Lucy Letby (2)

[Oftenaddled]

Not only the second thread of course, but maybe with them filling so fast it is time to start numbering them?

So why do you have such a hard time believing that if there was a retrial with all the new evidence/arguments in place, that if she were found guilty, people wouldn't accept it?

Yes of course. What an odd question.

I really do have to ask you here to be more careful about the things you attribute to other people saying. The latest example is Dewi Evans. I said that you have no idea who'd have been included in an agreed expert panel in a different system. This is absolutely not the same thing as me saying he wouldn't be there. Because the entire point is us not knowing. You keep doing this. It makes it more difficult and unwieldy to have a sensible discussion with you, because you repeatedly have to be told to stop making things up.

That said, @Oftenaddled got there before me in answering some of your questions. If the agreed panel, not recruited as people who clearly seeing themselves as there to get a particular verdict like we know Dewi did, still disagree, that gets put to the court. Experts 1 and 2 think this, Expert 3 doesn't, this is why. If there's no consensus, spell that out so the jury know. They will be better informed than the Letby jury were in that case. Should expert evidence in a case be unavailable then it can't be used, the same as now.

Lastly, the whole point with juries is that they're ordinary members of the population and thus occupy a vast spectrum. Not just of ability, and it's problematic that you leap straight to intelligence here. But of knowledge, experience and of ability to process information in the way it comes in the court system- we discussed in a previous thread how our understanding of the way people process information has moved faster than the court model did. These are not the same things as intelligence and you should be clear on that. Plenty of smart people suffer from Dunning Kruger. They can be the worst! And again, it's not necessarily about not saying something, but making it clear when it's non-expert speculation and not backed up by any evidence.

I reiterate, though, that even if your argument is that the current system can't be improved, that isn't an argument that there are no problems now. In particular, it doesn't affect the reality that our system didn't prevent the various known problems in the Letby case. We aren't going to blur the two.

"Do you really credit juries with so little intelligence that without hearing expert evidence they cannot be trusted to consider whether a defendant’s motive may have been jealousy of their ex’s new partner, or that they had intended to commit the crime because they had obsessively searched someone’s social media or they were sometimes witnessed staring menacingly at the victim in public places?"

Having attended jury service, I know that some members of the public absolutely shouldn't be allowed to serve and can't be trusted. We had one man who was having a mental health episode (hearing voices and thinking the judge was sending telepathic messages to him) and no one noticed all day - until I went the clerk. Another lady held out on her verdict - opposite to everyone else, until friday afternoon as she realised we would to come back after the weekend and some other jury members who didn't listen to the evidence and decided 'the boy looked so nice' even when some of us pointed out his evidence was impossible - this led to him getting off.

So, I definitely want to see a different system for cases like this

The thing now with this case. Is she getting a retrial? It seems not from what I’ve googled.

It depends on the CCRC. You apply to them. They can send your case to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal can quash your conviction. Then the CPS has to decide if they want to try to convict you again. If so you have a retrial. If not you walk free.

It can take the CCRC years to decide whether they are sending your case to the Court of Appeal, and months or years between the other stages too. Lucy Letby's file has been with the CCRC for over a year but her team was adding new material to it up to about January. So it will probably be a while before we hear anything

Didn't her team send in another report about the insulin evidence as recently as the last couple of months?

And of course someone working on the CCRC investigation had to be taken off the case due to the potential conflict of interest, as he had awarded Paul Hughes an award for exceptional police work for the Lucy Letby case (before his CCRC appointment).

That could have also delayed things.

i thought she’d run out of appeal chances or with new evidence is there a case?

Her appeals were refused initially but they generally only have 28 days to lodge them, so they don't have months or years to gather together all of the evidence about everything that was wrong with the trials.

So if they are refused people have to go through the CCRC

Oh yes, I forgot. The one reported to have discussed Professor Hindmarsh's admission that he knew of alternative explanations for the insulin cases but decided not to mention them. That was very recent.

You mean new evidence/arguments from Shoo Lee? How would you guarantee he'd be called? She never called Mike Hall, she might not call Shoo Lee either. Obviously if it was a retrial (hypothetically) she might have nothing to lose so might call him.

But if the first trial had ran like you wanted with all the new evidence and a jury full of experts we could still be in exactly the same situation-her not calling any experts is most of the problem. And you can't compel her to do that as a PP said, that would be the opposite of "fair" to her. So there's absolutely no guarantee the jury of experts would have got to hear the new evidence.

Oh fgs you're just looking for something else to argue about as usual.

Just accept peoples answers fgs.

@kkloo my mistake I thought this was a discussion. Don't let me get in the way of people's fantasy trials that would never pan out in reality!

I don't see a problem with forcing people to submit all expert opinions requested, under a reformed system. Obviously there would be plenty of witnesses of fact a defendant might not want called. Same can apply to expert opinion. As things stand, though, this was a legitimate move in Lucy Letby's first trial, so I mean no criticism of that choice.

The court of appeal has turned her down twice. Shd is nowhere near getting away with it.

The court of appeal has turned down the application to appeal each offence Lucy Letby was charged with, once: 14 charges initially and a 15th charge, which leaned on the existing convictions and was brought later, subsequently.

The court of appeal is the recourse to query whether there was any flaw in the management of a trial, and requests to appeal have to be brought promptly after conviction.

The court of appeal has not scrutinised the materials submitted to the CCRC in Lucy Letby's behalf, most of which were discovered or produced after the Court of Appeal applications.

It's a condition of applying to the CCRC that there is a prior, failed submission to the Court of Appeal, except in exceptional circumstances. So when we hear of a miscarriage of justice being resolved, eventually, through the CCRC - Sullivan, Malkinson recently, as examples - there will normally have been a failed submission to the CCRC on each relevant charge first.

If you look through the CCRC archives, you will note how routinely they refer to initial failures at the Court of Appeal: https://ccrc.gov.uk/category/referrals/

Plus the director had to go last year too.

The level of resources needed to manage review of a case like this must be off the charts. It's not just the volume of material, but the level of scrutiny. Adding all this to the lack of institutional continuity, it doesn't surprise me at all that it's taking this long.

Level of scrutiny they know they're under I mean- just realised that wasn't clear and I can't edit my post.

I am not sure how you know what I do or do not want.

But I will make it clear, I would like jutice for all involved.

That means that if LL is ultimately found guilty then so be it.

But it also means that I would like a trial where all evidenced is shown and not blocked by either the judge or the procecution.
This is all of the information that wasn't allowed at the first and second trial and any information found since.

If it is found that LL is innocent/not guilty that the health trust and who ever else was involved not only in the babies death but those protecting their arses are also brought to account and this includes the police, the consultants and your mate Dewi.