Lucy Letby not charged with further crimes - what does this say about her current convictions

[mids2019]

So no more charges for Lucy Letby currently.

I can't say I am surprised as the tactics the CPS used the first time to secure convictions wont wash. There have been too many questions about the 'expert' evidence in the first trial and in my opinion the CPS don't want to take the risk of trying again with a more possibly more aware jury.

The police seem to be not too happy and probably thought they had similar evidence as they had initially so were taken aback by the CPS decision. They have had to approach parents to say that their children dies either through medical incompetence or through natural causes. The poor parents will now feel distraught and confused being lef up the garden path and the police maybe telling them Lucy was guilty.

I wonder if this is paving the way for a retrial?

And we've seen police forces dance that dance before, haven't we? This is yet another example of something about the handling of this case that is a problem even if Letby is 100% guilty.

The police are far too invested to be the neutral detectives they should be. The police must have spent a great deal of resource looking over all the neonatal deaths over the period of Lucy's career looking to link various pieces of medical evidence together to show guilt with the help of 'expert' witnesses. The police aren't neonatologists so would have been utterly reliant on 'experts' guiding them and obviously convinced by these unknown experts that murder of attempted murder had taken place. The GPS thought otherwise and The police have been led to a shameful position by medical experts awaiting them and therefore we should be casting doubt about the ability and use of these people. It must be rare for the CPS to say no to the police e especially after the Cheshire force have expended so much time on this and it is obvious that the parents in question were led to believe charges would follow and they would have juatice.

No to me this is thinking more than ever.

Please note that the inquests into the baby deaths are also to be done behind closed doors; what does the coroner have to fear? Not exactly open justice.

I'm pretty sure your right. I regularly get involved in discussions where women say that it doesn't matter if innocent men get locked in jail as long as the number of rape convictions of guilty men rises.

But it's appalling for society and a fear for everyone who is part of society if she is innocent and locked up for life because the justice process was faulty. And it doesn't matter how many times you personally assert she's guilty, and you may be right, the process was deeply, deeply flawed and did not prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

Can you explain to me what part of Lucy Letby being proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt has anything to do with "believing the parents"? None of them saw her murder their baby, their feelings are not evidence.

And part of the problem is that they DID believe the doctors. Specifically the doctor who said she had not called for help when his own records show that she did.

• After being convicted of the types of offences that LL was convicted of and the way these came to light, there was a clear duty to investigate her career outside of the original charging window. Which inevitably would have required a lot of resource.

• Why are you saying ‘experts’ in inverted commas? As you say, we don’t know who they are (although we definitely do know Dewi Evans wasn’t involved). What makes you think they were any less ‘expert’ than the ‘experts’ on the independent panel? Which neonatologists and scientists would pass muster in your eyes? Whoever it was, they clearly helped give the police reason to believe she had committed further offences, whilst also knowing their reputations would be on the line given the scrutiny and pressure that would be on any charging decision.

• It really isn’t rare for the CPS to say no to charges. And not particularly surprising that it happened in this case given the age of the alleged offences and that no suspicions were raised at the time.

It's true, the CPS telling the police they haven't provided enough evidence to justify prosecution happens all the time. Very common. What's unusual here is the tantrum statement in response.

I work in an industry where I have to deal with judges on a regular basis, shock horror they aren’t all good people or good at their job.

When the media ban got lifted, I asked a question (it may have been reddit) about why one judge sent a letter to the presiding judge on the case warning him not to allow Evan’s be the prosecution’s witness.
It was a genuine question btw, I had heard the rumour and I wanted to know why that happened.

I got full on abuse and accused of being a baby killer supporter and I would go to hell. Super classy. Since then I believe it’s all possible.

This ^

Im well and truly sat on the fence as to whether the verdict is correct or not, I have no idea whether LL is not guilt or guilty. Im not convinced its a safe verdict

What I do want is a decent system, that does as much as possible to have a fair justice system for everyone

and that should stand up to scrutiny, being able to question what has previously happened, to look at where it has gone wrong in other countries and try not to make the same mistakes

The inquests have a predetermined verdict, anyway. The coroner's court is not allowed to make findings that contradict a homicide conviction.

The verdict is predetermined but I have seen it suggested elsewhere that there is nothing to stop them taking into account the evidence that has emerged since the trial when it comes to the manner of death, resulting in a meaningless conclusion which contradicts itself.
Anyone know if this is correct?

It looks like Mark McDonald is requesting that Letby is made an interested party with evidence presented on her behalf, so assume there must be some basis in law for that. No idea how likely it is to be granted though.

This is just how some people are these days unfortunately, not just over LL. but people often have a fixed position about whatever it is, and a complete lack of ability to change their mind or a complete unwillingness to ever change from their original opinion, probably because when they form their opinion they seem to decide that one set of people have the right opinion, the moral opinion, the good opinion, therefore those on the other side are wrong, immoral and evil.

I've seen this about all sorts, this mentality seems to have come about due to woke culture with the permanently offended who screech and shout if you won't bow down to their opinion and can't accept that other normal people might have a different opinion so they have to 'other' them and label them, and also the covid divide, some people got used to being on the 'moral side, the good side, the right side' so when that debate was over they just transferred that mentality to the next issue.

Sunday Times today says it has been granted.

This new file was decided by a different branch of CPS, a branch that is higher up? is that correct?

And if so if the CRCC refers the original trial back to the COA and they order a retrial which CPS would be involved in that?

Nothing she is guilty

Thanks for the article, hadn't seen that.

Found this guidance about when a person or body can be an Interested Party

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/interested-persons/

It does contain provision for those whose actions contributed to the deaths, so that must be the basis for the application here. Looks to me like these are the relevant provisions.

15. Under s.47(2)(f) anyone who may by their act or omission have caused or contributed to the death of the deceased, or whose employee or agent may have done so will be entitled to IP status.

17. The use of ‘may’ in the subsection implies only possibility, the coroner need not be satisfied that the person probably caused or contributed to the death before affording IP status to them.

Letby's guilty criminal convictions must surely satisfy the possibility test. In which case, section 15 says she will be entitled.

She is automatically an interested party and entitled to question witnesses - law is clear on that. Though not necessarily with regard to this mysterious child who died at Liverpool. There, a coroner would have to decide whether she would be likely to come in for criticism and declare her an interested party of so.

So what McDonald is requesting here is very much her right, with that one reservation.

One of the really odd things about this case is the PR around it. Whenever there's anything comes out about new evidence for her innocence you can quickly see negative articles designed to pull at people's emotions - like suggesting she's having a cushy time in jail.

You see it with certain celebrities - something negative comes out and there'll be an article describing how they bandaged a puppy's paw in 1992.

I can't imagine that the parents of the babies either would want to do this nor have enough clout with the press, and they're not normally new stories, so the question remains: who is invested enough to try make sure that public opinion is against her?

I've never seen it with any similar situation, which is why it stands out to me.

Yes, her conviction means that she automatically has IP status

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/interested-persons/

35. In inquests following a homicide conviction the perpetrator of the homicide will always be entitled to IP [interested person] status. Neither sensitivity to the bereaved nor the potential administrative and practical difficulties involved in convening an inquest in which an incarcerated IP wishes to participate can justify failing to inform the perpetrator of their right to be an IP.[16]

36. Where an IP who is detained in a prison or secure psychiatric hospital wishes to participate in the investigation and inquest then arrangements may need to be made with the management of the detaining institution dealing with the detainee’s access to paper or electronic copies of inquest documents. Any arrangements for the IP’s remote attendance at a PIR or the inquest should be made with the institution well in advance of the hearing. ...

43.The key rights that come with interested person status under the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 (external link) include:

to be given advance notification of hearings and be informed of adjournments – rules 9(1), 9(2), 10(1) and 25(2) (external links);

to be provided with witness statements and other documents relevant to the inquest – rules 13, 14 and 15 (external links);

to examine witnesses – rule 19 (external link);

to make submissions to the coroner regarding the inquest procedure and conclusions – rules 17 & 18 (external links));

to be told of the date time and place of a post-mortem examination if the IP has asked to be told – reg 13(3) (external link).[17]

...

lol, absolutely classic framing by Mark M in that case - the hero rides in again! 😂

If she hasn't heard from the coroner about her IP status already, he should certainly be writing to them. I'm not so sure she has the automatic right to legal counsel and representation at the inquest, which seems to be part of the request. And then if one child isn't part of the indictment - it's either that or an error - her status may be in question there.

Yes, now online:

https://archive.is/qLGgM

Yes people are celebrating it and gloating-not necessarily on here but elsewhere. The police are having to remind people yet again that the babies and parents at the centre of this are going to be devastated and that's the last thing they need on top.

The same sort that hold protests saying she's innocent, hold a birthday party for her and write letters of support to her in prison no doubt.

You do realise that the people who think she's guilty feel exactly the same way about those convinced of her innocence don't you? One side is actually right so I'm not sure why they need to change their opinion on the case.

As for your previous point about being satisfied with another trial-the conspiracy will STILL rumble on because there will be brand new excuses "she didn't get a fair trial, everyone had already decided guilt" or "she didn't have good enough experts" or "the jury weren't shown all the evidence" ad nauseum. It'll never end unless she's freed because just like you say-people have an unwillingness to ever change their opinion.

And as to the PP who said we've got lots of negative news about her-where?! It's been "is she really innocent?" solidly for the past year. I've never seen a case like it for exactly the opposite reason and it's certainly turned public opinion, sadly.