Lucy Letby. Why do some people only read headlines?

[skyfirechesnut]

I was at work today and someone says so Lucy letby is innocent now. They have just gone with the media headlines. Instead of researching.

Sorry for the fail link but this is quite a good article below on the current state of things. The author has attended all trials and listened to appeals and conferences.

I also don't understand people who say she was scapegoated. If people follow the Thirwall enquiry this is far from the case. She was totally protected, her parents calling up, being in meetings, dictating apologies. It beggars belief.

I can somewhat understand people saying she is innocent based on medical evidence after the press conference but even that is nothing new.

You can't say my expert is better than yours.

Also people seem to think it was all Dewi Evans for the prosecution it wasn't. There was Dr Bohin, Prof Arthurs , Prof Hindnarsh and Dr Mar etc.

That is without the Doctor colleagues if you want to dispute them.

Then they new defence have changed ideas from the conference they had in December.

They are also not totally impartial.
It isn't as simple as the headlines.

Here is the article.

archive.ph/NYg7U

How do you know what they heard? Were you a juror?

Would you miscalculate if your client has multiple WLO on the line? You would be crossing your i’s and dotting your t’s not just hoping a prosecution witness doesn’t quite come up to scratch.

I did some criminal defence work when I first qualified, have drafted a couple of CCRC applications, and also done a medical negligence secondment and neither I, nor any of the colleagues I’ve spoken to, think this appeal stands much, if any chance, unless there’s something in that application that wasn’t in the press conference.

That said, we are occasionally (please don’t tell them I said this!) wrong, and I’m interested to see what the CCRC have to say about it, probably next year.

I suppose it’s because the murder method is cause of death, established by evidence/symptoms – eg the rash. If the rash is unsound, then so is the collapse and/or cause of death and the method. If all of that is unsound then it means another cause of collapse or death, and it’s crucial to know what that is.

I worry about your safeguarding ability if you’d happily leave your child in the car of a convicted baby killer who even if freed wouldn’t be allowed to work with kids

Because trials in this country trials are public and what happened at trial is a matter of public record. We all know that the defence failed to put any expert on the stand to challenge the prosecution case. Since the trial we have heard a wealth of evidence from expert testimony- experts vastly more qualified than the prosecution witnesses. the jury did not have the opportunity to hear that evidence. We all know this.

Oh, don't worry. I suspect even if freed and exonerated Lucy Letby wouldn't allow herself to be alone with a baby. Because it would be always a question of if ANYTHING happened she would be blamed. Ask me how I know 🙄

I mean, obviously that’s what I meant. What’s your point? I think that no one would leave her with their child, even the ones on here who apparently know that she didn’t murder anyone.

I don't know what I'd have done.

You might be interested in reading David Allen Green or his linked article by Joshua Rosenberg: https://davidallengreen.com/2024/07/the-lucy-letby-case-some-thoughts-and-observations-what-should-happen-when-a-defence-does-not-put-in-their-own-expert-evidence-for-good-reason-or-bad/

For me, it's not something I'd claim to be able to explain. I'd like to know one day, but I certainly don't feel able to guess with any confidence.

Oh dear, you clearly know very little of the criminal justice system.

Otherwise you’d know that A LOT is restricted from reporting. Unless you were a juror or sat in court every day to hear the things that wouldn’t be allowed to be reported, you have no idea what evidence they heard.

Most of us also know about reporting restrictions in surprised you didn’t

Did you get accused of killing 14 babies and convicted for life?

Youre massively projecting that much is clear.

And nobody has a right to be around babies I hope she never claps eyes on a baby again

There has been no indication that reporting on the trial itself was restricted - just names. Full transcripts are available (but expensive). Reporting restrictions as discussed upthread were restrictions as to publishing on other matters relevant to the trial while it was in session.

So it is your belief that there is some secret evidence of guilt that the jury heard that has been withheld from the public, even to this day, so even though it is now clear as day that all the evidence (that we have heard) that was used to convict her was utter rubbish, we are total idiots to question the conviction and we must never speak of this again, because there must be something extra that we don’t know about because of reporting restrictions?

out of curiosity- what is the point in your mind of living in a democracy, having an open press or a transparent justice system?

She doesn’t sound like the most self aware person so I don’t know that that’s true.

Thank you - David writes so well, I’ll definitely give it a read.

I got accused of something almost as bad, although different in terms of scale, obviously as I'm not languishing in prison.

Keep throwing around the "projecting", it's so novel and intelligent.

When you've had to be your own expert, do your own research, and seen your highly reputable solicitor floundering in the face of a complex case thirty years ago pre-internet, then I'll consider you qualified to cast judgement.

Ken Macdonald seems to feel differently, but we will see. We know the CCRC is a shambles, so of course that is a concern, but it's a concern about the British justice system generally, with Letby just one of many victims.

Still, there is indeed plenty of new evidence.

You wouldn’t KNOW what was restricted, because it was restricted 😂😂 even journalists allude to restrictions! And not every restriction is lifted after the trial either

Are you suggesting you can buy an unredacted transcript which includes restricted material? If so please report to the police. Contempt of court is a very serious crime

In every trial there’s ‘secret’ evidence that has a good reason not to be revealed to the public - because the benefit of doing so doesnt outweigh whatever factor they’ve decided the restriction is based on

The report doesn't include children's dates of death and it is correct on children's sex.

What have you been looking at?

out of curiosity- what is the point in your mind of living in a democracy, having an open press or a transparent justice system?

We do have an open system but that doesn’t mean we have the right to know everything. It’s usually to protect someone or something but not always.

Or do you want a fully transpatent system where rape victims are named? Because that’s the only alternative to the system we have now

Presumably you were acquitted though. Letby wasn’t. Have a think about why

Names are restricted. Redactions of similar detail for similar reason are explicit - we see the same in Thirlwall.

We're not living in a police state. Significant evidence will not be restricted. You need only look at the judge's summing up - there's no redaction except the ciphered names

There is no fund of secret evidence which only the jury knows about. That would be very convenient for people who believe juries can't be challenged, but it's not true.

So to be clear - your answer to the below questions is yes?

So it is your belief that there is some secret evidence of guilt that the jury heard that has been withheld from the public, even to this day.
Therefore, even if it is now clear as day that all the known evidence that was used to convict Letby was utter rubbish, we are total idiots to question the conviction and we must never speak of this again, because there must be something extra that we don’t know about?

Yes is your answer?

Again if you were on the jury or in court every day you’d know what was restricted - but you weren’t so how could you possibly know.

Anything can be restricted if the judge deems it so. There’ll be plenty the jury heard that you didn’t and still haven’t.