Lucy Letby press conference

[Viviennemary]

There is a press conference going on now trying to get Lucy Letby's conviction overturned. From what I read the guilty verdict was sound. All those ill babies dying when she was alone with them. Just a coincidence? Already been refused an appeal.

Yes it’s entirely possible that everyone involved was acting in good faith and yet an innocent woman still ended up in prison.

There doesn’t need to have been a conspiracy.

Indeed.
How many people have worked in a toxic workplace with high stress levels and questionable accountability?

I'm sure we've all witnessed someone being scapegoated for organisational or personal failings - half the time I'm not convinced everyone involved is self aware enough to realise the unfairness of what they do, they're just too busy flexing their egos, protecting themselves or lashing out at someone else.

You seem to have quite a strong agenda here.

I followed this trial closely (professional interest for me) and I’m not sure she’s innocent but i definitely couldn’t say she’s guilty.

And this is the point: the burden of proof in the criminal system is "beyond reasonable doubt", which basically means you have to be sure she is guilty. How anyone could be sure with this new level of doubt thrown in, I don't know.

Dewi Evans was the prosecution expert: I've listened to him interviewed and he seemed to have a real axe to grind against the medical figures in the so-called "establishment" (broadly, privileged posh people, whereas I think he's Welsh and working class) who were casting doubt on his expert evidence.

I've listened to the beginning of a more recent interview with him where he's banging on about hubris again.

He's not even a neonatologist: I think he's a paediatrician.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/was-there-ever-a-crime-the-trials-of-lucy/id1616634411?i=1000688962565

He's always made me wildly uncomfortable.

Well you could also argue it’s in political interests to keep LL locked up with a guilty verdict. Let’s not forget hospitals are regularly inspected by the CQC, if it turns out these babies died due to poor care when the CQC haven’t raised alarm bells over the hospital what does that say about how useful the body is? There’s already a lot of talk about this initially following the Morecambe bay report (they threw midwifery supervision under the bus then to save the CQC) and yet problems continue and are being uncovered with the likes of the Ockenden enquiries, east Kent report.

I listened to most of the press conference. It is pretty shocking tbh. I think a couple of the cases sound like the parents would have had an excellent case for medical malpractice. So some of these doctors do have a clear motive to blame Letby. Whether that was done with full awareness I don't know. Surely some of them must know?

I think the nurses who worked with her also know she didn't do anything. They seem to not have been listened to by anyone.

I don't see how this can be dismissed. These are a group of world experts and they are saying that this medical evidence is simply wrong. It's like on the one hand you have a guy who is the world expert on insulin levels in premature babies and he says the levels found in the baby were normal. On the other hand you have a retired doctor who wasn't even specialised in premature babies and who very weirdly rocked up at the police station after hearing about it on the news who says they weren't.

If I was a parent and able to process this information I would be so angry if I had been falsely led to believe my child had been murdered by the very doctors who had failed to provided the correct treatment / totally messed it up. I would want to sue them not just for medical negligence but basically for what amounts to mental torture. Unbelievable.

The CQC did actually raise alarm bells about unsafe conditions on the ward (and too few staff trained in resuscitation). That happened just before Letby was removed from the ward and the ward was downgraded.

Unfortunately, the CQC hasn't retained a lot of the notes from its 2016 inspection at Chester.

What's more, it's in the public interest that Letby's conviction is safe. It isn't, so it's in the public's interest, as much as it is in Letby's and the families of the victims, that there's a retrial.

This. And not only for the victims and families but for the care of future babies being born into that hospital where all the blame for any failings has fallen on the shoulders of one woman. If Letby didn’t do it, will they have made the improvements necessary to keep babies safe?

What is her interest? Is there a source a bit more reliable than the daily mail?

I read an article this morning stating that one of the families has called the report a publicity stunt and that they already have the truth. Unfortunately they do not already have the truth and it must come out. It certainly is in public interest if hospital failings are causing unnecessary deaths of infants.

A quick google would suggest Professor Modi worked for Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) during the time the hospital was being investigated. It doesn't say she was a part of the investigation.

Honestly, anyone who falls for the nonsense they read in that junk paper should be embarrassed and try and read something slightly more trustworthy. If you apply some actual thought to that article it doesn't say anything other than where she worked.

She also doesn't work there anymore.

That article is pitiful.

So a press conference is called to try and overturn the verdict of a jury and the decision of two appeals. I'm not the one with an agenda.

@Viviennemary a press conference was called to report the findings of 14 of the best experts from around the world. The report was being made regardless of the findings.
If there has been a massive miscarriage of justice and it looks highly likely there has been I for one am glad someone has an agenda to find the truth.

@Blossomtoes has this one right. I watched some of the press coverage unfold at the time, and this adhered to the absolutely strict conditions which, if journalists break, can land them with contempt charges. When someone is charged with a crime the newspapers can say what they are charged with, and that's all. They can then say nothing until the case comes to trial, and at that stage they are allowed to report only what the jury hears in court. No speculation as to innocence or guilt is permitted. The coverage followed due process.

As for the post you're responding to, this has Mark McDonald bang to rights. He's a maverick; a chancer. (As, incidentally, is David Davis). He's known for it. He takes on high-publicity, low-stakes cases, (for him; what does he have to lose?) and creates as perfect a media storm around them as he can. The intent was always the CCRC - the appeals process is all-but exhausted and you can read the reasons for the two rejections in the judgements posted online. They are very clear. There's a strict set of criteria for all appeals applying to every individual - no one is singling Letby out for unique or prejudiced treatment. Her case simply didn't meet those criteria. And at that point, no legal irregularities were found with Goss's handling of the case. It's really that straightforward.

McDonald is a KC. He knows the law. And the law in this country isn't conducted by media, nor is it within the remit of press conferences. Yesterday's proceedings change nothing about due legal process or the handling of the Letby case. It's a complex case, with a huge body of evidence involving numerous areas of specialist expertise that are difficult enough to unpick on their own, let alone by lay people. And the nature of academic research (I know, I conduct it) is that for most theories there will be oppositional views and contestation. Very rarely if ever is there one received body of accepted, received knowledge which challenge, further research and broader investigation can't move on to the next notch. It's the job of the court to unpick that. If this is in question, then the 'press conference' has just burned its boats in answering that, as Blossomtoes pointed out.

What hope for a fair retrial now, amid the tsuami of publicity surrounding this case (which happened after its conclusion, not before)? None. A retrial has to be off the table. I suspect the only options now are that she stands convicted or those convictions - all 14 of them - are quashed and she walks free. It would take something seismic for this to happen - McDonald and his band of experts, in turning this into a public spectacle and a PR trial, have made sure of that.

Letby is a woman with absolutely nothing more to lose. McDonald has capitalised on this. He is concerned with his own PR. Nothing else.

@Viviennemary Their opinions will be looked at by the CCRC. They will weigh up what they have found and the conclusions they have come to against what is already known. As you say, an appeal has been turned down twice. This is a bit last role of the dice. It’s also an organisation that must exist so there is justice. Even if we don’t like the result and it’s unpalatable. It could be the CCRC don’t agree or even if they do, the Court of appeal doesn’t agree that the convictions are unsafe.

Prof Modi was president of the RCPCH when they were asked by the trust to review the unit due to the number of deaths (without mention that consultants had raised suspicions that there may be deliberate harm being carried out). However it's come out at the Thirwall Inquiry that they then found out about the consultants' suspicions but carried on reviewing anyway, when they should have advised the Trust to go straight to the police. The RCPCH have formally apologised for this via the Inquiry.

Why is there so much mention of retrials? Surely, if the evidence given to the CCRC is upheld, these babies were not murdered. Therefore she would be aquitted. So nobody needs to be put on trial for their murder. Am I missing something?

There is dispute around that point so the evidence would need to be presented and for it to be judged in court that they were not murdered.

Thank you, that makes sense.

I wonder what Ben Myers thinks of this whole thing. He's been criticised hugely for his defence of LL and lack of witnesses/experts and yet he is a very experienced and highly regarded barrister.

@Viviennemary it's not useful to look at the press conference as an agenda. Experts are motivated by an issue with the case

Idk either way, guilty or not. I'm glad there's process if what they are saying is correct

Presidents of the RCPH are the Chair of the Board. As the RCPH is a charity, the position is usually unpaid except for expenses. I haven't checked but you can download their accounts and see how much the Trustees including the President claimed in expenses. The position is for three years. So Modi didn't "work" there, she was an unpaid Trustee for three years.

There is a lack of understanding about positions and responsibilities on this thread. Modi wouldn't have been President if she hadn't been a leading physician in her field.

A lot of the criticisms have been unfair imo, by people who don’t understand the restrictions he’s working under or don’t realise that he did say a lot of the stuff he gets criticised for not saying.

I think he probably took some gambles that didn’t pay off, and the odds were stacked against him in terms of unfair media coverage and decisions made by the judge.

Mark McDonald is not a KC. He has no choice but to hold a press conference because Lucy Letby is not allowed to appeal. The only way of getting the case reviewed is to ask the CCRC to review the case and they must have compelling reasons to do so. He referred the case to the CCRC on Monday, hence the press conference about the new evidence that has been produced.

The CCRC will review her case and decide if the conviction should be referred to the Court of Appeal. It is then for the court to decide whether the conviction is unsafe. A lot of evidence was produced for review and it will be some time before a decision is made by the CCRC.