Lucy Letby: the missing defence evidence: Difference between revisions

(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 1:

{{a|~~crime~~|{{wmc|Germans.jpg|Where was the defence?}}}}{{quote|

{{a|letby|{{wmc|Germans.jpg|Where was the defence?}}}}{{quote|

Air embolism was reported as early as the 19th century, in both the pediatric and adult surgical practice. The nonspecific nature of the signs and symptoms of vascular air embolism as well as the difficulty in documenting the diagnosis does not allow the true incidence of it to be known.

:—Stephanie Gordy & Susan Rowell, ''Vascular air embolism'', International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science, cited in the {{pl|https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3665124|National Library of Medicine}}

}}

{{~~Quote~~|

{{drop|T|he more we}} learn about Dr Evans’ expert evidence the clearer it becomes why Ms. Letby’s defence didn’t call expert evidence to contradict it. The legal team are barred by obligations of confidentiality and legal privilege from explaining themselves so, in atonement for my misguided earlier criticism of their tactics, here is my best guess at why Ms. Letby did not lead any expert evidence. In essence, because the prosecution evidence was speculative, and thanks to the vagaries of criminal procedure, rebuttal evidence would not have helped.

~~Diagnosing an air embolism with modern technology~~ and ~~adequately conducted post-mortems~~ is ~~relatively straightforward~~.

~~Diagnosing one half a decade later is impossible using post-mortem X-rays and histology slides.~~

It is possible to make a clear diagnosis of air embolus, but you need to do it at the point of death and with specific tests. Dr. Evans did not have this opportunity: he first offered his services to the CPS in May 2017. By the time he was reviewing case files, more than two and a half years had passed since the first reported incident.

:—{{pl|https://x.com/reasonoverfear/status/1889027471091384528|Michael McConville }}, [[Twitter|X]], 10 February 2025}}{{drop|T|he more we}} learn about Dr Evans’ expert evidence the clearer it becomes why Ms. Letby’s defence didn’t call expert evidence to contradict it. The legal team are barred by obligations of confidentiality and legal privilege from explaining themselves so, in atonement for my misguided earlier criticism of their tactics, here is my best guess at why Ms. Letby did not lead any expert evidence. In essence, because the prosecution evidence was speculative, and thanks to the vagaries of criminal procedure, rebuttal evidence would not have helped.

~~As Dr. McConville notes, it~~ is possible to make a clear diagnosis of air embolus, but you need to do it at the point of death and with specific tests. Dr. Evans did not have this opportunity: he first offered his services to the CPS in May 2017. By the time he was reviewing case files, more than two and a half years had passed since the first reported incident.

Symptoms are, at the best of times, non-specific and diagnosis is therefore difficult. Dr. Evans had only weak, two-year-old evidence to ground his opinion. He was acting more like an archaeologist than a doctor.

Line 84:

Line 80:

The evidence Dr. Evans reviewed was two years old and limited in nature. His theory was necessarily speculative. While air embolus could not be ruled out, there was ''at least'' a material possibility the observed symptoms were caused by something else. While its evidence was not before the court and has not been tested by prosecution [[cross-examination]], the recently convened panel of experts — chaired, remember, by the very specialist whose paper Dr. Evans cited — at least suggests Dr. Evans’s theory was ''controversial''. Bear in mind, the burden of proof, on the prosecution, requires not just an arguable theory, but proof ''[[beyond reasonable doubt]]''.

The question becomes whether introducing speculative theories as “expert evidence”, with the impression that the “expert” label provides of “settled, sure, official facts” is excessively prejudicial given the evidence’s likely probative value.<ref>Under {{Pl|https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/126/notes|Section 126(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003}} the Court retains its common law powers to exclude evidence that would be unfair or whose prejudicial effect would be likely to outweigh its probative value.

The question becomes whether introducing speculative theories as “expert evidence”, with the impression that the “expert” label provides of “settled, sure, official facts” is excessively prejudicial given the evidence’s likely probative value.<ref>Under {{Pl|https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/126/notes|Section 126(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003}} the Court retains its common law powers to exclude evidence that would be unfair or whose prejudicial effect would be likely to outweigh its probative value.</ref>

</ref>

The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Letby’s appeal against the admissibility of Dr. Evans’ evidence, in part because it favoured the adversarial approach to evidence reconciliation, and in part because the defence elected not to lead contrary evidence, despite having it. The Court was satisfied that the jury was able to assess Dr Evans’ credibility in light of his cross-examination.

Line 98:

Line 92:

That, surely, is where the matter should have rested.

{{~~sa}}~~

~~{{gb~~|[[Lucy Letby~~]]<li>[[~~Lucy Letby: statistics~~]]}}~~

~~{{ref~~}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|crime|{{wmc|Germans.jpg|Where was the defence?}}}}{{quote|
+{{a|letby|{{wmc|Germans.jpg|Where was the defence?}}}}{{quote|
 Air embolism was reported as early as the 19th century, in both the pediatric and adult surgical practice. The nonspecific nature of the signs and symptoms of vascular air embolism as well as the difficulty in documenting the diagnosis does not allow the true incidence of it to be known.
 :—Stephanie Gordy & Susan Rowell, ''Vascular air embolism'', International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science, cited in the {{pl|https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3665124|National Library of Medicine}}
 }}
-{{Quote|
+{{drop|T|he more we}} learn about Dr Evans’ expert evidence the clearer it becomes why Ms. Letby’s defence didn’t call expert evidence to contradict it. The legal team are barred by obligations of confidentiality and legal privilege from explaining themselves so, in atonement for my misguided earlier criticism of their tactics, here is my best guess at why Ms. Letby did not lead any expert evidence. In essence, because the prosecution evidence was speculative, and thanks to the vagaries of criminal procedure, rebuttal evidence would not have helped.
-Diagnosing an air embolism with modern technology and adequately conducted post-mortems is relatively straightforward.
-Diagnosing one half a decade later is impossible using post-mortem X-rays and histology slides.
+It is possible to make a clear diagnosis of air embolus, but you need to do it at the point of death and with specific tests. Dr. Evans did not have this opportunity: he first offered his services to the CPS in May 2017. By the time he was reviewing case files, more than two and a half years had passed since the first reported incident.
-:—{{pl|https://x.com/reasonoverfear/status/1889027471091384528|Michael McConville }}, [[Twitter|X]], 10 February 2025}}{{drop|T|he more we}} learn about Dr Evans’ expert evidence the clearer it becomes why Ms. Letby’s defence didn’t call expert evidence to contradict it. The legal team are barred by obligations of confidentiality and legal privilege from explaining themselves so, in atonement for my misguided earlier criticism of their tactics, here is my best guess at why Ms. Letby did not lead any expert evidence. In essence, because the prosecution evidence was speculative, and thanks to the vagaries of criminal procedure, rebuttal evidence would not have helped.
-As Dr. McConville notes, it is possible to make a clear diagnosis of air embolus, but you need to do it at the point of death and with specific tests. Dr. Evans did not have this opportunity: he first offered his services to the CPS in May 2017. By the time he was reviewing case files, more than two and a half years had passed since the first reported incident.
 Symptoms are, at the best of times, non-specific and diagnosis is therefore difficult. Dr. Evans had only weak, two-year-old evidence to ground his opinion. He was acting more like an archaeologist than a doctor.
@@ Line 84: / Line 80: @@
 The evidence Dr. Evans reviewed was two years old and limited in nature. His theory was necessarily speculative. While air embolus could not be ruled out, there was ''at least'' a material possibility the observed symptoms were caused by something else. While its evidence was not before the court and has not been tested by prosecution [[cross-examination]], the recently convened panel of experts — chaired, remember, by the very specialist whose paper Dr. Evans cited — at least suggests Dr. Evans’s theory was ''controversial''. Bear in mind, the burden of proof, on the prosecution, requires not just an arguable theory, but proof ''[[beyond reasonable doubt]]''.
-The question becomes whether introducing speculative theories as “expert evidence”, with the impression that the “expert”  label provides of “settled, sure, official facts” is excessively prejudicial given the evidence’s likely probative value.<ref>Under {{Pl|https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/126/notes|Section 126(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003}} the Court retains its common law powers to exclude evidence that would be unfair or whose prejudicial effect would be likely to outweigh its probative value.
+The question becomes whether introducing speculative theories as “expert evidence”, with the impression that the “expert”  label provides of “settled, sure, official facts” is excessively prejudicial given the evidence’s likely probative value.<ref>Under {{Pl|https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/126/notes|Section 126(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003}} the Court retains its common law powers to exclude evidence that would be unfair or whose prejudicial effect would be likely to outweigh its probative value.</ref>
-</ref>
 The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Letby’s appeal against the admissibility of Dr. Evans’ evidence, in part because it favoured the adversarial approach to evidence reconciliation, and in part because the defence elected not to lead contrary evidence, despite having it. The Court was satisfied that the jury was able to assess Dr Evans’ credibility in light of his cross-examination.
@@ Line 98: / Line 92: @@
 That, surely, is where the matter should have rested.
-{{sa}}
+{{sag|Lucy Letby|Lucy Letby: statistics|Expert evidence}}
-{{gb|[[Lucy Letby]]<li>[[Lucy Letby: statistics]]}}
-{{ref}}