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 meant he didn't report the incident where he said he almost caught her red handed. He apparently believed he had walked in on her harming the baby yet left her to do it 2 more times that evening.

Disagree completely that the stuff coming out now is 'utter bunkum'.

If you are prepared to believe that the many, many pieces of evidence and many doctors who have given statements are wrong

Read their testimonies in depth and you will spot many, many inconsistences, these doctors are describing babies as being in 'good condition' and then detailing all the ways that they weren't and all the interventions they needed.
But people only hear 'good condition' and ignore the rest.

I very much did cast speculation on her, and was open minded about the evidence and that it may convince me of her guilt. It didn't though.
.

I have read them and it does not prove that in my mind at all. There is plenty of compelling evidence. There was plenty of times the trust could have stepped in and didn't. There are always going to be the 'she's innocent' cries, if all this so called nonsense casts so much doubt why was it not raised at the time? It wasn't raised as it's proves nothing. If it were even a tiny bit capable of casting doubt her defence would have used it, people would have spoken up sooner. It's totally clutching at straws. The appeals court obviously believes this too

A large amount of the posts on this thread are trying to find out the answer to that question about why the defence didn't use it at the time.

Someone posted an interview with a barrister who explained that it is notoriously difficult to get experts to testify for the defence in child abuse cases. There's one possible explanation.

Another possible explanation is that their hands were tied and they weren't allowed to introduce certain evidence, and we don't know because there has been no transparency.

Another possible explanation is that the defence were just shit and chose the wrong strategy.

Someone else suggested that maybe Letby wouldn't let the barrister use certain things in her defence.

The fact is that we don't know why they didn't use it.

It is however, not a fact that if the defence didn't use anything that that means there was nothing out there that could have thrown some doubt. They might not have used it for a variety of reasons.

Many legal experts are expressing concerns, there's going to be a new private eye article out next week where they are discussing how medical experts are used (or not used) and how it can lead to unfair trials and miscarriages of justice.

All those reasons are nonsensical and clutching at straws, they are just excuses, if there was something good enough to be used they would have used it. No defence lawyer says 'oo look that's a great bit of evidence, yeah let's not use that' The reality is there wasn't. It's all getting a bit conspiracy theorist territory. 'experts' I'm not so sure they are and Private Eye is mostly satire, it's not the most trustworthy of sources. It's the kind of stuff you stick in the loo to read and laugh about. We'll have to agree to disagree. There is zero doubt in my mind she is absolutely guilty.

The entire thing is completely crazy. If I were a nurse in the nhs I would be extremely uncomfortable working right now. There was so much evidence of hospital incompetence. Dewi Evans identified 60 unexpected or unexplained ‘crashes’ and only 25 made it to court. Why? I imagine the criteria for deciding it was attempted murder was just that she was working. The others were disregarded as she wasn’t working. The other deaths that occurred when she wasn’t working should have been included at the very least in the table. When you look at the big picture it paints a very different picture of the hospital and the staff running it. A lot of the things they claim she did isn’t medically plausible. Like injecting air into a NG tube. Has anyone seen how tiny though tubes are? Do you have any idea how long it would take to even inject air into one? The most likely explanation for a lot of the distended stomachs of the babies is infection caused by being too close together and being in an old building with sewage problems.

Nonsensical 🙄

Hardly nonsensical. My God some people really just refuse to listen to anything

It is surely a known fact that sometimes evidence is not allowed to be entered into court.

It's also not beyond the realms of possibility by any stretch of imagination that it would be difficult to get experts if they are nervous about their reputations after if they are judged to be supporting someone who harmed babies.

It's also not beyond a realms of possibility that the defence fucked up. It happens.

The only one I very much doubt happened is that Letby refused to let them call witnesses, I just said that one because someone else put it forward.

It's all getting a bit conspiracy theorist territory.
Nah that's getting old now. Maybe people could say it at the start, but look at how many newspapers etc are now saying it.Now some people have started to be happy to let their names be associated with the concerns and I'm sure more and more will stop being anonymous also.

It's fine that you think that she's guilty beyond any doubt but it's just 'nonsensical' to put other peoples doubts down to them being conspiracy theorists.

Why do you all think no babies collapsed whilst she was on holiday then her first shift back all hell breaks loose? Just a coincidence? Unlucky Lucy again?

She was only on holiday for a week or so wasn't she?

There was much bigger gaps between some of the incidents when she was there the whole time. Was she just having a break from attempting to kill babies during those periods?

@kkloo yes but she couldn't resist triplets, just more proof of her guilt. Like a PP said, attacking babies on special occasions or babies that defied all odds (healthy identical triplets, baby G born very premature after lots of IVF attempts and making it to 100 days) I'm sure there are many more, someone mentioned Father's day. Pretty obvious she's a narc who took pleasure in ruining things for others. Add on her superiority complex despite being incompetent enough (if we're to believe she's innocent for a sec) to have failed to save so many babies. She really shouldn't have taken the stand but being a narc it was obvious she wouldn't be able to turn down the opportunity for such attention on her.

Was she just having a break from attempting to kill babies during those periods?

She was probably just carrying out little sly acts of cruelty to the babies when she could restrain herself from murdering them.

@Firefly1987

I think it's extremely likely that a hospital which provided suboptimal care wasn't going to be able to provide the best care for those triplets.

In the New Yorker it says when the mother had the triplets she was told that each baby would be assigned its own nurse, yet Letby was assigned 2 of them and a third baby to look after.

It also says that the mother of the triplets saw a doctor googling how to put a long line into the chest, she also said that one of the doctors who was resuscitating her son was coughing and spluttering into her hands without washing them.
The mother said that after the remaining triplet was transferred that the difference between the hospitals was like 'night and day.

I don't think that any details were released about the remaining triplets health when he went to the second hospital because Letby wasn't accused of doing anything to him, but it would be interesting to know if that hospital had any concerns with the baby that weren't picked up at the COCH.

From the evidence presented for child K it seems like the staff at the COCH really didn't have a clue, when she arrived at arrowe park the doctor said she had severe lung disease, the testimony from the docs at COCH tried to make out that there was no infection, and that the hazy shadow was due to surfactant.

Yes but the hospital was downgraded about the.sane time she was loved onto other duties so it stopped taking the sicker babies. So it's a false comparison.

I agree OP. I followed the trial closely and never thought there was anywhere near enough evidence to convict her. And a lot of the "evidence" is really unsafe.

Yes and as well as being downgraded they also added two extra consultants to the roster to ease the staffing pressures.

Plus dewi Evans identified 60 unexplained incidences and she was charged with 25. So there may well have been incidents when she wasn’t there but we don’t know as they weren’t included in the table. To be very clear, that table only shows incidences and deaths that occurred when she was on shift. It does not mean that incidents and deaths didn’t occur at other times. Which we know they did as she was charged with 7 out of the 15 or so deaths and 25 of the 60 ‘incidents’.

Peter Hitchens wrote a second article in the Daily Mail on the case here. I know the Daily Mail isn't known for its high quality journalism but I think it's a strong article and it's worth a read.

None of these arguments are convincing. They all amount to people’s feelings and desires versus the facts.

It is very easy to twist sound bites statistics to make them fit your argument. People accuse the prosecution of doing this but they did present extremely detailed evidence. Now her supports are misinterpreting data, cherry picking stats and sound bites all so they can cry ‘see! she’s innocent. Mis-trial!’

Except this is very obviously not a mis-trial. She had all the due process, all the defence, all the chances. She is not Beverly Allett. This is a totally different case.

Just because you don’t agree with or understand the evidence or the legal system doesn’t make it wrong.

What would the situation be if she admitted killing babies but not via murder. For example saying she thought she had been negligent or incompetent. Would she have been allowed to ask for a manslaughter charge?

Possibly for air embolism cases but she’d never have convinced anyone of that for the babies suspected of being overdosed with insulin because they weren’t prescribed insulin.

This Reddit thread has the text of a Vanity Fair article that lays out the deaths in a clear, easily understandable way. It also blows open the Letby cheerleader narrative that these were all sick babies. They mostly weren’t.

https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/s/CRP97uObKO

In fairness I don't think anyone wants to just dispute certain things here and there and cherry pick this and that.

I think what many people want is an actual proper investigation which looks at absolutely everything, the actual facts of everything, with many experts arguing their case, and as many experts as is needed. Not ones who were trying to even point to her being guilty or point to her being innocent but ones who are specifically concerned with the truth, whatever that may be.

It would be very interesting if several experts looked at the notes and post mortems of all of the babies that died during that time (without knowing which ones Letby was accused of harming) and see if they came to the same conclusions about which were deliberately harmed or not.

Of course a trial/appeal is never going to work exactly like that....because what I'm describing is something more like 'was it Letby or Countess of Chester?' rather than 'Letby vs the state'..

I see the COCH are being investigated for corporate manslaughter, but what about the other babies who died there during that time? and the elevated amount of stillbirths and maternal deaths? I wonder how satisfied those families are with the answers they received from the hospital?

In 2017 the hospital contacted the families of 13 babies who died there after doing a report and said that they gave them full and accurate information about what had happened. Then in 2018, 7 of them were told 'no actually that was wrong, there was actually a serial killer'.....I wonder what the families of the other babies think about their 'full and accurate' information that they were given about their own babies dying, do they trust the information they were given?

or do they think the hospital was completely negligent? Letby could remain in prison for a very long time, and perhaps an appeal might result if that other group of people want the practices in the hospital fully investigated for negligence and it all really comes out about how bad they were at the time, which would then help to support Letbys appeal, it's impossible to know really how it's going to play out.

There seems to be a tsumani of support to push for an appeal at the moment, but that could all fizzle out in a few months time and go nowhere but as I said no one knows exactly how it's going to play out in the end.

I do think it would be in everyones best interests, most of all the families of the babies who died for this to be fully investigated properly and robustly with every factor considered as soon as possible, they wanted to put this all behind them after the trial, now that there's so many expressing concerns about the trial the families have to live with the stress and anxiety of possibly having to go through it all again, it would be better for it to be sooner rather than later rather than them having to spend the next few decades worried about a knock on the door to tell them or hearing it on the news.

Private Eye campaigned for years on behalf of the post office post masters who were they believed wrongfully convicted after being contacted by Computer Weekly. One of the most egregious miscarriages of justice ever in the UK.

Or perhaps you think those now overturned convictions are not justified?

With cases like Harold Shipman where the motive and causes of death are clearly established... were there expert witnesses for the defence?

@kkloo You obviously don’t know the first thing about the case. If you did then you’d know that a full, proper investigation as been done. AND there is an inquiry into the hospital management already underway.

Police investigated the suspicious deaths for nearly a year before arresting Letby. They investigated other nurse, looked at every other possible avenue of explanation BEFORE the evidence led them to Lebty. Only then did they begin investigating her. You would be hard put to criticise the police investigation. They were extremely thorough. They consulted multiple independent experts before drawing conclusions. What we saw in court was the tip of the iceberg.

If you weren’t aware: the police began with separate detective teams for each family, who were told to follow their own conclusions and report independently. Completely independent of each other, every team concluded that Letby had been involved in the deaths/ collapses they were investigating. Only then did they begin to focus on Lucy.

How could they all come to the same wrong conclusion independently?

Dewi Evans identified 60 unexpected or unexplained ‘crashes’ and only 25 made it to court. Why? I imagine the criteria for deciding it was attempted murder was just that she was working. The others were disregarded as she wasn’t working. The other deaths that occurred when she wasn’t working should have been included at the very least in the table
If this is correct, it is the most compelling evidence for the defense. It is also the easiest to compile and present as a defense argument. It would also be cheap.

So why oh why, if there really is any substance to this, would it not have been used by the defense team. It was given to them as a mean to build their entire argument to convince the jury of some doubt in the conviction. Yet it wasn't even mentioned.

No defense team can be so amateurish to not use this opportunity, let alone her team.

@vivainsomnia This is not true. Can I ask where this evidence is from? There were
more collapses that Letby was present for but their weren’t tried because those babies has medical Complications which meant the evidence that she cause their death/collapse wasn’t as compelling.