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.

This is what I agree with here.

So, some circumstantial evidence comes to light to prove her innocence of the murders she’s already been found guilty of then she may get let off this’d murders (highly unlikely).

But there’s still the 6/7 undecided murders for her to yet receive a sentence for here too to take into consideration.

Of course I think everyone has the right to appeal including Letby but this is the most prolific murderer we have so far with 14 whole life orders.

She and her defence team must be seriously deluded if they think she has any chance of overturning her current convictions and walking free.

There are occasional, rare miscarriages of justice. Just recently a man was released after decades in jail for a rape he didn't commit. New DNA evidence proved he was innocent.

In LL's case the evidence is overwhelming and that's why a jury found her guilty. But like every other convicted person she has the right to appeal. It's an essential part of our justice system.

You can't pick and choose which cases you think are worthy of an appeal. Everyone has the right for their evidence to be reconsidered.

Far from it, the evidence is all circumstantial. Quite apart from which the right to appeal is a fundamental plank of justice.

Are you one of the Letby sympathisers (and I was one once too) who seriously thinks this evil woman is innocent?

And yes, the hospital has a lot to answer for and should’ve stepped in sooner to have prevented her killing. And I’m sorry but having listened to podcasts etc after the verdict was reached, I’m now convinced of her guilt. And I wasn’t.

The lawyers should be struck off? Please.

You might not realise it, but an important part of defending someone who is clearly guilty is to ensure that the defence is so thorough, the convicted person can not then claim ineffective council and appeal on those grounds.

@GonnaGetGoingReturns just to point out in relation to the other charges the jury couldn't reach a verdict it's not guaranteed another jury would so cannot take it for granted she'll be sentenced for those

I think she did it BUT I think she should sack her defence team who did a truly terrible job first time round. They invited one witness to testify on the defences side and the basis for that chap being there was incredibly flimsy (he worked on the maintenance team for the hospital!)

If I was her defence team I would have focused on poor management, staffing and training all of which were issues on the unit at the time. I would have brought reasonable doubt into the question of who was there on the unit whilst the killings took place (I was on unit with swipe data but the doctors and relatives buzzed in using a intercom). I would focus on the friends who are loyal. Her defence appears not to be bothering.

I the judge said the evidence although substantial was largely circumstantial. There were no forensic results with her dna etc or eye witness accounts so am not surprised she is appealing.
I think the evidence was overwhelming though and I think she is guilty.
But if she meets the criteria for an appeal than I support that because justice must have checks and balances.
It will be via legal aid I presume and I think in principle this is fair although galling for victims of course and for all of us really as these crimes were so abhorrent.

That’s true. Noted.

No I'm not saying she's innocent - I think she's guilty. I'm just saying that how can you be so absolutely positive that she's guilty? Miscarriages of justices do happen, which is why the appeals system is important.

This is such a fucking ignorant post.
You don't believe in the right to a fair trial?

Her crimes are horrific.
But everyone has the right of appeal. It what keeps our justice system fair and picks up occasional and awful miscarriages of justice.
We can't pick and choose about that.
I would want the right of appeal, and that means everyone should have it.

I agree. There has to be a robust system in place that is fair to all and if there’s a point she can appeal on (new evidence ?) then it should be allowed in the public interest

Defence lawyers aren't defending the guilty party in situations like this.

They're defending the justice system itself.

Please people, read Thedancingbear’s 8.04 post where she said she was taking the piss.

They are doing a job. Every criminal has a defence. What if we struck them all off?🙄

She didn't help that herself by saying staffing issues were not a problem and thay someone added the insulim it just wasn't her.

I'd rather live in a country where murderers can be found not guilty, have the right to defence and have the right to appeal, than one where guilt is decided by a witch hunt and no process is followed.

Apologies. I hadn't read your update when I responded to your previous post!

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, guilty or not. She was handed a life sentence of course she was going to appeal, I saw this coming a mile off. People need to understand how the criminal justice system & the law works. Her lawyers are just doing their jobs. If perpetrators didn't have a defence then how is that a fair trial? I'm not stating personal opinion, it's just facts and it's how the criminal justice system works.
Death penalty will never be brought back either because it's inhumane & because of miscarriages of justice.

Agreed. A rational lone voice in the wilderness!

Far to sensible a reply for MN.

People seem to forget that a man has just left 21years in jail for a rape he didn't commit where later evidence was not disclosed. If there was no appeal process people like him would still be inside.

It is an essential part of our justice system and I am extremely pleased that we have it. Justice should be administered by the courts with due process, not the court of opinion no matter how evil and heinous the crime.

If they did it, they shouldn’t be allowed to appeal.

So if they're found guilty, but didn't do it, they are allowed to appeal..? How do you decide who falls into which camp?

But surely the evidence against her is substantial and beyond all reasonable doubt?

Theoretically everyone who is found guilty, the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. You either allow those found guilty to appeal, or you don't. Maybe you are not in favour of appeals, which is something you can argue. But you can't say "well the people who we really think did it can't ask for an appeal".

Fair enough let her appeal but don't grant her legal aid to do it, she will be due an inheritance I'd imagine, let her wait for that and when the money runs out, the case stops.