Yeah it is very interesting, especially since it was BNE who was the defence - now we don’t know if he advised JV not to have their pathologist take the stand and it was JV who insisted but again, similar to Letby’s experts, they largely agreed with the prosecution. I also think if I remember correctly, it was only some babies they could offer an alternative for and not all of them which of course is extremely damning for Letby.I know many here are also on the Preston Davey thread. From a legal / justice perspective I’ve found it fascinating seeing what happens when the defence do present a medical expert on the stand.
And the 29 unanimous guilty verdicts in that case shows that it doesn’t mean that even when there is an expert for the defence (who was actually a highly regarded forensic pathologist of 40 years) doesn’t mean their evidence is enough for the jury to think there is reasonable doubt. Clearly with the Preston case, the jury found all the other evidence alongside the medical evidence, far too compelling to think there’s any doubt.
Something the Letbyists don’t see to understand that an alternative medical opinion is not enough to be considered reasonable doubt. It has to be tested in court and weighed up against all evidence as a whole. Letby could present everthing Shoo Lee et al are saying and still be found guilty.
And their evidence isn’t even new anyway.