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.

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

@BIossomtoes - that's not correct. There are reporting restrictions around the identification of the babies

I don’t think you understand how our judiciary works.

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

@BIossomtoes - I don't think you understand the process. If her conviction is unsafe it is quashed by judges. If the cps still think she is guilty they could try her again. But not trying her again would not be a bad outcome for her!

The press conference did not stop any future trial taking place. It is not uncommon for there to be a lot of media attention of cases prior to prosecution. It can be pled (eg it was unsuccessfully pled in the "limbs in the loch" case) that this means the person can't get a fair trial but I am unaware of when this claim has ever succeeded in the uk courts in a murder case.

@BIossomtoes with the strongest evidence showing that no murders occurred i don't understand why you feel any retrial would be unfair? The fact that medical evidence shows no murders happened being public knowledge makes it unfair to who?

All this press conference has achieved is to reinforce the Court of Appeal’s decision.

Really? I think it has had the opposite effect. It has highlighted that the Court of Appeals decision to dismiss was not done in good faith but rather to avoid any re-examination of the trial despite very compelling evidence showing it was an unsafe conviction based on zero hard evidence and only partially true circumstantial evidence. It’s an embarrassment of a case for the CPS and they would rather it all go away. Who cares about another working class girl in prison? She is a nobody from a nothing family.

"I don’t think you understand how our judiciary works."

@BIossomtoes - neither do you. There would not be a retrial after her conviction was quashed if it was accepted by the cps that the babies died of natural causes.

To be clear @BIossomtoes - if the CCRC thinks that there has been a potential miscarriage of justice they have the power to obtain further evidence. They then refer it back to the court of appeal which can quash the conviction.

The cps can then attempt to try her again but it's very unlikely they would do so if the court of appeal have quashed her conviction on the basis of the evidence unless there is new evidence etc.

The Court of Appeal’s decision was based on there being no new evidence. It was entirely in good faith. Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, there’s no smoking gun. There’s still no smoking gun in defence.

And Letby couldn’t be more solidly middle class, by the way.

It is only the opinion of this group of experts that no murders occurred, based on the same (but potentially not all of the) medical evidence that was previously reviewed by other experts who did conclude that deliberate harm had been caused to these babies.

These new opinions have not been tested in any legally sound way (unlike the opinions of the original experts). And indeed they haven't even produced a full report yet, just one page of summary for each baby.

Its actually difficult to successfully appeal generally because judges don't like to interfere with juries decisions especially in such a high profile case as this. I do think it is now getting to a point where there is so much clear evidence that something has gone wrong that hopefully there will be a valid ground for successful appeal. I am not at all convinced she should have been convicted

No, most murder convictions are not based on circumstantial evidence. 😂

Letby is working class. First in her family to go to University. Nursing is not a middle class occupation either.

"It is only the opinion of this group of experts that no murders occurred, based on the same (but potentially not all of the) medical evidence that was previously reviewed by other experts who did conclude that deliberate harm had been caused to these babies. "
@rubbishatballet - the initial post mortems found natural causes as the cause of death of many of the babies. In retrospect this was changed based on a theory (for some of the babies) which itself was based on a paper written by the expert at the press conference who does not agree with it.

The idea that the "expert" at the trial was somehow superior is not the case. He did not have access to any more evidence than these (much more highly qualified) experts do. This press conference was held by the defence- all medical evidence presented or relied on in a trial by the prosecution must be shared by the defence

"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. "
@LoremIpsumCici - his job is to act in the best interests of his client but he also has an obligation to the court and public. He cannot present evidence he knows not to be true or mislead the court.

Frankly if the CCRC disregards the report of so many experts in the field then we all may as well go home and forget about evidence-based justice. The experts have applied the gold standard of independently examining the causes of death. These are the leaders in their field. They promised they would publish whatever the outcome. They have nothing to gain by the findings except to ensure that babies are given the best possible care in NICUs and SCBUs.

I agree with you 100% but I must say you have quoted someone else and accidentally attributed it to me,

I've had to hide the other thread on her.

I didn't say because I didn't trust the ghouls defending not to gloat.

My son was in SCBU during her time. He was born 7 weeks premature on 4/3/16.

The very thought she could've been near him fills me with abject terror. I had already lost my first son in birth two years prior.

I just saying, all of the speculation is extremely upsetting. Can people think before they post.

@rubbishatballet they have not YET been tested in a legally safe way no. I know next to nothing it seems on the legal system. All I know is if someone is serving 15 whole life sentences for murdering babies who actually died of natural causes or sub optimal care then I want something done about it and the failings that led it to happen!

Especially in the public sector where managers will happily throw anyone, including each other, under the bus

What are you talking about “ most myrders are convicted on circumstantial evidence” that’s factually incorrect

why would you spout such rubbish?

What you have been through is heartbreaking. But your comments on the other thread were disgusting and deleted. If these babies died due to poor hospital care, why wouldn't you want this to be highlighted to ensure it doesn't happen to anyone else's babies?

Well one of the experts (Prof Modi) potentially has something to gain if she is innocent, in that the organisation she was leading at the time was complicit in helping to enable LL to continue causing harm (assuming she is guilty) by persisting with their review of the unit without insisting that the trust went to the police with the consultants' suspicions. The RCPCH has already admitted/apologised for this at the Thirwall Inquiry, and by extension it's not a great look professionally for their president at the time.

Perhaps you should check. I cut and pasted from another thread and trusted poster. It's still there. Thanks for kicking me whilst I'm down. You're a bully.

Because it’s not rubbish. I didn’t mention “myrders”.

It was presumably in good faith, but the published judgement shows a misunderstanding of the processes of clinical diagnosis.

That's for you @Springsareup

Give yourself a big pat on the back.