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/

Being pleased with anything to do with the death of multiple babies isn’t something I will ever be.

I’m not ‘going on’ about anything. You picked up on my use of ‘reasonable doubt’ and I’m clarifying that you were incorrect - or careless in your wording.

You seem fixated on accuracy, so it seemed pertinent to clarify.

Cool. Let's move on and get back to the main topic!

Yep, in 2017 the families contacted the families of 13 babies who died and said they gave them full and accurate information about what had happened, and then a year later they got a knock on the door to say that there was actually a serial killer.

A couple of interesting sentences in this article from The Independent.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-innocent-appeal-new-yorker-b2578297.html

Letby and her lawyers have not engaged so far with the media. They have, to the best of my knowledge, declined all offers of help from the various circling experts.......

Those circumstances may focus their mind on doing their best work, and the Commission has dealt with complex medical cases in the past. It can instruct experts, review evidence, and, perhaps importantly, invite trial counsel to explain their tactics and decision-making – a necessity for any future chance of appeal. No one should be under any illusion that this is a quick process – it could take a year, or years.
As the Commission can only accept applications from the applicant or their instructed lawyers, despite a number of experts who now feel the case is flawed and are frustrated at her lawyers’ refusal to involve them, the CCRC cannot accept applications from outsiders. It is now up to Letby to choose her representation, and all the signs are that she is content with her current legal team.
As painful as it may be for the families of the babies who died or suffered harm, the ball is in Letby’s court to decide to make the next move, which would mean the case is revisited with a rigorous inquiry and expertise. But, whatever they decide and however difficult it is for the grieving families, it is evident the voices asking them to do so shows no sign of quieting down anytime soon.

I am fascinated by what her lawyers must be telling her. Presumably she will now appeal the verdict from this retrial (which will no doubt fail) but as far as I recall when I looked at the CCRC it can go against someone if they didn't originally try for an appeal.

Of course if she innocent perhaps she is just completely broken down and her mental state is so poor that she just isn't considering a new legal team.

And again as I've said before I really wonder how much contact she is able to have with others, and whether she is receiving the letters or messages that would have been passed on from people such as the journalist from the New Yorker.

I’m a bit reluctant to share anything by Peter Hitchens but he quotes the 3 articles that form the basis of this thread so here is a video of him talking about it:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNB0CaKI3IM

Also John Sweeney the ex bbc investigative journalist has questioned this Verdict from the very beginning.

The media coverage around this is getting louder and there will have to be a retrial - she clearly needs a better defence team though.

I make the point again though that whatever happens, the parents deserve the actual truth.

Not to mention they keep talking about how tiny they are. Smallest baby ever on the unit. The tinier the baby the less chance they have of surviving. I don’t think any of the babies were in good condition. The baby with haemophilia they didn’t even have the medication there. (Factor 8 or something) which just seems absurd.

it does seem like the dr egos played a part in this. Rather than telling the mother of the triplets, sorry we are really not equiped to deal with this birth you should go to another larger hospital. They let her go ahead and deliver there. Plus it was well documented they were reluctant to seek advice and reluctant to transfer babies.

I don't think the Dr just stood there watching LL.

No, but she wasn't frogmarched to the office and a unit manager summoned immediately which is what's supposed to happen if someone detects immediate harm, abuse or wilful neglect by a fellow staff member.

You do know how many times the clinical staff tried to get the management to address her? Read or watch what happened. The hospital management refused to listen to the clinicians for months.

What did happen? I've not heard the outcome. LL was standing watching. The consultant saw her doing that. How long did that last? Who intervened to help the baby? Did LL know she was being watched? Did he ask why she was watching and if so what was her reply?

They didn't raise an immediate safeguarding alert when she was 'caught in the act' though. There is a difference between going to speak to a manager at a random time and acting immediately when harm is being done. If he was that sure of what he was seeing he should have acted there and then.

I expect they realised after numerous fruitless attempts that trying to get the hospital management to act was pointless. Your attempts to blame absolutely anyone except the person who committed the crimes would be comical if this wasn’t so serious and tragic.

I think what is so serious and tragic about the case is that apparently no-one acted to stop Lucy Letby in any way despite having concerns early on to be frank. Allowing potential awkwardness or bureaucracy to get in the way of protecting children is pretty poor. As I say, I can't speak to her guilt or innocence but looking at the available material, and based on certain experiences I have had, there are definitely issues with the complex medical evidence.

Frankly it's a clusterfuck in many directions.

There wasn’t any evidence that LL had done anything wrong. And there still isn’t. The PMs found natural causes, the RCPCH report found clear failings at the unit, Dr Hawden found that 13 babies had received suboptimal care and may have survived if different decisions had been made, and 4 were referred for forensic review by a neonatologist.

Zero evidence against LL and very strong evidence of natural causes and suboptimal care.

If they really believed she as responsible for the deaths they could and should have gone to the board and the CDOP. All this handwringing when all they needed to do was contact the CDOP.

It’s not tragic it’s negligent - if you believe that narrative.

They did go to the board. They followed exactly the correct procedure. And the board, ie the chief executive and other executive directors closed ranks and refused to listen to them - a scenario all too depressingly familiar to anyone who’s worked in a hospital.

As to there being no evidence against Letby - you’ve really jumped the shark now @Mirabai. I’m embarrassed for you.

A lot later by which time more babies were dead. As soon as the board was notified the unit was downgraded and the RCPCH was called in.

The consultants should have flagged that the unit as operating way beyond its capacity much earlier, they should haven’t waited for the board to act. Indeed a female consultant commented that the unit was in chaos and the price would be the mental health of the staff or the lives of the babies. How right she was.

I am unsurprised that you cannot assess the medical data and see that it is speculation and theory with no hard evidence; or apparently grasp the points made in the lengthy articles on the subject post trial.

As soon as the board was notified the unit was downgraded and the RCPCH was called in.

Only if you don’t consider that the chief executive and executive directors are the board. You clearly don’t understand the hierarchy of NHS trusts. As soon as the chief executive was told the board had been notified, he did nothing. The public inquiry is going to be very interesting.

Well yes, I agree. I was just reflecting the language used by another poster. I've just started listening to the We Need to talk podcast.

Spare me the handwringing. I am describing what should be done in the event of a member of staff finding another one causing harm or allowing harm. Nothing to do with blame, merely outlining the pragmatic action.

@Blossomtoes The timeline goes:

~ June 2015 internal review
~ Oct 2016 consultants meet senior management
~ Feb 2016 senior management order RCPCH review.

Thy reported no concerns over intentional harm but identified "significant gaps in medical and nursing rotas, poor decision-making and insufficient senior cover".

It also noted that only 10 of the 13 deaths were reported as “incidents”. Some of the deaths were reported on the risk register as “green low risk of harm”.

It found that the review by consultants of the deaths “did not use a recognised RCA process” and did not involve the risk manager or follow procedure (all deaths should be treated as a serious incident and the case should be reviewed by paediatrician, obstetrician, risk midwife, neonatal nurse and then either stood down or investigated formally.)

It found that the CDOP had not been alerted to the cluster of deaths. In which case a rapid response meeting would have occurred within 5 days.

That wasn’t directed at you 🙂

The question of "belief" is an interesting one isn't it?

Right now I don't know what to "believe" given what I've read.

I "believe" based on my own experience that medics and expert witnesses are not infallible and mistakes happen. I have "knowledge" therefore that backs this up. And evidence that corroborates my view.

Does this mean I am employing confirmation bias?

If I was the only person, a lay person, saying there were problems with the evidence in this case as presented, I accept I could be accused of confirmation bias. I didn't follow the trial - as I've said upthread it's the sort of subject I have weaned myself off over a 30 year period as it takes me back to a place where I had to give myself a crash course in challenging medical evidence as my family's future depended on it.

It drew me in when after the trials, professionals weighed in across the media and I wondered why. My phone showed me these stories - I didn't seek them out. Before that I didn't have a "belief" about the case as such, and I still don't overall.

The only "belief" I do have is that this all needs to be re-examined for the many reasons I've expressed in previous posts.

Part of my reluctance to "pick a side" is due to the fact that I was psychologically tortured and punished for questioning things by people in authority, the main thrust of that being simply "How dare I question or contradict experts? Who did I think I was?" It wasn't something I wanted to be doing, it was something I had to do, because accepting things I knew to be false assumptions and sometimes even downright lies should be challenged. It leaves a profound mark on a person, I assure you.

I'm just a person on the Internet seeing something I've seen before and trying to make sense of it again.

I guess ultimately I have unfinished business.

@Mirabai

Thanks - I am over thinking quite alot as my latest post probably demonstrates. For what it's worth I appreciate your posts 🙃