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