Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Lucy Letby appeal

1000 replies

GonnaGetGoingReturns · 16/09/2023 07:33

Sorry if not allowed to discuss here but just seem that this vile creature plans to appeal against her original sentence as per yesterday’s news. Her defence team is leading this potential appeal.

WTAF?!

They haven’t reached a verdict on is it 6 or 7 poor other little babies who died and she’s suspected, I thought?

So sad for the poor parents and babies still.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
heistgeist · 16/09/2023 21:37

I noted early in the trial that LL was described as very diligent and would dutifully report any issues on the ward.

Did that get anyone's back up? She didn't whistle blow as such but we all know what NHS culture is like, how hierarchical and toxic it can be.

WhisperingHi · 16/09/2023 21:38

@Groovy48592747 why do you keep referring to her as it?

She still has a gender and female genitals.

Groovy48592747 · 16/09/2023 21:42

Ohh so you've checked that bit out have you? Please do spill the beans 😉😂

ZadocPDederick · 16/09/2023 22:00

There is also concern about the fact he is a professional expert witness who contacted the police rather than the other way round. It seems from accounts filed over the course of the investigation and trial that he profited personally from his contribution to the case.

All expert witnesses get paid. They can't live on air. You still have the problem that his view was endorsed by a number of other doctors, and that no-one was prepared to contradict it on behalf of LL.

ZadocPDederick · 16/09/2023 22:05

Mirabai · 16/09/2023 17:27

Good question. The defence case was patchy albeit with some individually good cross examination from Myers himself.

You assume that this was down to a weak defence. However, it looks infinitely more likely that it was down to the fact that they couldn't find any doctor who realistically disagreed with what the prosecution witnesses were saying. As I've pointed out, it's significant that at the beginning of the trial the defence were clearly expecting to call expert witnesses: the fact that they didn't is not because they forgot, but because either the witnesses themselves changed their minds, or it became clear that their evidence was flawed.

Robertius · 16/09/2023 22:06

Nope. That is actually the case. Evans has been an expert witness 30 times. He’s been criticised by a judge once, and incidentally in that case, none of the issues were in any way relevant to the Letby case.

the police brought him into the case and I suspect administratively speaking the police organised payment for his expert services.

Nevertheless an expert witness’s duty is ultimately to the court - the expert must not be biased and where there are complexities or evidence that runs against the grain of their main narrative (in this case against Lucy letby) they must be open with the court about these issues. Ultimately it is for the jury to decide guilt (or innocence) - not the expert witness - but the expert comes with their body of expertise to inform the jury about things that a jury would have no knowledge of - for example what symptoms would a neonatal baby likely display if a criminal was to inject them with air.

if you are interested in expert witnesses here is the lowdown -

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/expert-evidence

Again if you want to bring innuendo against the expert witnesses in this case you can. But I wonder why you would do that on such flimsy pretexts.

in court, the defence attempted to set the expert report of Dr Evans to one side but the judge would not allow it - as in the last analysis that’s the expert evidence.

It’s rather damning in its way - but the defence couldn’t find a credible expert to take a different view to Dr Evans and Dr Bohin.

Expert Evidence | The Crown Prosecution Service

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/expert-evidence

ZadocPDederick · 16/09/2023 22:11

Last, you've got to wonder what help she got constructing her case. Yes, she got a QC for the trial, and they will have advanced what Letby told them to their best ability. But how much help will Letby really have had refuting a case built on statistics - something that is beyond many lay people? I don't know the answer to these questions, I'd be interested if someone does.

She had a KC, two other barristers and an experienced firm of solicitors. Criminal lawyers are very aware of statistical issues since the Clark case, and have access to experts. I'd be pretty amazed if they haven't looked into this.

thedancingbear · 16/09/2023 22:16

Groovy48592747 · 16/09/2023 21:42

Ohh so you've checked that bit out have you? Please do spill the beans 😉😂

Bit weird.

echt · 16/09/2023 22:18

Groovy48592747 · 16/09/2023 21:05

It should not be allowed to put an application to Appeal in. It is nothing but a monster.

A nonce indeed. Worst than Hindley, Shipman etc etc.

The Birmingham Six, sent to jail for a crime they did not commit, one where 21 people died and 182 were injured, served 17 years before being released on appeal. At the time of their conviction, justice was pretty satisfied they'd got it right.

Everyone but everyone has the right to appeal, and for very good reasons.

Pretty sure Lucy Letby isn't a nonce.

Mirabai · 16/09/2023 22:20

ZadocPDederick · 16/09/2023 22:05

You assume that this was down to a weak defence. However, it looks infinitely more likely that it was down to the fact that they couldn't find any doctor who realistically disagreed with what the prosecution witnesses were saying. As I've pointed out, it's significant that at the beginning of the trial the defence were clearly expecting to call expert witnesses: the fact that they didn't is not because they forgot, but because either the witnesses themselves changed their minds, or it became clear that their evidence was flawed.

You cannot be that naive about the scientific evidence surely? Did you actually follow the trial.

BIossomtoes · 16/09/2023 22:24

Mirabai · 16/09/2023 22:20

You cannot be that naive about the scientific evidence surely? Did you actually follow the trial.

What’s your explanation for the lack of any defence expert witnesses?

Groovy48592747 · 16/09/2023 22:24

No, of course, because a baby serial killer is not as bad as a nonce?! TBH they're both the worst and most depraved monsters out there.

And that's what she's being called colloquially.

Groovy48592747 · 16/09/2023 22:26

thedancingbear · 16/09/2023 22:16

Bit weird.

Yep certainly weird someone mentioning genitals and gender of all things

Mirabai · 16/09/2023 22:30

BIossomtoes · 16/09/2023 22:24

What’s your explanation for the lack of any defence expert witnesses?

Poor defence. You don’t have to be an expert witness to see the gaping holes in speculative theory posited as evidence, you don’t even have to be a a medic.

BIossomtoes · 16/09/2023 22:33

Mirabai · 16/09/2023 22:30

Poor defence. You don’t have to be an expert witness to see the gaping holes in speculative theory posited as evidence, you don’t even have to be a a medic.

I’ll try again. If the prosecution expert witnesses were just speculating, why didn’t the defence call their own experts to refute what they were saying?

Groovy48592747 · 16/09/2023 22:33

GonnaGetGoingReturns · 16/09/2023 07:33

Sorry if not allowed to discuss here but just seem that this vile creature plans to appeal against her original sentence as per yesterday’s news. Her defence team is leading this potential appeal.

WTAF?!

They haven’t reached a verdict on is it 6 or 7 poor other little babies who died and she’s suspected, I thought?

So sad for the poor parents and babies still.

As the Judge says, the monster showed no remorse. There were also no mitigating factors.

Probably safer in prison anyhow.

It's not going anyway, with ongoing investigation and a Judge led inquiry, this will be ongoing for potentially years. It'll be in the news most weeks. I guess Netflix movies etc are to follow.

Mirabai · 16/09/2023 22:34

BIossomtoes · 16/09/2023 22:33

I’ll try again. If the prosecution expert witnesses were just speculating, why didn’t the defence call their own experts to refute what they were saying?

I’ve already answered your question.

BIossomtoes · 16/09/2023 22:35

You haven’t.

JuvenileEmu · 16/09/2023 22:36

978q · 16/09/2023 21:09

she was innocent, maybe you missed that, or perhaps that doesn't matter in your world of certainty.

Yes, she was innocent, but convicted on the evidence of an "eminent doctor, the expert in his field". But unfortunately it turned out that the eminent Professor Roy Meadows' theories were a load of bollocks.

Sally Clark died of alcohol abuse not long afterwards. Having had several of her new borne babies die, and be brought to trial on the evidence of an arrogant charlatan.

Mirabai · 16/09/2023 22:40

BIossomtoes · 16/09/2023 22:35

You haven’t.

I repeat: Poor. Defence.

Poor defence case, poor defence strategy.

BIossomtoes · 16/09/2023 22:47

Mirabai · 16/09/2023 22:40

I repeat: Poor. Defence.

Poor defence case, poor defence strategy.

So why was it poor? Why didn’t it call expert witnesses to counter the prosecution evidence? Could it possibly be because any that could have been called would reach the same conclusions as the prosecution witnesses?

She had a KC described as ‘brilliant’, ‘extremely astute’ ‘an exceptionally gifted lawyer – a fearsome advocate,’ with ‘an exceptional ability to digest complex cases’, he appears in courts across the country and is ranked at the top of his field in crime and financial crime in Chambers Guide to the Legal Profession and in the Legal 500. He has been shortlisted as the Legal 500 Crime Silk of the Year 2022.

Odd that he was so ineffective in this incredibly high profile case.

Mirabai · 16/09/2023 22:53

Could it possibly be because any that could have been called would reach the same conclusions as the prosecution witnesses?

Really? A man who is no expert in air embolisms, being rare and ethics precluding much research, giving his opinion, in parenthesis, based on a small sample study, on babies he had never examined, from descriptions of rashes, but no photographs, and you apparently think that no medic in the country could come to any other conclusion but to agree? Did you even understand the science?

HazelE123 · 16/09/2023 22:58

"As the Judge says, the monster showed no remorse." If she was innocent she wouldn't show remorse for something she hadn't done.

I don't know if she was guilty or not, but felt uncomfortable about the verdict and the lack of any real evidence. Some of her nurse colleagues think she's innocent.

I'm a former nurse and certain things made me think. Babies do have projectile vomit sometimes - it's quite common. Even more so in neonates. Dr Evans theory that this baby had been forcefed milk was an assumption based on the fact the baby still had 40mls of milk aspirated after the projectile vomit and was only supposed to have 40mls of milk. There were gaps in that theory - what if a nurse had re-fed the baby 40mls after the projectile vomit to ensure it had milk?

I listened to a podcast where Dr Evans was being interviewed by a psychiatrist (Raj Persaud) and when he was asked questions about the air embolus theory he struggled to answer them and changed the subject. From what he said, air embolus was only seen on the x rays of two babies (who had had post mortems and it had been seen as a normal thing on a post mortem). And from what he said (or avoided saying) it was more or less guessing that the others had air embolus, because they had a bluey coloured rash.

Sepsis also causes that kind of rash and air embolus apparently. As well as projectile vomiting, swollen stomach etc and multiple other organ failures and symptoms, plus bleeding. Some of the babies had actually been diagnosed with sepsis.

As I say I don't know if she is guilty or not but some things seemed to have been made to fit the picture of murder as opposed to natural deaths. 6 of the 7 babies that died had had post mortems and been considered to die of natural causes.

From what I saw, they didn't really have a case against her until the insulin aspect - but there was no proof that the babies had actually been injected with any insulin - the drip bags weren't tested and nobody saw anything. The Mother of one of the babies was diabetic and on insulin............I don't know enough about it but there are various reports that there are other causes of high insulin being found without it being injected (sepsis being one of them). The plumber said he was called in weekly over the waste water issue.

It all sounded a bit flimsy to me - particularly as the deaths were only in the summers of 2015 and 2016. If she was a serial killer, why only do it in summer?

If there were issues with waste water and nurses were washing their hands from the taps they could have been transferring pathogens to the babies.

The prosecution case was all based on Dr Evans findings and the note. The note is another topic but I do think it sounded like someone in distress at what she was being accused of and bits were taken out of context.

However, as mentioned earlier in this thread, when someone mentioned people who had been in court and thought she was guilty by her behaviour and the way she responded. That is hard to imagine. And I am not sure how I would behave after being in prison for two years waiting for a trial. Maybe she was angry at the accusations. The prosecution's job is to make her angry and lose her cool under cross examination - it's how they win cases. I'm not sure what she was supposed to be found lying about other than being in a tracksuit rather than pyjamas but that sounds a bit flimsy too. She was arrested three times - and had been in prison two years - hardly something you'd remember clearly what you were wearing on each occasion.

If she gets an appeal maybe more will come out. But if the verdict was incorrect, those poor parents have to get their heads round another set of circumstances and someone else to blame.

echt · 16/09/2023 23:08

And that's what she's being called colloquially

So what? It's not true.

Groovy48592747 · 16/09/2023 23:11

So what? It's not true

Best just stick with the worst serial child killer in modern times then.

That's true.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread