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/

Interesting perspective:

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/16/the-appalling-lucy-letby-judgment-ignores-vital-legal-precedents-of-wrongfully-convicted-nurses/

“Dr. Peter Hayes was for many years a Senior Lecturer in Politics at Sunderland University. With academic research interests cutting across medicine and law, he authored numerous publications in both medical and legal journals.”

@MistressoftheDarkSide Yes the sheer amount of questions is so interesting and really shows just how much there is to it. On the reddit post he/she is writing very in depth analyses of all the questions that first came to mind and for him and there's still a couple of comments with people reminding him of other things.
Like with the substack etc, very in-depth with all the things that they spotted and yet further medical experts add on even further ideas.

Yet we're supposed to believe that (just using one example) overfeeding is the only possible reason a baby could projectile vomit? Like come on.

Just read the private eye article. I'm a bit disappointed because I expected more and that stuff has already been said. (I know that their article was delayed). but I assume it's going to be only a matter of time before the next batch of articles come out throwing more doubts and also that more people are going to be willing to put their names to the concerns.

https://triedbystats.com/

And a link in the comments that is also interesting reading.

From that link, a comment from the US forensic pathologist who reviewed the Sally Clark case:

Throughout my review, I was horrified by the shoddy fashion in which these cases were evaluated. It was clear that sound medical principles were abandoned in favour of over-simplification, over-interpretation, exclusion of relevant data and, in several instances, the imagining of non-existent findings.

In my continuing efforts to educate myself I have been looking at what constitutes murder and what the CPS would have based bringing this case to court on.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious

Am hoping someone with legal expertise can give an opinion.

You have an excuse for everything, if you're just going to dismiss expert medical opinion and say oh there could be lots of explanations for something that doctors say is unprecedented and can only be due to someone's malicious actions I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you feel the same about Harold Shipman?

What's unprecedented or at least unusual here is the retrospective analysis of deaths accepted as natural and unsuspicious at the time.

Medical opinion initially found nothing odd about them. They only became odd when a murder method was sought.

What is particularly odd is a non-pathologist overturning the findings of expert perinatal pathologists.

Is every doctor an expert now?

Do you dismiss doctors like Svilena Dimitrova, who is actually a consultant neonatologist (Evans is not), currently taking part in the government appointed Ockenden Review, who commented:

”The theories proposed in court were not plausible and the prosecution was full of medical inaccuracies… the information presented to the court was flawed and not proof of guilt beyond doubt”.

Is she not an “expert”?

But you are dismissing expert medical opinion.
That of experts who are more qualified in this field than Dewi Evans.

Never heard of her. Assume she would've been asked to be a defence witness if she had anything relevant to say that could've helped.

They're not excuses.
You're dismissing expert opinions yourself, and just going along with what the prosecution 'expert' said. Do you honestly, truly and genuinely believe that the only possible reason a baby could projectile vomit is because of overfeeding? Come on. You'd be a dream juror for the prosecution for sure.

For one baby you asked was the answer negligence?
I said yes probably because the doctors were negligent for that baby, it happened. That's a fact. The prosecution tried to blame LL for switching off the monitor and a nurse came forward after the opening speeches to say that it was actually the doctors who left the monitors off. You just ignore it, you ignore everything but the prosecutions version of events.

And no I don't feel the same about Harold Shipman. Believe it or not people can feel that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in one case and that doesn't automatically extend to others.

They're not excuses.
You're dismissing expert opinions yourself, and just going along with what the prosecution 'expert' said. Do you honestly, truly and genuinely believe that the only possible reason a baby could projectile vomit is because of overfeeding? Come on. You'd be a dream juror for the prosecution for sure.

Yes those were the findings and I trust the jurors that had to sit through that horrific trial for nearly a year. It's a done deal, she's never coming out and when Operation Hummingbird is over there will be dozens more no doubt. You actually seriously think she's innocent?! It's baffling it really is. You need to start looking at her bleeping weird and inappropriate behaviour since you'll never believe any of the evidence or expert testimony points straight to her. One collapse could be negligence, not 25 times that involved LL.

And no I don't feel the same about Harold Shipman. Believe it or not people can feel that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in one case and that doesn't automatically extend to others.

Why? There's probably less evidence for him than there is Lucy Letby tbh.

If you think it's a done deal why do you care so much if others don't. If you think there's no chance of appeal and that obviously there will never be an expert witnesses to support her seeing as they weren't called in the original trial then why annoy yourself participating on these threads? 😅

There were many collapses where negligence and inadequate care played a part, it's obvious if you read the testimony instead of just believing the soundbites that this baby was in 'good condition' and the only possible explanation is that 'LL harmed the baby'.

I never read much about Harold Shipman tbh, I was very young when all that happened, but my main point being that just because you believe that there was a miscarriage of justice in one case it doesn't mean you doubt the justice system for all. The only other case I ever believed was a miscarriage of justice was Amanda Knox and I was right about that one.

Amanda Knox, and of course the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four for me, but I was hardly unusual for those two cases.

If you think it's a done deal why do you care so much if others don't. If you think there's no chance of appeal and that obviously there will never be an expert witnesses to support her seeing as they weren't called in the original trial then why annoy yourself participating on these threads? 😅

Because it's maddening when people can't see what's blooming obvious. Same reason people turn up on threads about Michael Jackson and insist anyone who thinks he's innocent is a moron and/or paedophile sympathiser I suppose. And yet here some of the same ones are defending a baby killer! The mind boggles.

There were many collapses where negligence and inadequate care played a part, it's obvious if you read the testimony instead of just believing the soundbites that this baby was in 'good condition' and the only possible explanation is that 'LL harmed the baby'.

Baby G made it to 100 days and then mysteriously collapsed. Another time she was about to have immunisations, they wouldn't do that if she wasn't doing well. Ofc Letby was pretending to her colleague that the mum had said she hadn't been herself for a couple days. Absolute bull meant to cover her back. The triplets were in good condition, the slightly weaker one survived because he was moved before LL got a chance to harm him. Didn't stop her penning a fantasy sympathy note to all three though.

I never read much about Harold Shipman tbh, I was very young when all that happened, but my main point being that just because you believe that there was a miscarriage of justice in one case it doesn't mean you doubt the justice system for all. The only other case I ever believed was a miscarriage of justice was Amanda Knox and I was right about that one.

He was a doctor and his patients were all old, I'm sure you could argue it was all a coincidence and natural causes and dismiss the evidence for his guilt if you wanted to. At some point the evidence becomes overwhelming though, as in this case. But there will always be people who believe it's a miscarriage of justice, it's just a shame the media are indulging them right now.

Yes those ones were before my time so I would have only heard of them after the fact when it had been already established that they were miscarriages of justice.

It's wild that people refuse to believe that they can ever happen even though quite clearly they can!!

Yeah it is maddening when people can't see what's obvious, I agree there, like it's obvious that there would be more than one possible reason why a baby might projectile vomit, it's obvious that the care in the hospital was suboptimal. There's lots of obvious things that you're unable to see or acknowledge.

No one is defending a baby killer. They are not convinced that she is a baby killer. Huge difference.

Yeah she made it almost to 100 days before the collapse, she spent most of that time at a far better hospital who provided far better care than they did at the countess of Chester.

Yes the third triplet survived because again he went to a better hospital, one where the difference in care was described as the "difference between night and day" by the mother. She had seen a doctor at COCH googling how to put in a long line.

There was toxicology evidence in the Shipman case. Plus he stole jewellery from some victims and attempted to forge the will of one (which led to him being discovered).

In retrospect, there were aspects of the Shipman case that should have rung alarm bells much sooner. The death rate in his patients and pattern of deaths were statiscal outliers by the end of his career and should have been noticed and investigated sooner.

Then there are the more problematic things which could have indicated problems but aren't clear signals of guilt and it would be unfair to put too much reliance on them. Shipman had been found guilty of forging prescriptions to fuel a pethidine addiction and had his medical licence suspended for a while. Beverly Allitt had an extraordinarily high rate of sickness absence during her training, and it was one of the recommendations after her conviction that sick records be scrutinized more thoroughly. But not every sick nurse, or every addicted doctor is a serial killer, so these are just indicators that maybe more vigilance is required. Similarly not every depressed pilot is going to fly a plane full of people into a mountain, but one did. I don't know much about that case but I believe there were warning signs this individual posed a risk.

But one thing that's crucial is the doctors in the Letby case are seeing their situation through the lens of Shipman. I feel they misapplied their attention looking for subtle signs of a serial killer, based on a supposed statistical anomaly that didn't really exist. Certainly not at the beginning when they first raised the alarm (cluster of three deaths, the only unusual thing being they occurred close together and infection or staff shortages could also explain this). Arguably not at all. (Countess of Chester had a spike in its death rate, but eleven other units had a bigger one)

I also think that many of the healthcare professionals now questioning the case didn't pay it much heed until after the conviction, because there was no reason to engage with salacious details. But afterwards many will have wanted to know what went wrong so we can learn lessons. What signs were missed in Letby? Only to find there were no obvious signs. The only thing that comes close is her readiness to pick up overtime and perhaps her preference for working in nursery 1. But these are absolutely normal things not safeguarding red flags.

You know based on the medical evidence, aka dogma that put my life in turmoil for three years 30 years ago, it was obvious I was guilty too. I never understood why I wasn't prosecuted as the medical evidence and expert opinions consistently underlined how obvious my guilt was. Similar cases of guilt determined essentially by medical evidence alone, with a garnish of retrospective character analysis have made it to criminal court, so technically all should. Statistically there will be other cases out there. One can understand it being seen to be in the public interest to prosecute a "baby killer" but why not me?

My situation and Lucy Letbys are vastly different in many ways regarding the specifics but the resonance is strong in terms of the process.

I keep coming back to the fact that 1. there was an opportunity to suspend her and investigate after the third death but at that point the only thing driving the suspicion was her presence, and pathologists hadn't flagged any concerns. This makes a mockery of the idea that the best interests of the children trump all else and that lessons have ever been learned from past occurrences. And 2. the medical evidence is plainly contradictory depending on which "expert" is looking at it. There is no definitive thing that "can only be caused by" X. So the "balance of probabilities" has been applied not "beyond reasonable doubt".And here's a nit picking for you - isn't it worrying that the wording has been changed around that phrase to "being sure" ? Because even if it's just to simplify things and is supposed to mean the same, it introduces a subconscious elevation of subjectivity. And no disrespect to jury members is intended by that observation.

Criminal courts and complex medical evidence do not mix. And when they do, which seems to be an arbitrarily decided occurrence, miscarriages of justice increase in likelihood with all the terrible ramifications of that.

Of course they can, it just didn't with this particular case.

Ok and some do with this particular case. So there you go.

It's not just the projectile vomit it's the amount there was that proves she was overfed because there was nothing to account for it. 45mls was aspirated from her NGT and 45ml milk was the feed amount so what accounts for all the vomit? Her stomach was empty when she was fed. We know the hospital was suboptimal the point is that doesn't explain most of the collapses.

No one is defending a baby killer. They are not convinced that she is a baby killer. Huge difference.

Same thing with the Michael Jackson thread and yet I still got called all sorts of vile names for saying I didn't 100% believe his guilt. At least I haven't stooped to the same level of name calling despite the fact we're talking about the worst baby serial killer in British history.

Yeah she made it almost to 100 days before the collapse, she spent most of that time at a far better hospital who provided far better care than they did at the countess of Chester.

Bit of a coincidence staff had banners ready to celebrate her 100th day and then she suddenly collapses no? Lots of coincidences around those type of events which you seem to be ignoring.

Yes the third triplet survived because again he went to a better hospital, one where the difference in care was described as the "difference between night and day" by the mother. She had seen a doctor at COCH googling how to put in a long line.

And why did LL write a note apologising to all three for them not being here to celebrate their birthdays despite the fact one of them was?

@Firefly1987
They don't KNOW that her stomach was empty before the vomit AND they don't know the quantity of vomit either.

I wasn't on any Michael Jackson thread, but you absolutely are stooping to saying vile things, like that people are defending a baby killer.

I don't put any emphasis at all on such weak circumstantial evidence like it was coming up to the babies 100th day. I ignore that kind of stuff because I don't consider it to be important. You're ignoring genuinely important stuff though and just taking everything the prosecution says as gospel.

As for the 'draft sympathy note' It could have simply meant that they weren't there as a trio, and they didn't have the life together they were meant to have.

@Firefly1987 As I said earlier it's quite possible that there was fluid in the stomach from earlier feeds that had not been absorbed further down the gut and was sitting there not moving on.

If there was an infection further down the gut causing inflammation or even an obstruction then the feed would not be travelling down or being absorbed and gut motility may also have slowed leading to slow stomach emptying.