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/

They downgraded the hospital after though, so they were no longer dealing with the higher risk babies.

I thought some of the babies that died were not even high risk though? They were on their way to getting better and then took a sudden unexpected down turn

Changing defence mid trial with a team that don’t know the case wouldn’t necessarily be a wise idea.

Hmmm…I’m not so sure….Don’t think that really explains why these cases only happened when she was there on shift. The only consistent person. I think the is she / isnt she debate is wrong. The court process was elaborate and thorough and she’s been judged the same as everyone is entitled to be judged. Up to the appeals process, not us.

What??

Yeah that's how people normally look at things that happen.

The defence didn't call witnesses so peoples brains come up with reasons why something could have happened (for whatever the scenario is).

You are free to add your own options if you have any! or to just decide that it was because there was zero experts that could have helped her case.

It's not pure fantasy to suggest that the defence could have made poor decisions or that some people might have been nervous about testifiying. As I said, we don't know what the reasons were.

I

I agree with you, OP. There's something about this case that has always made me uncomfortable.

I've read the New Yorker article, the Guardian and others. I can't see that guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt at all.

I can see systemic failures at a poorly run hospital and a unit that has since been downgraded. We don't know for sure that they were not looking for a scapegoat.

A retrial is needed, in full. With a new and competent defence team.

There is every point - the stakes couldn’t be higher, if flawed or bias data has been used in a trial it a very poor reflection on the justice system as a whole- we should be concerned with fairness and integrity of the justice system. If it is ill equipped to deal with scientific analysis, this needs addressing.
Secondly if a professional doing their job has falsely been convicted of this, perhaps when other failings on the healthcare system were to blame- then that is massive, a travesty of the highest order.

Did he mention that the unit was downgraded at the same time after which they took neonates of lower acuity? And were told to take on 2 more consultants?

Freedom of Information (FOI) data from the unit shows differing results, but there may have been up to 17 infant deaths during the same period, with Letby only charged with seven. (telegraph)

How are we accounting for the 10 deaths that happened when she wasn’t on shift, baby deaths simply didn’t only happen when Letby was on duty.

They didn’t. That’s the point the statisticians are making. The prosecution misused stats in the trial.

The defence did consult medical experts, and a statistical expert. They chose to not use those experts in court.

Before the trial starts the prosecution and defence experts meet together to discuss the case. The barristers receive a transcript of that meeting.

Experts have a duty to the court. They can't give a biased or selective account to support one side.

So an expert could be asked to produce a report by the defence, but the expert's opinion not sufficiently support the defence,then they wouldn't be used in court.

The defence did have medical experts, so it wasn't that nobody wanted to be engaged by the defence team.

There wasnt any evidence to call on!!!!

Otherwise it would have been called on.

I feel for the jurors, too.

I followed the trial closely, and was convinced. I would have found her guilty.

This new information has me doubting things. If I had convicted her, I would feel very uncomfortable now.

I just cannot understand why the defence didn't use any of these arguments to defend her. On another thread, people mentioned that the defence cannot put forward a 'she did not do it' argument, if she has confessed to them- they can only put forward a 'discredit the prosecution' argument. This is the only option I can think of that makes sense...?

The judge said to the jury

"Although you know that experts were instructed on behalf of the defence and there were meetings between experts, the only witnesses from whom you have heard were called by the prosecution."

So the defence did instruct experts who met with the prosecution witnesses, but the defence decided not to call their witnesses.

I thought this had been gone through, unfortunately they didnt keep proper records of shifts and she had a tendency to come in when she wasnt even on shift. So it couldnt be proved about the others and who was working and who wasnt so they didnt bring those to charge.

There were another 6 babies who died. They were left off the evidence presented to the court. I don't know whether Letby was there when they died, but the implication is not, else they'd have been added to the charge sheet.

Out of interest is there somewhere online to read the diary entries you’ve read?I can only find post it notes.

It's not about "is Letby" innocent - it affects every single one of us. If an innocent person is convicted, then each of us could be convicted of something we haven't done.

Yes

100% of the babies who died unexpectedly when Lucy Letby had been on shift died when Lucy Letby had been on shift.

100% of the babies who had been in Lucy Letby's care and whose blood showed traces of possible insulin overdose had been in Lucy Letby's care.

There were, according to these investigative reports, other deaths and other possible insulin overdose not included in the statistical analysis - and there, Letby had no involvement.

Many people have been found guilty and later on have been found to be innocent on appeal.

I’ve seen analyses of this that demonstrate that all but one(? I beleive if I remember correctly) of the babies that Lucy was convicted of killing would have been considered too vulnerable to be cared for on the unit if they had been born after it was downgraded (eg because of prematurity, being a multiple etc)

Did they consult all those that they could have and should have consulted with though?
They called a plumber, did they consult with an expert in the types of bacteria that could be in the hospital if the plumbing had issues? And an expert who could say what types of issues those bacteria could cause? If not then why not?

When did they consult with Dr Shoo Lee? Did they consult with him before the trial and if not then why not?
We don't know the answers to those questions.

But the OP isn’t saying Letby is innocent at all, I don’t know why people find that hard to understand! It is almost as if people are afraid to go anywhere near anything which tries to take a rounded view, which is all the article in the Guardian is doing ( if people actually read it). Justice is a principle, it matters to get it right doesn’t it? By asking questions, considering, discussing, it doesn’t mean you are necessarily going to decide someone is innocent after all, or change your first verdict.

One of them was going home the next day. The fact that the only witness the defence called in the first trial was a plumber says it all to me.

There was tons of fresh expert evidence but the courts have refused to admit it.
The article linked goes into great detail on this.