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.

No, it isn’t. It is a meticulously researched piece from a publication well known specifically for fact checking and rigorous investigative journalism. You won’t find a single reputable journalist anywhere trashing the New Yorker in this way. It presents facts which simply do present questions. It doesn’t in any way present anything which is simply a misunderstanding of judicial process. Did you read it? Or are you just upset that it exists? If it’s the latter you should have a good think about why you feel that way.

Do you have link stating Dr Hall acted for the defence in LL’s trial? Anything outside the courtroom doesn’t count as evidence. But I’m sure you know that - unless you’re mentally challenged?

Any link to support Letby not being on duty when the third child’s life was compromised with insulin yet? 🥱

Christ on a bike. Did I say it was evidence presented in court? Do you need to be personally insulting? It’s possible to have strong opinions and still behave like an adult.

So you can’t provide a link to your claim then. Obviously! 😂

As already stated, this was Dr Hall’s conjecture as per the New Yorker article.

Thank you. You have proved my point. There is no medical doctor who has publicly challenged the evidence provided by the medical witnesses for the prosecution. Regardless of what some overseas journalist spouts.

I didn’t “claim” that he acted for the defence in the trial. I said he acted for the defence, which he did, in preparation for the trial. You can check this yourself easily. I got it from the NY article which is not shareable in the uk. You can find it easily enough if you actually want to see it. This is also freely checked elsewhere.

Jfc. You’re beyond help.

The New Yorker article doesn’t count in a Court of Law. Dr hall’s evidence is based on pure conjecture. You’re right about that.

He acted for the defence - ie advised them, he was not called by the defence.

Any link to support your view? I very much doubt it! 😂

This is all too low level for me. Good luck, particularly with mastering capitalisation.

Any credible link as to the reason he wasn’t called as medical witness for the defence?

This isn’t a court of law.

Because he wasn't a witness for the defence. He was an advisor for the defence.

None of us, including you, know why no experts at all were called by the defence to the trial.

You misreading “acted for the defence” as “called as a witness for the defence” is genuinely your problem and not mine.I personally wouldn’t be so gleeful about that.

P.s: the banal and easily checked fact that Dr Hall did assist the defence and indeed wrote to the British Medical Journal re the case is not “my view”.

I had read that several times but I didn't see that it said that the author itself had disputed it, unless that was the section that was removed and changed following concerns by the English court. I only saw that Michael Hall was prepared to dispute it.

It's possible I missed it as I can sometimes read things several times and miss stuff (ADHD).

Could it not be the case that the reason Dr Hall didn't move from 'advisor' to the defence, to witness for the defence, is that his evidence under cross examination was deemed to be likely not as credible as the defence had originally hoped? This feels like the most likely scenario to me.

I read it the day it was published as I was abroad on holiday at the time. I haven’t revisited it, so maybe it was in that section that was removed. I’ll try to find a link to re read in the UK and see.

It could be, though he is a reputable doctor and not some crank. It could also be (as suggested earlier) that the defence chose not to pay for expert witnesses as that can be very costly and they may have felt they had enough reasonable doubt on their side. There could also be 100000 other reasons to do with some element of law in the case that we have not been made aware of. There’s no way of knowing, at least not yet, and no benefit in making assumptions.

Edit: it is again worth reiterating that even the most slam dunk case against the guiltiest possible defendant will call some witnesses for their side, no matter how long a shot it is. Calling no one, save a plumber, is truly extraordinary no matter which way you slice it.

Oh yes I see it now.
I googled that portion and found the original part.
Not sure if I can copy and paste here to say what the article is saying now versus what it apparently said before?

I’m not sure. I reckon if not allowed mods will remove. If you’d be willing to dm me the link I’d be grateful.

Could you PM me with it. I wouldn’t post it on the thread.