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?

That is your bias on appearance, not everyone can see what she looks like

I don't know whether she's guilty or innocent, but enough medical experts are questioning the science and statistics used at the trial and saying there was reasonable doubt that I think she should be allowed to appeal.

I think if I had been on the jury, the fact that even the defendant agreed that someone poisoned those babies with insulin would have influenced my opinion when set against all the other evidence.

Realistically how would she know though? Surely you’d be aware that she’s not an expert pathologist. She’d have no way of knowing (beyond if she had personal knowledge because she put insulin in there) whether or not it was insulin. If she says okay, i think it was insulin but it’s got nothing to do with me, I can see why a jury would take that to mean it was definitely insulin. If she’s not the one who put it there, how on earth would she be qualified to say what was in there?

Are the police still investigating? She has already been found guilty so why can't anyone comment? And she worked in an intensive care unit where, sadly, many babies die.
Personally I don't have strong views either way on whether this is a miscarriage of justice, but if there is any evidence (statistical or medical) that points to this then it should be considered as soon as possible
She is a young woman who, like everyone else, deserves to have this considered before her whole life is ruined.

It's a troubling case. There are respected journalists and commentators coming out from several directions to put forward their concerns about the verdict, particularly the reliance on statistical evidence that appears to have been compiled to fit the prosecution argument, and the fact we have only been presented with unproven theories about how she might have harmed the babies.

David Davis is interested in civil liberties and justice and has been for all of his long career in politics, whatever you think of his other views on Brexit or anything else. I don't think this is akin to Lord Longford who was personally charmed by Myra Hindley and became her champion. Also, Davis isn't the first to take Letby's side. If anything, he's joining the bandwagon not leading it.

It's also demonstrated how poisonous social media can be and how it can cheapen the discussion around something very serious. Posters on this site who have expressed doubts about the conviction have been "called out" by self-appointed challengers of racism who have accused them of sympathising with Letby because she's a young, blonde, white woman. That may be a fair reply to someone who says "I dunno, she just doesn't look the type to me" but as a response to someone who is pointing out potential flaws in the legal process, it's contemptible.

I believe Beverley Allitt had quite a different profile to LL, when you watch the police interviews I recall her laughing and smiling during the questioning, and she seemed convinced she wasn’t going to prison. Tbh I thought LL was clearly guilty because of the confession in her notes but when I learned the context behind those notes I was shocked they were used as incriminating evidence! I kind of feel that only LL really knows if she’s guilty or innocent because the prosecuting evidence seems really questionable and no one is providing convincing arguments as to why it’s not questionable 🤷🏻‍♀️

Nobody said much in the immediate aftermath of the trial though? Despite it having lasted for 10 months with most of the evidence reported. Then it was all “evil baby killer monster” and now there’s suddenly a sea-change, even though the evidence is the same as it was back then. Just because some statisticians said it was unsafe to convict just on statistics of her presence at the deaths. Well she wasn’t convicted just based on that. There were lots and lots of things pointing to her guilt which cumulatively added up but where individually it wouldn’t have been enough.

She is a young woman who, like everyone else, deserves to have this considered before her whole life is ruined.

What, on top of the 10 month jury trial, the retrial and the failed appeal, you mean?

I suppose thing are easier to review after the fact when you have all the info etc also I’d imagine people would be extremely cautious to be involved in questioning such a crime/verdict initially because it’s such a sensitive crime.

Thing is not all the baby’s who died were amoung the sickest. Some were stable which is why their deaths were considered suspicious/unexplainable.

People weren't allowed to say anything after the first trial because she was being retried for one of the counts, so the case was still sub judice. The New Yorker was threatened with contempt of court after publishing an article questioning the outcome of the first trial and had to block the article from UK readers.

It's only since the completion of the second trial that people have been legally allowed to question the convictions.

Yeah, I can’t say that I think she’s not guilty but I can say that the evidence she seems to have been found guilty on makes me quite concerned, I just want someone to tell me why people questioning the evidence are talking nonsense… So far no one has been able to really do that 🤷🏻‍♀️

No I agree - it is wider than NHS though they still have blood scandal ongoing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48596605
"Inquiry chairman Sir Brian Langstaff said there had been a lack of openness from the authorities and elements of "downright deception", including the destruction of documents.
He said half-truths were also told, so people did not know about the risk of their treatment, the availability of alternatives, or even whether they were infected.
"This disaster was not an accident," said Sir Brian. "The infections happened because those in authority - doctors, the blood services and successive governments - did not put patient safety first."

She could still be guilty as fuck - Harold Shipman was a popular GP who literally got away with murder till caught.

I just don't think it surprising people are asking questions - but whether that actually means there is sufficient legal concerns to start process of looking at case again is a completely different matter.

Agree with this

If that's what it takes to get to the truth, yes.

Good God, those poor parents.

IMO it’s obvious she did it. I dont understand people tying themselves in knots in order to make her seem innocent. There is just too much circumstantial evidence and accounts like this (of her lying) for her to not be guilty.

Why would the parents lie about this? She’s evil.

Why is anyone commenting on this case, we are NOT experts. I just hope none of the grieving parents see any of this witch hunt, did she or didn’t she, absolutely bloody awful!

@SensorySensai , exactly, and the senior management team were having meals out with her parents, sent her to work on the hospital safety team ( despite consultants worrying that she’d harmed babies-) and invited her dad to come along to a meeting in which an independent report was heavily misrepresented in her favour and the doctors threatened with punishment if they didn’t apologise. Anyone in HR will tell you, family members are not invited to work disciplinary meetings (unless the employee is a minor or vulnerable in some way). Exactly who was scapegoating Letby? The consultants who pushed for investigation despite the fact it would unveil any mistakes they’d made or the senior management team who were bending over backwards for her and were planning to send her to a better hospital (Alder Hey) with promotion as an apology in the weeks before her arrest?

I don't know why people keep saying this. Her looks and age are irrelevant, as a pp said look at Allitt. Young, white and harmless looking yet we didn't doubt her conviction.

The case against LL seems circumstantial and flimsy at best. That is the issue, not what she looks like.

Why is anyone commenting on this case

Why shouldn't anyone comment on the questioning happening by those in the medical profession and statistics

The police investigation " Operation Hummingbird" is still on going. Its expected to last another three years. Police are concerned she may have harmed babies at Liverpool Women's Hospital as well.

Och stop. Everybody has the right to an opinion, even if it different to yours.

We sadly have seen miscarriages of justices before. For actual legal and medical experts to be querying this has made many people to question the evidence and verdict.

Precisely that @Namename12345562

Evidence that is in the public domain imo does not prove her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I do not have an opinion on whether she is indeed guilty or not.

In a similar vein, the evidence used to convict Jeremy Bamber (again, of what is in the public domain) does not meet the threshold imo for beyond reasonable doubt. For him however, there is at least evidence of murder so I do think he did it. Doesn't make the conviction safe though.

For LL, I am wary of whether murder even occurred, given there have were no autopsies that confirmed it in the first instance, and no exhumations since. Doesn't mean I think she is innocent - or I'm one of the bored housewives in the LL fan club - just that I don't think the evidence available proves her guilty of murder.

Because her defence team obviously hired their own medical experts, and if I had been on the jury, I would expect that if there were a plausible alternative scientific explanation to the one presented by the prosecution around the insulin, then the defence would have contested the insulin evidence and presented an alternative argument.

So if the defence simply agree that the insulin evidence is accurate, then the jury obviously have no reason to doubt that evidence and can just accept it as a fact.

While I think the insulin evidence (and the fact by accepting it Letby was effectively asking the jury to believe that someone poisoned babies on her shifts but it wasn't her, along with all the other purported coincidences) was probably pretty compelling to the jury, I doubt it would be grounds for an unfair trial, as the defence were presented with the evidence and had the time and resources to check it's validity before accepting it as agreed.

So although the defence might have made a strategic mistake in accepting it when they could have instead challenged it, and this might have changed the narrative they were asking the jury to believe, that was the strategy they chose to employ. AFAIK, Letby used the same counsel for the appeal and retrial, so it doesn't suggest that she thinks they fucked up - it looks like, for whatever reason, she accepted that evidence was accurate but also didn't for some reason suspect her colleague who was also present at both poisonings.

There were obviously numerous detailed conversations behind the scenes between Letby and her defence team around this issue (and presumably around who else could be to blame given they believed the evidence to be true), and what Letby and her team asserted at trial was the best argument they felt they could make for some reason, despite another nurse also being there both times.