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?

Agreed. Here's a link to the Private Eye articles:

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby

Oh yes, I realise that there are many unsafe convictions too.

Fangirling is literally what you're doing.

There's a strange cult around this baby murderer. She's not innocent and you can't cherry-pick 'experts' to pretend she is.

Or, indeed, if any of the women on here who are so sure of her innocence would leave their baby with her.

Fangirling would involve an emphasis on Letby, her looks, her characteristics etc, claims about her virtues. There's not a smidgen of that in the post you have quoted

Anyone - pretty or ugly, good or bad - could have ended up in Lucy Letby's situation, by virtue of being present, doing their job.

That's one of the most worrying things about the case.

I was thinking that, and even if there was a retrial for the original cases that the prosecution would seriously struggle with experts this time.

Hopefully you can find the part of the COA judgement you were talking about earlier then!

One of the pieces I was talking about has already been linked to. This is the other.

https://davidallengreen.com/2024/07/the-lucy-letby-case-some-thoughts-and-observations-what-should-happen-when-a-defence-does-not-put-in-their-own-expert-evidence-for-good-reason-or-bad/

He gives a number of potential tactical reasons. You really can't just assume. None of us have seen that evidence so none of us can say why the defence made the decisions they did.

I'm a Fangirl of Justice, not Letby.

I'll bet you just assume I think she's not guilty?

What I think is that she didn't get a fair trial.

I'm bemused by the number of people on this thread who think juries are infallible.

One is Ian Bailey, convicted of killing his fiancée, the author Helen Bailey. Entirely circumstantial but clearly he’s guilty as sin. Another is Levi Bellfield’s conviction for the murder of Milly Dowler. Again, I’m not losing sleep over him not being guilty. There are many more. Circumstantial evidence can be more persuasive than eg eye witness evidence.

Yeah, it's important to distinguish between the two. And whether one takes a view on her guilt or not, there are some obvious wider problems here that ought to concern any sensible person.

I'm getting a sense of deja vu now!

Possible answers:

Yes
Oh my God you monster! I don't believe you!

No
Well then you obviously really believe she's a murderer!

I don't leave my babies with any random strangers
That's not the point!!

We've been here before. There is nothing to learn from asking people if they imagine they would leave their imaginary babies with an imaginary baby killer.

Yes, Lucy Letby will probably always be tainted by this. Yes, people will be cautious around her, because mud sticks. She won't be picking up many babysitting gigs.

No, that doesn't prove she's a murderer.

But it's OK to cherry-pick them to prove she is?

If ignoring a world-renowned, leading neonatologist, with nothing to gain from speaking out, in favour of a dubious paediatrician, with a history of controversy as an expert witness and a financial motive to prove Letby's guilt, is not cherry-picking, then I don't know what is.

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel summed it up perfectly. No one on this thread is suitably qualified to assess the medical evidence, so when those who are tell us two different things, all we can do is look at who they are and what their motivations are.

Absolutely.
But it's often extremely strong circumstantial evidence, which it wasn't in this case.
Also generally there is proof that there was a crime committed in the first place, which there wasn't in this case.

For example someone found stabbed to death, they know a crime has to have been committed, someones fingerprints found at the scene could be very strong circumstantial evidence.

If she gets a retrial then it will be a jury assessing the evidence, not medical experts. So I don’t think anyone’s lack of medical expertise is a big problem. It will also be a judge rather than a doctor deciding whether she gets a retrial.

Go and look up fangirling in an online dictionary.
While you’re at it, look up cherry picking.
If there were a whole bunch of experts out there who thought Letby was guilty, and a few who thought she was innocent, and I ignored the majority, that would be cherry picking.
It’s actually more like the other way round. Evans is sticking to his guns, the others who gave evidence with him are keeping schtum and more and more people with relevant expertise have come forward to say there are problems with aspects of the case.
If it comes to retrial Mark Macdonald is going to have a pretty easy time finding expert witnesses; the prosecution, not so much.

This.

I don't know if Letby is guilty, I don't have access to all the evidence and I am not qualified to make an assessment of it even if I did.

My concern with the conviction is based on the fact that the evidence is now being disputed by the author of the paper it relied on, and Dewi Evan's suitability as a medical expert. From the start, he acted unprofessionally and without morals or ethics, and it is not the first time he has been involved in controversial cases or had his evidence disproved.

Based on that, I strongly believe Letby was convicted on flawed evidence, not that she is not guilty, but that the conviction is unsafe due to the major issues with the prosecution's expert witness and the evidence he presented. I don't feel the case meets the test of reasonable doubt.

She should be retried, and the prosecution absolutely should bring in experts to review Lee's findings, but those experts should be suitably qualified, which Dewi was not, and review the evidence without the bias Dewi had.

It's weird that you think that people not being convinced by evidence which really wasn't strong at all, is indicative of a 'strange cult'.

Such a lack of critical thinking.
Lazy arguing too throwing out things like 'fangirling' in an attempt to try to shame people just to shut them up because you can't/won't engage with peoples genuine reasons for why they're concerned about the verdict.

Juries being expected to assess expert evidence when they aren't qualified to do so can be a very big problem!

Yep 100% this

Well you're wrong.

No one here needs to be ashamed of themselves, and everyones heart is in the right place.

Some are convinced she is guilty and that justice has been done for the families.
Others are wholly unconvinced because the evidence was so poor, in which case justice has not been done at all and the families have suffered a serious injustice.

It's clearly yourself who lacks empathy if you can't understand the thought process here and instead just assume it's that people are heartless.

She should be retried, and the prosecution absolutely should bring in experts to review Lee's findings, but those experts should be suitably qualified, which Dewi was not, and review the evidence without the bias Dewi had.

It’s the prosecution leading the case so they would bring experts that support their case, not ones to “review” the “findings” of someone who to date hasn’t been instructed as an expert on the case. The defence can obviously choose to call Dr Shoo or whoever else they want to.

Right well that’s what our justice system is based on I’m afraid. And if it wasn’t a jury it would be a judge (as in some jurisdictions). There is no possibility ever of Dr Shoo or the panel deciding whether she is guilty or not. It will always be someone who is not an expert who makes that decision.

I’m surprised that she is still alive and hasn’t taken her own life. I believe she is a victim of human nastiness, honestly.

may god bless her family, but mostly the families of the babies who died due to insitutional incompetence.

imo this news shows that she is innocent as, as a pp said, their ‘evidence’ won’t stand in court this time.

I have no idea whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty but I do believe that she should have a retrial because if new and/or robust evidence is presented that proves she is guilty then that should hopefully shut everyone up as the right person will have been convicted of the crime.

However is new and/or robust evidence proves that she is innocent then someone else out there has got away with murder & that is completely & utterly wrong.

She’s a scapegoat, a cover for serious mis management. I’m a senior nhs manager and this case has put me off taking that final leap into becoming chief exec - because let’s be honest here, if she wins an appeal in the future, someone has to be blamed for these babies deaths. If I was the CEO of that trust, I’d be very worried. The case didn’t identify how many babies died when she wasn’t on duty. It was circumstantial at best.