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?

It’s clear that many of us have.

But her KC isn't an idiot who likes just losing trials he could win, without even attempting a defence. Tbh I've never even met a lawyer who'd be able to work like that, let alone one as experienced as Ben Myers. I'm confident that if they could have found any medical experts at all to offer an alternative point of view and sprinkle in that reasonable doubt, they would have.

I think also, it's about weighing up the effect on the jury of sprinkling in some reasonable doubt against the risk that the prosecution's cross examination of any defence expert would include the question "but can you definitively exclude air embolism as a cause of death?" or "do you agree that this case could also be consistent with air embolism?".

Given that the cause of deaths is what's in dispute, and that the prosecution's case was about looking at each set of circumstances around each baby as a whole, unless a defence expert would be prepared to categorically rule out air embolism as a cause of death, there would be too much risk in putting them on the stand during the original trial.

but what if they convict her too (as seems likely)?

I think at this point it would be nigh on impossible to find a jury who didn't have some preconceived idea of the case. As such could a jury give an unbiased verdict? Especially given the length of the first trial. I'm sure a lot of us would just say 'ah she was guilty of them the last time, not wasting my time here'.

I know what you're saying about how it could reinforce the prosecution in saying it could be air embolism. But it's the doubt that I think would have been a strong card to play. Why couldn't they find anyone at all (poor old Lorenzo the plumber aside) to attempt to cast any doubt? Literally all you need is some doubt and it's over. If what happened was potentially natural (and not a completely different murderer at work, which hopefully isn't something people actually believe) then there must be so much medical precedent for it, so many textbooks, so many experts, so many doctors who've seen it before, so many coroners and pathologists. And presumably that could actually be the case in the ones where they couldn't reach a verdict. But they did reach a large number of secure verdicts.

Divulging from the topic slightly, IF this is revealed to be a miscarriage of justice (and that's a big if) I think our justice system needs looking at. It seems absolutely mad that only 11 people (who are not experts) are required to believe that someone is guilty for murder for them to be convicted.

Have been goggling but can't find an answer as to why Shoo Lee wasn't called for the first trial? Does anyone have a clue?

That’s the crux of it. With all the coverage and debate it would be impossible for a retrial to be fair and unbiased even if leave to appeal was granted - which seems highly unlikely.

Yes, agree. It’s likely that the reason no medical expert was called was because they weren’t likely to help her case.
In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proof - they have to prove guilt, the defendant doesn’t haven to prove their innocence. The defendant doesn’t even have to give evidence themselves, although an inference can be drawn about the reason for their silence. So where the defence doesn’t have an expert who is likely to help the defendant’s case and might unwittingly end up supporting the prosecution on cross examination, the tactic may well be to just try to undermine the prosecution case but not call anyone in support of the defence. It doesn’t make the lawyer incompetent- quite the opposite. Imagine if she had called medical experts who then conceded that yes, a plausible explanation for the deaths was an air embolism? Or a therapist who said that yes, one explanation for writing that you did it is that you did in fact do it? Or a colleague who said that actually, the defendant wasn’t of exemplary character because there was X, Y and Z incident that took place that suggested otherwise?

None of the behaviours exhibited are unusual in isolation, and each has a reasonable explanation when looked at alone. It becomes a pattern of emotional immaturity only when examined with her behaviour and testimony at trial, her father’s unusual level of involvement during the disciplinary process and the texts starting from when the first two babies were harmed. The rule breaking from the very first day( keeping her handover sheet from day one on the ward in a keepsake box), odd Facebook searches, falsification of medical records and on and on and on.
In regards Baby C’s motive of her being angry at not getting her own way and this leading to a baby being harmed, it is in no way unusual for someone who lacks maturity and struggles with emotional dysregulation to then use bullying or picking on someone or something weaker than them as a way to regulate. Think about the husband who beats his wife to death because England loses, or someone who kicks the dog because they’ve had a bad day, school children bullying etc.etc. If to Letby, these babies were seen as tools to help with her emotions, rather than human beings, it makes sense that when told she couldn’t get her own way and worse still that her thoughts weren’t considered reasonable, she’d use a tool in order to feel better. This makes her subsequent actions where she was seen as almost excited to go through the death in the unit checklist as understandable. It was helping her take her mind off the ( in her mind) unreasonable staff member and at the same time giving her more attention, sympathy and excitement.
If you think of the murders/ attempted murders as the actions of a bully picking on someone weaker in order to regulate their emotions, the motive for why these crimes occurred and her behaviour throughout makes some form of sick sense.

The one really good thing about all this nonsense in the media now, and all these dubious experts talking about a 'safe' conviction, is that the police working on Operation Hummingbird will be feeling more inspired.

I know they always want to do their best to get justice for any victim of course but there understandably might have been a bit of wondering whether it was worthwhile pursuing further convictions on someone who has so many whole-life tariffs already. But now they'll know that if people are trying to cast doubt on it at all, they need to make sure they leave no stone unturned in the case of any other baby she's harmed.

I think the most likely outcome of all this press attention is that she will be facing a raft of further charges before too much longer.

I've only seen retrospective reports that suggest Dr Lee was unaware - and thus the defence unaware that Dr Lee disagreed with the interpretation - until after the first trial.

I'd also be interested to see if this is a true report - as if so it does back my opinion that it is unfair to expect the legal team who are not medical specialists to know precisely what medical evidence they should be querying

That's an interesting point. One suggestion I would make is to using modern technology that allowed the judge (and him /her only) to view deliberations via cctv, and intervene when discussions veer away from only points of law or evidence given in court.

As I said previously, we all make preconceived impressions of people even on sight. It can't be right that 12 of us can sit in a room and include those notions in our decision making.

the defendant doesn’t haven to prove their innocence. The defendant doesn’t even have to give evidence themselves, although an inference can be drawn about the reason for their silence.

That is entirely wrong. A juror must not make any judgement on why an offender decided to use their right to remain silent. As you say the prosecution has to make all the case for guilt.

Juries make decisions of fact (ie is the defendant guilty or not guilty), not law. That suggestion is likely to inhibit juries which is not good.
In some countries, eg Australia, you can request a judge only trial rather than a jury trial. I think something like that might work in this country. If for instance you think that you are unable to get a fair trial by jury due to bias or publicity you could ask for a judge only. That was done in the Claremont serial killer case in Australia where the defendant was tried almost 30 years after the crime. He was still convicted though…

I don’t think there was a huge amount of bias though. Lots of people pre trial saying that maybe she was a scapegoat of NHS failures, no lurid tell alls or social media rumours. The fact that it was a heinous crime doesn’t mean that the jury will definitely convict.

I don't know about Ben Geen. But the deaths Letby was associated with just don't become more suspect, individually, because there was a cluster of them. Clusters happen.

If any of the deaths had been perceived as suspicious at the time, and as not explained by the hospital post-mortem done in six of the seven cases, they should have been referred at that time, with the body still available, for a coroner's post mortem. They weren't.

If they weren't perceived as suspicious at the time, what changed so that they were perceived as suspicious later? Either you can explain each death on its own term as being suspect, or you can't. If you can't, and you're just using statistics identifying a cluster of deaths, these deaths were never any more suspicious than any others that take place on neonatal wards.

Of course the risk then for prosecutor's would be that 1. She could receive a fair trial given the enormity of what has gone before & 2. What if she was found innocent on further charges.

That would bring a far greater amount of questioning on to her existing convictions.

Err you might want to read section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, specifically subsection 3:
Where this subsection applies, the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, may draw such inferences as appear proper from the failure of the accused to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question.

💯 completely irrelevant as evidence in the case imo.

The defence gave the reason in the appeal as they didn't think of it before she was convicted, but it was clearly a strategic decision.

Plus, I think one of the things Lee would have said under cross is that the only rash that's definitely indicative of air embolism is the pink one (whereas the others might have other causes), which is mentioned in the judgment, and so then the defence could have used that to point to the testimony of pink rashes being diagnostic, and then point to the two or so cases where a pink rash matching the description was observed. If the prosecution can potentially use Dr Lee to confirm that even one cause of death is likely to be air embolism, then it's simply not worth the risk of calling him.

You need to look at the 2003 update to that act, which comes from the European human rights act. It states that no inference can be made from you choosing your right to remain silent.

Where did you complete your psychology doctorate?

That is the up to date wording. The judge must give a direction that the defendant has a right to silence which might be what you are referring to. They can still draw inferences though.
There is no European Human Rights Act. There’s the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.

And this is exactly the problem with complex and / or controversial medical evidence. Lawyers are law experts and have to rely on medical experts who, if considered great for the prosecution, aren't going to be impartial, even if approached by a defence team.

My personal example - my solicitor was convinced that the radiology expert he instructed from GOSH would look at our case and see the problems with it. Unbeknownst to him until after the fact, this radiologist claimed publicly to be able to diagnose child abuse from looking at x-ray alone. Therefore based on dogma that had evolved over decades any baby presenting with metaphyseal fractures was a victim if child abuse, regardless of any contradictory evidence. Possibilities of bone disease or fragility, even if likely, did not rule out abuse, due to the nature of these fractures. The conclusion drawn was that not only were parents guilty if abusing their baby, they had abused a sick and fragile baby which doubles down on the awfulness.

In fact, this radiologist threw in a compressed vertebrae apparently missed by three other respected doctors/experts, claiming it was from either violently slamming the baby onto a hard surface, or violently bending the baby. A six week old, 5 week premature, tiny for dates baby who had no other visible signs that supported the idea, and who had passed his six week check without any concerns.

We had to submit that damning report, because family court operates differently to criminal court. We had exhausted the pool of relevant experts. Hence why, despite getting my son back who is a fairly healthy and robust 30 year old now, I am still on record as his abuser.

People really don't realise how difficult any case of this nature is to defend. Until you've been there.

. The Right to Remain Silent
One of the most well known rights when facing criminal charges is the right to remain silent. This right allows individuals to refuse to answer questions posed by law enforcement, especially during an arrest or police interrogation. In the UK, this protection is rooted in the principle that individuals should not be compelled to incriminate themselves. The right to remain silent is enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the UK is a signatory to. In the case of Salduz v. Turkey (2008), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that suspects have the right to remain silent during police interrogation. This decision was later incorporated into UK law through the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It's crucial to understand that you can exercise your right to remain silent without any negative inference being drawn against you in court. In other words, if you choose not to answer questions, it cannot be used as evidence of guilt.

It’s quite clear that not many have read the Final Judgement document which addresses many of the concerns people are obsessing with on here.