Lucy Letby denied leave to appeal

[Viviennemary]

Just heard on the news Lucy Letby the convicted serial killer has been denied leave to appeal. Good decision I think. She should stay behind bars for the rest of her life.

Why do you need a publication rather than the verdict of the jury?

Because the posting went like this:

Generally sceptical about US publications (and news outlets) for the reasons you highlighted. They are often agenda driven. Fox News, or its opposite MSNBC, they are opinion based and devoid of impartiality or credibility. That lunatic Ben Shapiro who came on the BBC and accused Andrew Neil of all people of being a leftie (after Neil had dismantled him); they view everything from being left or right as their media is based on opposing sides.

Would wait before there's a more credible source before commenting on Letby.

So I asked, what would be a "more credible source", in terms obviously of a media publication. HTH.

It was missed at the time, so this is not a case of an expert looking at the evidence and thinking "No problem, that will be caused by XYZ innocent explanation". The lab itself pointed out that it was suspect, and once it was properly looked into, the inference drawn by qualified experts looking at all the evidence was that it was caused by artificial insulin. They were not contradicted by any expert evidence given in court, indeed Letby herself agreed with them.

It's possible for Lucy Letby to be guilty and the hospital to be guilty in failures of care at the same time.

They were chronically understaffed and poorly equipped to deal with those sick babies. Staff were tired and demoralised. Conditions were not clean and mistakes and delays happened.

Lucy Letby took advantage of that opportunity to kill.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. Or a conspiracy. I don't doubt that the hospital are guilty of a coverup too. Hopefully they will be investigated.

For real?

Quite - an inference. That is very different from actual evidence of exogenous insulin as you claimed. It is one inference that was taken up by the prosecution, but there are others. There was also another insulin/c peptide anomaly case that was not covered at trial.

It's scary to think that people on here can sit on juries. You should not be allowed to have a vote on putting someone in prison when your thinking only stretches to "If Y happened when X happened, that must mean X caused Y."

Is critical thinking still taught in schools? I bloody hope so.

You usually only have the right to appeal if there's evidence that wasn't presented at the original trial, new evidence or some legal error regarding the original trial.

True I suppose. But he didn’t say he didn’t like her in the interview. Yet it came across to me that he didn’t like her, and was possibly jealous of her achievements.

Police and CPS behaviour may be exemplary in many cases, but after an unsuccessful appeal in 2002, Essex Police reluctantly released 374,000 pages of documents not previously shared with Jeremy Bamber's defence and continued to withhold others. The Independent Office for Police Conduct concluded that Essex Police breached its statutory duty by not referring 29 serious complaints to the IOPC about how senior officers handled the case.

Exhibits in the Letby trial were inaccurate and conclusions ascribed to tests that were inappropriate for that purpose. It was an extremely long trial, with too few people involved in the trial who had the requisite knowledge to fulfil their roles.

Like complex fraud, medical criminality with no 'smoking gun' is often beyond the grasp of typical juries and great care should be taken before locking people up and throwing away the key.

I do wonder what her defence KC and other defence team really think off the record about Letby and the case. I’ve worked with a few solicitors and barristers and off the record speaking in confidence about their clients and cases it can be quite enlightening.

@Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain I'm not sure if a long trial is good news to barristers or not. The kindly Tim Moloney KC did a masterful job of eviscerating Paula Vennells at the Post Office Enquiry this week. Early on in the process, I wasn't sure whether he was speaking to the room, or for the written word - which would appear more damning later, as it was he nailed it on all counts.
Letby's defence team seemed very complacent during the parts of the trial I followed in detail - my qualms come from a well-worn pattern that seems to be repeated; difficulties with direct evidence leading to the prosecution putting all their faith in pathologists/scientists/experts who are happy to exaggerate the likelihood of guilt.
Until a PP here, I hadn't realised that Roy Meadow's malign influence spread as far as Australia. Richard Shepherd's excellent reputation seems to be under threat from a speculative conclusion very early in his career, Gareth Jenkins seeks immunity for over-egged evidence given in a number of now overturned prosecutions.
Justice must be seen to be done.

No publication is going to trump 10 months of public evidence unless new evidence is uncovered, in which case Letby's appeal is likely to be allowed.

If the defence didn't do their job this is grounds for appeal but this threshold has not been reached.

I don't know how to phrase this more clearly - I am not asking for a publication to trump 10 months of evidence. I am asking which publication would be considered a "more credible source" for the publication of a 13,000-word article on the Lucy Letby case. Still no names put forward, I note.

It's a forum, I really don't have to do a literature review for you. There's a podcast that reviewed the daily evidence in as neutral way as possible if you're interested in an unbiased source but I think it's just people find it hard to believe a pretty white woman killed newborn babies.

Ah,m@emeraldtablet - The answer is that no publication/source could be a 'more credible source' for those with absolute conviction that LL is guilty and nothing, literally, nothing might cause them to wonder if there were a scintilla of doubt about her conviction.

I haven’t seen a single person say “she is young and pretty. She must be innocent” people are sharing valid concerns with how the statistical evidence was misused (amongst other issues). It’s about the integrity of our justice system, which affects all of us. It simply isn’t ‘pro baby killer’ side vs ‘saints who hate baby killers’ side. Our justice system that should be held to a rigorous standard. We should all want that as it affects us all. It goes far beyond Letby herself.

Letby had a trial. She had a well regarded defence team. She wasn't thrown into a kangaroo court. There was 10 months of evidence and I listened and read as much as I could at the time and yes, it was obvious she was guilty. And I definitely think people wouldn't object so much if she was a different demographic

It isn’t compassionate to the parents or anybody else to allow a miscarriage of justice, if that is what’s happening. It may not be a miscarriage of justice. I have no hard opinion either way, but we should absolutely be able to hold the justice system that affects us all to a high and rigorous standard in a democratic society. How do you think the parents would feel if it turned out in 20 years that she was innocent after all? Wouldn’t it be devastating to learn that your child actually died because of failings at the hospital? We need to be very rigorous with whole life sentences and crimes like this in general. It is manipulative to try to silence any questions by placing those who have questions in opposition to the victim’s families. We live in a society. This affects all of us.

Have you seen anyone say “she’s young and pretty so I don’t think she did it”? Or are you sidestepping all the actual valid points raised in The New Yorker article, a publication with a century long international reputation for a very high standard of investigative journalism? Because that’s what’s actually being discussed here. Not whether or not she “looks” like a killer.

You know the thing about prejudice is that people don't actually say it but it's not exactly subtle. People have been protesting her innocence from well before this article. Luckily we have a legal process and if these issues have merit an appeal will be granted.

Fgs. In this thread people are talking about actual valid issues raised in a very credible publication with a long history for rigorous fact checking and solid investigative journalism. Even if we were all secretly thinking “she doesn’t look like a baby killer” it would be wholly irrelevant.

Oh well if you’re sure she’s guilty that’s alright then isn’t it?

It's nothing to do with me. I've read as much as I can and believe she's guilty but the system doesn't give a shit. It just happens to agree with me.