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?

Further, there’s a case about a Dutch medical staff member convicted of killing babies, her case was unsafe and after being imprisoned and appealing she is now free, but that is clearly a miscarriage of justice and if it happened once it can happen again.

This is a case where she was convicted solely on statistical evidence. The argument was that it was so statistically improbable that there would be the number of deaths there were and that the defendant was present for all of them. This was not the case for Lucy Letby. There was evidence in every case that she killed the babies, even if some mumsnetters don’t agree with the evidence. But the case was never presented on the basis that X number of deaths is so unusual that it must be murder and that it must therefore be LL because she was there every time. I know some people think that’s what the prosecution were saying but they really weren’t. However it was excessive deaths that triggered the suspicion of the consultants as was the case for Beverley Allitt, Ben Geen, Harold Shipman and Victorian Chua.

I’m not grasping at anything, you have decided that and presumed I believe she is not guilty

the swipe data was not incorrect- her swipe card hadn’t been used and she was not in the hospital

theories were she tailgated someone or tampered with medication previously

why would the talk of tailgating come up if the data showed letby wasn’t there

I promise that if she had something to say that exonerated Letby, her defence would have compelled her to testify. Some nurse saying they were mates with a killer and thinks she’s a nice lady doesn’t exactly mean that she’s innocent. We know she had friends - we saw the multiple text messages. We know people trusted her (eg Dr A). There’s always someone who believes even the most heinous criminal is innocent and wouldn’t hurt a fly. It means nothing in terms of the legal process. Harold Shipman had legions of fans who were outraged when he was first arrested. He was very popular.

You are rude! This is a discussion and people are allowed to have their own opinions. It seems that if the views don't align with your own you are not capable of putting up a reasonable/solid explanation so the only thing you can do is dismiss and be rude to others. That makes you the fool.

Now onto the discussion and moving away from this poster, I thought she was guilty at the start but the way the so called professionals twisted their stories to fit the narrative she was guilty and the fact that many professionals have questioned this makes me revalue my initial suspicions. Now I'm on the fence. I dont understand the medical talk and don't have a great deal of knowledge of the criminal law but the way the CPS have dropped this, makes me think the police didn't have enough to go on and were again trying to 'create' a case.

Obviously all this can be true, that the initial investigation was flawed, and that she was responsible but I think I and many others will never truly know.

I think the suspicion is around the trust asking/telling employees not to testify, if this is the case it’s part of the package of dubious behaviour which leads people to believe the conviction was wrong & it was a “stich up” by the trust.

Most of their dubious behaviour was in support of Letby though. Such as allowing her parents to make representations at grievance meetings, talking directly to her dad, people being threatened with the sack or reporting if they brought up any issues about her, managers stating their aim was to get her back on the ward despite her having finally been suspended.

There were different phases and groups of people involved

You have the consultants (2015 - present), including some managers, who fought finger and keep Lucy Letby off the ward and drew up a report for the police. Some of them changed details of their stories and left information out of paperwork for the coroner.

You have hospital and ward management up to about 2017 who did not believe Letby had harmed anyone and tried to resolve conflict and get her back on the ward. This never happened, and they had all retired or resigned between 2017 and the trial. A new wave of managers was in charge by the time there would have been any question of nurses testifying

With respect, you don't know what you don't know.

The picture the expert witness panel painted is of a hospital which gradually took on more acute and complex cases, made and did not recognize errors in treatment, and failed to see its own failings. Very sad, but we have plenty of reports from units where exactly this sort of thing has happened on the NHS. The panel also pointed out that medics missed signs of deterioration in some cases, so calling these babies stable is part of the problem - they weren't.

The new evidence is with the CCRC (though some of it, and some summaries, have been reproduced in the press).

Unfortunately the CCRC usually takes years to make decisions on whether to refer, so you really can't read anything into the fact that it hasn't been brought to court yet.

If there is a new trial, you'll see the new evidence.

You haven't had access to all the evidence. This fangirling of a baby murderer is the opposite of rational.

Agree. Plus “I don’t agree with the evidence” is not the same as “there was no evidence”. There was evidence but people (largely with no experience) are saying it was wrong.

Let’s see if any of the panel members agree to be her expert witness in a retrial (although I don’t think there will be one). My guess is no because then their claims would be open to scrutiny.

The jury didn’t have access to all the evidence, because of all the things that have emerged post trial, were disallowed by the judge or not brought up by Ben Myers for reasons no-one apart from Letby and Myers know.

Dewi Evans wasn’t capable of understanding all the evidence, as his misunderstanding of one of the key scientific papers he relied on proves.

I believe Letby is innocent, not because I think I am some extra special Miss Marple type as certain of those are adamant the conviction is safe are fond of claiming, but because the people who understand it best and have seen the evidence have been very clear in their conclusions.

The rational thing, if you don’t have any kind of professional expertise in a specialist area, is to look at who is telling you things and what their credentials are, as well as their motivation. Evans really doesn’t stand up on either front and his frequent contradictions and backtracks underline that.

Something that is irrational, though, as well as childish, is using terms like ‘fangirling’ for something that is nothing of the sort. It’s an ad hominem and a mildly sexist one at that.

The panel has already submitted their full reports to the CCRC, where they will be duly scrutinized.

These experts put their name and photos to press summaries, appeared in a public live press conference to announce their findings, submitted the full reports to the CCRC, have appeared in various TV and radio documentaries, and have in some cases already published related academic articles with all the routine scrutiny that involves. (As academics they'll be used to scrutiny).

The idea that they are afraid of scrutiny is absolutely without foundation and is typical of the weird and desperate coping mechanisms we have seen from people determined to find a reason to believe Lucy Letby is guilty. It's not a good sign when you are willing to subscribe to such empty fantasies.

The panel discussed their findings in a live, televised press conference. How can anything they do after that open them up to more scrutiny than that?

Have you compared their credentials with the experts from the trail? Dewi Evans has published 0 peer-reviewed papers. Modi and Lee have published around 400 each.

DE is a consultant paediatrician. Shoo Lee is a leading neonatologist, Director of the Maternal-Infant Research Centre at Mount Sinai Hospital, and an Associate Member of the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute.

One of those people is more qualified to expertly review the evidence than the other.

As I said, I don't know if she is guilty or not, but I do know the evidence she was convicted on is deeply flawed and disputed by people with far more knowledge than Dewi and Chester Police. That should be concerning to everyone. We all live under the same justice system, and most of us use the same NHS. If someone as highly regarded as Dr Lee says the system, both the Trust and the justice system, failed as badly as he did, we need to pay attention. If he is right, something like this can never be allowed to happen again.

Quite different from being cross examined. Anyway, let’s see. I don’t think any of her supporters from the medical community would actually be willing to give expert evidence in her favour. All well and good to sit there picking apart the expert evidence at a press conference but quite another to advance a theory yourself that is likely to be vulnerable to being torn down. For her first trial she had quite
eminent medics writing reports for her yet she chose not to call them or rely on the reports, likely because they were not favourable to her.

The threshold for conviction is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I just can't see how anyone thinks that threshold is met, bearing in mind that the jury should have been considering the evidence for each charge in isolation.

I think this was a 'no smoke without fire' situation and the jury thought that with so many charges, she must have done something, and if she'd done something, she must have done most things.

They're obviously bright enough to know that writing expert reports for the legal system is likely to end in cross examination as expert witnesses. They have said that they are happy to act as expert witnesses. You have absolutely no reason to doubt that. They weren't brought into the case at gunpoint - they've volunteered to be involved.

Words are cheap, and you can write what you like, but what you are writing there is pure, and silly, fantasy.

'Likely'.

You mention people with no experience upthread, so what's your qualification to assess that? You obviously won't have seen any of the evidence you're discussing. I've seen some interesting commentary from legal people, which I'll post, but would like to know the basis for this first.

Well why else would you get a medical expert to write a report for you, yet choose not to use it in your trial where you potentially face life in prison?

Still waiting for you or anyone to stop insulting posters and quote the direct non circumstantial evidence that Lucy Letby harmed any baby.

You'll have a problem with that because there is none

You answer my question first and then I'll expand further. I'll stick my neck out and say you don't sound like a legal person, so what's your experience or qualification that allows you to be so definitive?

I am a legal person but not a criminal legal person (I’m a family legal person). But I’m not claiming to have any special qualifications at all. So why would someone commission a report and not use it then? What do you think? Especially when the stakes are so high.

One good explanation here

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_the_missing_defence_evidence

Leaks to Private Eye have suggested similar. Her defence tried to get the whole testimony of the expert witness discredited rather than take it point by point. At that stage, they didn't have an explanation for insulin test results to would have been trying to avoid cross examination on that point. Now McDonald has reports on that issue. No big mystery - legal commentators have had no problem understanding and explaining it.

You do realise that circumstantial evidence is evidence and that many many convictions are based on it?

I am very sorry for the dreadful loss and pain you have suffered.

Yes, too many people seem not to realise that allowing systemic medical incompetence to be concealed - through scapegoating a socially ‘weird’ nurse - will cause more deaths & more tragedy.

The more that comes about this neonatal unit the more obvious it is that it was grotesquely unfit. We should all be horrified by this - and terrified by the way the evidence in this case was presented. Dewi Evans’ involvement in particular was shocking and raises real issues about how the courts deal with expert evidence.

For all those shrieking ‘rot in hell’ I would recommend reading Phil Hammond’s 32 articles (freely available) on the Letby case. Even if you don’t agree with them, they will be thought provoking, and help you pin down why you don’t agree with them. This can only be a good thing.