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/

It’s that reasonable doubt thing isn’t it. All these articles are presenting holes in the evidence.

So look at it again because if there are doubts, an innocent women has been locked up.

If it still proves her guilt after a proper review, then lock her up.

But all these questions should be resolved.

This.

OP you say "If she is guilty after review then fair enough," but would you settle at that if you won't accept the trials she's already been through?

As for appeals, she has been turned down because people whose job it is to assess this stuff have determined that there was no basis for appeal - as a PP has said you can't appeal just because you don't like the verdict.

For the trillionth time Àllitt looked like a bog standard nurse but we didn't doubt the evidence against her.

It doesn't matter what Letby looks like actual medical experts dispute the stats. Also wasn't the unit downgraded so it doesn't take critically ill babies anymore why do that if she was the only issue?!

I think as another poster said , excluding 6 other baby deaths from the chart when Lucy was not on duty may have prejudiced the case- it’s confirmation bias, ie only evidence confirming the hypothesis was presented to the jury and the rest discounted. It’s possible to forge a causal link by excluding evidence that doesn’t fit the picture being presented. Had the jury seen the other baby deaths and staff rota where she wasn’t on duty, the statistical evidence may not have been so compelling.
I thought the NYT article was an excellent piece of journalism and certain points certainly don’t sit comfortably with me.

Paying too much attention to what? The criticism of the article? That was my only comment.

Personally, I’m very happy with the verdict.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question Guardian article just released- reading this makes me think the conviction is on shakey grounds

You see, I would see a young, white woman as the most likely profile for a baby killer. The youngest murder victims usually are killed by women caring for them. And most British women are white.

Once staff at Lucy's hospital suspected that there might be a murderer, the chances of suspicion falling on a young white female nurse were statistically pretty high.

It is easy to keep telling people they are showing bias in questioning this verdict, but it's a one off case - I can't think of anything at all like it. I hope we'd scrutinise any case to the same standards, but as I read these articles, there are valid concerns about this one.

The second trial was judged based on the outcome of the first. The jury was instructed that they could take the fact that LL had murdered other infants into account.

The appeals were turned down for lack of new evidence, because we have nothing (or little?) that wasn't raised at the first trial. The argument in the New Yorker, picked up a little by the guardian, is that LL's defence failed to challenge alarming weaknesses in the case against her. That's not grounds for an appeal, I believe. Someone with a legal background may know more on that point

So I don't think the second trial and appeals refused make any difference here.

To be fair to the OP, the Guardian article is actually very balanced, but at the same time states that multiple people ( it lists their professions, many considered to have expert medical knowledge) have raised concerns about the medical evidence ( or lack of). I think Lucy Letby is guilty, but then, who am I to say either way, as I am neither an expert, nor was I at the trial. I do agree at least with the OP that the article is disturbing.

It’s this too- the guardian didn’t just interview a few random conspiracy theorists as was intimated above - they interviewed a lot of experienced people.

I agree. I find the arrogance of the all arm chair detectives who think they know more about the case than all the experts to be astounding. It is also incredibly cruel to all the families of the victims.

That was exactly the same paragraph I was about to post too OP.

If you read my post above, it’s not a few armchair detectives. It’s a load of experienced medical professionals.

The families deserve the right verdict too.

Googled Beverley Allitt. She looks sweet, with a normal late 80s haircut.

When there is a miscarriage of justice, families suffer too. Birmingham Six, Guildford Four - the families of victims killed in those bombings will never get justice.

What kind of idiot writes down what they have done and leave it out for people to see then says their innocent.

Idiotic and evil. Alot of criminals aren't the sharpest tools in the box.

I think the questions raised in The Guardian article are worrying, particularly around the insulin evidence, absence of the fact there were 6 other deaths that were not considered suspicious but were not included in the rota checks, plus the downgrading of the dept due to severe staff shortages (staff shortage could have led to a higher death rate). And I would like to see these points addressed coherently by the ccrb.

I doubt her trial was fair. The media reporting was dire.

She’s had a judicial review in the form of a trial, and then an appeal.

JR is a very specific name for a review by judges of a government body using very limited judicial principles. Nothing to do with criminal case reviews.

This ^ It's all in the eyes, such a cold evil glazed over look. IMO it should be a life for a life, she has taken many, so she should never get out. Her deluded parents, seriously they cannot believe her, look at her diary entries! Those poor defenceless babies!

You're the one who is showing major bias there.
You see something and then just decide it's because she's white and young and pretty. You're not interested in knowing WHY some people might not be convinced by the evidence provided, you just decide you know the reason based on your own biases.

I'm not referring to the medical experts who contributed to the article. I am referring to the everyday person who may have read an article or listened to a podcast and now feels they know for certain that a retrial or judicial review (I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the correct terminology) is what is needed. I don't know that, you don't know that. What we should all have, however, is respect for the grieving families. They deserve for this not to be dragged up on places such as mumsnet on a near daily basis.

The Guardian has lost all credibility as a newspaper to be honest. Its no different now to a screaming tabloid, about many things. So I cant take anything like this seriously

Again the notes also state-“I am innocent”- hardly a smoking gun confession, how can you take some entirely contradictory scribbles and make any solid conclusion from that? You can’t, could be dismissed quite easily

This thread is a reaction to substantial recent journalism in respected publications, though. It's not like people popping up dissecting the Madeleine McCann case every month or two.