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/

Yes, exactly, Thankyou!

It’s one of the things I find infuriating about mumsnet sometimes - it’s possible and also important to discuss things without taking sides- to take a nuanced view - to debate, discuss!

And yes, Justice is absolutely a principle! Well said!’

From what I have read the issues causing doubt are that all the evidence is circumstantial and that some of the expert testimony quoted studies incorrectly and applied incorrect tests.
Her notes written in her diary are not necessarily conclusive as they might have been her stress response to being accused. I am a retired nurse and many years ago a colleague killed herself after becoming mentally unwell and racked with guilt about an accidental injury (which was relatively minor) that happened to a child whilst she was on duty and in charge. It was absolutely not her fault in any way but she could not get past this and left a note blaming herself.
I did agree with a point in the guardian article that it is human nature to want someone or something to blame when awful things happen when in fact the truth might in fact be more complex.
I also agree that people want a murderer to look like a murderer which she does not.
We may never categorically know if Lucy Letby is guilty or not given the absence of dna, cctv etc.

It's vitally important that all convictions are sound. Any of us or our loved ones could find ourselves on trial and if we didn't do it, we'd be relying on our defence to do their job effectively and ensure we walk free. Nobody and nothing should be above scrutiny.

Except that wasn’t true. The half dozen babies that died when she was not on shift were excluded from the chart. In some cases where babies died while she was on duty, she wasn’t even in the same ward.

To be honest, I think it's very hard to know if she did it or not.

On the one hand you could say there is circumstantial evidence.

One the other, you could say she was just someone doing a lot of overtime on a failing baby care unit.

What podcast was that? I'd be interested in listening.

I agree in that I do not know if she is guilty or innocent, I just think that the evidence presented in court was not sufficient to prove guilt. I think the court refusing her appeals and refusing admission of new evidence/reports written by experts in neonatology, statistics, forensics, hemaetology, etc is questionable and has a whiff of fearing that a miscarriage of justice has happened.

There are convicts who fight to appeal murder convictions for twenty plus years before they are allowed to appeal and then prove their innocence. It’s like the courts don’t want anyone’s career to suffer so will stonewall for decades.

You have to have sufficient grounds for an appeal.

You don't just get to have an appeal because you dislike the verdict.

She was found guilty in a court of law and has been incapable of producing sufficient evidence that she deserves an appeal. Got it?

No, The case has already been considered in detail by three Court of Appeal judges (www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-letby-3/) and two juries.

That Science on Trial website is notorious for its unreliability.

I think there is sufficient new evidence to allow an appeal.

The evidence showing the insulin blood tests were the wrong tests to meet the forensic standard for admissible tests and should never have been admitted as evidence for the prosecution is by itself enough for an appeal as that was the only forensic evidence of unnatural death.

The judges instructions to the jury are questionable too. The ones that essentially said if you think there is evidence she harmed any one baby, then you can find her guilty of murder or harm to any other baby without any evidence.

There is more, and I don’t think you really have got it. All you have got is repetitive bullet points that amount to nothing to see here, move along.

Sometimes they do. It’s not as if no one was ever wrongly convicted.

In addition to all the evidence and two juries finding her guilty, her demeanour in court suggests guilt to me:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66104004.amp

The above is also my view. If she is guilty, then we will never satisfactorily establish a motive (unless she confesses) because killing babies is irrational.

Dad of two of Lucy Letby's victims left 'uneasy' as killer nurse 'kept looking' at him during her trial

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-two-lucy-letbys-victims-27562378.amp

Two people can look at someones demeanour and reach different conclusions though.

Open to correction but the only fresh evidence that they tried to use for appeal was the evidence from Dr. Shoo Lee I believe.

It’s a podcast called Redhanded.

Is it not also a possibility that LL herself refused to allow further expert witnesses. It would have been her choice.

If she was innocent she would presumably have come up with a theory as to what happened. It is possible that she felt the plumbing/dirty water/infection issue was the likely cause of increased deaths. Or that she didn't want to blame colleagues. If she didn't have any mental health issues beforehand I'm sure she does now so her decision making capacity is likely hugely affected. The defence team cannot make her use evidence or experts she doesn't want to.

Thanks for the reference
If it's this podcast , I found it very weak indeed.

I hate the tone - flippant and condescending. One of the presenters says she has read the "fucking" article so we don't have to, because obviously we shouldn't be expected to read a long article. (Also not available in the UK as they point out, to be fair. I hope it is now, because this is not an accurate summary at all).

Then she expects us to accept her summary and criticism, all bundled together.

She doesn't present an accurate summary. She misses out the important points on insulin testing and problems with statistics. She misrepresents the discussion of statistics and motives. She asserts that people obviously would or wouldn't behave in particular ways because ... well, she just knows.

This is absolutely not a point by point refutation of the New Yorker article. It's just a lot of shouting about how silly it is because of course we all know better, but it never engages seriously with it.

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.

Irrespective of Letby’s guilt or innocence, do you honestly think that the NHS look for a scapegoat in the form of a nurse who turns out to be a child serial killer? Come on now. It’s overwhelmingly more damaging to their reputation.

I doubt anyone was consciously and seriously looking for a scapegoat. But people look for patterns, get attached to narratives, justify themselves and try to deflect blame. That can be a potent mix.

We are allowed to disagree. It’s fine.

Of course. Just for anyone who hasn't read the New Yorker article and is relying on this, I'd want to point out that it's certainly not a refutation or accurate summary of the New Yorker's points.

Taste is individual, and judgements are subjective, but it's easy to verify that this discussion simply doesn't mention key points of the article - problems with insulin testing, evidence around children Letby wasn't involved with. It's either plain dishonest or extremely careless.

I don't know why people talk about her being attractive. She is average looking, or not even that in a mugshot @Oftenaddled

I agree she’s average looking but she looks fairly well groomed, non-intimidating, slim and youngish. I think people are just repeating the media who love to insert “beautiful” or “pretty” in these type of cases to make it more sensational . Add in the fact she has dyed blonde hair.

If it's the one that @Oftenaddled linked to then it's absolutely terrible, they don't even know the facts of the situation, they're going on about 'two deaths from insulin'.

It's the podcast that's inaccurate and poorly researched.