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/

Alford plea not please. Damn autocorrect.

I think Alford pleas are different @MistressoftheDarkSide - that’s where the Defence acknowledges there’s enough evidence to potentially convict, but they are not admitting guilt. Whereas I think @lawnseed was taking about the situation where the Defence have actually been told by the defendant that they’re guilty, and how they respond.

Quite.
They need to have made a mistake, they don’t have to be bad at their jobs overall. Even people who are generally excellent get things wrong sometimes.
As for the defence, it is an extremely tall order to defend someone against multiple child murder charges when the cards are stacked against you by the number of charges and the difficulty of getting expert witnesses. It would be surprising if even a brilliant lawyer made no mistakes at all in a case as huge as this one.

But @TheCountessofFitzdotterel the Defence did manage to get experts witnesses prepared to testify for them. They just didn’t call them…

OP - you obviously don't even understand what a judicial review is. Don't take up law as a career, PLEASE!

Yes I think you're right.

I don’t buy it. She said she was innocent at the retrial. The medical data does not indicate murder let alone any particular link to LL. And they called the plumber, which surely counts as an alternative position even if rather crap.

I think it’s more likely that the defence felt that Michael Hall wouldn’t be able to give definitive responses to unanswerable questions such as “why did the babies die” - which may not help their case in the aggregate.

This is very much the land of junk science - Brexit-style glib certainties where the truth is more complex and opaque.

Out of interest @Mirabai are you a medic?

Surely if the prosecution case is so overwhelmingly “junk science” (and I don’t know, not a medic) that is exactly the evidence the Defence witnesses would have been able to give? Very odd not to call them in those circumstances.

Are you aware of them having others beyond Hall?

I don’t know their names at @TheCountessofFitzdotterel but experts plural, are referred to in the appeal decision.

The wording of the judgment is “number of experts” and “many reports”

There is no questioning of the evidence from any reliable or valuable sources and no new evidence. You don't get to shout appeal and judicial review just because you don't like the verdict, there are clear rules over when that is allowed and there is no basis for it in this case. She is clearly guilty and just because she looks 'normal' or 'innocent' is not enough reason to suggest she is, the evidence was compelling, have you seen the documentary where they spoke with the doctor who raised concerns over her several times and was silenced by the trust and forced to apologise to her? That's pretty compelling stuff

Not a medic I have made that clear across multiple threads. I do have maths and science although I’m not sure that’s necessary. I’d have thought the statistical nonsense of the spreadsheet, the total lack of evidence for the air embolism and insulin theories would be obvious to anyone with common sense.

Do you have the name or link for this soo I could please have a look at?

You’d think. But the general consensus is that it’s hard to find U.K. medics who are prepared to risk their careers to appear for the defence in child abuse/cases. They have to be got from abroad and that makes them super expensive.

The prosecution “experts” don’t seem to be worried about their careers and they should be given the quality of the evidence.

But they did find experts @Mirabai they just didn’t call them.

They found one and they didn’t call him. I’m not sure a single canary in a large mine would have made a material difference to the case. The prosecution had 250 witnesses including the hospital staff.

Yes, and he picked out 25 more than were presented at court, including one with same supposed markers for insulin.

Sorry it wasn't a documentary but an interview on the news It's on ITVx News https://www.itv.com/watch/news/babies-couldve-been-saved-doctor-who-helped-catch-lucy-letby-blames-hospital/xcytcvm The BBC Panorama one is quite good too

To be honest to think she is anything other than guilty is delusional

Anyone watched the panorama about her?

It is not about a judicial review that is about a public law issue, her case needs to be reviewed by the Criminal Case Commission.

I’m watching the Panorama one now x

Nope @Mirabai - multiple uncalled experts. As I’ve referred to above, the Court of Appeal judgment says “a number of experts” and “many reports”. The others have just not gone to the papers.