New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

Did you see today in the news that LucyLetby originally failed her nursing training.

Reason: Lack of empathy

That is if the CCRC even accept her case.

And if they do it’s not going to be based on Myers being poor that’s for certain.

If new evidence comes to light then they can and will consider the case but there was access to all these experts during the trial- you can’t simply have a retrial because you didn’t appoint everyone you wish you had.

They will also consider the case if there was inadequate representation of the defence case.......so if all of those people were available but Myers didn't use any of them then there you go, that could indeed be considered inadequate representation.

Well we will have to agree to disagree

There is no new evidence available that wasn’t available at trial and your ground isn’t one that the CCRC seem to accept (reference?)

Judge Goss and Myers are highly respected and competent individuals. In fact Judge Goss has just overseen the police marksman shooting case.

The fact that she is still using Myers will also dilute your argument if it was put to the CCRC - But you know that right? and still reach the same conclusion

I'm perfectly happy to disagree. You're the one who wants to keep trying to make little digs and seem to want to carry it on.

Actually that ground is indeed one that they accept.

"Conditions for making a reference.
A reference will not be made unless:
a. The CCRC considers that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made;

b. The CCRC so consider:
(1) In the case of a conviction, verdict or finding because of an argument or evidence not raised in the proceedings which led to it or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal, or
(2) In the case of a sentence, because of an argument on a point of law or information not so raised, and

c. An appeal has been dismissed or leave to appeal refused. JSP 830 MSL Version 2.0 2-35-4

However, nothing in b(1) or c above will prevent the making of a reference if it appears to the CCRC that there are exceptional circumstances which justify it. For example, inadequate representation of the defence case to the court at trial or on appeal or where the court has developed the law by accepting an argument which has been previously rejected".

I don't think it will dilute her argument at all that she's still using him. If she's innocent she's under immense emotional and psychological strain, he would have been the one she trusted all along and then stuck with for the appeal. She only switched legal team a month ago and her appeal for the baby K conviction had already been submitted by then.

With the very greatest respect @kkloo the threshold for ordering a retrial on the basis of inadequate defence will be really high. In fact it's never actually happened in the English CA but the relevant precedents that you could use in European human rights law all involve cases where the defendants was denied an effective defence.

It's not going to happen when the defendant instructed a solicitor before her first police interviews and retained the same KC at taxpayers expense throughout a 9m trial and subsequent appeal. If trauma at the process affecting ability to instruct one's lawyers gave plausible grounds for a retrial everyone tried for a serious crime could try this angle. It is very traumatic to be held at a police station and then on remand, traumatic to be interviewed at length by police and traumatic to attend a trial.

If she had been too traumatized on arrest to instruct a solicitor or some other shit had gone down at the police station then possibly she wd have something here. Otherwise she's had precisely the same rights to a defence as anyone else. The fact you or anyone else on the Internet disagrees with the defence strategy will not mean she gets another go.

I'm sure it is really high, I don't think for a second it will be plain sailing or easy for her at all to get an appeal. At no point have I ever even suggested that. I've made it quite clear in my posts that she is going to need very robust submissions to the CRCC to even be heard.

I'm also not saying to use trauma as the grounds to appeal. It seems people are just committed to misunderstanding! Again robust submissions would be necessary.

I am also not saying that she will definitely get another go. I am saying that possibly there will be grounds. And on a similar note and like I've said before the fact that you or others disagree with me doesn't mean that she won't get another go either!

None of us are psychic or know how this will turn out and there's a long way to go. For all I know there could be new charges laid against her tomorrow and a new trial that could change my opinion on the likelihood of her guilt because they have stronger more robust evidence. I genuinely don't know and I'm not the one on here showing arrogance making out that something definitely is or isn't going to happen. No one knows what the outcome of this will be.

What we do know is she won't be granted an appeal on the basis of inadequate defence which is what you suggested @kkloo. For the reasons I explained it is not possible as she had a procedurally robust defence. This isn't opinion this is legal fact. If there is no domestic precedent and the only relevant international precedents are absolutely different it is inconceivable for the reasons I explained that the CCRC will grant a defence on the basis of inadequate defence. It simply doesn't meet any threshold for inadequate defence or a violation of her right to a fair trial.

A lot of things could happen. But that is one thing we can agree will not happen.

Stating facts as facts is not arrogance. It's just reality.

@Grahamhousehushand well said

Agree no arrogance but I think possibly some ignorance dancing around the whole thread

I’m pleased you came on the thread as you have articulated things much better than I have!

and if I may ask are you really a house husband?

It wouldn't be just based on that though if they did try that angle, any submission would also have to contain robust evidence which would mean the conviction was unsafe.

Not meaning to interject, but it appears to me the grounds to appeal on the basis of new evidence doesn’t seem to be saying brand new evidence that no one had access to or did not exist, but rather includes evidence that was just not presented/raised at trial?

”b. The CCRC so consider:
(1) In the case of a conviction, verdict or finding because of an argument or evidence not raised in the proceedings which led to it..”

Why wouldn’t LL have grounds to appeal under this given what we know now from experts:

• the door swipe data was incorrect
• the CPS shift chart was incorrect and the statistical analysis was mathematically miscalculated
• the air embolism skin discolouration was invalid
• the X-ray evidence for one baby seemingly showing air along their spine was taken the day before LL could ever have been in contact with him
• the insulin/c-peptide test is not reliable for forensics evidence and inadmissible as evidence of murder vs natural cause of death
• the so called “confession” notes were directed by a therapist when LL was under extreme stress and wondered if she hadn’t somehow harmed the babies because ‘I’m not good enough”
• the deaths/collapses referred to the police to investigate were cherry picked by doctors who acted as amateur investigators who had already concluded LL was guilty, which contaminated the investigation.

Yes, most of this was known at the time of the trial, but it seems that the requirement is only that the evidence or argument had not been raised…

Nothing to do with the guilt or not but how were her parents allowed to be so involved? I can imagine what my work would say if my Dad rang up to complain and my Mam was crying in the background?

@coffeeandteav its just another strange event in this whole saga!

I mean no right thinking parent would do that surely?! And the mother crying in the background

Interestingly I do wonder if there’s a press blackout on the parents - knowing more about them might enlighten us in regards to their daughter

It's not common but it does happen more than you would think. A lot of parents get involved in their children's work affairs because they want to help.

@kkloothat's a separate ground for appeal. No one can rule out new evidence as a basis for appeal. We can rule out inadequate defence as a basis for appeal as it is based not on what any of us think her defence strategy should have been but on whether her defence met specific procedural requirements of adequacy. If her counsel pitched up rolling drunk every day, she was denied legal advice in the police station, or it comes to light that I dunno, Ben Myers, is a violent bully who told her to plead not guilty but not call medical evidence that could exonerate her under duress for because he likes to see his clients lose because that's somehow yeah this doesn't make sense. Otherwise assuming we're in the same shared reality inadequate defence is a non starter.

After that @LoremIpsumCici

Doorswipe - dunno but my understanding is it doesn't help her. Correcting the entrance and exits to the wards fixes the times she was witnessed alone near the crib more precisely.
Shift chart - no statistical analysis was ever adduced at trial so there was never anything to rebut. Richard Gill finds this hard to accept but precisely because of the Lucia de Berk and Daniela Poggiali cases obviously the prosecution did not make wild claims that the chances of LL being on shift for this many deaths were x many million to one against. I think this is right. Even if relevant statisticians has been involved the underlying base rates and identifying the key variables make this a mares nest. Instead the shift table placed her and only her at the scene of every alleged offence. The only probability the jury then have to assess is the probability that if the babies were deliberately harmed was it by two other people (bearing in mind only parents and professionals can enter the ward) or the one common factor. I keep saying this but if you can play Cluedo you can decide this. It does not prove her guilty as obviously the jury also have to be convinced the babies were deliberately harmed and more corroboration was provided in each case that Letby was either the designated nurse or witnessed providing care to each baby before they collapsed.
Air embolism - see above. It wasn't invalid and she has already had an appeal heard on this point.
X ray for baby C - it's clear from the trial transcript Evans knew when she was on shift. The relevance of the x ray the day before the fatal collapse is it proves that air bubble was not causative of death. The baby has a collapse on day 1 of life and an x ray showed air along the spine attributable to a medical procedure. The baby was successfully resuscitated and was doing well. On day two of life the baby collapsed and died. It was not at trial that Letby caused the first collapse although Evans admitted when he read the medical records BEFORE having any idea of the alleged assailants identity he wondered if the same attacker could be responsible for both collapses. This is problematic as it would appear Evans eliminated the first collapse as suspicious once it was clear there was no assailant on duty. But this is clear from both the prosecution and defence questioning at trial. It isn't new evidence.
The paediatric endocrinologist who gave evidence at the trial would disagree with you on the significance of the c-peptide results.
I think we agree the notes are not confessions but there is no evidence they were directed by a therapist either. At most she may have been encouraged to write her feelings down. Presumably she knew this and when questioned about this on the stand could have said so. The defence did make it clear they should not be read as confessions but just as indications of her distress.
Evans, Bohin and Marmerides did not know Letby's identity until after their review.

Beyond the question as to whether Baby C's collapse on day one of life was sinister as Evans initially supposed which might suggest another attacker at work on the ward the rest isn't suggestive of much.

The earlier Brearey had concerns about Letby the more guilty he is for not acting on them.
When you also look at the logistical difficulties of Letby harming Babies A and C without anyone noticing, it also makes his suspicions look less than well founded at that point.
The judge’s failure to spell out the significance of the actual date of the Baby C X-ray when he issued a correction in his summing up doesn’t give me much confidence in him either

@Grahamhousehushand
We can rule out inadequate defence as a basis for appeal as it is based not on what any of us think her defence strategy should have been but on whether her defence met specific procedural requirements of adequacy. If her counsel pitched up rolling drunk every day, she was denied legal advice in the police station, or it comes to light that I dunno, Ben Myers, is a violent bully who told her to plead not guilty but not call medical evidence that could exonerate her under duress for because he likes to see his clients lose because that's somehow yeah this doesn't make sense. Otherwise assuming we're in the same shared reality inadequate defence is a non starter.

From chapter 10 of the following book....easily acquired online 😉

It used to be the case that appellants would have to show that there had been ‘flagrantly incompetent’ representation, but the approach of the Court of Appeal has shifted in recent years away from defining the nature and the extent of incompetence, and towards examining its effect on the fairness of the trial and safety of the conviction. It remains the case, however, that an appeal will only be successful if the representative’s failings had a particular effect on the conviction so as to render it unsafe. Incompetence alone will not be enough.

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-and-subject-groups/miscarriages-justice/reasons-doubt

So is her new lawyer basing his CCRC submission on Myers being incompetent? Or is that only you?

Myers consulted experts!!! He just did not put them on the stand to be cross examined - not because he was stupid - quite the opposite! He did use their information when constructing his own questions and in cross examinations

The fact one of his experts complained about not being called tells me he should leave the legal/court system to Myers and stick to his own area

I don't know @Quitelikeit, I'll text him there and get back to you 😂

Would make sense apart form a few trial bits there is no information about them.

He’s basing it on new evidence apparently- surprised you didn’t know

I did know that but I don't know everything about his plans or the elements it's going to involve.

I just didn't see the point in engaging with your questions properly seeing as you're not asking them in good faith and just can't deal with having an adult discussion or people disagreeing with your opinion without getting snotty 😴😴

Was that my opinion as to why Myers was competent? I’ll stand by that.

Maybe look up the definition of debate or discussion and the purpose of it. You made dubious claims about Myers and backed it up with absolutely nothing - which I’d hope to see you do if you are making such a bold claim……Myers could probably do you for libel - I might tag him in your claims to see what he thinks.

Someone even had the audacity to question Judge Goss up thread. I mean honestly - the ignorance is staggering

Anyway you’ll be pleased to know I’m due to return home from the Caribbean and I will no longer have time to come on MN as much as I have over the last week!

It's been said Lucy herself was the one to decide not to have the defence witness so nothing to do with Ben Meyers being incompetent. I have to feel sorry for the poor bloke, he did the best with what he had, and because she was 100% guilty and people still can't get their heads round that, they think her defence must've been inadequate. He has to go with what his client instructs. Highly doubt he would've put her on the stand either because he would know she'd come across badly. But she wanted to because she craves the attention so that cemented her guilt.

Yes you've said over and over again.
I accept your opinion and that you stand by that. As I said I am happy to agree to disagree, but for some reason you said that and still won't......

There's been dozens of threads on LL at this point so I don't need to go through all the details every time.

Tag him then 😂He's a big boy and I'm sure he can handle it and won't sue me 😂

People ARE allowed to question judges you know, they're not Gods. And part of the justice system is appeals etc so it's all part of the process and they should be big and bold enough to be able to handle it.