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.

That’s because the appeal courts already rejected the appeal on just the true and factual basis the expert evidence at the trial was flawed. The appeals court demanded “new evidence” as said that the defence has to offer new conclusions as to cause of deaths. That they can’t just say the prosecution was rubbish and get a retrial or appeal.

The panel having to go through and do a forensic cause of death analysis on each baby was what our justice system requires. It’s messed up, I agree, but Shoo did say that they would not start from an impartial basis when doing their forensic analysis- they didn’t start from the assumption that none had been murdered. Shoo warned the defence team that they would publish the results no matter what they found whether it was evidence of murder or not, and whether evidence of Lucy Letby doing murders or not.

It’s our CPS that is biased- the Thirwell inquiry has literally been told to assume every baby that ever died in close proximity to Lucy Letby since she was doing work experience as a 16yr old was murder unless they can prove otherwise. You start with the premise that they were all murders, you’re going to start filtering what you find as part of confirmation bias.

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.

@ShortSighted101 oh same with me. Quashing her conviction wouldn’t be enough, the Drs that stitched her up should face justice.

I feel incredibly uncomfortable about the number of professional reputations (legal and medical) that are being publicly, and in some cases quite gleefully, trashed by others who are not in possession of all the facts.

Sorry
Shoo did say that they would not start from an impartial basis…

None of this explains why there needed to be a press conference.

The information needs to be made public. It’s an absolute scandal that needs exposure firstly to make sure LL gets a retrial and secondly to protect anyone who works in the nhs as if this has happened and she is innocent and it was set up then it’s not a safe profession to be in or go into .

The pain those families must be going through is horrific. At the centre of it all and grieving whilst having no idea what really happened.

This has made a retrial an impossibility. That press conference was an own goal.

I think it was a good idea because the judgements rejecting the requests to appeal were spurious and unjust. The posters saying she didn’t meet the criteria for an appeal don’t know what they are talking about at all. There has clearly been a government initiative to block her and keep her in prison. Even today the CPS is sabre rattling and saying they’d fight tooth and nail any move by the CCRC to reopen the case. There are political undercurrents to this. Very senior people in CPS whose careers will be eight balled if this is allowed to go through because it is clearly a miscarriage of justice and a major national scandal.

The press conference was to increase public awareness of just how nonexistant the evidence is against Lucy Letby.

Why would a press conference have a negative impact?

It hasn’t made one impossible. There is no restriction on publishing applications…

No retrial could possibly be impartial or just after this media circus.

The press conference served to bring the possibility of an unsafe conviction to much wider public attention. In that it has worked.

It will absolutely never go to the court of appeal without pressure from the press and public. Is that not obvious?

If this is a miscarriage of justice it will hugely undermine public trust in multiple institutions. It will destroy very senior careers and perhaps even lead to criminal charges.

It would be much, much simpler for those with the power to decide such things to just wave away the questions around the evidence.

Increased public scrutiny makes it harder to do that.

First trial was a media circus too. Jurors will clearly have had their perceptions shaped by the coverage then too.

Unfortunately it is impossible to avoid that with such a high-profile case. It is one of the flaws in the system.

The quashing of the convictions of the Birmingham Six (after two appeals, one of them the longest appeal hearing in UK judicial history, judged the convictions ‘safe and secure’) was driven by tv and print journalists’ investigations. And led to the formation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission which has the Letby case in front of it now.

It has been pointed out numerous times on this thread that both Letby’s trials were subject to reporting restrictions that weren’t breached. Restrictions that were lifted only after she was sentenced.

But even within reporting restrictions a trial can still become a media circus with a potentially prejudicial effect on jury members.

Indeed, this press conference has not breached any reporting restrictions. But you are still concerned it may impact the fairness of any new trial.

The press conference was necessary because the police are currently threatening to bring charges against Letby for any baby she ever cared for. As soon as they bring charges then all discussion will be shut down due to reporting restrictions. If they don’t talk loudly now they won’t ever be able to talk.

Macdonald’s job is to get his client exonerated by whatever means. The strategy he’s pursuing, including the press conference, has clearly made that vastly more likely.

It’s just wishful thinking on your part to suggest otherwise.

It hasn’t breached reporting restrictions because there currently aren’t any.

It is possible that the Court of Appeal will agree with the new evidence that none of the children were murdered. In that case they will rule that her conviction is unsafe and that there should not be a retrial.

Well, exactly! A retrial is unlikely to be disallowed on the grounds of a breach of restrictions which do not exist.

Sure it could. It doesn’t even fully counterbalance the years of lock up the baby killer and biggest serial killer in modern British history tabloids.

It’s got nothing to do with restrictions. It would be impossible to provide an impartial trial or retrial given the amount of coverage that has ensued since the initial trials. It’s common sense. All this press conference has achieved is to reinforce the Court of Appeal’s decision. Like I said, it’s an own goal.

@BIossomtoes not if they accept the strong evidence that there were no murders! No trial would be needed.