Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

With thanks to the original poster @kittybythelighthouse and @Tidalwave for continuing the discussion.

“However I wouldn't be as sure as you that they'll refer it on this time, and personally I feel like she may have to go down the inadequate defence route in future.”

I don’t see that happening. The international panel brought international attention. This is not easy to sweep away now. I don’t have a crystal ball of course, but I’d happily bet on it.

What specifically about the defence do you think was inadequate? While from the outside it definitely seemed like something was very off, the more we discover about Goss’s decisions made in the absence of the jury and his decisions made not to e.g interleave the cases etc the more I think Myers did the best he could in the circumstances. He was hamstrung. A lot of the crucial pieces of this trial happened in the absence of the jury and the media and we are only discovering it now.

For example: Myers disclosure application to learn about the other deaths on the unit and what differentiated them from the indictment deaths, besides Letby’s presence or lack of. This application was refused by Goss even though NJ himself admitted that ‘Letby killed these babies because Letby was there when they died’ is a circular argument. Lots of
stuff like this is trickling out.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/s/3UWfz4AamI

I agree. The more I look and find out the more I think Meyers did what he could with the cards handed to him - and hoped that challenge on application to appeal could happen given the incredible holes in much of the evidence.

A huge amount needs to be done in the disparity of access to resources between prosecution and defense. It’s horrific we call this justice when we are considering taking people's liberty - I had no idea.

I think she will be charged with further offences before the CCRC reaches a decision on this application.

That’s the thing. Whether or not we are right about Lucy Letby, this case has exposed really serious issues in major institutions of huge public importance; policing, CPS, the justice/trial process (especially expert witnesses), the NHS, even the media!

It’s about far more than whether or not this specific case is a MoJ, it’s about the serious deep rot in those institutions which threatens all of us and can’t go unaddressed.

Even if you’re right there are still extremely serious issues with how this case was handled and that will all have to be addressed for the safety and security of the general public.

I personally don’t think you are right though. I don’t think there will be more charges. They’ve had years to bring more charges and would have done so by now imo. If they do bring charges they had better be solid, because the science will be heavily scrutinised this time.

If she is a serial killer the fact that she got caught is not down to good policing and a properly functioning justice system. It’s a fluke. That should worry us all either way.

I feel you are probably right - historically when a police force has fucked up they will double down

@Kittybythelighthouse
I feel like she may be forced to if they say that all this was available to her initial defence team.

For me it just seems inadequate because I feel like he could have got more experts..
Why just bring a cleaner? Why not at least follow on from that with an expert who could talk about the pathogens that could be in the hospital after bringing the cleaner? Why did he not attempt to contact Dr Shoo Lee? etc.

They’ve had years to bring more charges and would have done so by now imo. If they do bring charges they had better be solid, because the science will be heavily scrutinised this time.

I wondered if that might be the cause of the delay now Dewi has, thankfully, quacked off into the sunset. You'd have to wonder whether people with the relevant expertise would want to get involved, it's such a hot potato.

I think there would certainly be candidates if the evidence for new charges was actually solid/stood up to scrutiny. It would be quite a feather in the cap to actually prove that Lucy Letby was a serial killer after all. It would be pretty heroic after the sheer mess Evans left in his wake.

I’m not holding my breath though. I think those charges would have already come if there was any real basis for them. I think the constant mention of potential charges is only there to maintain a seed of doubt in an increasingly sceptical public conversation while giving the CPS, Cheshire Police etc an excuse not to respond to public queries about the previous investigation.

I think you’d be right if it were any other case. Leaning into procedure over justice won’t work with this much public and media scrutiny IMO.

To a point. Again, not with this much public, media, and scientific scrutiny. Not unless they somehow produce actual evidence this time. They would be slaughtered by the defence.

I hope so.

As an aside I’ve started watching Thd Jury - and it’s confirmed what I thought: peopke havd a rehash y ti view things through their own lens.

I wouldn't put anything past them, but the fact that Dr Evans as well as Drs Brearey and Jayaram have all been shown to be unreliable witnesses since 2023 isn't going to help Cheshire Police persuade the CPS that any new charges have much chance of sticking.

I don’t think there will be new charges.
It’s not enough to want to double down; to convince the CPS they would need something solid and I think if they had anything strong they would have leaked something about it by now. The best thing they have got is that nonsense statistic about extubations.

Has anyone seen today on X that someone is standing on a hill and claiming that a pre trial meeting of the experts didn’t happen bevause we don’t have a transcript direct from the court and only reporting frok the Chester standard? This is where we are at. Our justice system should not be making court transcripts inaccessible. It’s appalling

That’s just human nature I think. The jury system isn’t perfect obviously, but (when properly directed and not mislead with shonky evidence!) juries are better than any other alternative imo.

The evidence really does need to be handled properly though, especially scientific/medical evidence, with scientific reality needing to take precedence over procedure. I’d say “obviously” but clearly, astonishingly, that hasn’t been the case thus far.

I personally don’t think the adversarial model in its current form works for complex trials like this. We need to establish the science, not which KC is better at playing the game of courtroom drama. That said, every defendant should have to right to robustly defend their position. Other countries have hybrid models that are worth investigating.

We certainly cannot just continue as is unless we want to keep piling up miscarriages of justice. Imo this is a landmark case that will trigger change either way,

I can’t help but wonder what the members of the jury must feel now they know how much of the evidence they were presented with, does not stand up to scrutiny.

The CPS has as much culpability as the police for all of this. They would want to bring further charges too, if such potential charges exist, but they’d have to be extremely strong evidentially or it would just make matters worse.

I disagree - I think the experiment showed that it’s pretty much 50/50 on what a jury is going to conclude and I’ve only watched the 1st series, where the evidence wasnt a complex web of medical evidence.

I think it’s Private Eye (Dr Hammond) that reported the pre trial expert meeting happened? He’s generally a thorough journalist so I’m banking that he has verification of that bs a twitter anon. He wouldn’t just print it with no verifiable source.

Yes it’s not perfect, nothing is, but I do not trust judges more than juries. What’s the alternative?

We’re back in the same loop - and one I fear I cannot escape, but tgere had to be a third option.

Just to throw an extra pigeon amongst the cats - I don’t think Sally Challen should be our.

And I still say Letby wasnt given a fair trial.

But the person claiming he’s lying (I don’t belueve it - pre trial expert witness meeting are alliwed) I claiming it bevause theres no access to the actial court transcripts: my criticism lies with our system - its not ‘open’ when access even to the process in court is inaccessible bevause of funds.

I’m not up to date on that actual conversation then but yes I totally agree re transcripts. It’s appalling that transcripts can cost £100,000 in 2025. Are they getting French nuns to embroider them?! Also disposing of them after 10 years is shocking, but not as shocking as not automatically giving convicted people access to their own trial transcripts.

In what sense do we have open justice?

We do not have open justice. It’s disgraceful.

We don’t. Not at all.

there’s no access in civil or family courts either.

On top of that it’s considered a faux pas to record any priessional (and theres bedn several cases wgere it’s been the only way to prove professionals lying, including my own, wgere it’s a pretty big risk to do so, but there’s no other option.

Professionals behaving professionals should have nothing to fear.

We need a sea-change to happen for our claim of open justice to be a truthful claim