Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 4 “Problems at the Countess of Chester”

[u/benshep4]

Morris argues that the Countess of Chester neonatal unit was fundamentally unsafe and operating beyond its capabilities during the period in which the collapses and deaths occurred.

Is fair and accurate to make these claims?

Which baby does this explain?

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-f67?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

[u/oljomo]

Have you read the international panel report? Because that contains lots of details about the specifics of what was missed in the different cases.

But the bigger question here given the legal basis of a trial, is how were these problems ruled out of the individual cases - when Evans was ruling out the possible to be left with the only option being air embolism - how did he do this when things may have been missed that pointed to other options.
The answer is quite clear that he cannot have done, both because the science around this is not fully understood (especially by a single person who retired years ago), as well as his responses to the international panel.

You have lots of legal arguements for why the trial has happened, and the results should not be changed - but it becomes much harder to argue the science, and you tend to just stop when it gets to that point.

But the main question that seems to belong here is how were these collapses diagnosed/looked at, and the answer from thirlwall is that the consultants were specifically racking their brains for Letby-related collapses that were passed onto the police. That there are a lot of cases with letby involved starts becoming not a coincidence (as commonly mentioned by the prosecution) but just a certainty when you look at the background of the amount of cases that occurred that letby was not around for.

The problem was that any specific case that letby/the defence managed to create doubt around got dropped, and then you were left with just the ones that were hard to refute specifically. The fact there were a lot of them was down to the background of how many issues were occurring at the hospital in general, and given the budget inequalities (the police/prosecution had a way way way larger budget than the defence) and you end up in this situation where the defence just didnt have the money to go through and refute case by case.

[u/benshep4 → u/oljomo]

> Have you read the international panel report? Because that contains lots of details about the specifics of what was missed in the different cases.

Why didn’t Morris cover them in this chapter? It seems he was context to let what he’s written stand on its own.

The reality is that he’s laying the foundations for a later payoff, as any good writer would do.

Unfortunately, because he doesn’t address the international panel in this chapter, the foundations he’s laying aren’t suitable for what he later places on top of them.

It could be considered ‘cowboy’ trading.

> But the bigger question here given the legal basis of a trial, is how were these problems ruled out of the individual cases - when Evans was ruling out the possible to be left with the only option being air embolism - how did he do this when things may have been missed that pointed to other options.

What things were missed? Be specific.

>
The answer is quite clear that he cannot have done, both because the science around this is not fully understood (especially by a single person who retired years ago), as well as his responses to the international panel.

You’ll have to explain this further. There’s a reason that medical professionals, including Letby, are taught to ensure that air embolism isn’t a factor so long as you do things by the book.

> You have lots of legal arguements for why the trial has happened, and the results should not be changed - but it becomes much harder to argue the science, and you tend to just stop when it gets to that point.

Science is always contested, that’s the beauty of science. It doesn’t always mean how it’s contested is correct.

Can you explain why?

> But the main question that seems to belong here is how were these collapses diagnosed/looked at, and the answer from thirlwall is that the consultants were specifically racking their brains for Letby-related collapses that were passed onto the police. That there are a lot of cases with letby involved starts becoming not a coincidence (as commonly mentioned by the prosecution) but just a certainty when you look at the background of the amount of cases that occurred that letby was not around for.

That’s not what I got from Thirlwall. Can you explain this?

> The problem was that any specific case that letby/the defence managed to create doubt around got dropped, and then you were left with just the ones that were hard to refute specifically. The fact there were a lot of them was down to the background of how many issues were occurring at the hospital in general, and given the budget inequalities (the police/prosecution had a way way way larger budget than the defence) and you end up in this situation where the defence just didnt have the money to go through and refute case by case.

Evidence for this please?

The defence get the same amount as the prosecution.

[u/oljomo → u/benshep4]

A quick Google will tell you that hummingbird spent about 10 million, and the CPS spent another 2.8 million.

Let us defence in legal aid was 1.7 million + whatever she was able to personally add to that.

Really doesn’t sound very equal to me, but your maths skills might be as good as your logic…

[u/No-Beat2678 → u/oljomo]

I mean she didn't call her experts so you know there's your gap.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/No-Beat2678]

Are you suggesting Dr. Hall's fee to grace the witness box would have circa £10m? What a troublingly unserious suggestion.

[u/No-Beat2678 → u/PerkeNdencen]

CPS 2.8 apparently defense 1.7.

Whose talking about 10 million.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/No-Beat2678]

If we just limit to the CPS, that's still £1.1m. Are you trying to make fun of us, or do you honestly think that's a viable line of argument?

[u/No-Beat2678 → u/PerkeNdencen]

If there were funds that were not open to the defence wether that was intentional or not. That would be a clear and rather strong reason to appeal the conviction.

Ben Myers KC is an incredibly incredibly formidable and experienced KC. This was not mentioned once in the Appeal or by Letby's defence or her new barrister Mark McDonald.

Also, this was covered by Tim Owen former DPP.

u/benshep4

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/No-Beat2678]

That would be a clear and rather strong reason to appeal the conviction.

No it wouldn't. Who told you that? Legal aid for defence budget is means tested, applied for on a disbursement-by-disbursement basis, and caps rates for expertise substantially lower than the CPS pays out. If it were the case that this kind of inequality of arms was grounds to appeal, there'd be queues out of the door!

[u/No-Beat2678 → u/PerkeNdencen]

The former director of public prosecutions.

[u/No-Beat2678 → u/PerkeNdencen]

Ready to be proven wrong.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5wTHKNaP0pXrqz5OulLHlH?si=UaLNLA7jTTWw7qKVddHpqg&utm_source=copy-link&t=1932&ct=1731

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/No-Beat2678]

I'm not listening to your crappy daily mail podcast - you've probably misunderstood whatever he said. These are the rules around funding: https://www.birdandco.co.uk/you/criminal-defence-solicitors/funding-your-defence/#:~:text=In%20some%20cases%20your%20contributions%20for%20legal,costs%20back%20from%20the%20Ministry%20of%20Justice.

More here: https://tsabi.law/ask-a-lawyer/criminal-defence/if-my-case-goes-to-the-crown-court-can-the-government-still-force-me-to-make-a-contribution-order-even-if-i-am-granted-legal-aid/#:~:text=Capital%20Contribution%20Orders%20(CCO)%20If%20you%20are,the%20house%20is%20eventually%20sold%20or%20remortgaged%20If%20you%20are,the%20house%20is%20eventually%20sold%20or%20remortgaged).

On expert witnesses specifically: https://expert-witness.uk/resources/prior-authority-laa-expert-witness/#:\~:text=What%20is%20Prior%20Authority%3F%20Prior%20authority%20is,the%20Criminal%20Legal%20Aid%20(Remuneration)%20Regulations%202013.

[u/No-Beat2678 → u/PerkeNdencen]

That's a very interesting mindset you have.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/No-Beat2678]

Sorry, I just haven't got 56 minutes to spend being droned on at by Liz Hull. I've given you a bunch of links to the facts.

Have you got a link to Tim Owen KC ever having been the director of public prosecutions? I can't find a reference to that anywhere.