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.

The difference to me with IH and WC is that they were doing it in a solitary environment - with LL it could have been any number of people potentially as it was a team environment. So for me they aren’t comparable

But yes I think there should be more transparency into why no right of appeal was given and the reasonings and decisions that have led to that.

I’m defending our justice system.
You know the one that has tiers of higher courts to review the decisions of lower courts to ensure justice has been served.
Because mistakes have been made, and are still being made.
Like Maurice Hastings who spent 38 years in prison for a murder he did not commit who was only released last year.

Wayne Couzens confessed and enter a guilty plea.

Ian Huntley confessed but refused to plead guilty because he said it was an accident.

The was both circumstantial and compelling forensic evidence that pointed to their guilty, and only their guilt, in both cases.

If I wasn't guilty of something like that I'd have been absolutely distraught in court, she didn't seem to be that bothered.

Yes.

Perhaps she’s only been denied an appeal while the retrial for the baby death the jury couldn’t agree on last time is pending? Though as a pp said, it’s not clear why that wouldn’t be made explicit.

She will almost certainly have been on very strong anti depressants @Gettingbysomehow which will account for that.

That isn’t suggestive of guilt or innocence. Someone guilty could still be distraught to have been found out.

There is no such thing as acting guilty or acting innocent.
People respond very differently to the same circumstances.

I am and was trying to check myself thinking am I just thinking Letby could be innocent because of how she looks, acted in past?

I really have no idea.

That’s ridiculous. None of us have any idea how we would behave if falsely accused of horrible crimes. Or indeed how we would behave if we were guilty.

That’s so true. People are expecting her to have broken down crying in court.

When she was arrested at her house, yes she looked shocked and devastated then. And people forget she’d had a disciplinary hearing and was off work due to that.

I feel awful for the victims' families and those who survived this monster. I hope they can move forward with their lives, but it must be hard when she's appealing and people are writing nonsense about the case.

God bless them.

The link works for me ? But when I paste it here it goes wonky. It starts with https://archive.ph then some numbers and then the proper web address starting with www.New Yorker.com

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2024.05.13-112014/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2024.05.13-112014/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

The New Yorker article makes it sound as though she is a scapegoat and the hospital unit isn't fit for purpose if the staff are undertrained and on 20-hour shifts. I would like to think she was convicted on the basis of evidence and perhaps she is incredibly good at hiding her mental illness

But to an outsider yes there were grave errors around shift workers, people assigned, Letby working overtime and other aspects.

If eg the Post Office can F up and have to have an investigation into their procedures then why not here? Or is it because they’re medical areas they’re notoriously hard to sue or prove negligence or wrongdoing?

It’s easier for the hospital and society for the answer to be one evil person than a completely bollocksed unit, negligently underfunded and understaffed, overstretched and under resourced.

I don’t know if she is guilty or not guilty, but there was a lot of cherry picking of data assessed to decide she’s the one to look at initially.

You can't possibly know that. I think if I was innocent I would feel completely traumatised by the whole experience.

She was first arrested in 2018, it took 4 years for it to go to trial. Can you imagine how many times she had been interviewed by the police and gone over the evidence with her defence before the trial? She would have heard nothing new in court.

The judge said the appeal should be decided before the retrial. He also said no information about the case should be discussed in the media because they need to select a new jury. Therefore the details of the appeal won't be published until after the retrial.

Yes to both, and the data issue is one of the points made in the New Yorker article.

This. No one is saying that those might be miscarriages of justice but because she is blonde pretty and young she must be innocent. I’m shocked at people giving credence to a ridiculous article in the New Yorker who know fuck all about the case clearly.

No-one on this thread has said she must be innocent. I am saying there's a small chance she could be. I thought the New Yorker article was interesting. They read all the court transcripts. Did you?

What case was that @bibop ?

Lucia de Berk.

The jury were there, the judge was there, the CPS saw everything.

If you’re going to put your faith in some tacky trash mag we might as well abolish the justice system and put all cases in the daily mail instead and let the public decide.

I was uncertain about her conviction at first, then some of her message were made publicly available, and I had no doubts whatsoever that she's a very disturbed individual and the court made the right decision.

Well, jury trials are “having the public decide”-that’s kinda the point of them…