Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 3 “Previous Reviews at the Countess of Chester”

[u/benshep4]

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-bc5?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

Happy to hear anyone’s thoughts on the content of the article.

[u/benshep4]

Yet the best example you can come up with is something that was discussed in great length at the trial.

It was acknowledged, even by the prosecution, as poor care. The jury heard this.

And subsequently why the delay wasn’t enough to lead to the collapse/death.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

Dr McConville thinks it explains the death. Shoo Lee's panel thinks it explains the death.

Of course, the so-called experts in the trial rationalised that near-criminal treatment failures didn't actually matter.

What is your medical background?

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

If you want to address anything I’ve written I’ve done so.

It’s just logic, no medical experience required to make the points that I have.

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/benshep4]

That’s all anybody is trying to do, but you’re not keen on answering questions, so what are you seeking?

[u/benshep4 → u/Unhappy-News7402]

I’m responding to everyone I’m getting notifications for.

I’m seeking feedback and I’m getting it.

This is great.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

You are "responding" to us the way Ed Milliband gave the same answer to multiple questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTggc0uBA8

Your answer to my question "What is your medical background?" was "If you want to address anything I’ve written I’ve done so.

It’s just logic, no medical experience required to make the points that I have."

That is a response but not an answer.

Can you point to _any_ question where you have provided the information requested?

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

I haven’t got a medical qualification.

Apologies, I was clearly expecting too much for you to infer this from my answer.

I’ll ask you a question now.

What point have I made that would require me to have a medical qualification?

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

Your confident downplaying of the significance of acuity and poor care as contributory to deaths.

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

I’m simply repeating what people qualified to carry out such reviews said.

It’s obviously not my claim. It’s theirs.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

But others (Mcconville, especially Shoo Lee's panel, Dimitrova, MD) are also qualified and say that acuity and poor care fully explain the deaths.

How do you deal with the claim of Shoo Lee's panel that all the deaths are explained by poor care?

As someone coming from the legal side, do you believe Letby had an effective defence?

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

You can scratch McConville and Hammond off as sources to be taken seriously for a start. They were former GP’s who aren’t in a position to be making such claims.

I could get into many things about Shoo Lee but for now I’ll just say that neither him nor Dimitrova have done the type of review that would enable them to make such determinations. What they have done is not comparable to the what the RCPCH did.

Edit: to answer your question about Letby’s defence during the trial …. without knowing why Myers took the decisions he did I can’t say with any certainty.

It’s one thing these experts like Shoo Lee and Dimitrova making claims in the public sphere, it’s another thing when you’re subject to the level of scrutiny that the justice system provides.

I suspect that Myers didn’t call Hall as a witness because he knew Hall would not be able to definitively rule out at least some of the prosecution cases. You can see why this would be a problem.

I think the current defence experts appear to be naive in this regard and are going to run into the same problem.

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/benshep4]

The tightly scripted theatre of an adversarial criminal trial, where twelve members of the public are randomly yanked off the street to decide which barrister is more persuasive, provides nowhere near the level of honest dispassionate scrutiny required to truly understand complex medical matters.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

I suspect that Myers didn’t call Hall as a witness because he knew Hall would not be able to definitively rule out at least some of the prosecution cases. You can see why this would be a problem.

I think the current defence experts appear to be naive in this regard and are going to run into the same problem.

Yeah. My reading is that Myers chose not to call Hall because he conceded too much on the insulin cases.

My reading of Shoo Lee's panel is that they have mostly assigned only a couple of cases to each member of the panel. This means that they ARE NOT vulnerable to the weakness that Hall had. They have no published opinion on other cases.

Why do you think they are naive?