Lucy Letby appeal

[GonnaGetGoingReturns]

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.

Quote:

No, aiding and abetting murder is not worse than actual murder.

@978q: It is, if for instance you were Derek Bentley.

Why, I wonder, do you find it necessary to be so aggressive on these threads? Can LL's keenest defenders not debate in any other way?

You sound utterly ridiculous and also ignorant and ignorant of the justice system. It's not a good look

This thread reminds me of the time when Christopher Jefferies was being questioned by police as a suspect in the murder of Joanna Yeates.

After a few days, some online commenters became very impatient that he hadn’t been charged and at least one person was calling for him to be hanged from the nearest lamp post! I’m very glad we have a complex (albeit imperfect) justice system rather than mob rule.

Of course the solicitor didn't know that. He or she wasn't present. You clearly don't really know what you are talking about, not least because the babies weren't newborn as you allege.

If the court decided that in this case alone an appeal would be banned, that really would be a nail in the coffin of the basic concept of justice that is fundamental to our constitution. As this thread demonstrates, your view of what the populace thinks is fortunately not accurate.

People aren't defending LL. They are explaining the importance of the justice system, including the right to legal representation and the right to an appeal.

@HorseyHorsham I don't think I was person you meant to quote yesterday at 21:23?

Zadoc confuses defending justice, with defending LL, how naive.

There is a right to apply for an appeal based on certain grounds - new evidence / biased court proceedings / judge direction not correct and so on.

there isn’t a right to appeal based on “I didn’t like the result of my court case and want to try again”.

the appeal will be refused as there are no grounds for an appeal.

the appeal will be refused as there are no grounds for an appeal.

How do you know that?

You haven't actually read the thread, have you? Or indeed my posts?

As I and a number of others have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible to believe LL to be guilty but to defend her right to an appeal. @978q has consistently on this and at least one other thread claimed that the evidence does not justify conviction, which she has every right to do. What I am questioning is why she feels the need to do so so aggressively. Some might think it has to do with the weakness of the argument, which certainly seems to be lacking in substance so far.

Only innocent people should get legal representation.

But how do we know they're innocent in the first place?

Did you read any of the post that you quoted?

What application? Presumably not the application for leave to appeal, as they can't introduce new evidence that was available at the time of the trial?

What's BARD?

Beyond All Reasonable Doubt

Appeals are allowed for a reason. There is such a thing as unsafe conviction and there have been plenty of cases in the past when convictions have been overturned.

It doesn't explain why the poster says so definitively that there are no grounds of appeal. I don't think any of us can know that unless we were present throughout the trial, know all the relevant law, and know everything that has been going on in the defence lawyers' offices.

I think the argument I saw was about the bugs in the water system proliferating in the heat of summer. And that many of the babies had actually been diagnosed with sepsis and one was so neonatal at 24 weeks it was earlier than most neonates. Don't have the statistics though. They did blood tests for bacterial infection (presumably how they were diagnosed with sepsis) but not known if they tested for viral infection.

The big thing is the insulin though. If there is no other scientific explanation for why two of the babies would have high insulin and low c peptides then the conclusions drawn were fairly damning and I can't see any chance of a successful appeal unless they have new scientific evidence, that was overlooked, about the cause of high insulin and low c peptide. But there was a link with sepsis (which can cause higher insulin levels) and the Mother also being diabetic and on insulin. The baby had actually been prescribed insulin at one point as well. And bags made up with it in. The twins had the same surname - the bags made up for the one that died would have had the same name on perhaps.

I don't know - but I can't see an appeal being successful unless they have new medical or scientific evidence about how there could be low c peptide levels with high insulin.

I , like others, would be very interested to know on what grounds an appeal will be made.

It is difficult to see a basis for an appeal on the facts to date.

As a PP has said not liking the outcome is not grounds for an appeal.

It is also unlikely that any compelling fresh evidence can have been found between the verdict and now which wasn't discoverable between the arrest and the trial.

It is hard to see, on that basis, that a request to appeal will succeed.

Yes.

The baby had actually been prescribed insulin at one point as well. And bags made up with it in.

That isn’t the case. A key point of the evidence in relation to insulin was that no baby present in the unit at that time had been prescribed insulin. There was no reason for insulin to be on the unit at all.

They don’t float.

Well several pages back (and others may have said the same) I explained that its not very likely because she offered no defence. Literally no defence.

There is no risk of people misunderstanding her evidence or defence or information that might have been confusing in her defence because she didnt make one

So what, out of the grounds for appeal, would she likely to be claming?

The solicitor representing her in this ought to be thoroughly ashamed of his or herself they clearly know she sadistically slaughtered a load of newborn babies with clearly obvious and irrefutable evidence so that speaks volumes about them

Eh? Why should they feel ashamed?

In this country defendants have a fair trial. Someone has to do that job. Those jobs uphold a fair justice system. What a totally ridiculous comment. Solicitors have jobs to do and are not compelled to only be on the prosecutor’s side

That's where my interest lies.

They investigated for 3 years.

If they have new evidence that shows she wasn't present at each unexplained death and collapse I'd like to know why it's taken 1 month from appeal to find it after 3 years of investigation and a nearly year long trial.

If that's the case it's a waste of tax payers money. Because it doesn't make her innocent. We would still need a retrial to see if that evidence leads to reasonable doubt.

Is she appealing against her conviction or sentance?