Cheshire Police are an incompetent bunch of useless bastards

[GossIsAGit]

After Sally Clark

They should have remembered that If a doctor of medicine tells you that a coincidence is so unlikely it must mean a woman has been killing babies then maybe you should consult a statistician and actually listen.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/lucy-letby-police-cps-handling-case-raises-new-concerns-about-convictions?CMP=ShareiOSAppOther

No not at all @TheCountessofFitzdotterel

The more I know about the notes, the more I see she must be innocent.

I don't think the notes are particularly damning.

All the handover sheets she kept and other scraps of paper are much more incriminating in my opinion.

I honestly don't know if LL is guilty or innocent.
But if there are medical experts who think there is enough doubt she may well get a retrial whether people like it or not.
She could be found guilty again, who knows 🤷🏻‍♀️

Having been a juror on a murder (re)trial, I have to say if highly qualified medical experts disagree over the tiniest of autopsy findings and pathology slides, how the fuck do they expect lay people to understand enough to agree or disagree? The experts in the trial I've mentioned held the same job title and letters after their name but had such opposing views.
There were no Drs of any description on the jury. The retrial was based on this 'new' medical evidence 🙄

Unfortunately I don't think Lucy Letby would get a retrial. If enough doubt is cast to make the verdicts unsafe I don't see how they could find 12 people without preconceived ideas. The case is too famous

The impossibility of a fair trial didn’t stop them retrying her for Baby K, despite the evidence having fallen away with the door swipe cock up.
I don’t know. If it were just the murders then without Dewi Evans and his lackeys there would probably be no case. Would they still try her on the trumped up attempted murders?
The thought of a retrial would be ghastly for all the families.

Who would pay for a re-trial?

Her third....and if that found her guilty as well?

Which very much reflect self doubt and tie in with what the person who counselled her has revealed about the approach to the situation and how she was trying to process it.

She’s where she belongs, thankfully.

Cheshire police are my local force. They’re not all that bad. ☺️

I was genuinely surprised that she was convicted on the evidence they had. I do believe that she’s guilty but I don’t think that there’s proof of it.

The police are human. The system is designed by people, manned by people, and managed by people.

Who pays for any trials?

A trial based on more widely acknowledged medical evidence and expertise would be reassuring, regardless of outcome.

Interesting. Care to elaborate?

3 trials would be excessive

I do think the Child K trial was a total waste of money. There was no way she could get a fair trial.
It seems to me the prosecution brought it to get reporting restrictions and shut down debate, and possibly to distract the defence’s attention from the appeal process. It looks bad for British justice.

I think I can see how you might have thought that at the time @Birdscratch, but now that we know that not only were her opportunities very limited (not alone and probably not even in the room in several cases) but also that the forensic evidence that deliberate harm took place is very flawed, isn’t the obvious explanation that there was no real evidence because there were no real crimes?

One was excessive, given that there is no solid evidence any crimes were committed.

These conspiracy theories need to stop. You need to accept that yes, it is possible for a white, softly spoken woman of previous good character, could murder multiple babies!

You absolutely wouldn't be peddling this nonsense if she was a black woman that's for damn sure

MD in Private Eye has covered this quite extensively, including the concerns of other professionals - himself included - about the quality of evidence used to secure Letby's convictions.

I’m not as interested as you in the colour of Lucy Letby’s skin. I’m interested in the quality of the evidence, which is extraordinarily poor, as pointed out by a great many experts in the relevant fields who know more than you, me or Dewi Evans.

I think it is extremely probable that a black nurse in a similar position to Lucy Letby would have an even harder time convincing people of her innocence, and if you know of such cases in the UK please do link to information and I promise to go and read up on them.

Accusing people of incompetence isn't a conspiracy theory.

Of course it is possible for a white softly spoken woman to commit murder. I hope I would be equally concerned regardless of Letby's colour. Of course I can't prove that, and you are free to accuse people of showing racial bias whatever we say.

But it is not good for people of any colour if we shrug our shoulders at poor practice and flimsy evidence in our justice system. That has repercussions for everyone, and they will fall particularly hard on non-white defendants, if the past is our guide.

@Oftenaddled She's had TWO trials and been found guilty each time. How is that incompetence?!

The trials were for different convictions - they weren't re-hearing the same cases. The same evidence base was used for both.

If the evidence is not solid then it should absolutely be tested and held up to scrutiny. If you think miscarriages of justice don't happen then look at the Andrew Malkinson case.

The more I read the more I'm amazed this case even got to trial. From what I've read and listened too they based it all on false stats to start with and then found some experts to invent wild theories as to how the babies died which no other medical professionals seem to back, quite the opposite. It's completely bizarre. All because of the 'feelz' of some hospital staff, who would have a strong interest in blaming an individual for an unacceptable number of deaths of babies in their care, rather than the fact that the unit was completely unfit for purpose.

This is such a tired argument.

Regardless of the sex, creed, colour or religion of the defendant in this case, the evidence is weak at best and fabricated in some areas at worst.

Many reputable experts in the relevant fields have sounded the alarm at the implausibility of some of the proposed mechanisms of death. There is no precedent for death by NG tube nor research supporting it. Any cursory Google would show you how implausible it would be. The dimensions of the tube would make such an act a long drawn out affair and the idea that it could be accomplished surreptitiously on a busy NICU is very questionable.

The liver injury - done with the force of a car crash yet only detected on post mortem with no other signs? Initially regarded as due to CPR because of where the liver sits anatomically. A neonates liver is between 5 and 7cm. The expert who talked about deserts and things falling from the sky could not describe a coherent mechanism for that injury and actively dodged the question.

Forensically the evidence is abysmal and far more couched in terms of the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

Of course professionals are raising the alarm post trial - it brings the expert witness community into severe disrepute yet again. It makes a mockery of the justice system, and effectively paves the way for people to be prosecuted due to precedent and circumstantial evidence in complex medical cases.

The strong echoes of the junk science used in shaken baby cases, metaphyseal fractures cases and statistical misunderstanding that lessons were supposed to be learned about in the last few decades must be sending shudders down the spines of those in both the medical and legal fields.

This case needs urgent review from the ground up, especially as Dewi Evans has actually flip flopped on at least one cause of death post trial. How on earth anyone who looks beyond the hoopla at the evidence can think this was a safe conviction baffles me.