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.

Certainly makes you hope that certain posters were not on the jury.

I’ve had a quick scan of this “report”. Some of it is just invented. There isn’t any evidence of a bullying culture at the neonatal ward. Lucy was popular, could certainly stand up for herself and got away with killing for so long as she seemed so “nice” and “vanilla”.

There is the usual attempt at explaining the deaths away on the ward with the sewage and a quote about colonies of bacteria building up on the ward and so on. That’s all largely made up - it doesn’t appear in the actual report by The Royal College of Paediatricians published on November 2016 about the ward - as there was no sewage problem. There was one incident where sewage leaked into the taps on the ward and immediate action was taken to use alternative sinks. Which is what you would expect!

The ward was staffed at 80 per cent of recommended levels - which is broadly in line with other neonatal units in the region - but they didn’t have a spike of unexpected deaths. Fortunately inadequate staffing doesn’t lead to poisoning by insulin or air embolism!

Finally there is the usual attempt to pour mud over what the “report” writer regards as some of the more attackable guilty verdicts. I’m most knowledgeable about the insulin attacks - on baby F and baby L - which involved large amounts of insulin being put in the babies nutrition bag from where it was fed intravenously to the babies. Baby F’a blood sugar went to 0.8 - it’s a miracle that he survived. His sugars stayed low for 17 hours! Baby L also reported very low blood sugar levels and for an even longer period of time. They were both poisoned.

I’d assume the other babies covered in this “report” receive the same treatment. Throw lots of mud. Hope some of it sticks!

All in all - what nonsense! What a farrago. Clearly some people have decided LL is innocent - and they’ll make the facts fit their reality…

Goodness. One way or another, the tax payer funded it. How on earth did she qualify for legal aid when she was employed?

Everyone's entitled to legal aid for Crown Court and at police stations, if found guilty and you have any assets then they can take them to pay towards your costs

You know her trial cost over 2 million? Who has the money for that? And everyone should be entitled to representation , unless we want to see miscarriages of justice rise

I had no idea about legal aid for crown court. I thought that was what personal liability insurance and the insurance that you get with your union subs was for things like that.

Well they may pay for some legal advise , I don't know. But they aren't going to pay out for court costs when people are entitled to free defence

What I don't understand is why the initial autopsies concluded death by natural causes but then it was changed, e.g. complications with a pneumothorax as cause of death but changed later to air embolism and some babies didn't even get an autopsy at that time.

And this on no post mortem.

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23129695.letby-trial-doctor-sorry-lack-baby-post-mortem-examination/

From the article above:

'Mr Myers said: “But at the time you were questioning NEC and at the time you didn’t have an obvious explanation?”
The doctor replied: “I completely agree with hindsight. I should have requested a post-mortem. I was keen to avoid that, to avoid any distress.”
She turned to Child E’s parents and said: “I apologise to them that I didn’t push for that.”
Mr Myers suggested: “You, in effect, steered them away from a post-mortem?”
The witness said: “I don’t believe that was the case.”
On Monday, Child E’s mother told jurors the doctor told them a post-mortem “would not tell us very much”.
She said she and her husband decided not to ask for one “largely” because it was explained to them there was “little point”.'

The parents seem to be contradicting what the doctor was saying. My conclusion is that the doctor, who cannot be identified for legal reasons but is gender, female, was somewhat covering themselves.

The original post-mortems by Dr George Kokai and team, have not been changed, it takes a Judicial order to reverse a Coroner's PM findings, will be an interesting deliberation for the appeals Bench.

Ben Myers has "lost" against Nick Johnson before. They have been on cases before in the same roles.

That's fairly inevitable when you are predominantly a defender. It's much more difficult role.

I think timings are significant and sometimes overlooked in the drama. The green note was written when she had just been investigated by the Police and bits have been taken out of context.

Where does this come from? I thought the police searched when she was arrested?

How exactly were you helping out in repeating information that had already been given? Especially when you artistically left out the fact that majority of KCs work in civil law.

@ZadocPDederick

Letby was arrested and questioned three times by Cheshire Police; July 2018, June 2019 and November 2020 - when she was finally charged with murder.

I can see nothing in the media trial reports about this. Can you care to elaborate?

I know. But that isn't evidence for the statement that the post-it note was written just after she was arrested. Her house was searched on the first arrest. Who writes an incriminating note like that knowing that the police are interested, and leaves it hanging around?

Oh dear oh dear. As I've pointed out before, reading comprehension just isn't your strong point, is it? I haven't stated "over one hundred" anywhere.

From my post an hour before yours:

'There are currently around 2000 silks/KCs, but of course the vast majority work in civil law, not criminal, and some don't do court work."

Your further embarrassment is noted. This is going to be another of those inconvenient posts that you ignore, isn't it?

Forgive me for asking the obvious, but if the note was 'incriminating' why did it take a further two years to charge her?

Because it was a single piece in a big jigsaw. The strength of the case was in the volume of evidence and how it all fitted together.

The podcast episode on the police investigation was interesting. They were extremely painstaking - they put together a detailed timeline bringing together all the evidence from notes, computer records, timed phone calls and texts, swipe records, shift records, etc etc. I suspect LL never thought anyone would do such an in-depth check. But that is also why it took a long time to put the full case together and make a decision to charge her.

I suppose if all the evidence is circumstantial the jigsaw has to be huge.

Merely pointing out that 'incriminating' means evidence of guilt.

This explains how the investigation was conducted and how the case was built.

I found that very interesting when I watched it. Watched it not long after the conviction.

Equally so a defence looks at the jigsaw, finds the flaws, some or many pieces not fitting and easily pointed out.

Again I ask why the post-mortems were changed on re-examination. This has to be a substantial flaw.

I'm not watching a You Tube video.