Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Lucy Letby denied leave to appeal

1000 replies

Viviennemary · 24/05/2024 13:40

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
32
LiterallyOnFire · 30/05/2024 14:08

Mirabai · 30/05/2024 13:44

There’s an interface here between posters who are interested in the scientific and the legal aspects of the case - and posters with a more tabloid mentality who are just here to post burn the which (sic).

I don’t think there’s a lot of point engaging with that personally.

Quite.

There's a reason we don't have justice-by-mob.

MsCheeryble · 30/05/2024 14:41

Mirabai · 30/05/2024 12:25

I refer you to @IbisDancer‘s previous post:

Legal aid is not unlimited funds. It has strict fee caps which has resulted in many experts refusing work as well as a drop in 26% of criminal defence solicitors willing to work. It’s not much good to have say £4K to pay the costs of an expert when the expert’s minimum fee to do research, analysis and attend court is £30k (hypothetical example).

The Law Society recent published a report stating that the system is near collapse and this past December, the High Court ruled against the government for their cuts to criminal legal aid.

I've worked with legal aid lawyers, including those in the crime field. In high profile and complex cases in particular, it is possible to get reasonable funding for expert witnesses.

TheFunHasGone · 30/05/2024 15:29

MsCheeryble · 30/05/2024 14:41

I've worked with legal aid lawyers, including those in the crime field. In high profile and complex cases in particular, it is possible to get reasonable funding for expert witnesses.

And the number of providers has been on the increase since 2023 since legal aid increased hourly rates

Kittybythelighthouse · 30/05/2024 16:02

MsCheeryble · 30/05/2024 14:41

I've worked with legal aid lawyers, including those in the crime field. In high profile and complex cases in particular, it is possible to get reasonable funding for expert witnesses.

We don’t know why the defence didn’t call any experts at all. It’s extraordinary that they didn’t. Even the most obviously guilty person in the world with the worst possible defence team will have people called to support something on the defence’s side - even if it is an extremely long shot. Not calling anyone at all, save a plumber, is really unusual. There could be many different reasons as to why this is the case. We don’t know what the reason is here.

We do know that the expert who wrote the actual paper on which a large part of the defence rested, the air embolism in neonates 1989 paper, doesn’t agree with the prosecution’s interpretation of his research. He was not called by either side.

Mirabai · 30/05/2024 16:09

MsCheeryble · 30/05/2024 14:41

I've worked with legal aid lawyers, including those in the crime field. In high profile and complex cases in particular, it is possible to get reasonable funding for expert witnesses.

My hunch is @IbisDancer is a lawyer herself.

Define reasonable.

Reasonable pay for a complex trial with many cases is very different than a single charge case. Many cases in which a medical expert may be used may not be a crime in a medical setting, they may just be required to give their opinion on say an injury or a mental health issue for example.

Mirabai · 30/05/2024 16:19

Kittybythelighthouse · 30/05/2024 16:02

We don’t know why the defence didn’t call any experts at all. It’s extraordinary that they didn’t. Even the most obviously guilty person in the world with the worst possible defence team will have people called to support something on the defence’s side - even if it is an extremely long shot. Not calling anyone at all, save a plumber, is really unusual. There could be many different reasons as to why this is the case. We don’t know what the reason is here.

We do know that the expert who wrote the actual paper on which a large part of the defence rested, the air embolism in neonates 1989 paper, doesn’t agree with the prosecution’s interpretation of his research. He was not called by either side.

We know they had one and I don’t believe that even a skeleton legal aid budget wouldn’t have covered something at least.

The fact they didn’t call any is bizarre. Even slam dunk cases get some expert turning up for the defence or indeed the prosecution.

I saw a case, for example, of a long term schizophrenic, averse to taking his medication, who sadly ended up murdering someone. The defence was dimished responsibility and there were expert witnesses for the defence to testify to his long history of schizophrenia, inpatient stays, medication issues etc. The prosecution still brought in their own expert witness to argue that he did not have schizophrenia, that he was just an evil person, to refute the diminished responsibly aspect of the defence. That’s just part of the legal process.

kkloo · 30/05/2024 17:43

It's extremely obvious that they could have found some experts, for whatever reason they didn't or they weren't called and that is extremely concerning, not just for Letby but for the integrity of the justice system.

The methods of harm were all theories but yet no experts were called to rebut any of those theories or to throw any doubt on them at all.

It will be interesting to see how the retrial goes and if any expert witness is called when there is only one case to focus on.

I would imagine Letby would be unlikely to take the stand again although I could be wrong....so is it going to be a case that the prosecution presents it's case and then they go straight to closing statements because the defence presents absolutely nothing?

Mirabai · 30/05/2024 19:04

Richard Gill has done some very good work on this case.

I read an interesting piece he quoted in full on his substack written by a paediatric anaesthetist of 25 years experience - I post it in full here as it’s worth reading. (Warning - long).

I first became interested in the Lucy Letby (LL) case when my wife referred me to a 10 hour podcast entitled: “The Case of LL; The Facts – Crime Scene 2 Court Room”.

Since, I have searched for further background to this case. Richard Gill’s website raises issues around imbalance between the prosecution and the defence, or lack of it! Also, there was toxic atmosphere at the Countess of Chester (CC) neonatal unit and LL reported problems.

I worked for over 25 years anaesthetizing children down to 500g, in addition to adult anaesthesia, as well as expert witness experience. I also spent 6 months attached to a Neonatal Unit. The question of whether LL committed the alleged crimes is a difficult one to answer as (a) no one actually witnessed her doing the alleged crimes, (b) there is no obvious motive, (c) the actions would be very hard to achieve and (iv) there are other alternative explanations that were not explored by the court case, or at least the 10 hour transcript.

The Countess of Chester baby unit: The main purpose of the unit was a nursey to look after and feed babies too small and fragile to leave hospital, born at the CC. There was a small 4 bedded-neonatal unit in addition to the 4 nursery rooms. LL probably wanted to gain neonatal experience hence her involvement with the 17 cited cases.

Neonates and vulnerability: Small preterm babies easily deteriorate and die. Their organs are still developing and without the advent of neonatal units in the 1980s most would die. It is only today that a baby born prematurely before 28 to 32 weeks has a good chance of survival.

Staffing levels, staff experience and standard of care: LL was only 25 years old at the time and had only been a neonatal nurse for a few years. That is not very long and she lacked experience! She still needed further training in Liverpool to advance her career. Yet, she seemed to be one of the most senior neonatal nurses (band 5) on the unit and nowhere in the transcript do we find an older, more senior or experienced colleague other than a charge nurse who managed the duties and was not hands on. Similarly, it appears that medical cover was by paediatricians who also covered the wards and there was no doctor solely on duty for the unit. Therefore, when compared to other bigger units (i.e. Alder-Hey) the level of care was limited, so it would not be surprising if a baby deteriorates, and that happens with “prems”, outcomes are not as good. So, the evidence suggests that the CC was not up to standard, and it was an overflow unit for Alder-Hey. The CC neonatal unit has since been closed down. So were the cited incidents and deaths really due to LL or a result of a poorly supported / under-funded unit looking after sick neonates that should have been elsewhere?

The prosecution case focused on a number of methods of harming babies allegedly used by LL: (i) Distending the stomach by giving too much feed or (ii) injecting air into the stomach, (iii) injecting air into the circulation causing sudden collapse, (iv) traumatising the airway and causing bleeding, (v) dislodged tracheal and chest tubes, and (vi) adding insulin to the intravenous feed.

The discussion of the pathophysiology of these mechanisms was disjointed and difficult to follow. However, the connection of LL to the sudden deteriorations and deaths in 7 seemed very compelling. However, I have to take issue with a number of the prosecution’s assertions:

(i) Over-distending the stomach with feed to an extent to cause collapse and projectile vomiting. I don’t have any experience of tube feeding prems, but projectile vomiting can be a reaction to bad / infected milk? Was LL in hurry to feed the baby? I find it hard to believe this was an attempt at murder.

(ii) Most obvious was the air in the stomach and intestines at post mortem. LL must have injected air via the gastric feeding tube, or how else did it get there? Well anyone who works in theatre or resuscitation knows during mask ventilation, which all these babies had (i.e. Neopuff), that it is very easy to blow up the stomach and intestines with air / anaesthetic gases, especially if one’s technique is not perfect. I regularly had to pass a suction catheter to empty the stomach of gas at the start of surgery to deflate the stomach and improve ventilation. I even did a study on the carbon dioxide levels that often reached the level of expired gas. However, the role of the Neopuff as a potential cause was never mentioned. So what is more likely, LL injected the air or the air got there through resuscitative efforts by stressed staff.

(iii) Some of the babies suddenly collapsed and developed a strange rash on the abdomen. Some recovered rapidly. This was said to be due to LL injecting air into the circulation. Air was found to be in the blood vessels at post mortem in some deaths. The premature baby can revert to a foetal circulation (by passing the lungs) when they become unstable and this can take time to treat (revert back). Sometimes “persistent foetal circulation” manifests itself during anaesthesia until the ductus closes fully. Point not mentioned in the case but could explain the above. Also, chest compression would cause significant sucking in of air to the heart if intravenous access lines were left open to air during the resuscitation after injecting a drug (adrenaline). LL sent a Datex about a line being left uncapped by one of the doctors. So there are other explanations and mechanisms by which air could have entered the circulation.

(iv) One of the cases had trauma to oral airway and significant blood loss, I think this was one of the twins with Haemophilia, a blood clotting disorder. LL was accused of traumatising the airway. I cannot imagine how. The likely explanation would be repeated intubation attempts, not an attempt to murder the baby by LL. I recall up to seven attempts as the neonate was difficult to intubate!

(v) LL was also accused of dislodging an endotracheal tube and a chest drain which lead to deterioration in two patients. Preterm babies are very small, endotracheal tubes can easily move and become dislodged however carefully one secures them, particularly if the neck is flexed or extended! Similarly, with chest drains, the baby had bilateral drain presumably as a result of premature lungs, and one drain became dislodged / was not working and a third drain was needed. These things happen so just because LL was present does not automatically mean it was her fault. Then there was the incident with deliberate liver injury, which equally could have occurred during chest compressions by someone else?

(vi) The addition of insulin to intravenous feeds has already been mentioned by Gill from a biochemistry and reliability of blood test perspective. I don’t fully understand this one. One baby was receiving regular intravenous nutrition made up in sealed bags from pharmacy. The baby had unexplained hypoglycaemia. For three bags it persisted and when LL was not on duty the hypoglycaemia resolved. Blood were analysed insulin and C peptide. Hypoglycaemia is common in preterm babies because their mechanisms to maintain blood glucose levels are immature (i.e. glycogen stores in the liver). The child may have had an infection as Gill says there was virus circulating. That being said it difficult to image how LL managed to injected the correct and same amount of insulin into a sealed bag on three separate occasions. There is a rigid nursing protocol involving two nurses when a new bag is put up to maintain sterility. Then there was a further insulin contaminated Dextrose infusion in a second baby. BTW, LL was not the only nurse present for both these cases.

Hence, I find it very difficult to accept the verdict that Lucy Letby was responsible for all 7 deaths and a further 6 attempts at murder. I think that her case needs to be reviewed by someone with a better understanding of neonatal medicine and how a premature baby unit is run.
Signed Lester; 20.10.2023

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 30/05/2024 19:35

I have been listening to a 10 hour Youtube podcast on Letby - on and off, in the background, over the last few days (not obsessively following!).

It's quite interesting as basically it's just a reading of transcripts and summarising them - it's not analysis or a polemic for her guilt or innocence.

It starts first with Letby's defence, then the prosecution case, then the summing up.

i now don't know what to think.

Listening first to the defence, i thought there were a lot of holes in the prosecution case, so many loose ends. Then listening to the prosecution case, there seemed to be an overwhelming preponderance of cumulative evidence, individual items perhaps individually rebuttable but taken together, fairly overwhelming.

What do I now think? I don't know. I think she's likely guilty but have some doubts.

Lucimaya · 30/05/2024 21:03

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 16:22

The people defending a child murderer who murdered babies inn the most abhorrent way thinkable based on some bollocks conspiracy theories spouted in the New Yorker of all things should be ashamed of themselves.

She was found guilty. She was sentenced to whole life terms. And she has been denied leave to appeal.

And not once has she ever shown any remorse, any emotion, even any sympathy for those babies.

You're absolutely correct.

Lucimaya · 30/05/2024 21:06

Lilly11a · 24/05/2024 17:38

She convincing as she is very high up the NPD scale and good at manipulating people .She is very very dangerous because people think she is harmless .It's an act .

She reminds me of Ted Bundy- at his trail the judge called him a nice young man who would have made a good lawyer .

I think a lot of women fancied Ted too.

CormorantStrikesBack · 30/05/2024 22:27

Wow, didn’t realise that Dewi Evans has never worked as a neonatologist, that’s rather interesting. Can’t understand why anyone would think his opinion about anything regarding neonatal care was at all,relevant.

Kittybythelighthouse · 31/05/2024 00:09

Lucimaya · 30/05/2024 21:03

You're absolutely correct.

Nobody is “defending a child murderer”. That’s just breathless pearl clutching hysteria. I don’t think anyone has claimed that LL is innocent, much less (as implied here) that people want her freed despite believing she’s guilty. I, personally, don’t have a firm position either way.

People are discussing details of the case that haven’t been in the public eye before. This is perfectly fine given we (in the UK) all live under the same justice system and should all be invested in the integrity of that justice system and holding it to a high, rigorous standard, not just putting heads on spikes. It’s about much more than LL or this one case.

xile · 31/05/2024 00:46

What's truly terrifying is a pattern of:
circumstantial evidence + an (in)expert witness seeking fame and fortune with a novel theory + statistics that don't stand up + juries ill-equipped to handle partial and sometimes prejudiced evidence.

PufferBees · 31/05/2024 02:33

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 30/05/2024 19:35

I have been listening to a 10 hour Youtube podcast on Letby - on and off, in the background, over the last few days (not obsessively following!).

It's quite interesting as basically it's just a reading of transcripts and summarising them - it's not analysis or a polemic for her guilt or innocence.

It starts first with Letby's defence, then the prosecution case, then the summing up.

i now don't know what to think.

Listening first to the defence, i thought there were a lot of holes in the prosecution case, so many loose ends. Then listening to the prosecution case, there seemed to be an overwhelming preponderance of cumulative evidence, individual items perhaps individually rebuttable but taken together, fairly overwhelming.

What do I now think? I don't know. I think she's likely guilty but have some doubts.

Thanks for the info on the podcast.

Have you got the transcripts to read, or does anyone else?

I "may" not be remembering correctly but I think I was zooming through some of the witness statements (not the summing up after the verdict) at some point.

That was what put doubt in my mind....the total lack of anything solid, sort of jumping over several steps....."it's true because it's true because we said so".

All I've found recently are the court reports from the local newspaper.

There must be a government website with the official court write up and documents like the ones used in the podcast mentioned by @MyrtlethePurpleTurtle .

kkloo · 31/05/2024 06:26

@PufferBees
According to the journalist who wrote the New Yorker article...
the way I ended up getting all those transcripts was by spending a lot of money. In the U.K., it is extraordinarily expensive to obtain transcripts — a transcription of one day in court costs roughly $100, and it requires the judge’s approval. It took about half a year to get the judge’s approval. I was told that even appeals lawyers tend not to request their clients’ full transcripts, because of the cost.

Although that doesn't sound particularly cost prohibitive for an appeal lawyer and I would have thought the defendantS should have automatically be allowed to have the transcripts and shouldn't have to pay for them!!

https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/05/impossible-to-approach-the-reporting-the-way-i-normally-would-how-rachel-aviv-wrote-that-new-yorker-story-on-lucy-letby/

Mirabai · 31/05/2024 08:38

Then listening to the prosecution case, there seemed to be an overwhelming preponderance of cumulative evidence, individual items perhaps individually rebuttable but taken together, fairly overwhelming.

Well there’s an overwhelming amount of detail, but no actual evidence of murder in a single case, nor any direct evidence linking LL, just theory and opinion. All on the prosecution side, no expert witnesses for the defence.

If you can’t see the flaws in their claims and the lack of scientific evidence supporting them then maybe their claims seem more credible than they are.

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 31/05/2024 09:16

PufferBees · 31/05/2024 02:33

Thanks for the info on the podcast.

Have you got the transcripts to read, or does anyone else?

I "may" not be remembering correctly but I think I was zooming through some of the witness statements (not the summing up after the verdict) at some point.

That was what put doubt in my mind....the total lack of anything solid, sort of jumping over several steps....."it's true because it's true because we said so".

All I've found recently are the court reports from the local newspaper.

There must be a government website with the official court write up and documents like the ones used in the podcast mentioned by @MyrtlethePurpleTurtle .

I haven't got the transcripts but then I wasn't looking for them. Ironically it was this thread that piqued my interest enough to casually listen to the podcast

FraudianSlip · 31/05/2024 09:22

xile · 31/05/2024 00:46

What's truly terrifying is a pattern of:
circumstantial evidence + an (in)expert witness seeking fame and fortune with a novel theory + statistics that don't stand up + juries ill-equipped to handle partial and sometimes prejudiced evidence.

Indeed + defence failing to bring any expert witnesses to challenge the theories/circumstantial evidence/dodgy statistics and other flaws in the prosecution case.

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 31/05/2024 09:31

PufferBees · 31/05/2024 02:33

Thanks for the info on the podcast.

Have you got the transcripts to read, or does anyone else?

I "may" not be remembering correctly but I think I was zooming through some of the witness statements (not the summing up after the verdict) at some point.

That was what put doubt in my mind....the total lack of anything solid, sort of jumping over several steps....."it's true because it's true because we said so".

All I've found recently are the court reports from the local newspaper.

There must be a government website with the official court write up and documents like the ones used in the podcast mentioned by @MyrtlethePurpleTurtle .

@PufferBees
sorry for piecemeal replies

a quick internet search suggest transcripts are not available

for Letby's evidence, the earnest is perhaps on Reddit where a poster was following Iive reporting from a couple of sources and posting live on Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/15z71cf/anyone_have_a_link_to_lucy_letbys_testimony/

Kittybythelighthouse · 31/05/2024 10:53

xile · 31/05/2024 00:46

What's truly terrifying is a pattern of:
circumstantial evidence + an (in)expert witness seeking fame and fortune with a novel theory + statistics that don't stand up + juries ill-equipped to handle partial and sometimes prejudiced evidence.

I agree and you see this reflected over and over in miscarriages of justice where (overwhelmingly male) doctors are being relied on as expert witnesses to bang the drum for some niche theory, acting like it’s settled science. Just huge egos run amok and zero humility. That in combo with a jury of laypeople who, in this case, aren’t even being presented with any conflicting opinion on this evidence, is a recipe for disaster.

Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain · 31/05/2024 11:07

Mirabai · 31/05/2024 08:38

Then listening to the prosecution case, there seemed to be an overwhelming preponderance of cumulative evidence, individual items perhaps individually rebuttable but taken together, fairly overwhelming.

Well there’s an overwhelming amount of detail, but no actual evidence of murder in a single case, nor any direct evidence linking LL, just theory and opinion. All on the prosecution side, no expert witnesses for the defence.

If you can’t see the flaws in their claims and the lack of scientific evidence supporting them then maybe their claims seem more credible than they are.

This is very worrying no actual evidence of murder or any direct evidence linking LL just theory and opinion.

I’m actually a bit staggered at this. But not that surprised either.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread