Lucy Letby looking to appeal her convictions

[Gymnopedie]

How on earth does she think that's going to go?

Lucy Letby to appeal

(MSN link from the Telegraph)

I can't see what grounds she would have after a 10 month trial with all the evidence against her. And who would take her on as a client?

The judge doesn't grant appeal because they think the jury was wrong.

They would grant if they decide the jury found on tainted evidence, time will tell.

And who would take her on as a client?

She probably still has her original solicitors.

No, that's not how an appeal works - it is 100% not the job of the judge considering the application or the appeal court to second-guess the jury.

Any appeal would be on a point of law. No judge can ever overrule a jury on their consideration of the evidence presented to them. We live in a society, we can only be judged by our peers, each other. The judge is only there to apply and administer the law.

Tainted evidence is a point of law, as more than likely the non existent exogenous insulin tests, that weren't done by RHLU or Guildford will be cited as, they weren't done by anyone.

Thats not true. The legal team would need to show that either something went wrong with the trial i.e. the legal team fucked up massively or that new evidence has come to light. Deciding the jury got it wrong is not grounds for appeal or part of the decision making process in granting one.

Let me repeat, if the appeal judge, either the first sitting alone, or the second panel of three, decide the jury convicted on tainted evidence, fruit of the poisoned tree so to speak, they will grant an appeal.

I'd be really surprised if she is granted leave to appeal.

Well she's got nothing else to do for the rest of her living days!

Plus I think she has that type of personality. I think she's probably incredulous people stopped thinking she was some perfect angel of loveliness and everyone's best friend.

Just looking at things like the amount of time she spent searching people on SM (even people she apparently couldn't recall!) and texting her colleagues within minister of leaving a shift to tell them about collapses she'll find the lack of contact and drama around her quite lonely I should think.

I know she was on remand for a long time but I think she was convinced she'd be out and will need a lot of support to accept what she's done and her sentence.

Many, myself included, will be more than surprised if she doesn't, there again if someone, anyone, can find the non existent EI tests, could alter things drastically.

I find it really ironic the number of people who are obsessed with the insulin results in a trial of so mud more information and evidence - and yet the 2 babies who were attempted murder charges on insulin were the only 2 charges where a unanimous verdict was delivered.

Whichever person has started the questioning over the insulin online has done a really good job at convincing people.

However as I don't think it really makes much difference how much synthetic insulin was administered but rather that synthetic insulin that wasn't prescribed was administered I'm still in the camp that you can't base an appeal on that.

More so because I don't believe where the defence and the accused agree with evidence and a situation you can then appeal saying you don't?

She can do what she wants within the law, whatever she does she has nothing to lose so why not appeal

It wasn't questioned, it was stated by RLUH, they couldn't do the test, only Guildford could, CoC never forwarded to Guildford for testing, ergo there are no scientific test results for the alleged IE, although the court wasn't told that, unless of course you have found these test results.

I'm not too happy with the details of how appeals work, but you can't object to an appeal on the basis that "the jury found her guilty" unless you think that nobody should ever get an appeal ever. Appeals are necessarily against a guilty verdict.

I believe that she is guilty, but our justice system gives her the right to request an appeal and to have that request considered like anyone else would. She will only be allowed to go ahead with it if it is deemed that there are reasonable grounds for doing so.

Miscarriages of justice can and do happen. I don't believe that's what has happened in this case, but it is nonetheless important that due process is followed to ensure that convictions are "safe".

👍

I agree - the jury heard all the evidence, not just highlights, and found her guilty. That’s due process, as is her right to raise grounds for appeal if she thinks she has any.

I am happy for the legal process to apply fairly to everyone, however long that takes, however painful it may be, as it is the best legal practice for all.

So given that it's not 100% proven by biochemical testing that it was exogenous insulin

What are the patho-physiological causes for a transient but huge [x17] rise in endogenous insulin that do not result in ongoing problems for a neonate

Where are the scientific peer reviewed papers describing this phenomena in other neonates not being cared for by a convicted murderer?

Why would this phenomenon occur twice on one unit in a 12 month period but not on other units?

Is it not perplexing that these patho-physioogical causes in Baby F are completely in phase with the administration of TPN ie when the TPN was stopped insulin levels also dropped?

It isn't proven period, a hypothesis by evans,

So given that it's not 100% proven by biochemical testing that it was exogenous insulin

You can repeat all you like. You’re still wrong.

You clearly can't answer any of those questions which would help determine the source of the insulin

Not just Dewi Evans theory - John Gibbs investigated the cause of Baby Fs severe transient hypoglycaemia as soon as the insulin result came back

Plus also Prof Hindmarshs detailed evidence

It’s not a hypothesis by anyone. It’s a scientific fact that naturally occurring high insulin levels are accompanied by equally high C peptide levels. That did not occur in this case. The fact that the insulin was exogenous wasn’t disputed by anyone during the trial, including Letby and her defence.

I should bow to your lesser knowledge, shouldn't I.

You should stop being so arrogant and listen to what people who understand how the law works are telling you. Not that it matters as time will make it clear to you.

Having been ensconced in an Edinburgh Stables for 20yrs+, I have an excellent idea, as to how the law works, at the highest levels in the land, how about you?