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/

If the statistics have been presented in such a way that bias the jury then yes I think there should be a review.
Sometimes expert evidence can be very persuasive because it comes from a point of , and may not be robustly challenged enough.
I don’t think the diary entries were clear cut.
That said much evidence has been presented that we are not privy to and I don’t know enough about it to form an opinion.

Tbf juries have been wrong before. We all know there's no assessment of intelligence, anyone can be on a jury.

Many experts query the evidence. The articles are interesting and disturbing reading.

Yeah, and many juries, judges, friends and families have been wrong on someone's innocence... It doesn't help to argue Letbys case in any way.

A big part of evidence in the second trial was the fact that she's already been convicted of killing and harming many other babies. Without that there wouldn't have been a guilty verdict (or second trial).

Exactly.
Funny how much bias there is when the killer is white, young, pretty female.
Oh no not nice Lucy.

I find the fact that the insulin related evidence wasn't tested to recommended standards worrying. That was used as that gateway charge. Insulin results were supposed to show someone had committed a murder. Once you accepted that she had murdered some babies, you could work from that conclusion to the other murders. That's what the prosecution asked the jury to do.
Now it seems the insulin evidence wasn't reliable. That's even clearer in the New Yorker article.

I always found the use of statistics in this case alarming.

I don't know why people talk about her being attractive. She is average looking, or not even that in a mugshot. I don't know what Beverley Allitt looked like. I don't generally have a mental picture of criminals, except maybe mug shots, which aren't usually flattering.

I can’t help thinking of the poor woman who suffered 3 (IIRC) cot deaths, and was convicted of killing her babies. The ‘expert’ whose evidence helped to convict her was IIRC later discredited and she was cleared, but only after some time in prison. IIRC she never recovered from the ordeal and later committed suicide.

This.

Everyone keeps saying that, but I don't know of any other young white female murder cases anyone is upset about? The only other potential miscarriage of justice cases you hear much about are men.

Don’t forget on the pages of the diary where she supposedly confessed she also wrote she was innocent - so this is hardly conclusive.

Bet the verdict would be accepted by all the doubters if she was male.

Allitt was a white, average looking woman. Her hair do was pretty standard of the time. She certainly wasn't an 'aggressive looking lump'.

How Letby looks is irrelevant. Many experts query the stats and evidence.

YANBU OP. The conviction is dodgy as hell. Still far too many unknowns in this case.

Or not white.

Exactly.

We all accepted Allitt's verdict and she was female and white .

A big part of the case against her was that she was the only person on shift at all the deaths with which she was charged. Apparently there were another 6 deaths during this period, but these were not included in the evidence. The court was not told whether she was on shift during those deaths; or whether someone else's shift pattern looked equally "bad" if the other deaths were included.

Our courts system is not set up to analyse statistical evidence. Sally Clark's triel was an example - the statistic was presented that there was a minute chance of two cot deaths in one family, with the implication that she must therefore have killed them both. What wasn't presented is that the alternative hypothesis, that she was a serial killer of two of her children, had an even more minute probability. So therefore of the two options, two cot deaths, or two murders, two cot deaths was the less unlikely.

Secondly, an expert witness could have thrown light on the Lucy Letby case - his evidence was discounted on the grounds that it could have been prevented at the trial and wasn't, and therefore it wasn't allowable at the appeal.

If there is any doubt at all, it needs to be cleared up. If someone who is innocent can be convicted, then that's something that could happen to any one of us.

I agree.
Some people don’t want to believe that the nice young white female nurse might be a baby killer.

It’s not about her being white, male or female- it was a high profile case involving a professional, a nurse who people trust- hardly surprising that the public have shown an interest in the case. The questions around the veracity of evidence are not surprising either given that these were already poorly babies, and where there’s had initially been no suspicious circumstances reported by medical staff till later down the line. It certainly doesn’t seem to be a straight forward case.

We all believed Allitt was!

She may be guilty or not that’s not really important. The important part is that the trial is fair and unbiased. There have been some fairly major miscarriages of justice recently, Post Office scandal and Andrew Malkinson. The documentary on bbc is quite shocking at how he went from arrest to conviction without the evidence being interrogated.

Of course her looks play a factor in people’s interest.

To put it simply - she doesn’t look like the sort of person who would be a baby killer. We have seen photos of people who have seriously hurt or murdered children and we’d expect more Rose West or Karen Matthews than sweet looking Lucy.

Given this case never made it to more than routine reporting in the NYT you can't have been paying too much attention.

I think she is innocent.
i don’t think any of the children were murdered.
it is a travesty of justice and a tragedy for the parents.
truth will out. Eventualy

I guess it's harder to digest because unlike other murders there are two strangers,and dna evidence to nail them with some solid science. People do not go around injecting newborns with air so the evidence and science isn't solid tested research based on multiple cases.

I'd not bet my mortgage on her conviction. But I wasn't in court.

However as a scientist I knew lots of lay people could be easily convinced un scientific shit was fact. On FB. Not sure how that holds up at court