Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think the Lucy Letby case needs a judicial review?

1000 replies

Edenspirits73 · 09/07/2024 16:19

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/

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence

Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
CormorantStrikesBack · 12/07/2024 17:24

Mirabai · 12/07/2024 12:49

Quite. He was standing there watching her watching the baby. So wth was he doing? And why didn’t he report her at the time.

I think the whole incident has grown with the telling.

Yes and people misremember stuff, especially with a sort of confirmation bias of “oh we think she’s killing babies”. He didn’t think it was bad enough to report at the time. If I thought I saw something that bad I’d be telling the ward manager within minutes l

Carriemac · 12/07/2024 17:25

DH is a medical expert witness , they do give reports which are not used if not useful for the prosecution ( or the defence - whoever commissioned them ).
If they had an expert witness that was not called it's because they were afraid of what they would say under cross examination

kkloo · 12/07/2024 17:47

Snowleopardess · 12/07/2024 10:29

The defence obviously weren’t that shit, that they cast enough doubt on some of the cases that verdicts couldn’t be reached - or were defence doing a good job for those ones, but a shit job on the ones she got a guilty verdict?

Baby O with the traumatic liver injury was a unanimous verdict, so even the juror’s that were swayed by evidence to go no verdict on others such as baby Q and H - all believed she murdered this baby - or were the jurors wrong about baby Q and H as well?

cant have it both ways

The defence could have had nothing to do with it and they could have based it all on the prosecutions case.

So yeah you can have it both ways. The defence might have had no impact on any of charges, whether they were unanimous guilty, unanimous, not guilty or no verdict!

kkloo · 12/07/2024 17:56

lawnseed · 12/07/2024 14:12

I know it might sound stupid, but could she perhaps have confessed to her defence team, but refused to plead guilty because of her parents? She couldn't face letting them know she did it deliberately. The defence then just didn't try that hard and merely went through the motions? It's just a job to them after all. They know perfectly well she deserves jail?

Just a thought. There may be processes to deal with such a situation.

The defence aren't allowed to commit perjury as far as I know, so if she confessed she was guilty to them then they can't say she didn't do that.

Edenspirits73 · 12/07/2024 18:30

DragonGypsyDoris · 12/07/2024 15:06

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

PLEASE don’t shout at me in capitals. I meant case review/retrial but used the wrong words.

My original points still stand.

OP posts:
kkloo · 12/07/2024 18:43

Heidi75 · 12/07/2024 15:35

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

There definitely is questioning of the evidence from reliable or valuable sources.
Look how fast all these articles have came out in the news. They were ready to go pretty much as soon as the retrial was over and restrictions are lifted. I don't think it's going to be very long before more of these sources start to come forward instead of remaining anonymous.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the reason they think she might be innocent is because she looks innocent or normal. Many just didn't find the evidence compelling enough and have issues with the trial.

As for that doctor, I think he believes that she did it, I think that he believes that he thinks he saw what he said he saw, I don't think he's intentionally lying, but that doesn't mean that what he is saying is accurate.

He didn't report it at the time and left her there looking after babies that night. His statement also changed, initially he said he didn't remember if the alarm was going off or not, then in court he suddenly said he knew for sure that it wasn't going off. Even though a nurse (or possibly 2 nurses) said that the alarm was going off.

Mirabai · 12/07/2024 20:03

Cleavagecleavagecleavage · 12/07/2024 17:10

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.

Interesting, but your theory still falls down on the plumber - surely that counts as an alternative position.

And why would she tell her defence team she was guilty but tell the court she was innocent?

Cleavagecleavagecleavage · 12/07/2024 20:07

And why would she tell her defence team she was guilty but tell the court she was innocent?

Who knows why they do it, but it happens.

As for the plumber, I don’t know exactly what he said - the appeal talks about a backed up sink and a flood (literally 2 call-outs) so I can’t say whether it’s inconsistent or not. Weirdly (for someone who has commented on this thread a fair bit) I actually don’t care - it just irritates me that people post about this in completely ignorance of the legal context. Which is clearly relevant, given it’s a facet of the legal system which is being discussed.

user1471538275 · 12/07/2024 20:24

Just a thought about the CPR/liver injury.

It stated there were two areas of bruising.

CPR in neonates is often 'circular CPR' where your hands encircle the child and thumbs press down on two separate areas.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 12/07/2024 20:41

user1471538275 · 12/07/2024 20:24

Just a thought about the CPR/liver injury.

It stated there were two areas of bruising.

CPR in neonates is often 'circular CPR' where your hands encircle the child and thumbs press down on two separate areas.

That is very interesting.

I'm treating myself as a complete idiot and googling the basics.

I've just searched images of where the liver is in neonates. The certainty expressed that CPR could not cause damage is now even more suspect in my mind. Yesterday I discovered that the liver in neonates measures between 5 and 7 ish centimetres typically. Apparently the liver is also easily "palpable" which I assume means you can feel it if you're conducting an examination.

I really really don't think CPR trauma can be excluded so definitely just looking at the images.

I also looked up NG tubes which are described as soft and flexible to see if they could be used to cause bleeding internally. Again I'm not sure.

lawnseed · 12/07/2024 20:48

kkloo · 12/07/2024 18:43

There definitely is questioning of the evidence from reliable or valuable sources.
Look how fast all these articles have came out in the news. They were ready to go pretty much as soon as the retrial was over and restrictions are lifted. I don't think it's going to be very long before more of these sources start to come forward instead of remaining anonymous.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the reason they think she might be innocent is because she looks innocent or normal. Many just didn't find the evidence compelling enough and have issues with the trial.

As for that doctor, I think he believes that she did it, I think that he believes that he thinks he saw what he said he saw, I don't think he's intentionally lying, but that doesn't mean that what he is saying is accurate.

He didn't report it at the time and left her there looking after babies that night. His statement also changed, initially he said he didn't remember if the alarm was going off or not, then in court he suddenly said he knew for sure that it wasn't going off. Even though a nurse (or possibly 2 nurses) said that the alarm was going off.

If that doctor had seen that then he should have intervened and she should have been removed immediately from the unit by whichever manager was on call that night. She'd have been immediately suspended and the incident investigated. Instead he stood by and ignored what was happening right in front of him?!

kkloo · 12/07/2024 20:52

MistressoftheDarkSide · 12/07/2024 20:41

That is very interesting.

I'm treating myself as a complete idiot and googling the basics.

I've just searched images of where the liver is in neonates. The certainty expressed that CPR could not cause damage is now even more suspect in my mind. Yesterday I discovered that the liver in neonates measures between 5 and 7 ish centimetres typically. Apparently the liver is also easily "palpable" which I assume means you can feel it if you're conducting an examination.

I really really don't think CPR trauma can be excluded so definitely just looking at the images.

I also looked up NG tubes which are described as soft and flexible to see if they could be used to cause bleeding internally. Again I'm not sure.

Myers did question Dr Marnerides on whether it was possible in your opinion for at least some of what we see in the damage to the liver arising from the insertion of a cannula?"
The consultant said: "I would consider it extremely unlikely. I would expect some kind of perforation injury."

It was all such wishy washy evidence. He should have been told to answer yes or no to whether something was possible or not. Not go on about pots falling from helicopters. What does extremely unlikely mean? Is that more or less likely than saying 'we're not discussing possibilities, we're discussing probabilities, and I don't think we can say that's probable'.
Which is more unlikely? And how unlikely or likely it is factually? How are the jury supposed to know what the actual facts of the situation are here?

"I have never seen this type of injury in the context of CPR so I would say the force required would be of the magnitude of that generated by a baby jumping on a trampoline and falling."
He agreed that smaller internal bruising to the liver sustained by Child O's triplet brother Child P - who Letby is alleged to have murdered the next day - could be capable of being caused by CPR.
But asked if "rigorous" chest compressions could be the cause of the internal bruising in Child O's case, Dr Marnerides said: "I don't think so, no.
"This is a huge area of bruising for a liver of this size. This is not something you see in CPR."
Mr Myers said: "So you don't accept the proposition that forceful CPR could cause this injury in general terms, do you agree it cannot be categorically excluded as a possibility?"
Dr Marnerides replied: "We are not discussing possibilities here, we are discussing probabilities.
"When you refer to possibilities, I am thinking for example of somebody walking in the middle of the Sahara desert found dead with a pot and head trauma.
"It is possible the pot fell from the air from a helicopter. The question is 'is it probable?' and I don't think we can say it is probable."
Mr Myers asked: "Is it possible in your opinion for at least some of what we see in the damage to the liver arising from the insertion of a cannula?"

The consultant said: "I would consider it extremely unlikely. I would expect some kind of perforation injury."

MistressoftheDarkSide · 12/07/2024 20:59

I would find it very difficult to distinguish between possibilities and probabilities in this context.

Just watched a video demonstrating two finger chest compressions in pre-term babies that is taught to parents of preemies in the US so that they can assist their babies if they collapse after they return home. That really calls into question how robust babies are even when they are strong enough to go home. Collapse is still a risk or it wouldn't be thought necessary to show parents how to do CPR?

kkloo · 12/07/2024 21:07

@MistressoftheDarkSide
Exactly, that means nothing to me, What is unlikely? 1 in a million, 1 in 10? Who knows!

And to say we're not discussing possibilities, we're discussing probabilities...why are they not discussing possibilities? I would want to know what the possibilities actually are. Whoever did the autopsy felt that CPR was a possibility.

Mirabai · 12/07/2024 21:19

Cleavagecleavagecleavage · 12/07/2024 20:07

And why would she tell her defence team she was guilty but tell the court she was innocent?

Who knows why they do it, but it happens.

As for the plumber, I don’t know exactly what he said - the appeal talks about a backed up sink and a flood (literally 2 call-outs) so I can’t say whether it’s inconsistent or not. Weirdly (for someone who has commented on this thread a fair bit) I actually don’t care - it just irritates me that people post about this in completely ignorance of the legal context. Which is clearly relevant, given it’s a facet of the legal system which is being discussed.

At the trial he said he was being called out roughly once a week to the building. The implication is that the plumbing issues, specifically the sewage leak, could be linked to the cluster of deaths.

Why the defence didn’t get an epidemiologist and microbiologist to follow through with evidence on the significance of plumbing and water management in neonate wards wrt infection control and cluster events; biofilm and its effects; on reduced immune system in neonates etc - is anyone’s guess.

If it irritates you that people are ignorant of the legal context, can you imagine how annoying the ignorance of basic science is?

MistressoftheDarkSide · 12/07/2024 21:22

@kkloo

Oh, the whole "balance of probabilities" thing is a particular bugbear of mine. See also "highly unlikely" "vanishingly rare" etc. It ignores the fact that atypical occurrences do actually occur.

Is it really more probable that Lucy Letby attacked a tiny baby so violently when that baby had also undergone CPR which was at first determined to be the cause of the bruising?

Also, how often and for how long would she be completely alone with any baby with minimal risk of being caught doing something like that? Given the sheer number of alleged events, attacks, whatever, it is remarkable that the really obvious sounding ones went completely unobserved over a two year period. Also, if concerns were raised after three events about her involvement or competency, why, despite the lack of formal action, didn't the concerned parties make sure she wasn't left alone with the most vulnerable babies?

Cleavagecleavagecleavage · 12/07/2024 21:32

It’s not “basic science” @Mirabai that’s rather the point.

Golaz · 12/07/2024 21:44

kkloo · 12/07/2024 20:52

Myers did question Dr Marnerides on whether it was possible in your opinion for at least some of what we see in the damage to the liver arising from the insertion of a cannula?"
The consultant said: "I would consider it extremely unlikely. I would expect some kind of perforation injury."

It was all such wishy washy evidence. He should have been told to answer yes or no to whether something was possible or not. Not go on about pots falling from helicopters. What does extremely unlikely mean? Is that more or less likely than saying 'we're not discussing possibilities, we're discussing probabilities, and I don't think we can say that's probable'.
Which is more unlikely? And how unlikely or likely it is factually? How are the jury supposed to know what the actual facts of the situation are here?

"I have never seen this type of injury in the context of CPR so I would say the force required would be of the magnitude of that generated by a baby jumping on a trampoline and falling."
He agreed that smaller internal bruising to the liver sustained by Child O's triplet brother Child P - who Letby is alleged to have murdered the next day - could be capable of being caused by CPR.
But asked if "rigorous" chest compressions could be the cause of the internal bruising in Child O's case, Dr Marnerides said: "I don't think so, no.
"This is a huge area of bruising for a liver of this size. This is not something you see in CPR."
Mr Myers said: "So you don't accept the proposition that forceful CPR could cause this injury in general terms, do you agree it cannot be categorically excluded as a possibility?"
Dr Marnerides replied: "We are not discussing possibilities here, we are discussing probabilities.
"When you refer to possibilities, I am thinking for example of somebody walking in the middle of the Sahara desert found dead with a pot and head trauma.
"It is possible the pot fell from the air from a helicopter. The question is 'is it probable?' and I don't think we can say it is probable."
Mr Myers asked: "Is it possible in your opinion for at least some of what we see in the damage to the liver arising from the insertion of a cannula?"

The consultant said: "I would consider it extremely unlikely. I would expect some kind of perforation injury."

We are not discussing possibilities here, we are discussing probabilities

loolll, because a serial killer nurse on the other hand - that’s so probable . 🙄 Honestly it’s difficult to see how these drs are giving evidence in good faith when they stand up and answer questions like this.

kkloo · 12/07/2024 21:54

Golaz · 12/07/2024 21:44

We are not discussing possibilities here, we are discussing probabilities

loolll, because a serial killer nurse on the other hand - that’s so probable . 🙄 Honestly it’s difficult to see how these drs are giving evidence in good faith when they stand up and answer questions like this.

Did they ever find out what was behind the higher than average number of stillbirths at the hospital at the same time? Wasn't there also a lot of maternal deaths?
I wonder how probable it was that there was another serial killer on that ward.

Gwenhwyfar · 12/07/2024 21:56

"She is clearly guilty"

Just like the Birmingham 6 and all the others were "clearly guilty".

placemats · 12/07/2024 22:36

Blatantly place making because this thread is a minefield of information regarding the uncertainty of the evidence in both trials regarding the prosecution.

Thank you @Edenspirits73 for starting this.

Heidi75 · 12/07/2024 23:12

CormorantStrikesBack · 12/07/2024 17:24

Yes and people misremember stuff, especially with a sort of confirmation bias of “oh we think she’s killing babies”. He didn’t think it was bad enough to report at the time. If I thought I saw something that bad I’d be telling the ward manager within minutes l

She was repeatedly reported and the CEO/hospital trust dismissed their concerns even though they took them back several times, in fact they made the complainants apologise for accusing her, because they didn't want the hospital to get a bad reputation! It was only when they involved the police did the hospital board take it seriously!

Heidi75 · 12/07/2024 23:14

MistressoftheDarkSide · 12/07/2024 21:22

@kkloo

Oh, the whole "balance of probabilities" thing is a particular bugbear of mine. See also "highly unlikely" "vanishingly rare" etc. It ignores the fact that atypical occurrences do actually occur.

Is it really more probable that Lucy Letby attacked a tiny baby so violently when that baby had also undergone CPR which was at first determined to be the cause of the bruising?

Also, how often and for how long would she be completely alone with any baby with minimal risk of being caught doing something like that? Given the sheer number of alleged events, attacks, whatever, it is remarkable that the really obvious sounding ones went completely unobserved over a two year period. Also, if concerns were raised after three events about her involvement or competency, why, despite the lack of formal action, didn't the concerned parties make sure she wasn't left alone with the most vulnerable babies?

They did what they could but when the board is refusing to take you seriously and forcing you to apologise to her what exactly could they have done?!

Heidi75 · 12/07/2024 23:20

kkloo · 12/07/2024 18:43

There definitely is questioning of the evidence from reliable or valuable sources.
Look how fast all these articles have came out in the news. They were ready to go pretty much as soon as the retrial was over and restrictions are lifted. I don't think it's going to be very long before more of these sources start to come forward instead of remaining anonymous.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the reason they think she might be innocent is because she looks innocent or normal. Many just didn't find the evidence compelling enough and have issues with the trial.

As for that doctor, I think he believes that she did it, I think that he believes that he thinks he saw what he said he saw, I don't think he's intentionally lying, but that doesn't mean that what he is saying is accurate.

He didn't report it at the time and left her there looking after babies that night. His statement also changed, initially he said he didn't remember if the alarm was going off or not, then in court he suddenly said he knew for sure that it wasn't going off. Even though a nurse (or possibly 2 nurses) said that the alarm was going off.

He did report it repeatedly and was not listened to by the trust. The stuff 'coming out now' is utter bunkum and is not reliable or valuable at all, don't believe everything you read in the press, there absolutely was compelling evidence and plenty of it. If you are prepared to believe that the many, many pieces of evidence and many doctors who have given statements are wrong then you must also be prepared to believe that her statements could be wrong too and that she very well could be guilty, you cannot cast speculation on one set of people but not another, her behavior was far from normal in any of the situation

Heidi75 · 12/07/2024 23:26

Gwenhwyfar · 12/07/2024 21:56

"She is clearly guilty"

Just like the Birmingham 6 and all the others were "clearly guilty".

Well there are many that believe the were guilty and still are.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.