Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

Starting this as don’t think we have a new one.

There are practical issues though, uproar or not- and I think it's fair to say that there's no course of action here that isn't going to involve some degree of uproar.

The CPS would have to make an assessment based on the strength of evidence available to them at that time, and wanting the public not to be pissed off with them wouldn't strengthen any of it. And it wouldn't be the Cheshire CPS either.

There are some parts of the prosecution case we know they won't be able to use again because they've since been discredited, like Dewi's insulin misunderstanding. Dewi himself has said he won't participate again, as has Bohin. Dr Jayaram has since been revealed to have misled the court, making him a less reliable and attractive potential witness than he was initially, and Dr Brearey has been accused of having accidentally killed one of the babies himself- I'm not saying that's true or a fair accusation but it obviously could impact both his willingness to participate again and how he's seen.

We don't actually know that they'll be able to get anyone this time, because the level of publicity this case has attracted means any prosecution evidence is going to attract global attention and means the expert is going up against Shoo Lee plus accompanying talent. It's not like a normal expert report situation.

Thank you so much for schooling me on the law. Useful, given my law degree.

The CCRC can recommend that it be sent to the Court of Appeal who will decide whether a retrial is necessary or not.

Telling other people how they should behave or what they should understand on a thread is actually very rude and if you want to comment on it, you’re better off understanding that.

Oh give over. You were being rude or at best patronising.

I believe it’s far more important to stick to the facts. She has been found guilty of murder. The next steps (as you well know) are a waiting game and anything outside of that is speculation.

Otherwise what is the point of a the CCRC, The court of law, appeals or prosecution? Makes a joke of the law which you chose to have a degree in, apparently.

I’m fascinated by your ability to tell my intentions in a post on a forum.

One of the facts is that a quashed conviction doesn't mean a retrial. Another is that the CPS will need to take into account the strength of any potential prosecution case, and that uproar doesn't create evidence.

If anyone has ideas about how any of the obvious practical issues with a retrial might be addressed, I for one would be interested to hear them.

Discussion of problems with our legal system is useful, whatever happens with the CCRC.

Correction of misunderstandings in science, logic, statistics, and recorded events is also worthwhile. The media was strongly primed against Lucy Letby in a number of ways, and as the flaws in the case against her become apparent, it seems fair to counteract this (mostly historic) media presentation with accurate and verifiable facts, where possible.

I am sure a jury could be found - lots of people out there who haven't engaged with the case one way or the other. But I wonder what a prosecution witness could argue as cause of death? Air embolism and air in stomach have been discredited. Even Dr Clarke, mentioned above, was only arguing that one technical point of Lee's could in theory be inaccurate - and it's not a critical point. I doubt the CPS will have the appetite to waste money on that kind of pettifogging.

I don't think finding a jury would be the main obstacle, albeit the risk of someone who's previously engaged in online discussion or speculation getting through the sift has to be higher than average. The more significant practical issues would occur before that.

I said it was one of 2 things. Rude or patronising. I assumed patronising and from your defensive attitude I assume I’m correct.

I've no idea where you are seeing this in @MyrtleLion 's initial post, myself. It seemed thoughtful, gentle, and certainly not aimed at anyone in particular to me. Maybe an example of how easy it is to misread tone online - one of us at least is missing something!

Me too x I also can't quite figure this one out!

My defensive attitude. That's an interesting read of someone who simply pointed out that telling others how they should behave on a forum is rude, which, as you're now demonstrating rather effectively, it is.

Yeah in the English system is it even a barrier if you’ve previously engaged online? I don’t think that rules people out or that they check. I think there could be more of an issue during deliberations though, if a juror is highly biased and not engaging with the evidence fairly then I believe they can be reported and taken off the jury.
Just going off memory for this so I could be mistaken and can’t fact check at the moment.

I think it would be very difficult to be a juror in a retrial if you've discussed the case online. Some things get excluded from evidence for good reasons. In a trial you're only supposed to consider the evidence that's presented in court and if you know things external to that then it must be very difficult to discount them in your decision making.

No blanket rule that I'm aware of (disclaimer, I don't do criminal). But I don't think, say, having made a few angry faces on Facebook the day of the verdict would be an issue. There must be any number of people who did that, forgot all about it and haven't paid attention since. I was thinking more of people who've been engaged in very lengthy stuff, things like the Tattle threads or dedicated Reddit forums. If I were to be called up, I might err on the side of caution and disclose having posted in a couple of MN threads about it.

Yes I just don’t think they ask them to disclose though but it’s been a while since I looked this up.

Yet you think a group of consultants deciding to scapegoat a nurse (either consciously or not) for multiple murders just for some hospital failings isn't an insane fantasy land theory?

I don't think anyone believes they "decided" to do anything. It's more likely that they were too egotistical to perceive any possible shortcomings on their part, since it cannot possibly be a mistake any of them made, it must be a murderous nurse. Letby was just unfortunate enough to be the one who worked the most hours.

I'm sure they do believe that she killed some of the babies, if not all of them (only because I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they must surely by now suspect poor care contributed to at least some of them).

All it took was for one of them to mention it, and then the rest just jump on the bandwagon because it explained it all away without any of it being linked to mistakes they may have made.

There is absolutely no indication of a retrial or quashing of her convictions! Talk about fantasy land...

The CCRC hasn't reviewed the case yet, so you cannot possibly know this. No one can.

No parents testified to seeing anything like Lee's sign. The fact that people look at their words and see, ah, evidence of air embolism, suggests they haven't understood the science at all. What did any parent say that suggests air embolism?

I don't think I said it did? But whatever was going on with the baby's skin, LL apparently didn't see it when everyone else involved did. Now if you were guilty of inflicting an AE wouldn't you want to downplay any potential signs? If it's not an AE then why didn't she admit to seeing it? She was there? Everyone else saw it. Including parents.

Why did Shoo Lee omit important case studies from his new publication? Because he knew they showed it was possible the Letby cases could be AE? You've decided this man's word is gospel, that he's completely infallible. And yet other professors have claimed he's misunderstood their work!

What important case studies did Lee omit from his work? Feel free to list them. When asked about his selection criteria he has explained them. Have you read or listened to his explanations? In what way did you find them unsatisfactory?

Where did Lucy Letby's descriptions contradict anyone's records from the time? Where did they contradict the parents' descriptions? How were these descriptions evidence of murder?

The only thing I do wonder is why she’s already had 2 failed appeals already. Why were these experts not called then? Because if they chose not to call them then it’s not really fresh evidence.

It's a ridiculous conspiracy theory however people think it was carried out by the consultants. There's only so many baby deaths one person can be around before people start asking questions. Well, all except the "nothing to see here" crowd.

Are they just supposed to leave someone they believe to be a serial killer on the unit? You don't seem to even acknowledge the possibility she is one!