The Trial of Lucy Letby

[bluescreen]

No. we don't know why. David Allen Green discusses here what should happen when a defence does not put in their own expert evidence (for good reason or bad)

The Lucy Letby case: some thoughts and observations: what should happen when a defence does not put in their own expert evidence (for good reason or bad)? | Open Legal Blog Archive

26th July 2024 Often the criminal cases that feature prominently in the news are really not interesting from a legal(istic) perspective. One could quite

www.openlegalblogarchive.org

 

[Thaw]

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?

Nobody knows:

One possibility from Private Eye article = "Myers had argued there was no case to answer because of the paucity of evidence and because some of the modes of murder were so unusual that no one could reliably be called an expert on them, and certainly not the two retired paediatricians for the prosecution. Judge James Goss considered and rejected this argument, but having argued there were no experts in this area, Myers may have been reluctant to put up his own retired expert, Prof Hall."

 

[pbsmooth]

Is this new news? Seems to be.

'Tubes dislodged' when Letby was at other hospital - inquiry Lucy Letby inquiry: 'Tubes dislodged' during placement at other hospital

 

[editor]

Interesting article from a senior doctor who seems in no doubt about Letby's guilt:

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/01/senior-doctor-ashamed-he-failed-to-protect-babies-from-lucy-letby

 

[Thaw]

Interesting article from a senior doctor who seems in no doubt about Letby's guilt:

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/01/senior-doctor-ashamed-he-failed-to-protect-babies-from-lucy-letby

He's saying the insulin levels were key evidence:

"Gibbs, a retired consultant paediatrician, said it was a “serious failing” in hindsight that doctors failed to spot unusually high insulin levels in one of Letby’s victims until two years later.

Letby was last year found guilty of attempting to murder Child F, a week-old twin boy, by poisoning him with insulin on 5 August 2015. In the previous two months the nurse had murdered four newborns and attempted to kill another.

Gibbs told the inquiry that insulin results indicating that Child F had been deliberately injected with insulin were seen by doctors a week after the test in August 2015 but they “didn’t understand the significance” of them."

 

[kabbes]

He's saying the insulin levels were key evidence:

"Gibbs, a retired consultant paediatrician, said it was a “serious failing” in hindsight that doctors failed to spot unusually high insulin levels in one of Letby’s victims until two years later.

Letby was last year found guilty of attempting to murder Child F, a week-old twin boy, by poisoning him with insulin on 5 August 2015. In the previous two months the nurse had murdered four newborns and attempted to kill another.

Gibbs told the inquiry that insulin results indicating that Child F had been deliberately injected with insulin were seen by doctors a week after the test in August 2015 but they “didn’t understand the significance” of them."

I wouldn’t rely on anything to do with the insulin evidence, if I were you. The tests were unsuitable for use as insulin assays and experts were willing to testify that their use for this trial was inappropriate.

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies

amp.theguardian.com

while the test results had provided a helpful clinical guide for diagnosing hypoglycaemia, the type of test used does not measure insulin itself. Instead it measures antibodies to insulin and can cross-react with other molecules.
Several experts challenged the use of results from this type of immunoassay test as evidence of crime, including the forensic scientist Prof Alan Wayne Jones, who is one of Europe’s foremost experts on toxicology and insulin. He has written about the limitations of immunoassay tests in criminal convictions, and said they needed to be verified by a more specific analytical method to provide binding evidence in criminal cases.
The defence never asked the biochemists whether the test was the right kind to prove insulin poisoning.

This and what people felt were fundamental errors in interpreting the insulin results were raised in detailed papers submitted to the court of appeal by a group of experts, including a consultant neonatologist, a medico-legal expert, a chemical process engineer and a former public health director. Their intervention was rejected as inadmissible and not considered by the court.

 

[Thaw]

This was the argument against the insulin evidence. I think it comes down to how much you know about insulin testing. I know shag all.

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence

Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies

www.theguardian.com

"Letby was found guilty of sabotaging two babies by giving them synthetic insulin, causing them to suffer dangerously low blood sugar levels (hypoglycaemia).

The insulin cases were the first on which the jury reached a verdict, of attempted murder, and they were unanimous. Both babies survived.

Judge Goss directed the jury that if they concluded that Letby had deliberately harmed babies one way, they could also conclude that she had inflicted deliberate harm on others, even if jurors were not certain of her methods.

The prosecution presented two test results, the only empirical scientific evidence in the case. An expert witness in court – who, when approached by the Guardian, said he could not comment – said the test results indicated that a steady flow of synthetic insulin had been administered. Biochemists testified in court that the lab that conducted them was accurate and working well.

But while the test results had provided a helpful clinical guide for diagnosing hypoglycaemia, the type of test used does not measure insulin itself. Instead it measures antibodies to insulin and can cross-react with other molecules.

Several experts challenged the use of results from this type of immunoassay test as evidence of crime, including the forensic scientist Prof Alan Wayne Jones, who is one of Europe’s foremost experts on toxicology and insulin. He has written about the limitations of immunoassay tests in criminal convictions, and said they needed to be verified by a more specific analytical method to provide binding evidence in criminal cases.

The defence never asked the biochemists whether the test was the right kind to prove insulin poisoning.

This and what people felt were fundamental errors in interpreting the insulin results were raised in detailed papers submitted to the court of appeal by a group of experts, including a consultant neonatologist, a medico-legal expert, a chemical process engineer and a former public health director. Their intervention was rejected as inadmissible and not considered by the court."

 

[edcraw]

Interesting article from a senior doctor who seems in no doubt about Letby's guilt:

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/01/senior-doctor-ashamed-he-failed-to-protect-babies-from-lucy-letby

Interesting - especially as this Radio 4 doc hears from someone saying the consultants the ward weren't checking on the babies often enough.

File on 4 - Lucy Letby: The Killer Questions - BBC Sounds

File on 4 reveals new concerns over evidence in the Lucy Letby trial.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[emanymton]

This was the argument against the insulin evidence. I think it comes down to how much you know about insulin testing. I know shag all.

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence

Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies

www.theguardian.com

"Letby was found guilty of sabotaging two babies by giving them synthetic insulin, causing them to suffer dangerously low blood sugar levels (hypoglycaemia).

The insulin cases were the first on which the jury reached a verdict, of attempted murder, and they were unanimous. Both babies survived.

Judge Goss directed the jury that if they concluded that Letby had deliberately harmed babies one way, they could also conclude that she had inflicted deliberate harm on others, even if jurors were not certain of her methods.

The prosecution presented two test results, the only empirical scientific evidence in the case. An expert witness in court – who, when approached by the Guardian, said he could not comment – said the test results indicated that a steady flow of synthetic insulin had been administered. Biochemists testified in court that the lab that conducted them was accurate and working well.

But while the test results had provided a helpful clinical guide for diagnosing hypoglycaemia, the type of test used does not measure insulin itself. Instead it measures antibodies to insulin and can cross-react with other molecules.

Several experts challenged the use of results from this type of immunoassay test as evidence of crime, including the forensic scientist Prof Alan Wayne Jones, who is one of Europe’s foremost experts on toxicology and insulin. He has written about the limitations of immunoassay tests in criminal convictions, and said they needed to be verified by a more specific analytical method to provide binding evidence in criminal cases.

The defence never asked the biochemists whether the test was the right kind to prove insulin poisoning.

This and what people felt were fundamental errors in interpreting the insulin results were raised in detailed papers submitted to the court of appeal by a group of experts, including a consultant neonatologist, a medico-legal expert, a chemical process engineer and a former public health director. Their intervention was rejected as inadmissible and not considered by the court."

Not sure sabotaging is the best choice of word there.

 

[pbsmooth]

Panorama tonight

More babies harmed in Letby’s care, files suggest Lucy Letby may have harmed more babies in her care, new evidence suggests

We've spent years covering the Lucy Letby case - here’s why experts are still arguing about it Lucy Letby: We spent years covering the case – here’s why experts are still arguing about it

 

[ouirdeaux]

This article says she voluntarily attended a police interview and had not been arrested. Is this just careless writing, and actually means she hasn't been charged? Or is there some technical way someone can be 'arrested' if they're already in prison?

Lucy Letby interviewed in prison over baby deaths and collapses

The serial killer nurse has been interviewed over more deaths and collapses at two hospitals.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Pickman's model]

This article says she voluntarily attended a police interview and had not been arrested. Is this just careless writing, and actually means she hasn't been charged? Or is there some technical way someone can be 'arrested' if they're already in prison?

Lucy Letby interviewed in prison over baby deaths and collapses

The serial killer nurse has been interviewed over more deaths and collapses at two hospitals.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yes,of course there is. Imagine if you will one prisoner assaulting another. Do you think their residence in prison would protect them from police action? And you don't need to be nicked to chat to the police, witnesses do it all the time for example

 

[ouirdeaux]

Yes,of course there is. Imagine if you will one prisoner assaulting another. Do you think their residence in prison would protect them from police action? And you don't need to be nicked to chat to the police, witnesses do it all the time for example

I am aware that legal action can be taken against prisoners who commit crimes in prison. I was querying the use of 'arrested' rather than 'charged'.

 

[Saul Goodman]

I am aware that legal action can be taken against prisoners who commit crimes in prison. I was querying the use of 'arrested' rather than 'charged'.

Not everybody who gets arrested gets charged immediately. A file sometimes gets sent to the CPS, and they decide whether or not to prosecute.

 

[Pickman's model]

I am aware that legal action can be taken against prisoners who commit crimes in prison. I was querying the use of 'arrested' rather than 'charged'.

Or rather the non-use of the term arrested. You don't need to be arrested to assist the police with their enquiries. While someone's arrested there are various rules which come into play eg a certain period of time they can be held. Interviews like this may lead nowhere or to a charge and conducting them without arrest, among other things, saves the cops from having to charge or release within a certain period of time

 

[ouirdeaux]

Or rather the non-use of the term arrested. You don't need to be arrested to assist the police with their enquiries. While someone's arrested there are various rules which come into play eg a certain period of time they can be held. Interviews like this may lead nowhere or to a charge and conducting them without arrest, among other things, saves the cops from having to charge or release within a certain period of time

I am aware of all of this. I can't help but wonder if you're deliberately missin the point.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Nicola Sturgeon has been 'helping police with their enquiries' since 2021.

 

[moochedit]

I am aware of all of this. I can't help but wonder if you're deliberately missin the point.

I take it meaning she was asked if she was willing to be interviwed in the prison and said yes. If she had refused though they would probably have arrested her.

A charge may or may not follow later. As she is already in prison there is no rush to do that.

 

[ouirdeaux]

I take it meaning she was asked if she was willing to be interviwed in the prison and said yes. If she had refused though they would probably have arrested her.

A charge may or may not follow later.

But what does 'arrested' mean in this context?

If someone is arrested, they are generally informed that they are not free to leave, and taken to a police station where they are questioned. After which they may or may not be charged.

But Letby is already in custody. Are you saying they would take her away from her surroundings to a police station and question her there? What would be the point? If she had refused to answer questions in prison, I can't see why she'd be more likely to answer them in a police station. She might even regard it as a welcome day out, given that she's not likely to be able to go anywhere else in the near future.

 

[moochedit]

But what does 'arrested' mean in this context?

If someone is arrested, they are generally informed that they are not free to leave, and taken to a police station where they are questioned. After which they may or may not be charged.

But Letby is already in custody. Are you saying they would take her away from her surroundings to a police station and question her there? What would be the point? If she had refused to answer questions in prison, I can't see why she'd be more likely to answer them in a police station. She might even regard it as a welcome day out, given that she's not likely to be able to go anywhere else in the near future.

I am not certain if they have to take her to a police station by law if they arrest her or if they can interview her in the prison.

The "clock starts ticking" once arrested although i take your point in this case that once times up you are still in prison anyway.

People who agree to interviews without arrest (in or out of prison) are doing the "i have nothing to hide" thing i guess.

 

[emanymton]

But what does 'arrested' mean in this context?

If someone is arrested, they are generally informed that they are not free to leave, and taken to a police station where they are questioned. After which they may or may not be charged.

But Letby is already in custody. Are you saying they would take her away from her surroundings to a police station and question her there? What would be the point? If she had refused to answer questions in prison, I can't see why she'd be more likely to answer them in a police station. She might even regard it as a welcome day out, given that she's not likely to be able to go anywhere else in the near future.

If she is just being interviewed she is free to leave, back to her cell in this case I assume. If you are arrested you are nor free to leave, but additional rights come into play.

But I would assume it is just down to what the police have, if they feel they have strong enough evidance they will go for the more formal route of an arrest if not they will just interview.

Edit - the police I think will stick to their procedure to arrest or interview irrespective of if the person is in prison or not.

 

[ouirdeaux]

If she is just being interviewed she is free to leave, back to her cell in this case I assume.

I'm still not getting it. If an ordinary person is arrested, they are not free to leave and go about their daily business.

But if someone in prison refuses to answer questions, what would be the actual consequences of being arrested? Assuming they were taken out of their cell to a different location in the prison to answer questions, it would seem unlikely that they would be forced to remain there for the 24 hours that the police can hold someone without charging them. Maybe they would be, but it does seem rather a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Pickman's model]

I am aware of all of this. I can't help but wonder if you're deliberately missin the point.

I'm sorry, I missed the telepathy course and can only go on what you post

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm still not getting it. If an ordinary person is arrested, they are not free to leave and go about their daily business.

But if someone in prison refuses to answer questions, what would be the actual consequences of being arrested? Assuming they were taken out of their cell to a different location in the prison to answer questions, it would seem unlikely that they would be forced to remain there for the 24 hours that the police can hold someone without charging them. Maybe they would be, but it does seem rather a waste of everyone's time.

They aren't going to be interviewed in their cell. The thing about arrest in these circumstances are more likely to be to do with the custody clock, which doesn't have to run 24 hours in one go before charging. But the info you don't get is perhaps covered here Prison-related Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service under suspect refuses voluntary interview

 

[emanymton]

I'm still not getting it. If an ordinary person is arrested, they are not free to leave and go about their daily business.

But if someone in prison refuses to answer questions, what would be the actual consequences of being arrested? Assuming they were taken out of their cell to a different location in the prison to answer questions, it would seem unlikely that they would be forced to remain there for the 24 hours that the police can hold someone without charging them. Maybe they would be, but it does seem rather a waste of everyone's time.

You are too focused on the fact she is currently in prison, that won't factor into the police decision, they will just follow their normal process for deciding to formally arrest someone or not.

There are other things that change when you arrest someone, like the right to free legal advice.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Is there a lawyer in the house, who can explain legal significance of 'being arrested' or 'not being arrested' in terms of the obligations of the police and the arrested person?

 

[mojo pixy]

The police don't need to 'arrest' you if you're already in custody. But they can come to prison and sit you in a small room, with a lawyer and a Responsible Person (if required), and ask you challenging questions. They'd probably prefer if if you go to their nick for that, but I'm fairly sure they'll do it at the prison if they have to. You can 'no comment' if you want. They can charge you before you return to your cell. Nothing is really different except your 'home' is a jail cell, and your ride there has blue lights.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Is there a lawyer in the house, who can explain legal significance of 'being arrested' or 'not being arrested' in terms of the obligations of the police and the arrested person?

You obligations as an arrested person are to give them your name and address and then shut the fuck up.

 

[UrbaneFox]

how does this 'expert witness' thing work, then?

are they hired by the court, or by the prosecution / defence?

The main Expert Witness in this case, Dr Dewi Evans, was hired by Cheshire police. He provided the evidence, then critiqued it in court. He has changed his mind a few times.

He retired a long time ago, but has been an Expert Witness for about 30 years.

He said recently that he had not heard of a very rare condition where babies are able to produce too much insulin, which damns his allegation that LL injected insulin into a baby (can't remember how many, I think it was just the one).

However this was enough for the jury to convict her.

Dr Dewi Evans sounds like a 21st century Matthew Hopkins. His skills are astonishing, and wait until you hear how many more cases he has been working on in recent months.

I am reading MD in Private Eye on this, and my blood has run cold a few times.

If anyone is interested I'll post his reports. I have back issues of PE.

I'll do it tomorrow, i.e. later today.

 

[UrbaneFox]

MD from Private Eye, part 1