The prosecution called half a dozen expert witnesses. That is evidence whether you like it or not. Other experts have disagreed with the prosecution's experts, which is not that unusual, but their evidence hasn't been tested in court (with the exception of Dr Lee, who gave evidence in the Court of Appeal). The mystery in this case is why…
The prosecution called half a dozen expert witnesses. That is evidence whether you like it or not. Other experts have disagreed with the prosecution's experts, which is not that unusual, but their evidence hasn't been tested in court (with the exception of Dr Lee, who gave evidence in the Court of Appeal). The mystery in this case is why Letby chose not to call her medical experts. Unless she waives privilege, we will never know, but the natural inference is that their evidence was unhelpful.
Their main expert Dewi Evans inserted himself into the case “after reading about it in the news”. Now, after evidence shows that a scan “proving” Baby C was killed by air in the nasogastric tube was taken before Letby would have had access to that baby, he’s changed his story and now doesn’t believe any of the babies were killed that way, despite his testimony helping to convict Letby of 3 murders by that method.
Lee literally wrote the paper the prosecution used to claim murder by air embolism, and he disagrees with the prosecution’s conclusions - seems we should favor his opinion. He wrote a follow up paper in 2024 reviewing 117 other cases of death by air embolism, none of which had the skin discoloration the prosecution claimed was proof of venous air embolism. In a battle of experts, I see no reason we shouldn’t take his side as definitive since the other experts are just interpreting his research.
Lee was not allowed to be called in the 2024 appeal because he wasn’t called in the original case - but that shouldn’t be that much of a surprise since he lived in Canada and hadn’t heard about the case until afterward due to the media blackout. EDIT: I should have said his evidence was not deemed “new” enough to grant an appeal, on the logic that the defense could theoretically have called him in as an expert but didn’t. You say it was “tested in court”, but it doesn’t sound like the court ruled him “wrong”?
So of the 7 murders, 3 are by a method even the prosecutors lead expert now thinks is bullshit and the others all rely on a paper that the paper’s own author says was badly misused.
And of course there is a third group of experts, namely the pathologists who originally ruled all the deaths natural.
Being in trial doesn’t automatically make an expert smarter, and here it really looks like the constraints of the trial resulted in a cherry picked group of experts all biased toward the murder theory rather than a truly objective assessment of the evidence.
Don’t just say “the trial is right because it’s a trial”. That’s a tautology. Tell me why I should ignore Shoo Lee’s expert panel that ruled all the deaths natural and all the original pathologists who said the same.
I just read the "triedbystats" blog posts about baby's C and N. Unless the author is leaving out some massive other pieces of evidence... wow. Just, wow. I'm now surprised this jury acquitted her on *any* charges, given they found these persuasive.
The prosecution called half a dozen expert witnesses. That is evidence whether you like it or not. Other experts have disagreed with the prosecution's experts, which is not that unusual, but their evidence hasn't been tested in court (with the exception of Dr Lee, who gave evidence in the Court of Appeal). The mystery in this case is why Letby chose not to call her medical experts. Unless she waives privilege, we will never know, but the natural inference is that their evidence was unhelpful.
Their main expert Dewi Evans inserted himself into the case “after reading about it in the news”. Now, after evidence shows that a scan “proving” Baby C was killed by air in the nasogastric tube was taken before Letby would have had access to that baby, he’s changed his story and now doesn’t believe any of the babies were killed that way, despite his testimony helping to convict Letby of 3 murders by that method.
Lee literally wrote the paper the prosecution used to claim murder by air embolism, and he disagrees with the prosecution’s conclusions - seems we should favor his opinion. He wrote a follow up paper in 2024 reviewing 117 other cases of death by air embolism, none of which had the skin discoloration the prosecution claimed was proof of venous air embolism. In a battle of experts, I see no reason we shouldn’t take his side as definitive since the other experts are just interpreting his research.
Lee was not allowed to be called in the 2024 appeal because he wasn’t called in the original case - but that shouldn’t be that much of a surprise since he lived in Canada and hadn’t heard about the case until afterward due to the media blackout. EDIT: I should have said his evidence was not deemed “new” enough to grant an appeal, on the logic that the defense could theoretically have called him in as an expert but didn’t. You say it was “tested in court”, but it doesn’t sound like the court ruled him “wrong”?
So of the 7 murders, 3 are by a method even the prosecutors lead expert now thinks is bullshit and the others all rely on a paper that the paper’s own author says was badly misused.
And of course there is a third group of experts, namely the pathologists who originally ruled all the deaths natural.
Being in trial doesn’t automatically make an expert smarter, and here it really looks like the constraints of the trial resulted in a cherry picked group of experts all biased toward the murder theory rather than a truly objective assessment of the evidence.
Don’t just say “the trial is right because it’s a trial”. That’s a tautology. Tell me why I should ignore Shoo Lee’s expert panel that ruled all the deaths natural and all the original pathologists who said the same.
I just read the "triedbystats" blog posts about baby's C and N. Unless the author is leaving out some massive other pieces of evidence... wow. Just, wow. I'm now surprised this jury acquitted her on *any* charges, given they found these persuasive.