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?

None of those things individually prove murder, no. But together they make a pretty damning picture of a very, very strange and sinister person that is the murderer Lucy Letby. It takes extraordinary mental gymnastics to try to dismiss all the evidence against her.

I prefer to err on the side of people who sat through the trial for many months hearing detailed evidence. They found her guilty. I believe so many people think she can't be guilty because she looks like the nice blue eyed blonde girl next door. I prefer trial in the courtroom to trial by media.

Peter Elston Royal Statistical Society*
Gillian Tully, an expert in forensic science at Kings College London* who served as the forensic science regulator for England and Wales.
*Professor Jane Hutton, a statistician from Warwick University
*Peter Green, a professor of statistics and a former President of the Royal Statistical Society.
*Prof Alan Wayne Jones, an expert in forensic toxicology, is one of those who has challenged the results.

These were 5 of the 24 who wrote a letter concerning the evidence in this case - not whether LL was guilty or not guilty

Why would 24 experts in their fields decide to come together concerning this particular case & the evidence used - unless they have grave doubts about the evidence?

This is surely about getting a fair trail and affects all of us in that manner

*Phil Hammond, a retired doctor in the NHS He said he was not sure whether Letby did what she was convicted of, but he does not believe she got a fair trial

Wrote his own letter solo

This is not to say LL is guilty or not guilt

Such a sensible post.

I'm so relieved and happy that ultimately, none of this matters. A social media self-described 'judge', some dubious 'experts' with no access to a huge amount of the relevant information and a lot of armchair commentators don't actually change the law. There's no movement or pressure or anything like it. That's not how the law works.

She's been convicted of multiple charges, refused an appeal and convicted of a further charge. She's sentenced to multiple whole-life tariffs and will stay in jail where she belongs forever. Love and comfort to the families - I hope this nonsense is not affecting them too much and that they're well reassured by their legal teams that it's all hot air, because it very much is.

Because they don't have access to all the information. Nor are they entitled to all the information. It's done.

Another very sensible post.

It really doesn't take any mental gymnastics to dismiss this list of evidence. There are a lot of emotionally intense social media addicts out there.

Most of them aren't murderers, and all the evidence is that Letby did her job well and did not attract complaints.

Couldnt agree more. She had an eminent silk representing her. Yet people think he didn’t call X, Y or Z because he couldn’t be bothered or he was incompetent. Yeah right. He’s probably done more murder trials that most people have had hot dinners and is at the top of his game. The main reason why you wouldn’t call a witness would be that they are not likely to say anything that is going to be helpful to your clients case and indeed might harm your client’s case by supporting the prosecution’s arguments.

Now she’s teamed up with some apparently quite publicity hungry barrister, who seems competent enough (but not in the same league as Ben Myers KC) and oddly has tweeted that he thinks she’s innocent and has done interviews. He’s also representing Ben Geen, another convicted murderer nurse who claims he’s innocent. Given that BG was literally caught with the poison on him and tried to dispose of it, I think he, as well as Lucy, will have an uphill battle.

You wouldn't need access to all the information to see the problems with use of statistics in the trial, with Evans's fanciful murder methods, with his use of inappropriate evidence to show air embolism, with his claiming poisoning when the tests don't prove it.

There may be more information out there, but unless it's a different set of evidence for differently committed murders, it doesn't solve those problems.

They really don’t. There was nothing strange and sinister about Lucy Letby, say all who knew her.

Well several of her colleagues testified about her odd and suspicious behaviour so I wouldn’t agree with that.

In the event that she is able to answer that question again, Letby will be able to point out that the tests did not demonstrate that the infants were poisoned. But that isn't her job!

I get that it's not her job to disprove the prosecution's case, but it was her job to accept or dispute the evidence presented.

Given that her argument was that no-one deliberately hurt the babies and that it was just coincidence that she was suspected of doing it, I just can't fathom her being innocent but also accepting that someone else poisoned babies on two of her shifts.

I realise she isn't an expert on those tests, but if she's innocent, then logically, how did that evidence that she accepted as a fact square with what she says actually happened? She obviously knew about that evidence in advance of the trial, so how did she think that would fit in with her version of events if she accepted it?

I can see why, if she were guilty and had added the insulin and then they presented evidence that insulin had been added, her best course of action would be to accept the evidence that insulin was added (as she would have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the tests as she knew did it) but deny it was her. But why accept evidence of an attempted murderer on the unit if she didn't do it and genuinely believes there is no-one deliberately harming babies?

Now that it's agreed evidence, it would presumably stand as such for any appeal or retrial anyway, so I doubt she'd get a chance to try answering that question with a different answer again.

You are right that they will have had their strategy and that we will likely never know what that is. But acknowledging that is in no way sufficient - or shouldn’t be - to dismiss the very serious concerns about the evidence that was used to convict Lucy Letby and the evidence that is now in the public sphere that was not known to the jury when they made their decision to convict.

Well we shall see. I very much hope you are proved wrong sooner rather than later

Based on things I've read in the new yorker article, I doubt she's guilty.

However, it would be silly not to think there was a lot more happening in the trials but it wasn't broadcasted in the article. Could anyone recommend sources eg a podcast that would help me understand the trial better?

Since reading the NY article, I worry that she isn't guilty and will spend her life behind bars for crimes she didn't commit.

But I'll admit I really don't know what to think.

It's not agreed evidence by virtue of her statement. It may be by virtue of an agreement between prosecution and defence pre trial. Neither would prevent her team from bringing new evidence on this point to an appeal.

You are right that they will have had their strategy and that we will likely never know what that is. But acknowledging that is in no way sufficient - or shouldn’t be - to dismiss the very serious concerns about the evidence that was used to convict Lucy Letby and the evidence that is now in the public sphere that was not known to the jury when they made their decision to convict.

But not all of the evidence, nor everything the jury heard, is in the public domain. That's the problem with medical/statistical experts weighing in on what they've heard about a certain aspect of the case reported in the media without having the full details that the jury had when making each decision.

Many of the issues that have been raised in the press in recent weeks were already addressed in detail at trial and/or retrial - it's just that the court reporting restrictions meant that they have only just come to light for us, the general public. It's news to us, but not to the juries.

I'm not saying that it's definitely a safe conviction; that's for the courts to decide, not me. But I also don't have sufficient information to believe it's an unsafe conviction either, as I'm on the outside looking in, and can obviously only access what's in the public domain.

So in your view, does the media/ public ever have a role to play in questioning the integrity of criminal convictions and holding the justice system to account?

you must surely see that we will developed serious accountability issues if the answer to this is yes..

Why would 24 experts in their fields decide to come together concerning this particular case & the evidence used - unless they have grave doubts about the evidence?

Because they don't have access to all the information. Nor are they entitled to all the information. It's done

They do in their individual fields though and if this makes the justice system better, would you be against such a measure?

I never watched his Judge Rinder show so don't know much about him but I did watch him on ITV this morning. I thought he was quite unpleasant and full of himself. To be fair I didn't watch the whole programme so I might have missed him at his best.

'believe so many people think she can't be guilty because she looks like the nice blue eyed blonde girl next door. I prefer trial in the courtroom to trial by media'

Allitt was blonde, blue eyed angelic looking and people didn't have any doubts about her conviction.

You are aware that there have been previous miscarriages of justices,? That people have also been represented by eminent 'silks' and also had juries convinced of their guilt. Juries are made up of everyday people. I don't think they even have to have any basic educational qualifications to be selected so we must not presume that they can understand everything put to them.

Unfortunately mistakes are made and if tv judges or whomever want to discuss it then it is not up to others to silence them.

I do not know if she is innocent or guilty however I have not seen any stats, info or evidence that convinces me of her guilt.

A whole life tariff when there are so many grey areas seems extreme to say the least.

Errr no she wasn’t. She certainly didn’t fit any conventional beauty standards.

At an appropriate time such as during the trial, I have all the time in the world for the defence and prosecution to select the people with the right expertise. They had that opportunity. Now it's finished. We can't have a justice system where murderers just constantly rake over the coals of their trial to try to find a way to get out of jail.

And - thankfully - we don't. She's in jail for the rest of her rotten life.

Nobody is silencing anyone. Talk all you like, I'm just saying that luckily the legal system doesn't care what tv judges or internet chat sites think. Miscarriages of justice are vanishingly rare and in this case, the weight of evidence against her is staggering and she was found guilty.

A whole life tariff for taking the life of a very vulnerable, tiny baby is not in any way 'extreme' in my opinion. It barely scratches the surface of punishing the evil.