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/

They weren’t. You were just told that by the prosecution.

The babies were ok in other hospitals because they were much better run. They
weren’t level 1 units pretending to be level 2. Alder Hey is a level 3 unit. One baby’s mother whose child ended up in Liverpool Women’s Hospital said the difference between the hospitals was like “night and day”.

I would expect to see evidence that any of these deaths was actually murder and evidence a particular person on the unit was responsible. I did not see any evidence on either count.

You’d think given the number of babies she is supposed to have killed or injured someone would have seen something. That there would be some hard scientific evidence of harm or forensic evidence of tampering. Yet there was none.

(I’m not sure what “practically caught” means. If I practically caught something, I didn’t catch something in fact).

@MistressoftheDarkSide Really good post,

To feel 'satisfied to be sure' of her guilt then I would want evidence that those babies were murdered. There was no concrete proof of that. And I also understand there's no guarantee that they would have found anything to prove it even if they had been looking during the post mortem but I would not and could not be sure without something that concrete. I understand that that means that a potential serial killer could get away with it if they commit the 'perfect crime' but it's 2024, I wouldn't be able to lock someone up for a life based on a hunch or feeling that they might have did it. I would need proof that crimes had actually been committed in the first place.

The hospital contacted the families of all the babies who died after a report in 2017 and said they offered full and accurate information about what happened to their babies. Next thing they're saying "no actually it was a serial killer".

The only 3 unanimous verdicts were for the insulin poisonings and for child O, I am assuming that it was child Os liver injury that swung it for that juror (Just my opinion as I don't know what else could have made them more certain about intentional harm for that baby and not the others, and also I'm aware that it might not have always been one hold out juror, but I'm assuming that that was most likely).

But there are a lot of question marks about the insulin poisonings.

And in regards to child Os liver injury, that was spotted during the post mortem and CPR was put down as one of the potential causes.

Yet the prosecution expert tried to say it couldn't have been CPR, that the injuries were so extreme that he would liken them to the damage sustained if the baby had been in a road traffic accident or if the baby was on a trampoline and went up into the air and landed.

What on earth was Letby supposed to have done to cause that amount of damage and how was she supposed to have done it unnoticed?

I don't think the fact that Letby wrote "I am innocent" in her private notebooks alongside "I am evil" and "i killed them" is quite the argument for her innocence that some posters seem to think it is.

Do you think that all medical professionals who happen to work in an under resourced department that has a random cluster of deaths write this sort of thing in their private journals?

Do you think it's another coincidence that the member of staff suspected of multiple murders happened to be the same one who had notebooks filled with this kind of thing?

All the post mortems, which are the gold standard of establishing scientific cause of death, found natural causes.

Any of those cases could have been referred for forensic autopsy if there was any concern or ambiguity a the time, or the CDOP.

We now know, thanks to Guardian, what we didn’t know about the Hawdon Report, which was that she found that 13 of the cases had received “suboptimal care” and the “death/collapse is explained but may have been prevented with different care”. And she advised a deeper forensic review of 4 further cases, which were reviewed by a neonatologist. So that covers I think the 17 deaths in total in 2015 and 2016.

The testimony about the CPR and liver injury was fundamentally dishonest imo.
(And what are the chances of LL randomly choosing to hit the liver of the baby who just happened to have CPR that morning, when if we are to believe the case, her “preferred” methods were air embolism and insulin. Terribly convenient isn’t it? And a good cover for inept CPR).

Of course it’s not coincidence, she wrote them after she had been accused.

Only the ones specifically accused and picked out for investigation, as she was when she wrote all that.

Well I don't suppose having a serial killer on the unit with babies collapsing weekly and people running around like headless chickens trying to figure out WTF was going on makes for a particularly well run unit...although LL spent a lot of her time complaining she was bored so...

Practically caught as in she was caught either not doing anything or right after she'd attacked a baby but being a hospital had enough excuses for people to not be 100% sure what they'd seen (especially worried parents who trust their babies nurse) her profession creates enough doubt, which this thread is proof of. She was careful not to be caught in the act but people saw the direct aftermath enough to put 2 and 2 together in hindsight.

I am astonished that LL didn't engage an expert witness but maybe her team couldn't find someone suitably qualified and also prepared to do it due to the high profile of the case.

I have been in a similar position but as the petitioner. I have had a hell of a time finding an expert witness because it's all a closed shop and they all know each other. It's taken me nearly three years and I found that person just by a fluke of luck.

In the interview on YouTube the barrister Mark McDonald says it is extremely difficult finding expert witnesses for the defence in child abuse cases in the UK because of what happened to Waney Squier (reported to the GMC by police after giving evidence questioning the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis, struck off, eventually won appeal against striking off).
In the light of what happened to her I can quite imagine why most people who could have given evidence in Letby’s favour would be nervous about the damage to their own lives if they did so. Why would you put your career on the line for someone you don’t know and who might be guilty anyway?

Exactly. I don't know whether she is innocent or guilty but to put faith in any system in this country right now, seems like a bad idea. Literally nothing functions.

I have serious concerns regarding the expert witnesses. My son was a patient of one of the paediatric expert witnesses. This ‘expert’ accused me of abusing my son. He was put on the ‘at risk’ register. I was subjected to a series of distressing, humiliating and aggressive investigations and my son to invasive examinations. I was cleared when it was found the expert had missed a very clear and obvious diagnosis that explained my son’s symptoms and presentation.
It was frightening how this expert skewed the narrative to fit what they wanted it to be.

By the way, multiple posters mixed up the New York Times and the New Yorker (where the article was published).

I am concerned that Letby was used as a scapegoat for institutional failure, and it's not because she's young (having been outside the UK I wasn't staring at her face during the trial, but reading printed news reports).

That's extremely concerning. How can people have a fair trial if experts are afraid to testify? They would say it is fair (in the legal sense) because they had the opportunity to get experts, but it's not fair in the true sense of the word.

I see there was another telegraph article saying several former cabinet ministers have expressed concern and the issue is likely to be raised in parliament.

It said that one former cabinet minister with a legal background that several convictions based on scientific or medical evidence in recent years had troubled him.
Speaking specifically about the Letby trial, he said: "There is an increasing trend towards convictions being secured on the basis of medical evidence. “Where there is no direct evidence of a person’s guilt, one can understand why there may be some people who are concerned about it.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/10/ucy-letby-ministers-concerned-conviction/

If there is an increasing trend for use of medical evidence then surely there will have to be some kind of reform in regards to the use of expert witnesses, not even specifically for Letby but for the justice system as a whole.

Here’s the New Yorker piece-it’s very detailed https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

Important to say that the author went through all the court reports etc to write this contrary to some posts on here- it’s a good piece of investigative journalism and does raise a lot of questions about the safety of the conviction

Wow, this thread is like text book Dunning-Kruger.

Suddenly loads of people with no previous interest or qualifications know better than doctors/ the police/ the CPS/ the jury and the judge. All without seeing the full evidence.

Hats off to you all. With such great magical insight you should do fortune telling as well. You could make a killing on the stock market.

All of what was seen as the most damning evidence has been talked about over and over again. We are all aware of it.

Many who are uncertain about the verdict have read as much as they possibly can about the case without having been in the courtroom. Now that reporting restrictions have been lifted it seems more journalists are now sharing their opinions having talked to other experts who have also expressed concerns.

Sometimes doctors/police/CPS/judges and juries get it wrong.
Also important to note that some of the stuff being discussed now is potential evidence that the jury didn't have access to.

As has been said many times on this thread, it’s a response to 3 detailed mainstream investigative articles questioning the safety of the verdict- fairly unprecedented in a case like this.

Also, IF this is a an unsafe conviction, that means failures on behalf of the CPS and police- as is the case in most miscarriages of justice.

It's hubris if you think you know the truth and are convinced Lucy Letby is innocent. It's not hubris to read evidence that was excluded from trial and conclude that perhaps the trial was not fair.

The fact is that miscarriages of justice do happen.

Now this is an interesting read! It makes you think doesn't it? I mean a hospital with sewage backing up in toilets and sinks, infections galore. Prem babies will 100% pick up infections quicker and more frequently than babies born term soo how is that even safe in the first place? 🤨🤨 I do now see your reason for this thread! Also one doctor for two wards? Mothers coming in with known disorders...... hmmmmmmmmmm

Exactly. I have no idea if she is guilty or not - but what I do now know is that there are huge questions about the safety of her conviction.

So surely there should be a retrial if there are doubts? For everyones sake.

This reminds me of Making of a Murderer. Viewers going insane about the convicted and coming up with outlandish theories about their innocence. When you read what actually happened at trial and the evidence, plus detective reports, the whole programme was just titillating entertainment.

Have you actually read the 3 articles?

Especially the New Yorker one- totally reasonable questions being asked on this thread

True crime is a very problematic genre, but let's not forget that the original Serial podcast did lead to Adnan Syed getting a new trial and ultimately being released.

The New Yorker is not on the same level as Netflix. They have famously thorough fact-checkers. Again, I'm not convinced she's innocent, but the articles brought up some troubling things that were not at the trial, and the UK media was uniformly "she's guilty" the entire time.

There was lots of evidence that was not about the statistics. The police discovered reams of paperwork relating to the dead babies at Lucy Letby’s home. Why would an innocent person take home all those documents and store them for years?