To think the Lucy Letby case needs a judicial review?

[Edenspirits73]

2 more detailed articles in main stream papers today questioning the Lucy Letby verdict - mirroring the well known New York Times article that wasn’t allowed here during her trial- surely with this much questioning, there should at least be a judicial review?

aibu?

If she is guilty after review then fair enough, but yet again convictions are being viewed as unsafe.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/

I think we've spent enough money on her

She can organise her appeal as is her right .... if she wants to

And another looking in detail at the data www.scienceontrial.com/post/shifting-the-data

I think she’s been denied the right to appeal - too many questions to ignore though

I think the next (and perhaps only remaining) option is the Criminal Cases Review Commission, as she's had two leaves to appeal rejected.

You can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict, there has to be fresh evidence ,evidence she had an unfair trial etc
I don't know so many posters seem to think they know better than the jury and the police ,CPS etc.

Have you read the articles? There are questions about the evidence - and the use of statistics.

Miscarriages of justice historically happen despite the CPS, Police etc.

If she’s still found guilty then fine but with this many questions, there should at least be a review

She's been found guilty by two separate juries now, after 21 months of trial. Thousands of pieces of evidence and testimony were presented. The New York Times article cherry-picked what they wanted to make their point.

Thankfully, newspapers don’t have any influence over the judiciary or the decisions it makes (and I write for one of them)

I thought the articles had clearly not been written by people who spend their working lives in court rooms. I do. I know enough to know that court cases are not like you see on the telly. There’s very rarely a silver bullet, a magical piece of evidence that proves something beyond doubt. Juries make a series of judgements based on the evidence before them. They have done so in two of Letby’s cases. Just because the writer of the piece doesn’t agree with their judgment it doesn’t mean that it’s the wrong one.

Some of the people quoted in her piece I also have personal knowledge of and at least two of them are people I would consider to be anti-establishment and one, bordering on a conspiracy theorist.

Have people forgotten that she literally had pages of writing in her bedroom where she said that she had killed patients and what an evil person she was? And also that multiple colleagues had serious concerns about her which they reported? And that one doctor gave an eyewitness account of seeing her standing over a baby watching it and doing nothing while its monitor was sounding the alarm?

The 'statistics' are really not the only evidence against her.

If she was an aggressive-looking lump with a mullet like Beverley Allitt, nobody would be kicking up a fuss about her conviction, trust me.

If you think the wrong verdict has been reached, Judicial Review is the wrong remedy. It’s not concerned with whether a decision was the right one, only with whether the law has been followed in the decision making process.

Letby has had the benefit of two extensive jury trials with representation by a top barrister. She has been found guilty. Her attempts at appeal have failed because she has been unable to show that she can demonstrate new, relevant evidence or that there was an error in law by the judge.

There is no indication of any unfairness in the process. Conspiracy theorists and those who can’t accept that sometimes serial killers look like smiling nurses will peddle half-baked ideas about failures of evidence etc. but Letby had every opportunity to lead whatever evidence would be helpful to her cause. She put her best foot forward and was found guilty by a jury. We can have faith in the verdict.

She is very obviously guilty.

If you think she's innocent I've got some other news for you: the earth isn't flat, 5G didn't cause covid, and the Royal Family aren't actually alien reptiles.

Quite the picture, s of Beverly Allit and Lucy Letby are very stark in contrast
Nobody had much sympathy when she was convicted

I’d throw the key away.
She doesn’t deserve another penny being spent on her.

There will be a Review. Now that her ongoing court cases are over one can start. I was listening too Woman's Hour I think, about an NMC review and it was mentioned there. It will start in September

They couldn't start one any earlier, whilst she was still an active case.

There are precendents of ‘throw away the key’ cases being miscarriages of justice. I just think with so much questioning of the evidence and that questioning getting louder (apparently another major piece coming out next week apparently) - there should at least be a review.

There was a Dutch nurse wrongfully convicted.

One of the more famous miscarriages of justice
amp.theguardian.com/society/2007/mar/17/childrensservices.uknews

I get the usual MN approach is 'poor defenceless female who could never do anything wrong'. But I think your continued attempts to make out she's been wrongly convicted are deeply offensive.

She very clearly MURDERED MULTIPLE CHILDREN. That conviction wasn't made on one tiny piece of evidence.

No way. She can rot in jail for the hideous crimes she committed.

Why are you so invested in this @Edenspirits73 ???

I’m not invested in it. I’m interested in it - is that ok with you? It’s being discussed in mainstream papers by credible journalists - and this is a discussion forum isn’t it?

Having listened to a podcast on the NYT article which went through it point by point, it was an inflammatory, poorly researched and inaccurate article.

She wrote diary entries talking about and admitting murdering the babies in her care, there is a plethora of evidence for all of the victims. The articles especially NYT chose to leave out a great deal of evidence and witness testimony.

The NYT article is not credible. It was sensationalist and cherry picked to suit its agenda. Why was there not such an outcry about Nurse Beverly Allit who in 1993 received 13 life sentences for killing babies under almost identical circumstances? I'll tell you why, because Beverly Allit was unattrative, ugly if you like, and had a slight speech impediment. Whereas Lucy Letby looks sweet, lovely, caring, everyone's ideal girl next door. We don't want to believe she could be evil, she doesn't fit the stereotype.

Not sure if you read it the first time, there is going to be a Review...

Just like the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, and the Maguire Seven were all convicted apparently absolutely safely on apparently watertight forensic evidence, confessions and circumstantial evidence relating to their association with IRA members. The 'rot in jail/throw away the key' rhetoric was just the same.

The Birmingham Six were convicted in 1974, their first application for leave to appeal was refused in 1976, and again in 1988 (after a series of documentaries questioned the evidence and produced new evidence) their convictions were ruled safe and satisfactory. Until 1991 when their second full application for an appeal was allowed by the CPS, and they were freed after 17 years in prison. It took another decade for them to be offered compensation.

It was this and other related miscarriages of justice that caused the CCRC to be set up in 1997, because of diminished public confidence in the effectiveness of British justice.

Which is not, of course, to say that Lucy Letby is innocent.

Only that high-profile miscarriages of justice have in fact occurred in the relatively recent past (Sally Clark's conviction for the murder of her sons was quashed when the CCRC referred back to the Court of Appeal), and the safety of those convictions was upheld by the judiciary throughout the appeals process, for decades in some cases. The fact that a jury heard evidence and came to a verdict in two separate trials in LL's case, and that a judge twice refused leave to appeal, is not necessarily convincing proof of guilt.