Lucy Letby case - Rob Rinder and David Davies

[LimeFawn]

Going back to thread in summer about Lucy Letby case needing criminal case review- surely that has to happen now?

In the past couple of days, I have seen David Davis MP talking about this on Good morning - apparently senior neonatal doctors contacted him directly;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5HcW71BSGSM

Rob Rinder who is an expert in criminal law has also raised concerns- pic included below.

And article in guardian about her notes which was used a lot in this mumsnet thread as proof of guilt:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5115849-to-think-the-lucy-letby-case-needs-a-judicial-review

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/i-am-evil-i-did-this-lucy-letbys-so-called-confessions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

Surely there is enough new information coming to light to justify a criminal case review - her conviction really doesn’t seem safe at all?

I think she’s innocent but getting her out could take a long time.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission is very slow.
The court of appeal is very slow.
If a retrial is ordered on any count, the courts are very slow.

I’ve written to my MP. I don’t know what else to do.

Why do you think she’s innocent?

That the insulin tests were unreliable. So many different weird methods were pinned on her when the original post mortems suggested more likely natural causes.

This website is helpful.
https://gill1109.com/?amp=1

I also think that she's innocent and that this case will go down in history as an awful miscarriage of justice.

Glad to see that from Rob Rinder, who always seems pretty sensible.

The thing is the police are still investigating, so can't comment on the case. The information in the public domain is becoming distorted, there are claims that there was ten deaths which Lucy wasn't present for. However there is no hard evidence to back this up.
Lucy's defence barrister can't break confidentiality and tell the media why his only witness was a plumber. He is a highly respected lawyer

I remember the case of the woman who was convicted for the murder of her 2 babies (who actually died due to cot death). I think if there is any doubt at all, then the case should be reviewed. It is impossible to know from the information in the public domain either way. I feel for the parents of the babies who must have gone through so much.

‘He’s a highly respected lawyer’
Her solicitor not so much. He let her concede that the insulin deaths were deliberate poisoning.

How do you mean? Why was that her solicitor's fault that she said that in her evidence? The barrister would have been on board from fairly early on so would also have been involved in how the case was run and what witnesses were called etc. And despite comments about her legal team being incompetent, she has stuck with them for her appeal so they can't have been that bad.
There may have been one or two that died from natural causes and she was blamed, but not all of them. What about the fact that deaths stopped when she was on holiday, commencing again as soon as she returned?

Rob Rinder really is not an expert.

Her defence is a highly respected and competent professional, her testimony (which was her choice to do and surprised a lot of people) was her choice. He could only advise in this regard and not force her not to take the stand, there are also rules about the contact that's permitted between client and their defence team between days testifying. I suspect her tying herself up in knots was one of the reasons they only called a plumber in the end; because the others they had would contradict or not support something she said.

I actually attended one of the court sessions because due to my line of work I was interested. I was surprised at the amount that was covered that wasn't reported or even alluded to in the press (for obvious reasons), it's easy to forget/not realise that this was a very long trial, with only a % reported in the media. No one in attendance on any of the days is permitted to share any detail, but the jury were of course privvy to all of it. I don't really get what their incentive would be to find her guilty for the sake of it- they weren't unanimous in their verdict & she wasn't found guilty on all counts, surely she would be if they were simply bias?

He’s a criminal barrister so must have some insight even if he’s not currently practising

There’s already a Lucy Letby thread running

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5157467-lucy-letbys-scribbled-notes

I know - I already apologised on it- I posted this before seeing that one!

Well her barrister was highly respected before the trial.

This is from Richard Gill’s blog:

“The defence stated to me that they cannot inform Lucy of the alternative analysis of the insulin question. It appears to me that this violates their own code of practice. Do they feel bound by the weird rules of UK’s criminal prosecution practice? Their client, Lucy Letby, is herself essentially merely a piece of evidence, seized by the police from what they believe is a scene of crime. No one may tamper with it during the duration of her own trial, which is lasting 10 months! I think this constitutes an appalling violation of basic human rights. The UK laws on contempt of court are meant to guarantee a fair trial. But in the case of a 10-month trial on 22 charges of murder and attempted murder, they are guaranteeing an unfair trial.
Lucy’s solicitor refused to pass on a friendly personal letter of support to Lucy or to her parents because she had not instructed him to do so. Should one laugh or cry about that excuse? I have the impression that he is not very bright and that he may have been convinced she is guilty. If so, I hope he is changing his mind. In the UK, the solicitor does all the legwork and communication between the client and the defence team. The barrister does the cross-examinations and the court theatrics, but probably never builds up a personal relationship with his client. Lucy has been all this time prison, in pre-trial detention, far from Manchester or Hereford. This might explain the extraordinarily weak defence which has been put up so far.”

It’s as if she didn’t fit any known ‘profile’ of a serial killer and didn’t have any factors that would lead towards inclinations of that nature that they got certain people in (especially Dewi Evan’s) to make up new theories to make the pieces fit ?

Not to mention them trying to come up with ways she had harmed the babies that didn’t seem feasible after autopsy findings being ‘natural causes’

Without spending months reading all the evidence I would not form a view so somewhat surprised by DJ Rinder but he was a DJ ( district judge) not high level judge. He’s just a kind guy who seems caught up in all the publicity but as a former barrister he should known better.

I would love to know why they made the decisions they did on any agreement eg insulin suspicion and lack of experts. However we are not in their shoes so none of us know or can comment.

I don’t think all this speculation is helpful unless people can access published CPS statements one day.

So saying there are some rubbish lawyers out there who can present cases in a terrible way. Also some barrister and solicitors have off days or off cases. Sometimes the slightest technicality can change the verdict.

There is a really interesting podcast covering the trial on Spotify. Goes into more detail than what we received from the media.

I do think she is guilty, if I had to choose. Occums razor; it seems she was always in close proximity when these deaths, or near deaths, occurred. And there were a lot, not just one or two, with her seemingly being the common denominator. Nothing is certain, however.

In any other setting maybe but you would expect nurses on shift in an intensive care unit to often be present when deaths occurred it’s not like every time she went to Tesco people were dying.

They did have an expert re the insulin though - Professor Hindmarsh

Richard Gill is not a lawyer and that's clear from his very speculative blog where he seems to suggest that LL's legal team should have suggested to her what to say in her evidence, which is bullshit and entirely contrary to their ethical duties. As for passing friendly letters etc, that is not the job of a lawyer to act as a postman so that members of the public can convey their support. Why doesn't he write to her in prison if he's so keen to communicate with her? Again, if the legal team were so shit, why did she stick with them for the appeal?

This.

I think that sometimes the right verdict is reached but in the wrong way as people have an instinct.

i have always felt uncomfortable about the Jeremy Bamber case as there was no real evidence to pin it on him other than a disgruntled girlfriend. However his lawyers agreed that in theory either he did it or his sister did it ( as his evidence was a call from his dad to say that his schizophrenic had gone made with a gun). The relatives seemed to have been involved in evidence collecting.

I never liked this but then instinctively I feel that the verdict was rightish.