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.

Like GonnaGetGoing, I listened to the podcasts, and still am, which started at the beginning of the trial. I’m 100% sure she’s guilty.

I think of all the podcasts, the one that hammered it home for me was last weeks. They had 3 members of the public, retired nurses and a criminology graduate, who went to watch the trial thinking it was a miscarriage of justice. They all said they thought she was guilty and that she came across really badly in the witness box as manipulative, controlling and petulant.

Absolutely this!

There we’re people who had doubts because of how she looked.

Then the more someone claims they’re innocent, the more it starts putting doubt in peoples heads.

She is a narcissist and loves to manipulate people.
She thinks she can get away with it by batting her eyelashes and crying.

It’s like when serial killers refuse to say where they buried the bodies.

Actually no I’m torn either way!

You’re putting words into my mouth.

I’m certainly not a sheep who goes along with what the vast majority of MN says despite what you and other posters seem to say.

I was just a bit shocked on hearing the news that she’s decided to appeal. And doesn’t a judge have to approve this appeal?

Well that clearly went over a lot of peoples head

Exact same thoughts and scenario. I’m almost at the end of the podcasts too which make for insightful listening.

In my honest opinion (based on purely what everyone else knows) is that she is appealing because she can't believe after 33 years of life people have seen through her and her act.

I think she's guilty - and I wasn't sure after her initial arrest and even her final one.

But whereas so many people believed she was guilty the more she spoke because of innocuous lies she told (going commando meaning being one) I think she believes that she more she speaks the more people will believe her.

She has every right to appeal but I doubt she will be successful. I followed the trial closely and she's guilty, unless there's compelling new evidence or some technical flaw in the process, she has nothing.

So no-one who is ever found guilty should be allowed to appeal? That would have been a bit of a bummer for the likes of Sally Clark, Andrew Malkinson, Stefan Kiszko, the Guildford Four ...

Well actually, even the judge said that most of the evidence was circumstantial.

I wasn't at the trial, and I don't personally know whether she is guilty or not. So I have to trust the justice system to get it right. And part of that system is the right to appeal.

And even with appeals, every now and then it still gets the wrong answer.

Sometimes someone posts something on here that makes you think that there needs to be a basic critical thinking test for posting on MN. If ever there was a prime example ...

So you're saying they she shouldn't even have been put on trial? She should have been imprisoned for the rest of her life without a trial?

And regarding the appeal, how would we decide who is allowed to appear and who isn't? Who decides who is enough of a monster and what do they base that decision on?

You really think barristers who are ensuring that the trial is fair should be struck off? That some people shouldn't be allowed a defence? The defence is vital so we know that all the evidence has been fully explored and that the conviction is safe.

Oops, sorry, should have read on. You made that too realistic for comfort, @thedancingbear 🙄

Even circumstantial evidence can be really compelling.

I did back-of-an-envelope sums and the I worked out the odds of Letby just being really, really unlucky were about 1 in 500,000. But then I saw some other information that made me cast doubt on this number. It's all really complicated and it's very difficult for anyone to have an informed view of her guilt or innocence without literally going through all the trial evidence (and then possibly doing a degree in statistics).

Apologies @thedancingbear from me too. Your post seemed extreme, but there as there was an earlier from someone else saying people who did it shouldn't be allowed to appeal, it did seem entirely possible that someone might hold such a ridiculous opinion.

Aaaaaand I've just realised the other post was from you too.
I'll now read the whole thread before I post again.

You clearly have no understanding of the appeals system. She is applying for permission to appeal - so not actually appealing at this stage. Anyone who is found guilty of a crime has this right. Andrew Malkinson spent 17 years in prison for a crime it was eventually proved he didn’t commit. He appealed several times!
Even guilty people should have that right, no matter how strong the proof of their guilt is.

She had an extremely competent and well-reputed defence team. Are you a KC, and have you seen and heard all the evidence? If not, it's incredibly arrogant to think you could have done better.

The problem with all those issues around poor management is that they simply don't account for the fact that deaths and serious collapsesstopped when LL was on holiday and when she was taken off the ward, and t hey changed from night to day time when she was moved from the night to the day shift. To say nothing of the fact that they could not account for artificial insulin in babies' bloodstreams, babies vomiting more milk than records showed they had been fed, etc etc.

It's pretty clear that they had major problems with evidence. At the beginning of the trial, they referred to calling expert evidence, but in the event they didn't. It seems pretty clear that something fairly major happened during the trial to make them change their minds - my guess is that either something came out that weakened their evidence, or they changed their minds.

You have to recognise that the best lawyers in the world can't magic up witnesses who don't exist. What can friends say that can realistically make any difference if they weren't in the unit at the material times?

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Historically, on average, the hospital had 2-3 neonates die per year. In 2015-16 there was an abnormal increase in that pattern. From FOI request in 2022 the hospital acknowledge that there were 30-1 deaths in total on neo-natal ward, during the 2 year period under investigation. LL was only ever considered for 8 of those deaths, 1 of which was discounted by the judge.

From the FOI that came direct from the hospital there was a lull of about 7 months when LL was off the unit and when the next baby died. But from other sources - the MBRRACE report or the ONS from May 2017 (which is when the police investigation started) - the number of deaths actually increase and peak in 2018-2019 at a rate that is slightly higher than when LL was present.

It is not surprising that she is appealing.

Has she stated yet, on what grounds? That will be interesting. Her defence team had every opportunity to obtain better evidence (if it existed) & as far as I can tell not liking a verdict and asking for reconsideration is not, of itself, grounds to appeal an outcome.

I don’t think a thread like this is a place to take the piss. There’s enough misinformation and knee jerk reactionaries out there and government ministers were saying weird populist things in the aftermath of this case. Bit irresponsible.

What stood out to me was not one of her friends or anyone who was close to her believed she was capable of doing it, she apparently never showed any predictors of offending, which is quite unusual. I wasn't in the courtroom so I don't have a strong opinion on guilt or not, but of course she has a right to appeal, as does anyone.

Don't be silly. There's a 28 day time limit for appeals, is she supposed to wait 30-40 years for her parents to die off, hope their money hasn't been used for care and that they actually leave it to her?

Again, how exactly should that have worked for people like Sally Clark and Andrew Malkinson?

But I think the issue is the deaths only 'peak' when Letby was in work and 'drop off' when she was away if you exclude the other deaths that for various reasons weren't attributed to her.

My understanding is that the difference between the 'accidental' deaths and the 'murders' was literally an opinion based on sometimes incomplete evidence.

For anyone who knows anything about statistics, this immediately screams Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. (Named for the idea that a gunman just fired randomly at a wall, then drew bullseye's around his bullet holes afterwards to 'prove' he was the best shot in the west)

Also the insulin evidence has been questioned by people showing she wasn't on shift on a few occasions when their IVs would have been changed so how did she make sure the nurses on shift picked the poisoned bags out of all the others.

Justice is either for everyone or it is for no one.

WTF!? So only innocent people are allowed to appeal?!! I have seen it all now!