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?

Yes it's amazing how our police, jury, judges are suddenly so inept in their jobs all because of Lucy Letby. This case has stumped them so much, they have no idea what they're doing or how to do it.

This was a serious investigation.
Nobody is suggesting it wasn’t serious, they are pointing out the evidence that it was significantly flawed.

While they clearly had an initial suspect (Letby) because of the claims made by the doctors, if they’d found anything else in their investigations that suspect could have changed.

In a perfect world , yes. But that’s not the world that we are living in. Confirmation bias plays a huge part in criminal investigations and is a major cause of wrongful convictions. There is a reason why gold standard research trials are always double blinded. Not because researchers aren’t well meaning - but because they are human.

Where have I said an expert should read the testimony concerning their speciality?

Shouldn’t need to - not should

One thing I find extremely concerning is the possibility that pretty much any baby Lucy Letby had contact with during her entire career is going to be looked at as a potential victim, and their history re-examined to possibly pin more cases on her. Given the contentious nature of medical evidence presented so far there's a potential that any infant with anomalous findings and with whom LL had contact could have their notes re-interpreted to fit the assumption that she must be guilty of harming them.

What a pessimistic and conspiracy theory-laden way to look at it. Instead of claiming they want to 'pin more cases on Lucy and make them fit the assumption (really, assumption?) of guilt', maybe they want to rule them out or see if there is any cause for concern by looking at them objectively given what they now know.

It's actually the right thing to do. When a judge is found to have messed up/been corrupt in a case, all the cases the judge precided over are looked at again to see if there are any issues or cause for retrial.

Lucy wouldn't be unique in that treatment and there is no rationale behind - or* *evidence of -conspiracy to use her as a scapegoat.

The gleeful tone of some people speculating on the possibility of more charges prompted my post.

And some of us do have reason to fear bias and assumption in complex medical cases, based on our own experience.

But you can't be suggesting that the scope of Operation Hummingbird is to undermine itself in the light of current controversy? It's remit is to look for further cases of murder or attack isn't it?

Yes - they were given the name of a suspect, told the deaths were suspicious, and left to find out how the murders were committed.

In other words, they had Letby as suspect before they had any evidence apart from the statistical that she had committed murder, or even that murders had been committed.

FFS this thread is now way out of hand.

It’s one thing to question whether evidence could have been misinterpreted, it’s quite another to start posting statements about how people are going to look to pin more baby deaths on this woman, who has in fact been found guilty of, and sentenced for the murder of several babies.

if there’s every a retrial and she’s acquitted, then perhaps such a conversation would be relevant. But let’s not forget that even if the evidence gathering was flawed, that doesn’t mean that Lucy Letby isn’t a murderer.

People talk of miscarriages of justice, but equally many people have been freed based on technicalities who were probably guilty and ended up getting away with it. I can think of a few who I still believe were guilty of the crimes they were acquitted of committing.

It's remit is to look for further cases of murder or attack isn't it?

Yes but not to 'pin it on her or make it fit their assumption of guilt', like you said. They're (Whomever 'they' are) not looking to make her 'the fall guy/woman' for a crime she hasn't committed. If she's guilty or innocent, they'll find her accordingly.

I see. So the judge's instruction to the jury that if they were satisfied by the premise of the insulin theory, they could allow that to influence their opinion of other cases wasn't an encouragement to assume guilt? And if anything looks a bit suspicious in retrospect around other collapses or deaths where she was present in had recent contact, there wouldn't be an inherent tendency to convict her because she's been found guilty I'm mist cases so far?

No and no.

I think the threshold for charge in any further cases would be incredibly high, purely because after this circus the chances of a fair trial is remote. I’ll be very surprised if any further charges are brought. After all she’ll never be released as it is.

I admire your confidence.

He's a barrister which is pretty expert-y

It was the triplets that convinced me of her guilt She wrote a condolence card that named all three. I am sure that if the parents had failed in their attempt to have him removed to another hospital she had every intention of killing him too.

She wrote the three names on a yellow post-it along with sympathy messages, stuff about her pets and song lyrics. There's nothing there that suggests she planned to kill all three of them or though all three of them were dead. She wrote lots of random words and phrases on post-its and notes - allegedly as a therapy technique. There was no condolence card.

The medical evidence against her isn't contentious. There's a handful of naysayers without all the information making a bit of a song and dance. It's nowhere near the same thing. She was convicted 'beyond reasonable doubt' on multiple counts of murder.

Also, don't for a minute assume that all the parents who ever had their babies in her care didn't think anything was amiss at the time. There have already been several stories in the press of parents who felt at the time that LL may have harmed their child, and have asked for their case to be looked into now they know that the nurse they felt a bit 'off' about at the time has turned out to be a murderer.

I think it's right to look to see if a murderer has committed other crimes. I can't imagine why that would concern you. You're extremely concerned that all her potential crimes may be looked into? I'm extremely concerned that she may have committed many more crimes.

The medical evidence against her isn't contentious.

But it is. That’s why the case is all over the press again.
You need to be better informed before you make statements like that.

Yes - the medical evidence is contentious

This isn't just chatter on social media. Plenty of senior professionals have put their names to these concerns

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/27/lucy-letby-inquiry-should-be-postponed-changed-experts

Utter rot. All the medical experts involved in the trial agreed on the evidence. The chatterings of a few fringe people who - by their own admission - haven't got up to speed with all the relevant information, is just media clicky nonsense. Really bored of all the baby murderer defending tbh. The parents of those poor murdered babies deserve better than this crap.

All the medical experts at the trial had been asked to give evidence by the prosecution - of course they agreed! They wouldn't have been called otherwise.

Other, eminent professionals have come forward to express reservations.

But they’re not idiots! They don’t just accept a crime has been committed - they investigate to see if it has. If they find that evidence suggests it has, they don’t go, “Oh, right, well that must be that Letby woman that some people told us about. Case closed then.” Letby, of course, would be a suspect, but the police work to look for evidence of guilt or innocence. They also look at other people who might have committed the crime(s).

The idea that they just thought it was Letby because people told them she seemed dodgy is laughable. Lots of crimes have various suspects; lots of crimes have people taken in for questioning than released without charge. The police try to solve crimes not just seize on the person someone mentioned and treat them as the guilty party. The courts do the same. They don’t assume someone appearing before them is guilty. They look to find the right answer - guilty or not guilty.

Being a barrister does not automatically make you an expert in criminal law, let alone a particular branch of criminal law. Rinder's area of speciality when he practised regularly as a barrister was international fraud, money laundering and other forms of financial crime, but for the last ten years he has been spending most of his time on his TV career.

That's just not accurate. Yes, the medical experts were asked by the prosecution, but they were also questioned by the defence. Who also had equal rights to invite any experts they wanted to. The playing field was completely level and the strength of evidence was 100% behind the information that she murdered the babies. The people expressing reservations are by their own admission not privvy to all the information. They have also said they are not trying to reverse the verdict or anything, but they want the scope of the hospital inquiry to include possible negligence. That will obviously not happen because there wasn't negligence, there was murder. They absolutely can't conduct extra lines of enquiry 'just in case' the verdict in a court of law is wrong!

The idea that they just thought it was Letby because people told them she seemed dodgy is laughable

innocenceproject.org/what-is-cognitive-bias-how-it-contributes-to-wrongful-conviction/

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/confirmation-bias#:~:text=If%20they%20form%20an%20opinion,resulting%20in%20a%20wrongful%20conviction.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221095022?icid=int.sj-abstract.citing-articles.216