Lucy letby
- Thread starter Legz
- Start date
Further to my last post - what you are suggesting is they would potentially pervert the course of justice to assist either the prosecution or defence .
That is not something a reputable expert witness would risk.
They did instruct their own experts - they made a decision not to use them - it is mentioned in the judgement - common sense tells you why they followed this course of action - Their evidence almost certainly would not have helped Letby and may have even helped the prosecution.
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
You are quite right, and I knew that, bad use of language and mental omission on my part.
I raised this same point just a few weeks ago on this thread I think, the defences expert and other evidence that people are questioning all could have been used by her defence and they chose not to.
I came to the same conclusion as yourself.
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
He has some questionable opinions on two tier policing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FW2k6_AV4E
1finny
Well-known member
I’m not suggesting that at all.
I’ve already said the prosecution expert could be the real deal.
I’m suggesting there is a risk.
If it is an unconscious bias they won’t even know they are doing it.
As an aside, by the way, the courts are riddled with people (including policemen) who have deliberately perverted the course of justice.
Again - not saying it has happened here.
If you read the judgment it is obvious that the credentials of the prosecution experts were robustly explored by the defence - That is a lot easier for them to do when they don’t put their own experts forward.
A risk of what?
An expert providing evidence for the prosecution in this case will have been aware that their evidence will have been subject to intense scrutiny and where appropriate robustly challenged. I would suggest the natural instinct would be to err on the side of caution - Which is what expert witnesses tend to do.
1finny
Well-known member
This is really really easy.
You think there is no risk of the expert being wrong or the expert being unconsciously bias.
I think both those risks exist.
I agree there is a risk, there is always a risk.
However the main prosecution experts evidence was peer reviewed by another expert to reduce the risk.
Then it was served on the defence
The defence also instructed experts to mitigate the risk of the prosecution expert being wrong. These experts will have had access to the same information as the Prosecution experts. If he (They) was totally wrong they would have provided evidence to contradict the prosecution expert.
So as it stands we have at least 3 experts who have viewed the material - That is not counting the numerous other experts both the prosecution and defence instructed.
All the above minimises the risk
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
I think everyone should read this.
www.theguardian.com
‘Ghoulish sideshow’: Lucy Letby victims’ barrister speaks on parents’ behalf
Opening statement of Richard Baker KC at inquiry talks of toxic notions promoted by conspiracy theorists
www.theguardian.com
1finny
Well-known member
The Guardian have covered the Letby case in depth.
Just this morning
May also be worth a read
Sadly, in general, the phrase ‘conspiracy theorist’ has been hijacked by those who don’t like any challenge.
I would hope it is recognised this expert doesn’t fall into that category.
www.theguardian.com
Just this morning
May also be worth a read
Sadly, in general, the phrase ‘conspiracy theorist’ has been hijacked by those who don’t like any challenge.
I would hope it is recognised this expert doesn’t fall into that category.
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
Last edited:
Laughing
Well-known member
You aren't still claiming that most cases are based largely on circumstantial evidence. They are not and in fact it is very rare for a case to be based almost solely on circumstantial evidence.
I did tell you this earlier in this thread.
A study done in 2019 by the criminal case review commission looked at 1444 cases were looked at between 2014 and 2018 and only 14%, 202 cases were based mostly on circumstantial evidence.
Most cases use circumstantial evidence, very few really mostly on circumstantial evidence.
If he advised the defence and provided numerous reports the question needs to be asked -
Where are these reports?
Are you prepared to disclose them?
Why if the prosecution evidence was so flawed and misleading did you not give evidence to contradict this evidence? he will almost certainly have had sight and f the prosecution evidence prior to the trial
It is easy to write a letter, why did he not give evidence?
1finny
Well-known member
I’d agree with you on the questions.
And, there remain huge questions (stated frequently on here) about the defence team tactics.
Summarised - if they have cocked up it may have meant relevant evidence has not been given for the jury to consider. Note ‘may’.
To take your earlier point tho.
He may be another of those experts you talked about.
You know the one’s who only have the interest of getting to the truth.
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
Most cases use it and to some extent rely on it, which is factual.
The issue on this thread is people think circumstantial = poor evidence and that is not the case. Amateur sleuths who have seen to many court room American movies hear circumstantial and their head goes "objection".
Would be interested to see your source for your claim, not doubting it just interested to know the specifics.
Laughing
Well-known member
Most cases use it very few rely on it. That's the fact, not what you posted.
Circumstantial evidence is not poor evidence, you are right, but it's much weaker than direct evidence.
The evidence that letby was on shift for some of the deaths but not others is weak evidence. The way it was presented by the prosecution was also misleading.
Whether evidence is circumstantial or not it has to reach the bar of beyond reasonable doubt. That means, in practical terms, that if two sets of facts fit a piece of evidence equally, the jury should accept the fact that supports the defendents innocence. It's much harder to reach that bar with circumstantial evidence.
The defence KC is very experienced and had been involved in numerous complex trials (You can read about him)
Are you suggesting that he had a witness who was capable of proving the evidence of the prosecution expert witness was flawed and misleading but he decided not to use this witness. At the very least this witness seems to be capable of casting serious doubt about the evidence of the prosecution expert witness but he still does not use him!!
Experienced KC’S do at times make mistakes but this would be fundamental mistake where he will have had ample time to consider the pros and cons of using the witness so it unlikely he made a mistake in these circumstances.
1finny
Well-known member
Seems I’m repeating myself.
I’m not suggesting anything - I’ve no idea.
But, the questions you have raised, IMO, need answering and it’s not for you nor I to assume what those answers might be.
You are right KCs do make mistakes - perhaps this is one of them.
And, perhaps it is not.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
I was responding to the Guardian saying she was middle class. I can't comment on upbringing. If the Guardian gets her background wrong it does suggest they either don't know enough about her or trying to paint a picture of a privileged up bringing.
From the information in the media she seems extraordinarily ordinary.
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
Most cases rely on a combination of evidence yes, but circumstantial evidence features very prominently within that. My statement that most conviction rely on circumstantial evidence did not state solely and is correct! I have provided some sources below that talk about the validity, importance and use of circumstantial evidence below to evidence my claims.
Undue influence: the decisive impact of circumstantial evidence | Ashfords
We delve into two cases which show that the details matter when judges are considering whether a will should be set aside for undue influence.
You assertion that direct evidence is stronger is also not accurate, especially if that direct evidence is eye witness testimony which can be very unreliable and again have cited sources below that evidence this.
Research indicates that circumstantial evidence can result in convictions when it has a logical and compelling narrative. Though it requires inference, it is treated with equal weight as direct evidence when the evidence is strong enough to meet the burden of proof. Eye witness testimony based on one study was responsible for 75% of wrongful convictions. Again sources below. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=judgesbook
How reliable is eyewitness testimony?
Psychologists are helping police and juries rethink the role of eyewitness identifications and testimony.
www.apa.org
The Marshall Project
A nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system.
Most convictions are garnered on a combination of factors and evidence type and one is not necessarily better than the other and its accurate to say that most convictions rely (to differing extents) on circumstantial evidence but as you rightly stated combined with other evidence types also.
I am still waiting for your source of 14% because last I checked those type of statistics are not tracked and measured.