barristers can defend and prosecuted, is so good in my opinion. No matter who you are if you're accused of murder you can have a top barrister defending you. In the US that wouldn't happen and the prosecutor is an elected official so their decisions are quite biased based on winning re election.
The issue is that the defence wouldn't want to put them on the witness stand. They're obliged to tell the truth and if all they can do is agree with the prosecution's case then theres no value to the defence in putting them up there.
If the CCRC decide not to refer to CoA, I suspect they will give more detailed reasons than they normally do, simply because of all the noise around the case. Their recent press statement, for example, was quite unusual and done for the same reaosns, to try and shut some of the noise down.
Of course, that would only work if they were trying to placate normal, rational people!
@Refracton isn't it supposed to be in the Spring? Actually thought they were meant to be giving an update end of Feb?
- Status