chapter five
CHAPTER FIVE. THE ABSENT DEFENCE WITNESSES (INTIMIDATED AND “WARNED OFF”!)
There was only one defence witness (a plumber) at The Lucy Letby trial. Why??????
The amazing fact is that in the UK, doctors are not “allowed” to testify for the defence in trials involving offences against children. If they do so testify, they will face severe disciplinary measures and reprisals, and may be “struck off”, and their medical career terminated. That is why there were no expert defence witnesses!
If you don’t believe this, here is a quote from my book The Dishonesty of Science (subtitle:- Why We Should Distrust Everything That Scientists Tell Us) – Alternatively, you can see the same quote on my web site
This quote is from New Scientist (magazine), November 12th, 2016, pages 8 to 9, Article:- Shaken Baby Science Questioned, by Andy Coghlan:-
“Pathologist Waney Squier, at John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford has argued that - - - the - - -symptoms (of shaken baby syndrome) taken as a sign of child abuse may have other causes. But her court appearances led to her BEING STRUCK OFF THE MEDICAL REGISTER - - - A High Court Judge ordered her re-instatement. - - - “I CAN’T RISK MY JOB BY GIVING EVIDENCE IN COURT” says Irene Scheimberg at The London Hospital, one of the few experts (on shaken baby syndrome). The article states that there are people ON DEATH ROW due to convictions relating to shaken baby syndrome. “Expect to see a lot more false convictions in the UK”, says Heather Kirkwood, a lawyer in Seattle. A Swedish study found that “There’s very low-quality scientific evidence for the claim that child head injuries point to shaken baby syndrome”. VARIOUS SCIENTIFIC AGENCIES HAVE TRIED TO PREVENT PUBLICATION OF THIS REPORT.” (My capitals.)
Apart from no expert defence witnesses, there were no character witnesses – no nurses gave evidence as to Lucy Letby’s kind gentle nature. My informant (who needs to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals) tells me that The Hospital Management warned the nursing staff that their appearance as defence witnesses would be “frowned upon”, with the implication of loss of nursing career. It would be tantamount to “whistle blowing”.
Here is a quote from the book Baby Killer 2. Is Lucy Letby Innocent, by Stu Armstrong, ISBN 9798301688835, printed by Amazon. (I strongly recommend this book.)
Pages 87 to 88:- Dr Rachel Simmons, who worked as a colleague of Lucy Letby in the neonatal ward at The Countess of Chester Hospital, stated that she was initially reluctant to speak publically (in favour of Lucy Letby) FEARING PROFESSIONAL BACKLASH. (My capitals and highlighting.)
Here are some quotes from Private Eye Special report – The Lessons of The Lucy Letby case, by Doctor Phil Hammond MD.
Private Eye Report Part 2. “The Telegraph has reported that nurses and resident doctors who tried to speak up on behalf of Letby were told they should not give evidence, as to do so might harm their career.”
Private Eye Report Part 3:- “It is also harder to get experts to act in baby-killer cases - - - - can attract unpleasant media - - - - attention - - - - Going up against the police can destroy your - - - career, as paediatric brain specialist Wanley Squier found out when she questioned the evidence around shaken baby syndrome.”
Private Eye report Part 4:- Some (of Lucy Letby’s fellow shift workers) wanted to speak up for her but were discouraged and threatened, according to The Telegraph.” The report goes on to say:- “The stench of cover-up grows stronger.” (My highlighting.)
My comment:- Joseph Stalin will be laughing in his grave. In fact, he will be getting up and dancing a jig to see the brutal “Stalinist-style” censorship involved in this ridiculous “Stalinist show trial”, where an angel of mercy is “thrown under the bus”.
I found this on the internet:-
Interview with Lucy Letby’s lawyer: Is she Innocent? | Barrister Mark McDonald speaks out
Joshua Perry Parker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZproeC0SPa4
Interview with Mark McDonald. He states that doctors dare not appear for the defence. Many doctors will not give evidence for the defence in cases of child abuse. Historically, they have been attacked by the establishment if they did so. ie:- reported to the general medical council, or being struck off. This happened to a doctor a paediatrician at The John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. She was taken before The General Medical Council, and struck off. This was overturned, but she never worked again. Other doctors see what happened to her, and don’t want it to happen to them, so they will not testify for the defence. To get defence witnesses, you have to go abroad.
Mark McDonald speculates on the possibility of The Court of Appeal overturning Letby’s conviction. It would do so much damage to the legal system, to the jury system, to the police etc, that the court of appeal would be loath to overturn the conviction.
POST IT NOTES.
Regarding the post it notes:- They indicate innocence not guilt. If she were guilty, she would have destroyed these notes.
This quote is from the book Lucy is Innocent, by Paul Bamford, SECOND EDITION, page 40, (ISBN number 9798326484130) (I strongly recommend this book!)
“Reports from nursing staff - - - of the intimidation of would-be character witnesses for Ms. Letby by hospital officials”.
These quotes from an article in The Guardian are from the following web page:-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question
Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence
Tue 9 Jul 2024 07.00 BST
A Guardian investigation has interviewed dozens of these experts and seen further evidence from emails and documents. Those raising concerns include several leading consultant neonatologists, some with current or recent leadership roles, and several senior neonatal nurses. Others are public health professionals, GPs, biochemists, a leading government microbiologist, and lawyers. Several of those still working in the NHS have asked to remain anonymous, fearing the impact if they are named.
(Professor Richard) Gill, who has drawn much criticism for pointedly posting on social media during the trial that the Letby shift table was meaningless and that she had suffered a miscarriage of justice, said: “The police investigation and crown prosecution made all the mistakes the RSS warned about. Nobody studied the statistics in a professional way.”
Dr Svilena Dimitrova, an NHS consultant neonatologist who is part of the government-appointed Ockenden review investigating deaths and harm allegedly caused to dozens of babies in Nottingham University NHS hospital trust, is one of five who the Guardian understands has approached the GMC in relation to evidence given by Evans. She said she took this step having been approached by multiple consultant neonatologists and paediatricians, and specialist neonatal nurses, who flagged up their concerns to her but were frightened to go public. She said that in her opinion, “the theories proposed in court were not plausible and the prosecution was full of medical inaccuracies. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say Letby was innocent, but I can see no proof of guilt”.
The Guardian also conducted interviews over several hours with - - - the specialist instructed for the defence, the neonatologist Dr Mike Hall. - - - He provided expert opinion for the defence. He saw the CoC case notes, wrote a detailed report and was at the trial every day bar a couple of half days. His opinion was not heard by the jury as he was not called to give testimony. He does not know why. He told the Guardian that he was deeply troubled by the case: “With regard to the medical evidence, I don’t think the prosecution proved she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t think she had a fair trial because no medical expert witness was called for the defence to challenge the prosecution.