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.

I listened just now to a school friend of hers being interviewed (not their real voice). Now unless they’ve got a vendetta against Letby they make some very interesting points. But then again I have to say a friend now, looking back, they’re bound to be biased? Aren’t they? Especially if Letby was head girl, teachers pet and so on.

Not being distraught for herself is one thing.

But she stood in the courtroom with the parents of the babies who were killed. Parents who she claimed to have cried with after their babies died, parents who she went home and looked up on Facebook. And she showed not an ounce of emotion towards any of those parents.

I can't believe they'd want to put the families through that again and I'm pleased it's been denied.

It's still not 100% on the mark and infallible in all cases. I don't get why people are claiming the justice system is? It's very likely she did it, but impossible to know 100% given the circumstances.

I haven't heard about that. Would you have a link?

Wayne’s Couzens who pleaded guilty to kidnap and rape, and admitted responsibility for Sarah Everard’s murder? Ian Huntley who admitted both Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman had died in his house, but claimed both deaths were ‘accidental’, and who was linked to their murders by large amounts of physical and circumstantial evidence?

Good, didn't think she would, as for everyone has the right to appeal, they do and she did and it was refused.

Do people have any idea how much her trial cost and how much a retrial would be? You don't just have the right to a retrial because you didn't like the first verdict

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 .

So why do yoy think you know better than the jury who spent months listening to the evidence ?

Google Lucy Letby friends it’s a male voice who’s the friend.

Has anybody listened to this? It goes in a bit and I’m yet to listen to all of it but it does raise some interesting points.

I think there is more to it and I do wonder if this will become one of those future gross miscarriage of justice.

This podcast

And? She'd been reliving the details for 4 years. If she'd cried she'd have been accused of faking it so I don't think her lack of emotion can be interpreted as a sign of guilt.

The thread is not about whether she is guilty or innocent it's about her being denied an appeal. Plenty of people have been found guilty and had convictions overturned on appeal. If the defence has evidence which suggests her conviction is unsafe then she should be allowed an appeal.

No neither would they be thinking it was a miscarriage of justice ,if it was a male nurse .

And not all so called miscarriages of justice mean the person was innocent either. Plenty of IMO guilty people have been released.

If years later someone managed to manipulate this into being seen as a miscarriage of justice would you allow her to look after your newborn?

I read it.

The author clearly doesn't think she did it.

The details as to why she has been denied an appeal can’t be released until after the baby k trial.

But appeals are often based entirely on things like new evidence etc, it’s not just a case of saying “I was convicted the first time so you need to run through the whole thing again,” there has to be something compelling which will facilitate a retrial.

But usually based on evidence presented in court, rather than what’s written in a newspaper.

"And she showed not an ounce of emotion towards any of those parents."

Paula Vennells has cried throughout the Post Office inquiry. Does that mean she's innocent?

@x2boys - I am fairly sure Michael Stone, who was convicted in the 1990s of the murder of Lin and Megan Russell is innocent of that crime at least.

It doesn’t mean I’d want him to come around to my house for a dinner party.

As for Lucy Letby, I genuinely don’t know. I really wish there was absolute unarguable evidence either way. The thought she might be innocent makes me feel a bit ill; equally, the thought she is guilty is horrendous.

@x2boys i never said i did know better i simply said i was unsure! But having seen how our legal system operates up close and knowing that jury's most certainly don't see the " whole picture" but a picture with lots of facts left out ( by both the prosecutors and defence) and knowing first hand that jury's most definitely do and have got it wrong, i would err on the side of caution! Also having worked for the NHS and knowing the whole culture of it absolutely nothing would surprise me! However as i said i don't know enough facts to say either way!

I’m a nurse and the reason I’ve struggled with all of this is that it’s difficult to comprehend her motivation for doing it. Other criminals that have been mentioned had (disturbing) motives, like Ian Huntley. I know there’s a theory that Lucy Letby’s motivation was to get a man’s attention but you’d have to be very devoid of compassion to willingly harm babies to do that. In all my experience (I’ve been nursing nearly 20 years) mistakes happen, but I’ve come across a vanishingly small number of people who are intentionally unkind, let alone intentionally do patients harm..which is why it’s difficult to comprehend this behaviour. I think that’s why some people find it difficult to believe?
I would assume her right to appeal being refused is based on the fact that no new evidence has come to light since her trial and she’s waiting for a retrial? But law is not something I know much about.

She's not the only health care professionals.to be convicted of murder though
Many people thought that Harold Shipman was a respectable GP
And then there's Beverly Allit of course .

Thank you @bibop

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk_case Here's a link to the Lucia de Berk case

I agree. And several of the things I read about at the time of the trial, which seemed to indicate her guilt, are put into perspective in the NY article. She googled the parents of dead children - seems dodgy, but then you learn she googled everyone she encountered - that was just a habit of hers - less guilty. The diary pages seemed a massive indication of guilt, but by then she had endured years of accusations and stress - she might have been doubting herself by then. She was caught simply standing over a baby, doing nothing. But I have struggled to compose myself and work out how to function after doing 20 hour shifts, especially if the task in hand is really important, let alone potentially life saving or life-threatening.

The NY article shows a long term problem of chronic understaffing and extra shift work, of woefully under-experienced staff, even at consultant level, they weren't neonatal specialists and couldn't perform basic physical procedures like inserting tubes accurately when the babies were so small and delicate.

I think having read that article, that the press and the court presented very partial information which pointed to her. The full facts would have been far less conclusive. Nothing in her past suggested cruelty, indifference, anti-social behaviour.

I am not saying I'm sure she is innocent, but I don't think her trial offered a fair balance of evidence and this article isn't sensational - it's pretty thorough at showing an alternative reading of the facts.