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.

Again, I am not saying she is innocent but can you imagine being in a jury room with some of the posters on this thread and the moral pressure you must feel?

I didn't follow the trial. Why is it that some people think she may be innocent?

Well of course. Then you also have the parents of the dead babies.

No wonder the jury was maybe swayed more one way than another.

But as I said, I have no idea of her innocence or not.

I found this journal article interesting. It's about how statistics have been considered around the case.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00258024241242549

Of ffs.. Should she be a black/fat/ugly/older woman (or a combination) or a man - no one would be flocking here hand-wringing to the degree they are now. No one.

I think she's guilty. However, I also think she should have a right to an appeal. Because it's just. I'm quite confident she'll be found guilty again.

What a load of bollocks, plenty of people think Fiona Harvey, Michael Jackson and Jeremy Bamber are innocent, see multiple threads on here and Reddit.

Her sex, race, age wouldn’t change my mind - I believe everyone has a right to appeal on the grounds of new evidence or new investigative methods, and believe when appeals are not granted the reasons why should be transparent and shared with the public.
i do not stand for blocking all future appeals for the points I’ve raised above (which is what some media outlets have reported has happened).

I honestly think some comments would be very different if it was a male nurse who was convicted
There would be a lot of how dare he try and appeal lock him away and throw away the key type comments
Objectively from her photos she's a pretty young women even the one of Dr's investigating said not nice Lucy
And they did everything to prove it couldn't be her but kept coming back to the same conclusion.

Ok, well you go off and worry, the rest of us will be pleased that on the face of overwhelming evidence and the brutality those Babies endured, justice has at least been served. Our thoughts are with them.

You don't speak for "the rest of us" @Sunnyandsilly

Plenty of us have doubts about those cases.

Absolutely Beverley allit was not a pretty young nurse and was a bit odd people were far more willing to accept she was guilty

@HereILayStillAndBreathless I think you’re partly right, but the point is that still doesn't mean she may not be innocent.

Ultimately, no one’s going to say ‘ah well, she doesn’t look like a murderer so she can’t be.’

Beverly Allit was 24, so a young, white woman. Pretty is subjective, I personally don’t think Lucy letby is any “prettier” than BA, in fact if anything I think BA has a softer, warmer face.

Everyone does have a right to apply for permission to appeal. However, it would be ridiculous if people automatically had a right to appeal just because they'd been convicted. What would be the point in convening an appeal court where everyone concerned agreed that there were no errors in the original trial?

In this case, they haven't refused leave to appeal because of the Baby K case: if anything, if they thought an appeal was justified that would militate in favour of getting on with the appeal, in the interests of giving her an absolutely fair trial. We don't know exactly why they've refused leave, save that they haven't found the arguments in favour of an appeal to be convincing.

If new evidence came to light in the future that cast material doubt on the convictions she would have the right to apply again. However, this was an incredibly painstaking investigation and prosecution and it's difficult to envisage that anything substantial will come to light that would cast doubt on each and every conviction.

Totally agree.

…And people can have a hidden side that others don’t see!

All she can do is appeal because what else can she do with her life, she’s nothing to loose. The podcast I listened to made me sadly convinced - going through each case. It’s incredibly sad

I hear a lot of court hearings as part of my work. Judges always say that continuing to deny the offences is seen as lack of remorse and therefore punished more harshly. I do always think that if you were really not guilty you'd keep on saying so rather than feign remorse for something you didn't do. If you are being tried/found guilty for something you didn't do, you must be absolutely traumatised and therefore understandable why you might not seem to react how people think you should. I've not heard all the evidence in this case but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.

This is her second appeal and both have been refused, they'll be a reason for that

I'm sure if she is convicted on retrial she'll try to appeal that as well though

I wouldn't be surprised if she tries to appeal her sentences next

Do they have to give a reason to eg the press for a no retrial?

It isn't a secret. Full details will be published. It regularly happens that issuing full, detailed judgments takes a few weeks, though the basic outcome can be announced more quickly.

Have you listened to the podcast series about the trial? It's obviously not comparable to hearing the evidence and witnesses in court, but it gives a much more complete picture than you're likely to get from reading a few newspaper reports, let alone reading that highly selective and misleading NYT report.

That's ok when you aren't looking at life in prison anyway. How many serial killers actually plead guilty probably not many if theres resonable doubt involved! Rose west and beverley allitt spring to mind

The reasons for the appeal being disallowed have not been published because there is an active case - that of a retrial into the count on which the jury couldn’t reach a verdict. It’s normal, and in contempt, for any information to be published that poses a substantial risk of serious prejudice when a case is active.

As for the New Yorker article, it relies heavily on some inadmissible information and witness evidence.

Before every trial, the information that will be presented to the court is collated and sorted and reams and reams of it are not used. Some is ruled inadmissible by the judge because it is prejudicial. This is normal. If every piece of paper or every word of every statement was presented to the jury, every trial would take years.

The problem with the New Yorker is that it places great emphasis on the evidence that is in Letby’s favour, and none of that which might reinforce her guilt.

Jury trials hear the prosecution and defence case, and so often after the prosecution has made its case I am certain of guilt (I spend my working life in courts as a layperson). But then the defence presents their evidence and it’s a balancing act for a jury rather than any silver bullet piece of evidence that proves something 100 per cent.

The New Yorker is trying to prove its own hypothesis rather than providing a balanced view. That’s ok - it’s a newspaper not a courtroom - but it’s also why someone’s guilt should never be decided by people who were not in the courtroom and have reached their view solely through media coverage (even when that coverage has been excellent, and the Letby trial was an example of excellence).

I did sit through a very small portion of the Letby trial and it was so diligently and carefully argued. It’s highly unlikely a jury would reach an incorrect verdict in such a long and detailed trial.

Thanks!

I haven’t had time to be honest @MsCheeryble and I am not saying I think she’s innocent based on the NY article, or even that I do think she’s innocent.

I do have doubts. I hope she is guilty to be honest as the alternative is horrific.

I was absolutely convinced she was guilty, didn't give it a second thought. Then I saw this thread and read the NY article in full and it's opened my eyes completely. Wow. I don't think justice has been done. It's a heartbreaking case and no-one wants the families to be put through any more heartache. BUT I know if I'd lost my child in these circumstances I want a fair and proper trial, to ultimately know as closely to the truth as possible. It seems so much has been left out here and so much has been left unaccounted or allowed to be said such as the defence witnesses. A fair trial should be a fair trial and it seems she's not had that...over the last few years if there is one thing I've learnt from the post office scandal and partygate is that the UK institutions will do anything to cover their own backs...interesting that so many maternity departments are under scrutiny. LL may be guilty we don't know...but evidence should have been presented and assessed in full...heartbreaking for all involved and telling when parents and colleagues themselves were in disbelief and a member of the jury drops out...

Although they seem like similar cases it was more clear cut with Allit. She had a history of violence and anti social behaviour. She was caught in the act at the hospital then later tried to poison her friend and friend's mother who provided her with temporary accommodation.

The Letby case was much more circumstantial and the arrest and trial happened a quite number of years after the deaths. Even if she is truly guilty of all the deaths, which she may be, there's a lot more space for doubt than with Allit.

I hope it was the right verdict for for the sake of everyone involved.