Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

[BEAchDays2]

I’ve just been reading massive amounts of posts of Facebook following the new doc out about LL. (Blame a long train journey!) and it got me thinking, those who still think she is guilty what are your reasons?

It does feel like the tide has turned generally. I haven’t watched the new doc yet, likewise has anyone seen it, and is it worth it?

I don't think people are saying that. They are saying that she has been found guilty more than once by a court of law and two different juries. They had information others don't. If there is genuinely new evidence that wasn't considered previously then her lawyers can apply to appeal if the evidence is conclusive she will be allowed to appeal.

Exeter uni research say it takes an average of around 10 years from date of wrongful conviction to successful appeal and many take longer Andrew Malkinson spent 17 years in prison and fought for 20 years to clear his name.

Despite knowing about a 2007 breakthrough involving an unknown male's DNA in Malkinson case the* *CCRC twice rejected his case (in 2012 and 2020), refusing to order further modern DNA testing or request the police files. This institutional failure forced Malkinson to spend an extra decade in prison.

In several prominate cases these wrongful convitions have involved expert witnesses - like Sally Clark - giving evidence outside their experience or dubious disputed evidence at the time to courts.

We've has spate of miscarraige of justice in past decades that have hit headlines - post office scandle alone had 900 indiduals prosecuted - 236 sub-postmasters were sent to prison , 3500 branch owner-operators were falsely accused or faced demands to cover shortfalls caused by system bugs. I was reading computer weekly in early 2000s and read about it then - took a public outcry and till 2024 and an act of parliment to overturn those convictions.

Yes she can and likely is appealing but this case and frankly I've no idea if she is guilty or not but this case is raising wider concerns about expert witness in trials and how NHS handles situations like these and how good our current court system is.

I think high profile cases like this are obviously going to be of interest to the general public and covered in the media.

However the angle is important. There is a difference between media coverage which is basically laying out the facts of the case, the trial and the events that led to the conviction, and media coverage that continually questions the safety of the conviction and the evidence. One is more historical reporting, the other investigative journalism.

If serious questions around the safety of the conviction and the evidence didn't exist, then the main media coverage would be focused on the historical aspect, not questioning the evidence that was used for the conviction.

To me it's fairly clear to see where the main media focus currently is, and the reason it is focused on this particular aspect is because they believe there are questions here that need to be answered. If these questions did not exist, then neither would this type of media coverage.

I think the media does have an important part to play in exposing miscarriages of justice. This has happened in many cases historically.

I wouldn't expect the success of review/appeal of any case to be based solely on media coverage, but I would expect that any body judging whether or not an appeal should be heard or deciding on for example whether a retrial should go ahead would examine media findings and take them into account in their decisions, or at least investigate the media findings and decide whether the questions they ask are of merit or have some contribution to make to their decision.

...a major public enquiry confirmed her guilt...

No it didn't.

Regardless of the merits of the case or the verdict, the public enquiry operated on the basis that the babies had been murdered, not neglected or otherwise failed, and that they had been murdered by a nurse not a doctor or manager etc. It never considered whether LL had or had not done this.

It was necessity to be able to run the enquiry and why all its recommendations basically require monitoring (cctv, or dual attendance) of nurses and similar activities.

Both can.

But the poster she was replying to was saying there was no other explanation than murder other than a massive coincidence.

@OftenaddledIt’s not nonsense, it’s in the bloody court transcripts. And the sewerage matter was also raised in court. But like you said foolish people believe what they want to believe.