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?

The evidence used at trial, in its totality, clearly did stand up to scrutiny as far as the people required to scrutinise it

yes, the trial was a problem. The jury didn’t hear all the evidence.

It is scary that none of the coroner reports found evidence of foul play, and some of the deaths happened moments after Letby arrived during a crisis, with lots of other staff nearby. I don't believe her notes can be taken as a confession either. The only piece of evidence that I have heard so far which makes me think she could be guilty is that she looked up the families on social media- but there are alternative explanations for this also.

How would you know what the PP meant??

It's also not what they said. They said 'A (potential) miscarriage of justice is not a balm for grief'. It was grossly insensitive and offensive.

Because it was obvious what they meant. It wasn’t offensive it was honest

They heard all the evidence that was presented by the expert prosecution and defence. Unlike basically everyone on this forum and the so-called experts like Rob Rinder.

I watched a programme yesterday with Rob Rinder on ( You Tube, Shepton Mallet Jail)
He seems a very empathetic and thoughtful, sensible man.

The defence didn’t put on any experts that was the problem . The jury only heard one side of the expert opinion.

Why?

Letby was on trial for the murder and attempted murder of the babies contained in the indictment. The babies who died or collapsed SUDDENLY and UNEXPECTEDLY.

No court discusses anyone who is not named on the indictment. How many of the babies you mention were actually on the NNU? One of them died at birth so definitely wouldn’t have been on NNU so why are the Letby fans including him/her as “one of the babies Letby wasn’t on duty for”?

Nobody, that wasn’t present during the court trial(s) will have all the information. The jury will have heard 70% more evidence than Joe Public or dodgy statisticians. What makes you think you have more knowledge of the evidence than the jury?

No matter how much time has passed, I don't think you forget that your baby was crying in a way that alarmed you and bleeding from the mouth, that the nurse pushily insisted you leave and that you were so scared you phoned your husband - and that your baby died soon afterwards. I believe the mum. 100%.

Super interesting analysis of the disproportionate likelihood of being a convicted serial killer as a nurse

Of course they did, both juries in fact. Both sides had the opportunity to present all the evidence available. If the defence failed to present evidence supportive of the accused at two trials and an application for leave to appeal that indicates to me there wasn’t any. QCs aren’t idiots.

He’d have been the devil incarnate if he’d refused to become involved in a conspiracy. He may well change his mind once he’s looked at the evidence.

Again

Because the entire case rests on the prosecution being able to prove that these deaths were murder beyond reasonable doubt, and that Lucy Letby was was the only practitioner who had the opportunity to commit those murders - the “constant malevolent presence”.

If the prosecution can’t even be transparent about the criteria they used to decide what was and wasn’t a suspicious death then that is a serious problem- especially when we know that there was also a large spike in deaths which haven’t been attributed to Letby, and we don’t know who was and wasn’t present for those.

White, middle class, female- possibly neurodivergent- of course people are going to ride to her defence.

One hopes that she was judged fairly though.

Would these very sick babies have died anyway?
Shipman killed patients with Diamorphine- at least that can be tested for.

Thank you for highlighting this. The lack of empathy for the parents' amongst the Letby supporters is genuinely quite sobering. (I'm not counting the glib 'all sympathies to the parents' type comments.) My heart goes out to them forever.

application for leave to appeal that indicates to me there wasn’t any

they did at the appeal application. The appeals court said if they wanted it heard they should have presented it at trial

In case anybody missed it 36% of convicted serial killers in England in the 21st century are nurses.

All of those things can be true without anyone committing any murders.

Yes - she did 250 Facebook searches on people a month. She effectively looked up everybody she crossed paths with.

I think very few people are “Letby supporters” , they are supporters of transparency and integrity within the justice system , which means not manipulating the use of science and expert witness testimony to achieve unsafe convictions.

It would be inhuman to have no empathy for the families.

That sounds very obsessive and verging on stalking.

Like when?

The mum wouldn't forget those kind of details. You don't forget your baby bleeding and screaming shortly before that baby died.

Lucy Letby categorically claims to remember that the mum didn't visit the baby. (This was a pattern with her during trial - can't recall the baby whose parents she searched up two years later. Can't recall various other things. But recalls with crystal clarity that the mum didn't visit the baby on that particular night or ask her about the blood. Even though she'd previously agreed the mum did visit that night... )

If we believe the mum (and I absolutely do) then Letby was acting in a strange way around her bleeding baby. If we believe the mum, we have to believe that Letby's clear recollection of the mother not visiting, is a lie. If we believe that Letby is lying about that, the reasonable conclusion is that she may be trying to cover up for the fact she was unexpectedly disturbed while injuring the baby. It could be one of the bricks the prosecution used to convict her of the baby's murder.

Maybe. But if so she was stalking 1000s of people in the same way. I don't think the Facebook evidence adds much really. Lots of people use social media more than is healthy.

Even if you assume the mother's recollection is entirely accurate and in no way influenced by the charges, what you have is Letby working at a computer, telling her not to worry about some bleeding that she did worry about.

Letby may have been right or wrong to tell her that in that moment, things may have happened that way or not, but it really doesn't add up to murder. Even if that brick remains, it doesn't hold the wall up.