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.

You will be more than aware,that venous or pulmonary air embolism, or indeed any embolism can be and often are, as a result of medical procedure/treatment.

Andypandy.. "occasionally" ?

ccrc.gov.uk/how-it-all-began/

If you take that 100 on it's own, it is a lot, but it needs to be taken in context.

Well, that's not correct. She spent sever al days in the witness box offering her defence. And even if she hadn't, she's entitled to argue that the Prosecution didn't prove their case.

To take two random examples of what she might appeal about, it could be misdirection by the Judge, or new evidence coming to light. I stress I am not saying there was misdirection, or that I think there will be new evidence, but those are appeal grounds that are at least possible.

Yes, context is everything, especially for the victims of "justice"

ccrc.gov.uk/news/more-than-one-miscarriage-of-justice-overturned-every-week-this-year/

People get hung up on 'circumstantial' evidence.

It's not a special category like things that are hearsay or opinion. It just means a fact from which a jury could infer its way to a guilty verdict.

I'm not aware of any crime that requires anything more direct for there to be a conviction.

What bothers me about circumstantial evidence in this case is that doctors correct me if I’m wrong can walk in and out of wards freely without signing in/ keeping records

978q haunts these threads, repeating the same claims. She does not understand criminal procedure or the rules of evidence and ignores arguments that she can't answer. She's best ignored.

Whether or not the would result in circumstantial evidence would depend on what, for example, the doctors saw Letby doing when they walked in to the room. The distinction is not that important.

All this is by the by anyway. I could be wrong but I understand that in England you can't appeal on the basis that the jury got it wrong. You can appeal on the basis that the wrong evidence was put before the jury or that the judge's summing-up was sufficiently unfair for there to be a miscarriage of justice. Or I guess incompetence of counsel.

X rays were only seen for two babies. This podcast here is Dr Evans being interviewed by a psychiatrist and he states that only two of the babies had had x rays. When asked how they diagnosed air embolus in the other babies he says from their skin colour changing. That's one of the reason some people have cast doubt on the evidence of air embolus, as other things like sepsis can cause the skin discolouration apparently, plus the fact the two with x rays had had autopsies and the coroner had said natural causes (air embolus after death is common apparently).

It's quite long but interesting.

https://rajpersaud.libsyn.com/lucy-letby-the-untold-story-from-the-key-prosecution-expert-witness-dr-dewie-evans-talks-to-dr-raj-persaud

The Insulin is the thing that there doesn't seem to be any other explanation for. Unless they have new evidence to show there are other reasons for high insulin and low c peptide in neonates.

There was just no direct evidence. They think it was air embolisms without proof. Letby reported beforehand that breathing machines were faulty. There’s a question whether the insulin was in fact synthetic. The unit had sewage coming up the drains. And her defence was rubbish

I don't think there is any question that the insulin was synthetic. The babies had low C Peptide levels: if it was naturally produced insulin, that wouldn't be the case.

LL's case on the sewage was that the staff couldn't wash their hands properly so infection might have been introduced that way. Her own witness said that that wasn't the case - the hospital provided separate clean washing facilities when they were having plumbing problems. Plus, of course, infection would present with different systems and would leave clear traces.

The number of people on these threads who think they are more intelligent than both the counsel and the medical experts in this case is frankly astonishing.

As said multiple times it is a good thing that Letby has the right to request an appeal, whether she will be granted one remains to be seen.

I think there had to be solid not circumstantial evidence in a case this serious

What at do you mean by "solid"? Murderers unsurprisingly tend to be quite clever about committing their crimes out of sight and deflecting blame. If we insisted always on eyewitness evidence there would be some seriously horrible criminals wandering around free. It's been well established for a long time that a chain of circumstantial evidence can be just as strong as direct evidence

My point is if there is a killer we could have got the wrong person

Why would it not be her? There's no reason to think it could have been someone else . How anyone could read all the evidence , some of which came from the parents and think she's not guilty and it could of been someone else is mind boggling

It could have been a doctor

You really think a Dr stalked her round her shifts to frame her , and none of the other staff and parents ever noticed 🙄

Oh, and she just happened to be hanging over the cribs of dying babies she wasn't even looking after or in some cases not even supposed to be in the same room as

I don’t think it would be to frame her just another person who was always about without records of it

In relation to the notes found at her home, LL's defence was basically that she never threw paper away. Yet she said she had a shredder because she shredded invoices after she paid them. I'd have thought if you kept paper compulsively, invoices are the last things you would get rid of - they are actually documents you might potentially need at a later stage.

And you honestly think that no one else would have noticed this dr being there? Why do you think it's more likely to be a Dr than her?

I don’t think it’s more likely but it could be the case. This is the problem without witness accounts of crimes taking place

I wonder what her grounds of appeal are

I would like to know too - but I can't find it anywhere.

Even Lucy Letby agreed during the trial that it was synthetic insulin. One of the agreed facts between the prosecution and the defence was that it was synthetic. She just said that it was someone else who put it there. But it was not disputed.