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/

21 people died in the Birmingham pub bombings. A jury found six people guilty and all those convictions were later quashed.

If you and Mumsnet had been around at the time, you would have been posting IN CAPITALS that it was disrespectful to the families of the dead to query those convictions.

It's never disrespectful to insist that justice is done and that decisions can be debated in the public sphere. If you don't like that, I would suggest you move to North Korea.

A ridiculous question to ask someone. How on earth is anyone on here supposed to answer that?

If there has been a wrongful conviction made then it is up to the criminal justice system to make that decision. Let's not pretend that those debating it on mumsnet for the sake of their own entertainment are going to be the pivotal driving force that pushes for a retrial. Let's also not pretend that those asking for respect for the victims are anything like a dictator in North Korea who takes pleasure in murdering those with an opposing view to him.

Agree OP. I don't those babies were murdered, from what I have read there is not one concrete piece of evidence that proves LL did this crime at all. I think she was used as a scapegoat for a failing NHS Trust.

It's a rhetorical question!

No one can answer it because it doesn't seem that the unexpectedly high level of deaths occuring on the maternity ward have been investigated.

Logically one factor affecting both units at once is more likely.

@sunshine244 well yes of course this is very interesting but we can't forget the evidence that is suggestive that she is guilty. There's evidence that is easy to pick apart I'm not saying there isn't and it is worrying but we all must see there is evidence that is quite easy to suggest she is guilty. I feel these posts are over seeing this side of the argument. Surely we should view it all as a whole 🤔

@Missymoo100

I don’t think the diary entries were clear cut.

What, "I am evil. I did this."

Ok then

The shark has now been well and truly jumped. Weeks of evidence, hundreds of hours of testimony, unanimous verdict of two juries who heard all that evidence and expert testimony and someone can say this with a straight face.

A few thoughts that strike me.

The Defence did have experts - who they didn’t call. We don’t know why, and we likely won’t know why - lawyer/ client privilege.

To get an appeal, you need to prove an error was made or you’ve got substantial new evidence- failing to call your own witnesses/ provide a challenge to prosecution evidence won’t meet that hurdle. You get one bite of the cherry, the trial is not a dress rehearsal which you get to do-over trying a new strategy of it doesn’t go the way you wanted. This is true for BOTH sides once the jury has reached an verdict.

The experts quoted in the guardian all give a massive caveat - they haven’t seen the evidence. So they can only ever be half an opinion. Apart from Hall who was an instructed Defence expert and doesn’t know why he wasn’t called.

We don’t know why the other deaths weren’t included - we can’t assume it’s because LL wasn’t involved/ on shift. There may have been other reasons why they chose not to charge those. Or they may be clear reasons why they weren’t included.

It definitely isn’t the end of the story - there’ll be a full review in the enquiry and many of the parents will bring civil claims against the hospital for failing to stop LL earlier - that will be a fresh opportunity to review what has happened.

But it doesn’t say what shift she was on & the time of the baby death, surely that is relevant too. If the baby dies at 12pm but she didn’t start until 12.30 she was still on shift but how could she be involved? These are questions that need to be answered. She was arrested x3 over a couple of years not enough evidence to prosecute the first 2 times.

& how do you know that doctor is truthful? She could have been writing in the notes & not seen, who knows. She wasn’t seen pulling out the tube or fiddling with the tube where was she was standing why was his view of things just accepted.,….because he is a doctor!

Do you not agree that there have been miscarriages of justice in the past?

There have. I'm not saying either way, but there are questions that need answering and an acknowledgement that the evidence isn't compelling.

It's ok to question democracy, to insist people don't is actually taking away rights. We have the right to challenge the decision, that doesn't mean we're right or that anything will change. Reporting it to MN is not going to make a difference because this is a discussion board, which is what everyone hear is doing. You're the only person trying to shut that down.

So were other miscarriages of justice, they were guilty served years of their lives behind bars. Now the cases have been tried the evidence should be in the public domain, what the article is saying other experts are disagreeing with expert opinion

Nah I’m not buying it. The insulin poisonings alone shows she’s guilty. She even admitted that they were targeted attacks and the unlikelihood of there being two poisoners on the unit. These babies weren’t even a part of the initial doctor’s allegations, it came later on. She murdered one the insulin babies twin (baby E) and tried to murder the other (baby M). The juries were unanimous on this decision as it quite damning evidence.

The evidence in this case includes the medical records of dead children. These should absolutely not be in the public domain for obvious reasons, and the comments of experts getting their names in the press who have not seen these records and were not involved in the trial shouldn’t be given the same weight as a truly independent expert opinion formed on the basis of a review of all available evidence.

Well no she can’t, she’s been denied an appeal.

Her conviction seemed to easy, I just don’t know. I’m not convinced she’s guilty either. She’s been denied the right to an appeal and been given a whole life order so I hope it’s not a wrongful conviction.

1 The Guardian is simply summarising its sources:

A Guardian investigation has interviewed dozens of these experts and seen further evidence from emails and documents. Those raising concerns include several leading consultant neonatologists, some with current or recent leadership roles, and several senior neonatal nurses. Others are public health professionals, GPs, biochemists, a leading government microbiologist, and lawyers. Several of those still working in the NHS have asked to remain anonymous, fearing the impact if they are named.

2 Is incorrect. The RCPCH report concluded that the neonate unit had not had the staffing levels to run a level 2 unit. It highlighted gaps in the nursing rosta, insufficient senior cover, reluctance to seek advice. It recommended 2 more consultants be added to the unit including a neonatologist. And that was after the unit had already been downgraded.

4 Prof Hindmarsh’s evidence was highly flawed.

5 You cannot diagnose an air embolism from an X-ray. That a radiologist and pathologist were prepared to support this bad science is mind-boggling.

6 It’s a mystery that Shoo Lee did not testify at the trial. But it may be that he got in touch or was put in touch with the defence after the trial.

This is the most sensible, accurate summary of the whole thing.

Thank you.

Standing still next to a baby is not a crime. And we only have his word for it.

We have no idea what was going through her mind - she was a relatively young nurse - panicking, wondering what was wrong with the baby, what to do next etc.

If he genuinely believed that she had intentionally harmed the baby he should have reported her there are then, contacted the CDOP immediately. Instead he let her carry on.

No, her request for an appeal has been turned down, not the same thing as "denying her".

The authorities haven't said " we are denying you an appeal" they've said "there are no grounds for an appeal" There must be grounds for an appeal.

I agree that actual serious investigative journalism is very important in uncovering miscarriages of justice.

But these three articles are not serious investigative journalism. They are selectively picking opinions and facts to support a narrative. Not considering the big picture of the prosecution case. It didn't all rest on one or two points. Presumably the articles were written with the aim of grabbing readers attention.

Lucy has a very experienced defence team who chose to not use these experts in Court. In newspaper quotes the experts aren't challenged, aren't cross examined, don't need to defend what they have said, don't have any scrutiny.

Had they been called to testify in court, we may have seen that their opinions were not reliable, or even worked against Lucy's defence. e.g. if a defence expert said something in the article that helped defend her, but when questioned they also held another opinion that showed her to be lying on another point.

Lucy continued to use this defence team for her appeal and future case. Presumably she (and her family and other advisers) accepted her barrister's explanation for not using these experts, even if we the public don't know the exact reasons.

Whilst I do think Lucy is guilty, I would be very interested if genuine new evidence and information emerged to suggest otherwise. I don't think that is the case with these articles.

Ahh ok that makes more sense.

Following....

On point 5 (cross examination of medical witness for baby B)

Ben Myers KC is now questioning Dr Arthurs.

He asks questions about 'air in the body' and analysis of them.

Mr Myers: "Radiographic evidence of air embolus is rare, isn't it?"

Prof Arthurs: "Yes."

"On post-mortem imaging, the presence of air may also be the result of medical procedures or placement?"

"Yes."
Mr Myers asks if the presence of a UVC or long line for some time could lead to air in the system. Dr Arthurs agrees.

Prof Arthurs says the "assumption that an image is needed to prove an air embolus is wrong".

Prof Arthurs says his review of the cases involved him, to give a conclusion of 'unusual', having to look through a number of past cases.

Mr Myers says that translated to similar findings in 25% of the total number of past cases he had gone through.

Mr Myers says Prof Arthurs looked at 500 cases at Great Ormond Street Hospital, which after narrowing down the criteria, amounted to 38 babies aged under two months, and of those, eight had gases in the greater vessels.

Prof Arthurs said there were "no unexplained cases" of gases in that location. The causes found included trauma, a road traffic accident, sudden unexpected death in infants or congential heart disease.

Mr Myers said that does not include many cases of babies in similar circumstances of death of babies aged under four days old.

He says there are "many variables" in such a study.

Prof Arthurs says air can be 'distributed' in the system during CPR.

For Child A, Mr Myers says "one possibility" of the air seen on the image is air administration.

He says others can be through resuscitation or post-mortem changes.

Prof Arthurs: "Yes."

For Child B, the radiograph image shown from June 10, about 40 minutes after the time of the non-fatal collapse.

Mr Myers: "On that image, there are no features which support an air embolus diagnosis?"

Prof Arthurs: "Yes."

He clarifies from a question by the prosecution that it could not be concluded either way.

Prof Arthurs says his observational study was from "a large body of evidence".

The judge, Mr Justice Goss, asks about the study as the jury has not seen it.

Prof Arthurs said the study was carried out for children (up to 18 years old) in 2015 and looked at 35 cases, with 10 having some gas in the larger vessels. The study was published, peer-reviewed and available in literature.

He tells the court "probably none" were of premature babies.

The study was performed independently of the trial, the court hears, and was prior to Prof Arthurs' own review, for babies, carried out later at Great Ormond Street Hospital, involving hundreds of cases.