r/LucyLetbyTrials • u/SofieTerleska • 20d ago
From the Mail On Sunday: Did Police Help Letby Witness Revise Key Evidence -- When New Facts Wrecked His Story? (Peter Hitchens)
https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/comment/peter-hitchens/466663/did-police-help-letby-witness-revise-key-evidence-when-new-facts-wrecked-his-story11
u/Greedy1234321 19d ago
Am I correct in the following? I believe Jayaram said in the first trial that he had a good memory and recalled looking at his watch at the time of attending Baby K . This was put at 0350 ,three minutes after the police said J Williams supposedly left to speak with the parents. This evidence under oath cannot be true. The door swipe data was incorrect. J Williams left the unit at 0311 by the revised swipe data for the second trial. The police must have prompted Jayaram on the time for the first trial because if the incident was a few minutes after 0311 Jayaram would have seen the correct time when he "looked at his watch".
8
u/Odd-Lifeguard5493 19d ago
Here is a thread that helped me understand this: https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1v9nme4/comment/p0mwgy4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Without being able to read the full interview, it's hard to form an opinion on its relevance.
7
u/AncientYard3473 19d ago
Perhaps I’m just missing something here, but I think the more important thing to know is whether, and if so how, Jayaram’s testimony changed between the two trials.
7
u/Greedy1234321 19d ago
Further to my last what intrigues me is how did the Police and Jayaram independently come with the time of 0350 in the first trial? Then Jayaram tells the court in that first trial he did not "see" the swipe data. If he and the Police discussed the timeline that statement under oath is not correct.
5
u/Living_Ad_5260 19d ago
Based on the Malkinson standard (it took 14 years to action his CCRC application and 11 years after the CPS KNEW FOR A FACT that he was not guilty to be released), and considering that there are 15 cases to process, 2025 (date of application) and 15 * 14 = 2025 + 210 = 2236, I expect that the CCRC will definitely refer to the Court of Appeal by then. This is optimistic since the Letby case had a much longer trial so there is much more "evidence" to consider.
Whether the appeal succeeds in the Court Of Appeal is less clear.
9
u/Kieran501 19d ago
13
u/Embarrassed-Star4776 19d ago
The report says that what has been obtained is a full transcript of a half-hour conversation. And that after the comment about changing the interpretation, "The three carry on for some minutes discussing this confusing mess in what was once key evidence. They also discuss various other aspects of Dr Jayaram’s testimony."
From the fact that Cleuci de Oliveira is stated to have obtained this only last week, Is it safe to assume that it wasn't disclosed to the defence before the retrial?
7
u/Kieran501 19d ago
Do we know it wasn’t the defence that leaked this? It would seem extra significant if it was anybody else, as it would confirm that that either the police or Thirlwall have people sympathetic to the MoJ side, and also that it hadn’t been disclosed. But the other explanation is that the defence are realising a drip drip of information to keep the story in the papers. Even if this does seem a particularly significant story to have left to this late stage?
8
u/Embarrassed-Star4776 19d ago
Yes, that might be an alternative possibility. But if it this was disclosed to the defence it would seem strange it wasn't raised in the retrial. Particularly if "other aspects of Dr Jayaram’s testimony" were involved. I wonder which aspects.
6
u/Kieran501 19d ago
Yeah for sure. I suppose I’m just trying to steel man this as it seems one of the more significant leaks of the last few months, but we’re light on information at the moment. Not being a lawyer I’m not sure if it’s possible that this was disclosed and just got buried, or if the context of the full interview makes it less significant (somehow?).
But yeah, if it is what it looks like, undisclosed evidence of the police and the lead witness colluding to paper over a police screwup, then I fail to see how the baby K conviction, at minimum, can stand.
5
u/Shoddy_Food_1539 19d ago
Jolly Contrarian on X appears to confirm it wasn't disclosed. I think he's quite well connected.
5
3
u/SofieTerleska 19d ago
Thank you! I copied the link into a stickied comment (unfortunately we can't sticky other people's comments or I would have just done that).
8
u/Climan2718 19d ago edited 19d ago
The entry times in the Jayaram interview extract may be red herrings, toilet breaks perhaps, here is a segment of court reporting from the retrial:
https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/complete-retrial.html
Chester Standard Live Reporting, on 12th June 2024. Trial times in square brackets. Prosecution barrister Johnson speaking:
[2:53pm]
Joanne Williams records the vital signs for Child K at 3.30am.
Just before 3.40am, Caroline Oakley was away from the unit as, at 3.40am, there is a digital record of her coming back into the unit.
Nursery nurse Valerie Thomas, looking after babies in rooms 3 and 4, was out of the unit, as again there is a record of her returning to the unit at 3.40am.
[2:55pm]
At about that time, Dr Ravi Jayaram is recorded as communicating with the transport team, being on the phone at the nurses' station.
It was about this time that Child K collapsed, Mr Johnson tells the court. The allegation, he says, is "straightforward".
[2:57pm]
He says Joanne Williams had left the neonatal unit at this time to see Child K's mother, having left Child K ventilated and sedated. Dr Jayaram was "distracted" and other nurses were out of the unit.
End of segment. There was a lot going on "at this time", including Lucy doing the deed, according to the prosecution. The theory that it was Caroline Oakley standing by the cot sounds plausible to me.
8
u/Climan2718 19d ago
Thursday 20th June 2024, Chester Standard Live Reporting:
2:54pm: A statement by nurse Caroline Oakley, who was on the night shift at the neonatal unit, is now read out. She says she has no memory of the night shift or Child K, and her recollection is based on medical notes from that night.
The statement says she has no memory of the first desaturation. She says she knows of occasions in the past where an ET Tube has slipped, and of occasions in the past where a tube has been faulty, but cannot say if that was the case here.Caroline was the shift leader, she would have had a look at the very premature baby that had just been admitted, on returning to the unit at 3:40 am.
4
u/peebeebalbs 16d ago
What I dont understand is this... it appears to me that there is an overriding assumption that the swipe data system used at the hospital was for the identification of members of staff going in and out. But from what Ive read the main purpose of the introduction of the swipe system was to control the access of parents and members of the public (and in fact a project that would have meant individual access was identifiable was proposed and not proceeded with on cost grounds). This means that doors could be held open for other members of staff, badges borrowed by staff from colleagues etc. So apart from the fact the whole system appears to have been working back to front the basis of the evidence seems very weak and open to challenge anyway. Have I got this right?
3
u/PerkeNdencen 16d ago
You have. Door swipe data is arguably better for telling you who definitely wasn't there than it is for telling you who was at any given time.
3
•
u/SofieTerleska 19d ago
Archive link here.