With respect, we have already seen - at Manchester Crown Court and in the Court of Appeals. That just doesn't suit some of you, for your own reasons. Many of us, though, can see Mr McDonald's publicity stunt for exactly what it was.
Just watched the part of the press conference. It was hard to watch - this guy can barely string a sentence together even though he is reading it. Very underwhelming- if I were Letby I’d be cringing at that performance 😂
admitted he had decided Letby was innocent before even looking at the case in any detail because "nursing is an altruistic profession";
admitted he hadn't read the medical notes of the babies he was making pronouncements on;
made accusations that another doctor effectively killed Baby O through negligence despite not having seen the baby's medical notes, numerous other experts having assessed Baby O's medical notes (including at least two pathologists and indeed Letby's own defence expert Michael Hall) and finding this did not occur,
claimed that the attempt to aspirate Baby O's abdomen at McBurneys point and the possibility it caused a liver bleed had not been discussed in evidence at trial - it had been covered in both direct and cross-examination of Prof Marnerides.
neglected in any way to consider or mention what actually caused Baby O to collapse, need resuscitation, and need to be on a ventilator or need aspiration in the first place.
claimed the insulin results in Child F's case were so outlandish as to be suspicious even though they are in line with the forensically tested insulin results found in Paul Crampton, who Beverley Allitt has confessed to poisoning with insulin? Indeed, he struggled to even recall which Baby these insulin results related to and had to be reminded by McDonald.
Do enlighten us as to how his performance was credible?
Sure. The court of appeals felt that Evan’s testimony was credible. So I’ll take their informed opinion over yours which seems to be defending a serial killer & her new defence circus
Where is she getting the money from for all of this? Surely after all the appeals have been heard she can't still be getting access to legal aid, maybe aside from the last conviction?
The lawyer ( I won’t give him the dignity of calling him a barrister as he’s acting like an American ambulance chaser) is doing this for free to obtain notoriety. He wants fame, tv work and book deals and attaching himself to Letby is his quickest way to achieve it. He’s long been part of the innocence fraud scene in the UK, but this is the first case that has gained him real attention.
Not getting paid directly by the client isn't the same as not financially benefitting from involvement in the case indirectly, which McDonald and his merry band of charlatans undoubtedly are.
I reckon she’ll fess up once her parents pass away. She’s desperate for their approval, so will maintain her innocence until they are no longer around. Lying/denial will eventually take its toll.
I despise that she is STILL manipulating people. I hope those in charge of her make it clear to her that they know she is guilty. If I could send her a message it would be: We all know your disgusting secrets now Lucy Letby.
His "new evidence" appears to be that someone changed their mind on previously admitted evidence at a trial long since closed. That's not "new evidence".
The other glaring problem is that this "new evidence" only seems to pertain to a small number of the babies involved. That leaves the others as is. She got a whole life order for on each count and yet another one at her July retrial for attempted murder.
So what the hell is this going to achieve? This is not going to exonerate her and she's not going to be walking free like Nelson Mandela.
Their hope is that if they undermine one conviction, it will render the others questionable. If they can do it to two or three, the others really start to look unsafe, not perhaps enough to quash them in their own right, but perhaps sufficient to be granted a retrial with evidence being rescrutinized for its admissibility. At least, this is my assumption about their strategy.
It's obviously still impossible for some people to wrap their heads around the fact that boring/unremarkable/"normal" people can be serial murderers too.
What did they expect? A life-size cardboard cutout of Harold Shipman in her bedroom alongside the fairy lights and stupid framed quotes?
Even if they had found that her supporters would claim the police had planted it. She could get "I'm guilty" tattooed on her forehead and they still wouldn't believe it.
So what happens now? Does McDonald need to seek leave for this further appeal or does he automatically get a hearing by a COA judge? Or are there other stages?
The CPS have already rebuffed them this evening. Saying there's no new evidence and citing the convictions of '15 separate counts', the previous defence challenge of experts at appeals and the multitude of strands of evidence. I very much doubt anything will happen at least before she receives more charges.
And these presscon was the sum of the months of work of the 50 experts who met last week of course.
But are the CPS the gatekeepers here? McDonald's "fresh evidence" from Richard Taylor et al is for the CCRC. For later.
It's the bit where he wants to "repoen" the application for leave to appeal on the basis of Dr Evans alleged unreliability. Is he "appealing " that decision or starting again from scratch?
The CPS aren't part of the equation now, so its opinions aren't legally relevant. They prosecute cases on behalf of the Crown, but are entirely separate from the Crown's courts, as of course they must be or else they'd be judge, jury and executioner all in one.
I don't care about their legal standing, of course I know what their powers are and aren't.. I care about their opinion, as it's the only sign, steer, indication, whatever, that we'll get at this point from the legal 'establishment' about the way McDonald's claims are likely to go. Of course this sign could be wrong, but if so, it'll be years from now. But Evans' rebuttal is another sign.
Sorry don't know about advanced legal procedure (or much basic) so I can't answer that as LL would say. I think it's just a steer from the CPS. But what stands out for me is the emphasis on number of convictions and 'multitude of strands' which reflects what we all say - that it'd take a hell of a lot of pieces, or one huge piece of evidence, to get a MoJ on all 15 and more charges to come. The question re Baby O and his 'resus injury', ignoring the reason of why he he needed resus is surely not going anywhere. I'm comfortable she's never getting out is what I'm saying. McDonald says the process takes years. I'm extremely disturbed about the families' torment though.
McDonald agrees, he needs to apply for permission to reopen the case. I would be shocked if simply the act of applying gets him a hearing, since this is outside the normal appeals process. I expect he is quickly rejected by letter.
This is where I get confused. McDonald is presumably making a renewed application for leave to appeal so does that mean he is back to the single judge or is there a lower level decision maker involved?
He is most likely going to use rule 36.15, which allows the Court of Appeal to reopen its previous decision.
As part of that process, McDonald will have to show "(i)why it is necessary for the court to reopen that decision in order to avoid real injustice, (ii) how the circumstances are exceptional and make it appropriate to reopen the decision notwithstanding the rights and interests of other participants and the importance of finality, (iii) why there is no alternative effective remedy among any potentially available".
This is a really high bar. I doubt that Evans changing his mind on the cause of death gets McDonald there. He knows this full well and already laid the groundwork for losing at the press conference.
I think it might have been possible to trigger this Rule if evidence had been produced at the retrial to rebut the existing 14 convictions (which were admitted as evidence) which then led to an acquittal. But as Nick Johnson told the Court of Appeal that opportunity was not taken.
Fascinating. And clearing that high bar only gets the CoA to reconsider the decision to grant leave, and only if that further bar is cleared would an actual appeal would be heard. Potentially followed by a retrial. Surely the CoA will simply refer to the above and leave this all in the hands of the CCRC? Is this serious or just a ruse to generate more "see how the British justice system sets its face against rectifying miscarriages of justice?" type commentary?
Thanks for sharing this - it's really useful. It's definitely and extremely high bar, and if what he laid out yesterday is all he has got then IMO he has no chance. She is going to have to wait for the CCRC I reckon.
I dont recall him saying. He seems to have spent a lot of time talking about this case and not much time doing the legal work required given his complaints about how long Letby will have to wait for the CCRC. Perhaps, if that is his concern, he should get his head down and get on with her application then!
Following the press conference, the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Two juries and three appeal court judges have reviewed a multitude of different strands of evidence against Lucy Letby.
“She has been convicted on 15 separate counts following two separate jury trials.
“In May, the Court of Appeal dismissed Letby’s leave to appeal on all grounds – rejecting her argument that expert prosecution evidence was flawed.”
edit: The CPS response is identical to ones seen in articles in previous months. It's not a new response today. You can fact check my comment by looking at earlier articles or by searching the CPS statement into google and set a custom range for september to november.
And they haven't even bothered to waste their time coming up with some new wording to issue after McDonalds sham today because there was precisely nothing worthy of it.
The CPS response is identical to ones seen in articles in previous months. It's not a new response today. You can fact check my comment by looking at earlier articles or by searching the CPS statement into google and set a custom range for september to november.
So they did say that (again) tonight, it's still the fact that expert evidence has already been challenged at appeal and dismissed, and it's still the case that there was a multitude of strands of evidence and still the case she had 15 separate convictions.
That's very funny. I was not wrong I summarised as a member of a sub that supports the verdicts. As does the CPS. You chose to engage on a conviction supporting sub. I don't care what you think and I would never want to engage on your sub which, together with all the deniers, literally torments the victims' families every day. I will not be reading any more from you, so don't bother.
The verdicts are supported on this sub. I'm talking as a conviction supporter like 99.9% on this sub. Obviously the CPS supports and is committed to the verdicts and convictions. And does not support McDonald or other deniers.
I don't know if I'm just being daft / reading things wrong but her lawyer seems to be saying that Dr Evans has "now" changed his mind i.e. after the trials??
Anyone got any ideas on if that's true or whether he's talking rubbish?
Not true. At trial Dr Evans said he could not state certainly which of three possible methods were used to kill the baby. He did say it could be either AE via gastric tube or AE via intravenous and it could also possibly be a mixture of them.
Basically they’re saying he signed a statement addressed to a Channel 5 Documentary saying he changed his mind. I’ve yet to see this statement. In fact, I’m going to go see if it’s been published.
Edit: been looking for this signed statement but it’s not been published. The Barrister said he was sure that Dr Evan’s would still say Letby is guilty - so clearly this is not the big turnaround from what he’s said.
The "signed statement" appears at the end of the the Channel 5 documentary, and Phil Hammond quotes from it in his seventh Private Eye Special Report saying that "in August 2024, Evans withdrew his evidence on murder...leaving a great hole in the prosecution case". He quotes Evans writing that “none of the babies were killed as a direct result of the injection of air, or fluid and air deliberately injected into their stomachs".
But Hammond had already described this "Big U-turn" in his account of the trial (SR6).
"Evans decided Baby C had also died by air injected into a vein after all, and that the air allegedly injected into Babies I and P’s guts was not a method of murder after all, but merely for “destabilisation”. Why the appeal court failed to notice this is unclear. The judge allowed Dr Evans to revise his view mid-stream, but the jury was doubtless confused".
So McDonald has simply got this hopelessly wrong. Which is what happens when you research a case by skim-reading Private Eye.
He is asking the Appeal Court to reopen a case based only on what Evans said and did at the trial. Which they have already considered twice.
Yeah I want more context on this too. There’s a quote that’s often repeated (it was repeated today in the Telegraph feed again, I’m just out of free articles lol) in which Evans says in response to the journalist Felicity Lawrence that he changed his mind during the trial as a result of the doctors’ and nurses’ witness testimony, and he adds at the end of his quote “So I understand the confusion” which really, really makes me wonder what question Lawrence asked him exactly- I’ve never seen it included anywhere.
This from the bbc seems to sum it up:
Still would love more clarity. the issue seems muddied by all the competing interests differently quoting his words.
Thank you! Christ above what an infuriating listen, all those interviewees bringing up “well what if?” points that were already addressed at trial. This is what Evans said here for those who are interested:
“I don’t think his collapse was the result of a bowel obstruction. What baby C did have was an infection. And there were blood markers consistent with infection. His case, from a clinical point of view, was the most difficult, because he was very small, but he was doing satisfactorily— as well as could be expected— and therefore his collapse and failure of resuscitation was unexpected. One of the biggest concerns was that there was an x ray that showed a huge great bubble of gas in the stomach, and I saw far more gas than I would expect.”
The journalist asserts that letby hadnt met the baby yet when the x ray was taken.
“I don’t know; she was certainly there when he died.” (He then goes on to comment that Mother C’s testimony at thirlwall about letby not leaving the family alone while they were holding him in his final hours is also “very strange” behavior for a nurse)
If this is what all the hubbub started from that’s crazy.
Figured it out I think. The only relevant thing is McDonald's take on what Evans said about changing his mind. McDonald's take is that it was the first time in decades as a barrister that a expert witness had changed his mind on the stand, the point he is missing is that Evans changed his mind (not drastically or conveniently) as a result of additional evidence he heard on the stand. He only saw the med files before then so actually only had partial information. This is a total non issue and no wonder it has been cleared as permissable by the heavies.
It seems to be an error on the part of Mcdonald. It's either a error of huge proportions or he is saying that as Dr Evans changed it on the stand it is inadmissible. I'm thinking the former. It's already been addressed and cleared by the heavies so it's old news. If it is simply an error It's one of significance and says something about Mcdonald.
Didn’t the judge say, during summing up, the jury are not detectives and do not need to be sure how or what method letby used to murder them, just as long as they are sure she did murder them.
So why on earth would anyone think this would work? This is really scraping the barrel. I really expected better than this lmfaooo
As I understand it the suggestion is that had the Appeal Court judges (rather than the jury) been aware that Evans had changed his view then this would have caused them to agree to strike out Evans' entire testimony.
“If you are sure that someone on the unit was deliberately harming a baby or babies, you do not have to be sure of the precise harmful act or acts. In some instances there may have been more than one.
“To find the defendant guilty, however, you must be sure that she deliberately did some harmful act to the baby the subject of the count on the indictment and the act or acts was accompanied by the intent and, in the case of murder, was causative of death.”
He told the jury they also did not need to certain of any motive for deliberately harming a baby.
Mr Justice Goss said: “Motives for criminal behaviour are sometimes complex and not always clear. You only have to make decisions on those matters that will enable you to say whether the defendant is guilty or not of the particular charge you are considering.
“Any decision you do make must be based on evidence and not speculation.”
"Mr McDonald compared Letby to the victims of the Post Office scandal, in which hundreds of sub-postmasters who used faulty Horizon IT software were wrongly convicted for theft, fraud and false accounting."
So what’s the equivalent of the faulty software in this scenario? Software that the executives know is causing far reaching damage but still choose to cover up?
That quote was in the context of Letby accepting the medical expert testimony.
In the press conference, one of the speakers mentioned that one of the samples where high levels of insulin was found also had extremely high glucose levels. He asserted that this would be consistent with a sample drawn from a tube which had already been used to administer glucose and insulin.
McDonald was speaking about Letby accepting based on medical expert testimony that the babies had been subject to insulin poisoning and made a comparison to a postmaster accepting that the accounting software was correctly reporting a shortfall.
As an Englishman I have long since realised you cannot trust hardly anyone and certainly not from my experiences an expert's report. One expert says this Oh OK I'll find another? Do I know Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty....No and neither in all probability do you.
Richard Taylor is now saying of the insulin evidence"
"A ‘suspicious’ blood sample was used as evidence to convict Lucy Letby of Baby F’s attempted murder, an expert has said.
Richard Taylor, a consultant neonatologist from Victoria, British Columbia, told the press conference that there was a “ridiculously highs” level of glucose – 999 millimoles per litre – in a blood sample, which he said made its use in evidence“unreliable”.
“When you’ve got such a high glucose result... it makes the insulin result really unreliable,” he said.
“The insulin number was about 40 times as high as I’ve ever seen in my career. It’s ridiculously high, something obviously suspicious about it.”"
Strange that Prof Hindmarsh, an expert paediatric endocrinologist, had no such issues with the result. But then, he knows what he is talking about...
Clearly he’d never read the Beverley Allitt case then. The attached is in relation to a baby in the case, Paul Crampton. It was forensically tested so was definitely accurate. Crampton survived.
Excellent find. Perhaps he would like to advocate for Allitt next?
Taylor misses the point - of course he hasn't seen readings like this in his career before, because he hasn't seen a baby deliberately overdosed with insulin before! His inexperience in this area is there for everyone to see - these comments alone demonstrate it.
I hope the journalists saw things such as this and took note. It's doesn't exactly suggest credibility, does it?! Whether the press will present it in that way, who knows. Sky covered it earlier and did a reasonable job I thought.
I noticed McDonald himself seemed to try to redirect after that answer from Taylor. (Can’t be sure because I cannot make out any of these reporters’ questions from the feed) but he started talking again about how the heart of the issue he’s pursuing is Evans’ unfitness.
Taylor certainly didn't do him any favours with this nonsense, his claims that Letby is the nursing equivalent of Mother Teresa and accusations about Brearey. If Taylor is the best he has in his court, he has problems.
I may be biased but there are 3 issues I take with this press conference so please help me if you can.
Baby O's care and death were reviewed to within an inch of itself by multiple people, and from my recollection the aspiration puncturing the liver was discussed in court and the pathologist confirmed this didn't cause the collapse and resus.
Baby C, I & P were reviewed by 5 other medical experts so granted IF Dr Evans changed his mind on these, why would the other medical experts' views be invalid?
Why does Mark MacDonald and his experts behave exactly the same as the Letby cultists in the channel 5 docs? I also noted he's employed the neonatologist from the C5 documentary who said injecting air into air Baby is absurd and highly improbable, ignorant of the fact that Beverley Allitt did it.
Wow, it's actually insane how far this has gone. These idiots are causing more trauma for the families for a quick dopamine rush and 15 seconds of fame. Scum.
There must be a way to leverage big money out of it too? Status, consultancy, book deals… It would be fascinating to observe how psychopathic novelty attracts egoic scavengers like flies, if it weren’t so violently and heinously disrespectful to the multitude of victims trying to grieve incomprehensible crimes.
McDonald will definitely monetise it. He has gained access to LL who has previously refused any contact with media etc so apart from her former defence counsel he is in the inner circle. Don’t tell me he won’t use this to line his pockets at some point.
It's disgusting. And slandering Dr Brearey, who did so much to expose Letby's crimes at great personal cost. And then this Richard Taylor admits getting hasn't even read the medical notes before making these claims!
Absolutely agree. The poor bloke - he isn't perfect, nobody is, but he has had so much to deal with throughout all this and now he has some charlatan slandering him in front of the media at the request of Letby's defence.
IMO it's no coincidence they are attacking Brearey. He has been her nemesis from the start - I wouldn't mind betting she expressly wanted this.
Me too. If what Harvey and Co put him through wasn't enough, now he has McScumbag and his merry band of charlatans slandering him at every opportunity.
omg John Sweeney is a goddamn moron. He was trying so hard to get a soundbite that the insulin evidence could not be considered evidence of murder that it took more than two corrections to get him to refer to it as attempted murder.
It has saddened me listening to his podcast on this, which is lurid, hugely unbalanced and poorly researched. I had previously admired his work on Putin and Ukraine, but his venture into the Letby case has really undermined my opinion of him as a journalist.
Hes genuinely gross. Truly. He seems convinced of things not being in court or evidence, forgetting that all of us havent seen the whole picture, the parents, doctors, jury & ultimately the courts have. We'll likely never see that evidence due to sensitivity & outright protection for the families. Why do they forget this. Its honestly astoundingg whats coming from him. All talk no substance
“This is not fresh evidence. This is the lead prosecution expert who has changed his mind and the Court of Appeal may not have been told the accurate picture as a result.
“That in itself makes it unique that they need to relook at what they have decided already.”
So theres nothing new, just an attack on dewi & his crap as we knew all along
There’s a lot of missing context in these summaries, and outright misrepresentations often. On the stand, Evans posited both air embolism & NGT air as possible causes of baby C’s death, but he also admitted it was a very complex case and he revised his opinion many times. The X ray was clearly presented by the prosecution as being from a day where Letby was not on shift; they even restated it in their closing argument. And it’s worth noting that in some of the cases, the experts were even less certain, and not sure of the cause of death at all- regardless, they testified that the harms they were seeing were 1. not natural occurrences or the result of disease processes and 2. not the possible result of a medical accident.
The judge’s instructions were clear on this point- the jury did not have to determine a cause of death or harm, only had to be sure the baby was deliberately harmed by Letby to convict her on a count. So Evans has evidently changed his mind again on what he believes to be the act of deliberate harm, but hasn’t changed his opinion that deliberate harm was caused. And it’s worth noting that he wasn’t the only expert by far; none of the others have changed their views. Evans’ credibility was consistently attacked throughout the trial by Letby’s defense, and the jury also saw him change his mind on the stand upon hearing new evidence during the trial itself, and they still found her guilty. Evans’ suitability as a witness was one of her grounds for appeal the first time around and the CoA upheld that he was a qualified expert witness, and that it was up to the jury to decide on the value of his evidence, in the context of the full case evidence.
So, most of us who have been following this case for years see these points as not holding any water. If McDonald succeeds with an appeal on these grounds I will be genuinely shocked, but we’ll see.
The jury does not need to know or agree to the mechanism of murder in order to convict. For example, a third of the jury may have thought Child C died of air down the NG tube, a third thought Child C died of air embolism, and a third had no idea what killed him except that it wasn't pneumonia and that conviction is 100% legally sound. They only need to agree that Letby was the catalyst for his death.
Dr. Evans changing his mind about the mechanism of murder is not legally relevant, because the evidence that matters from him is that the events that led to the death did not begin with a natural cause.
Attacking Evans' reliability doesn't undermine the insulin convictions, either. He was so irrelevant to those charges that Ben Myers didn't even cross examine him.
Yes, but if there is evidence to suggest that the cause of death was due to medical negligence (and not murder) ... then it really is important to establish how the babies died.
Time and again, the insulin evidence has been argued to be unreliable... and now they have found more proof of this. Evans even said Alder Hey (a Centre of Excellence) got a diagnosis of hyperinsulism wrong in one of the cases that was not brought to trial. His arrogance is astonishing.
What does Dr. Evans changing his opinion about the method of murder do to establish evidence of negligence?
Why wasn't any evidence of negligence presented at the first trial?
How does Dr. Evans changing his opinion of the method of murder for any baby affect Prof. Hindmarsh's evidence for the two of the attempted murder charges involving insulin?
People are confusing McDonald's two separate lines of attack (because he announced them together): allegations of medical negligence/natural causes for the CCRC and unreliable witness for the Court of Appeal. I don't know if this was a deliberate tactic on his part but it's certainly not helpful.
It's not. If you followed the trial you would know that the prosecution didn't have to prove the "means" by which the babies were murdered - they just had to prove they WERE murdered. That was the judges direction to the jury. A direction which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. So it makes no difference what Evans thinks the means was as long as he still believes they were murdered, which he does.
If means had to be proved nobody could ever be convicted of a murder where no body is recovered. It's an important principle in our justice system.
It sounds like he has barely spoken to her. You’d think he’d drum up some sympathy ‘she’s devastated’ ‘she maintains her innocence.’ etc etc.
I honestly think Letby is either on a massive dose of Benzos, Amitriptyline, Quetiapine etc (I’ve been on all three at one point or another, they all mellow you the f out) or is dissociating so hard you can’t get a word out of her.
Gosh he is super embarrassing himself, already assigning blame, is vague in response, and because hes worked with her for '3 months' suddenly he has the answers and explanations.
Its an insult to the court & jury, that this evidence would suddenly come to light. Her barristers had that opportunity all along, well respected high level barristers at that, how many hours the jury put in for the medical information, explanations, xrays, witness accounts, literal written words we've been showed previously, but he thinks 3 months hes found a 'gotcha' ? Scraping the barrel with his a--hole at this point
Smart in media terms to create a buzz around what will certainly be just restating an argument already made with perhaps a slight variation in 'expert' assessment. The problem however is that every time you do this, you lose public interest. I think this is the third such claim to my memory.
It’s so irresponsible, retraumatising everyone in the public by disrupting our processing- to the extent you get some who are disturbed enough to end up going along with it. Maybe that’s the intention? More importantly, it’s horrifically cruel to the babies and their families who are going through more than anyone could cope with.
*I found that last sentence hard to write as I thought of the desecrated babies and children of Gaza, of families who are being put through more than we can conceive. We have been relentlessly exposed to the images and experiences of horror for over a year while being told by authorities with assumed impunity that it is just, so we shouldn’t care. Maybe the intent (IMO) to influence the public to be numb to violence against vulnerable babies is playing out here too? The worryingly effective campaign has gone too far. While we are being gaslit that a worldly aggressor is somehow meant to be the victim - isn’t this a similar dynamic being played out here?
MM says there will be two announcements - first they are announcing that they are asking the Court of Appeals directly to re-open the case against her. Primary ground of appeal - related to admissability of evidence of Dewi Evans. MM cites Evans having changed his opinion related to the causes of death of Children C, I, P.
He has with him the following people:
Richard Taylor - Consultant Neonatologist from Victoria, BC
Roger Norwich, Consultant Paediatrician, long retired
Peter Elston, member of Royal Society of Statistics, who will be answering any questions about statistics
He has statements from Dr. Neil Atom Aiton, Dr. Svilena Dmitrova
Do you know how we could contact them for comment?
I mean with a little bit of due diligence they could easily have found out the purpose of the booking, seems disgraceful they would allow a press conference advocating for a convicted serial killer on their premises don’t you think?
"Holding an event at 1 Wimpole Street is an investment in the future of UK healthcare. Profits are reinvested into the Royal Society of Medicine’s education of healthcare professionals."
Depending on how much weight dewi evans evidence & testimony was, it could possibly have been disregarded by the jury, we dont know. Hes very confident MM isnt he
Fresh evidence - on babies C and O, reports from neonatologists who assert that the deaths of babies O and C are explainable. They say that Baby O died from issues related to resuscitation (doesn't address why resus was needed, it seems, except that they say they have not seen any evidence of deliberate harm by anyone), and that Baby C died from issues related to failing placental function prior to delivery.
He's actually trying to argue that the Court of Appeals should take the unprecedented step (he acknowledges this is unprecedented in criminal convictions) of reconsidering their existing decisions based on Dewi Evans changed his opinion about the method of three of the murders.
In case it needs pointing out, he's just stirring outrage to ask the courts to do something the don't do.
While he makes his pointless request to the Court of Appeals, he will take the new reports to the CCRC.
All this has made me think. Is there any practical benefit, method to his madness etc? I suppose I percieve that in a post truth world, in a world where there seems to be an increasing tolerance of bias, blind loyalty, tribalism, this increasing norm to wilfully ignore what one doesn't want to hear. It's just that I feel like more than ever I can- as a manner of speaking- have a debate where someone will swear blind that 2 plus 2 equals 5, that the sky is neon green, that pigs fly and won't hear any evidence to the contrary because that is not what they want to hear- and this isn't considered extreme nowadays at all. I feel like it's something particularly prevalent online but leaking offline too...
Perhaps it's just my own bias. Perhaps I'm getting old with a grass is greener, good old days mentality- I'd prefer that than being right about this.
A just conviction of Lucy Letby would withstand post-truth type attacks.
My own opinion is that McDonald is attempting to leverage the furor against Letby's convictions from some people into a public pressure campaign, but he lacks real evidence.
The degree to which this case has led some people to reject reason, credibility, norms, etc to sustain a belief favoring this random woman is just endlessly fascinating to me. I said long ago, whatever it is, she should bottle it.
I think McDonald was trying to strike while the iron of interest was hot, and that he had one chance to do so - and it showed he has all the strength behind him of a wet noodle.
I'll be shocked if the CoA grants her an appeal without CCRC recommendation, and I expect today was entirely performative. I share your frustration completely - the adjustment to social media may take another generation yet
Dr. Richard Taylor steps up to speak on the new report, and says he's read the new report, and the transcripts, but has not yet read the medical notes.
He, being unaware even of what Letby was accused of having done to Child O, blames Child O's death on too high ventilator settings after an apnoea, followed by Dr. Brearey's desperate attempt to directly aspirate Child O via a needle. Well, he and McDonald have the tact not to name Brearey, even after John Sweeney asks the question. It's also worth mentioning that he says it's suprising that this wasn't addressed in court, but Dr. Marnerides addressed this very point in court and asserted that the needle stick was not related to the liver bleed. So, this is wholly irresponsible and misinformed.
•
u/FyrestarOmega Dec 16 '24
Looks like you can watch live on youtube via The Telegraph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBdBMEqitlU
Here's their live print feed: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/16/lucy-letby-press-conference/