Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Trial of Lucy Letby

edcraw said:
Covered on The News Agents podcast yesterday. I find it weird that questioning the verdict is described as a conspiracy theory (they do slightly caveat it). Only a weird fringe is calling it a conspiracy.

Click to expand...


I thought it was a very good piece.

It seems to me that the case condenses a lot of anxieties about society, abuse of power, cover ups, suspicion of experts, the nature of knowledge, the precariousness of public services, the NHS, sexism (including misogyny, but also the idea that women can't be violent and sadistic) etc.

I think its a lot more weird to look at it in isolation.
 
Red Cat said:
I thought it was a very good piece.

It seems to me that the case condenses a lot of anxieties about society, abuse of power, cover ups, suspicion of experts, the nature of knowledge, the precariousness of public services, the NHS, sexism (including misogyny, but also the idea that women can't be violent and sadistic) etc.

I think its a lot more weird to look at it in isolation.
Click to expand...
Think that’s a really weird take and one that seems designed to simply dismiss any concerns.

Take “suspicion of experts”. Completely wrong. It’s suspicion of expert witnesses which the Tories refused to take any action when the Law Commission raised serious concerns.

 
Red Cat said:
There is a wider context of suspicion of experts, I don't know how you can deny that.
Click to expand...
In this case though it's more about a conflict of expertise (and that not being presented to the jury) than an overall suspicion of experts. It's experts that are leading the charge that the conviction is unsafe. To group this with a wider suspicion or deliberate downplaying of expertise seems disingenuous.
 
I think the questions the case raises symbolise more general malaise.

I'm not interested in picking apart the case, I don't have the evidence to do that.

And I haven't been disingenuous at all. I think the case and its aftermath raises questions (already quite live more generally) about how we determine who is an expert.
 
I dont think this case involves wholesale mistrust of experts - just that the particular experts relied on in court are suggested to be less reliable than other experts who weren't called on. Theres nothing wrong with looking at another expert's work with scepticism - thats how academia works. It doesnt mean everyone who asks questions is a MAGA/QANon/covid denier/flat earther, which is what the podcast was implying.
 
Last edited:
Thaw said:
I dont think this case involves wholesale mistrust of experts - just that the particular experts relied on in court are less reliable than other experts who weren't called on. Theres nothing wrong with looking at another expert's work with scepticism - thats how academia works. It doesnt mean everyone who asks questions is a MAGA/QANon/covid denier/flat earther, which is what the podcast was implying.
Click to expand...
I've not seen any claims that she was set up or that anyone is lying, the people raising concerns don't seem to doubt that the police and prosecutors belive she is guilty. I'm sure there are loons out there thinking that but they are a tiny minority. Ultimately incompetence is always way more plausible than conspiracy.
 
emanymton said:
I've not seen any claims that she was set up or that anyone is lying, the people raising concerns don't seem to doubt that the police and prosecutors belive she is guilty. I'm sure there are loons out there thinking that but they are a tiny minority. Ultimately incompetence is always way more plausible than conspiracy.
Click to expand...
No, exactly. It bugged me that they were casually lumping it in with conspiracy theories when no-one (that I've seen) has suggested any such thing.
 
Red Cat said:
Your demanding tone suggests that you think I’m doing something other than making an observation.
Click to expand...
It wasn't even remotely demanding. I was merely offering a suggestion as to why people might not trust 'experts'. If anything, it was leaning heavily towards rhetorical, with no input needed on your part.
 
I'm 71. I used to 'look up' to people who had obtained a PhD, or better. Not so much now. The term 'expert' seems to be easily got these days, and the annually increasing bill for medical negligence speaks for itself with regard to NHS 'experts'.

I was a hospital pharmacist, at least once a week I had to call a doctor to ensure that what they had prescribed was really what they wanted the patient to have. It never was, and they were not all junior doctors. Probably the most egregious, which I still remember after 30 odd years was Prednisolone 120mg twice a day for three months. The doctor had omitted the decimal point, which increased the dose by 10 times.

'Circling of the wagons' post fuck up was also common. I had to defend my department three times in a week against allegations of faulty dispensing.

1. The burns unit ordered glacial acetic acid, which was dispensed. Despite the amount to be put into the BATH being clearly stated on the label, (dressing change and debridement) a nurse applied it neat to the patient. The amount to be added to the bath was printed in red on the label, 'BATH' in capitals.

2. A patient with a deviated penis had 50% saline injected into his corpus cavernosum instead of Normal Saline (0.9%), I solved that one by asking the QA Lt who made the complaint if her staff could read. More than a tad wriggly lipped she said they could.

3. Medical Ward ordered Triplopen, we supplied Triplopen, they injected a syphilis patient with the entire box instead of a single ampoule. Again, I asked if they could read and understand a drug cardex.

The fact that their aren't more tragedies is down to the vigilance of people like pharmacists, who stop the errors from going out.
 
edcraw said:
Relating to Brexit maybe but don’t think it has relevance to this case and certainly doesn’t impact my views on it.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps I'm wrong as I haven't been taking the same interest as yourself, but my impression is that the objections also suggest that the incompetence in this case extends to the defence lawyer, and the judge, and the court of appeal. As well as the initial investigation into the case, and the systemic failures of the hospital. So that's a lot of incompetent people ordinarily thought to be experts, professionals with decades of experience.

btw I haven't said that I think people objecting are conspiracy theorists, what I said was that I thought there are a lot of other current cultural issues or practices condensed or crystallised or symbolised in the case. That's not dismissing anyone or their criticisms.
 
Red Cat said:
Well, perhaps I'm wrong as I haven't been taking the same interest as yourself, but my impression is that the objections also suggest that the incompetence in this case extends to the defence lawyer, and the judge, and the court of appeal. As well as the initial investigation into the case, and the systemic failures of the hospital. So that's a lot of incompetent people ordinarily thought to be experts, professionals with decades of experience.

btw I haven't said that I think people objecting are conspiracy theorists, what I said was that I thought there are a lot of other current cultural issues or practices condensed or crystallised or symbolised in the case. That's not dismissing anyone or their criticisms.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you believe there are never any wrongful convictions.
 
edcraw said:
Sounds like you believe there are never any wrongful convictions.
Click to expand...

Is that very likely?

You don't understand what I'm saying as you've responded the same way both times but that's ok, I'm not so bothered as to try and explain again. Lets leave it there.
 
Saul Goodman said:
Why do you think that is? Could it be because a lot of 'experts' don't know their arse from a hole in the ground?
Click to expand...

In the Letby case, the experts being given the very disturbing platform they've been given in the MSM in recent times have admitted that they not alone didn't attend the trial but also didn't read the transcripts of the trial.

Expertise in one field clearly does not imply expertise in other more basic fields... like objectivity, and the importance of the whole rather than the convenient parts of the whole that they've being focusing upon, at the expense of the full and truthful picture of why Letby was found guilty.

The current enquiry is thankfully doing a sterling job in holding all these expert theories and speculations up to the light they need to be seen in.
 
Last edited:
VivaE said:
In the Letby case, the experts being given the very disturbing platform they've been given in the MSM in recent times have admitted that they not alone didn't attend the trial but also didn't read the transcripts of the trial.

Expertise in one field clearly does not imply expertise in other more basic fields... like objectivity, and the importance of the whole rather than the convenient parts of the whole that they've being focusing upon, at the expense of the full and truthful picture of why Letby was found guilty.

The current enquiry is thankfully doing a sterling job in holding all these expert theories and speculations up to the light they need to be seen in.
Click to expand...
I've been called as an expert witness in a case. Granted, it was nothing of this calibre, but the judge asked my credentials, deemed me worthy, and I gave evidence. Fortunately, I was pretty well clued up on what I was experting on, but I could have made up any old shite and I'd have been believed.
Expert isn't a word I trust to be used correctly.
 
how does this 'expert witness' thing work, then?

are they hired by the court, or by the prosecution / defence?
 
Interview, among others, with the main expert witness on the Letby case here. He really doesn’t come across very well.

 
edcraw said:
They’re hired by the prosecution or defence.
Click to expand...

in which case a possible :hmm:

my medical knowledge is almost zero, and legal knowledge fairly minimal, but seems dubious if one side hires an expert witness and the other doesn't / can't.

in most fields you can find experts who hold conflicting views...
 
In this case the defence chose not to call the expert witness, Dr Michael Hall, who had been advising them, preferring to proceed on the basis that there was no case to answer. It was a gamble that failed. Hall attended the trial except for a couple of half days where he read the transcripts.

www.theguardian.com

Lucy Letby: doctor criticises judge’s opening remarks at inquiry

Dr Michael Hall writes to inquiry saying he does not believe nurse received fair trial
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
bluescreen said:
In this case the defence chose not to call the expert witness, Dr Michael Hall, who had been advising them, preferring to proceed on the basis that there was no case to answer. It was a gamble that failed. Hall attended the trial except for a couple of half days where he read the transcripts.
Click to expand...

again, i'm not all that well up on the law, but i thought if the defence argued 'no case to answer' and the judge didn't agree, then the defence then put its case. sounds like the defence wasn't handled at all well.

not of course that this proves the verdict was incorrect, but...
 
bluescreen said:
In this case the defence chose not to call the expert witness, Dr Michael Hall, who had been advising them, preferring to proceed on the basis that there was no case to answer.
Click to expand...

Can anyone clarify why, after the close of the case for the prosecution when presumably the trial judge, Mr Justice Goss, refused the implied defence submission of 'no case to answer', and ruled that there was a case to answer, the witness concerned was not called as part of the defence case which comprised only evidence from the defendant and a plumber?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

singsongfun
Kevin Spacey trial underwhelming
2 3
Replies
82
Views
5K
Don Baumgarten
Don Baumgarten
Argonia
When precisely does the war crimes trial of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair begin in the Hague?
2 3 4 5
Replies
135
Views
8K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
cupid_stunt
Thames Valley Police trial not prosecuting for possession of small quantities of any drugs.
Replies
2
Views
392
crossthebreeze
crossthebreeze
editor
Boris Johnson must go on trial for 'lying and misleading' in Brexit campaign, judge orders
2 3 4 5
Replies
127
Views
7K
editor
editor
K
LATEST FROM WESTMINSTER MAGS (MI5 VANDALISM TRIAL)
Replies
10
Views
726
Shechemite
Shechemite
Back
Top Bottom