Hunt calls for urgent re-examination of Letby case

[meltingtoday]

I find this case deeply troubling and always have. Something about it felt off from the start, but I had to assume justice had been followed. Then around a year ago concerns - reputable ones - started to emerge, followed by an entire panel of experts in February.

Yet still nothing is happening, it was way down on the BBC homepage, it wasn’t discussed on here, and everyone is still tiptoeing around it, anxious to express the view that they are ‘not saying she’s innocent’ and the Thirlwell enquiry continues investigating crimes that probably didn’t take place.

Has madness completely taken hold?

Have you heard of disclosure?

I mean she’s had 2 x trials and 2 x appeals

See this is where it’s a bit too easy to twist things.

It isn’t as if she had one trial, then people said ‘hang on, that isn’t quite right’ and then gave her another. The second trial was always going to find her guilty. And she has had two failed attempts at appeal.

As for TikTok, I don’t know as I don’t have it, but whatever else you say about him I don’t think Jeremy hunt is dancing around on there! The panel who assembled in February certainly aren’t.

Yes I’ve heard of disclosure.

I mean she’s had 2 x trials and 2 x appeals

The second trial was for one charge that the original jury did not reach a decision on. That aside, she has made a prelim application to the CCRC, as is her right. Are you disputing that from a legal perspective?

She has not had x2 trials. She had one trial for all of the cases and another, separate, retrial for the one case that the jury could not come to a verdict on. That’s very far from having “had x2 trials”. She was not tried on all the evidence twice, which is what you’re implying here.

She has not had x2 appeals. She has not even had one. She has had x2 leave to appeal hearings which were not granted. That’s a universe away from having had an appeal. It’s the opposite.

You’re either unaware of the facts of this case or you’re being disingenuous here.

For what reason do you reference disclosure? Your point isn’t clear.

Because most people don’t blame a nurse for murders that never happened. This is, clearly, an extraordinary situation. No need for the panic caps.

Who is referencing a “TikTok jury”? I haven’t seen a single person rely on, or even mention, anyone from TikTok having any influence on their opinion. It’s the world-leading experts raising doubts that most are interested in.

On that note, why do you put the word “experts” in scare quotes? Can you evidence how the experts in question, Dr Lee’s panel I assume, are lesser than the experts used by the prosecution? That’s a rhetorical question because I know you cannot. It’s like comparing my husband’s after work five a side to a premier league team. It’s not even remotely arguable, but people say this either because they themselves don’t know what they’re talking about or they are intentionally misleading onlookers.

Lastly, the “Rumpoles” in question here are those who have started to roll out this new canard of legal privilege. Most of them never heard the term until two weeks ago and misuse/misunderstand it constantly. Do you know what legal privilege is and why/when it is waived? It is only ever waived when asked for by the court. You have absolutely zero reason to think she was asked to waive it yet at all, or that she refused if she was asked. This is simply not something you would know. Whatever is happening between her legal team and the CCRC is not public, obviously. This in particular is the weakest and most desperate grab. It has no legs whatsoever, yet it continues to be trotted out.

Yes I know what legal privilege is very well. The point remains that Lucy Letby could disclose the legal advice she received if she wanted. So why hasn’t she? And I’ve heard this point made by Kings Counsel, by the way. Anyway, to make my thoughts clear. I think it is more likely her defence didn’t call any expert witnesses because they’d have been unhelpful, rather than because such distinguished and experienced lawyers are incompetent.

The point on disclosure was made in reference to people alluding that evidence had been withheld.

Anyway, leaving this now, happy that Letby is in jail.

I don’t use TikTok so am not aware of information relating to the case there. It would not be a source I would look to for accurate information regarding a legal case. It sounds as though you know more about TikTok than I do.

Cheerleading is an odd accusation to make, this isn’t funny. It’s a horrendous situation for the families and possibly Lucy Letby if innocent. This isn’t about whether we personally think she’s innocent or guilty, it’s about the safety of the conviction based on a number of sources, particularly the concerns of the Royal Statistical Society and the report published by the neonatal and toxicology experts.

I agree you’re probably best off enjoying your sunshine and weekend.

I realised there was an issue with this case early on when it kept being stated the babies were ‘healthy’ ??? What healthy person of any age is in an ICU?

1. It is disingenuous in the extreme to characterise this as having “had two trials”. You have now shown that you were dishonestly saying “she had two trials” as a rhetorical device to shut down argument and/or fool onlookers. You seem pleased with yourself for this so…well done I guess?
2. I don’t even have a tik tok account. I get my news from the papers. I have a YouTube account though. I encourage anyone reading this who also has one to go there and watch the video I link below. Dr Lee is one of the most celebrated and regarded neonatal experts in Canada. His work has quite literally saved and improved the lives of thousands of babies worldwide. He’s not an “expert” he is an Expert. A real one. As are the rest of his panel. They examined all the medical evidence, pro bono, and concluded that there were no murders. How any ordinary person can have the arrogance to handwave that is beyond me.
3. People who doubt the verdicts in this case do not think Letby is a murderer, ergo they are not “cheerleading for a serial baby murderer”. This is simple logic. In addition, ad hominem is the last resort of the desperate.
4. Being smug about the misery of others is not a good look. It says nothing about anyone or anything but yourself. Enjoy your day.

I’m trying hard to be polite, but the irony of you calling me “dense” while writing this is too much.

“Lucy Letby could disclose the legal advice she received if she wanted. So why hasn’t she?”

Publicly you mean? Why on earth would she? No barrister would ever advise such a thing. If you mean privately, to the court, how on earth do you know that A: she was even asked to. Be: she refused to if she was asked? YOU DON’T KNOW THIS.

“And I’ve heard this point made by Kings Counsel, by the way.”

What point have you heard made by a KC? That legal privilege must be waived if the court requests it? Well yes. That isn’t in contention. I sincerely doubt that you heard a KC say that she must do this publicly, or that we members of the public would know at this stage if she had been asked and refused. You did not hear that from a KC unless they were pissed at the time. By the way, I’ve already seen the Robertshaw video you’re probably planning to quote. It doesn’t say what you think it says. It says exactly what I have said.

“The point on disclosure was made in reference to people alluding that evidence had been withheld.”

Who alluded that? In this thread?

“Anyway, leaving this now, happy that Letby is in jail.”

Yes I think it’s best that you do. Finding joy in the misery of others is a miserable way to live. It might be better to entertain yourself in another way. You appear to only be able to repeat half-digested talking points that you don’t fully grasp anyway.

Quite! A NICU is not a daycare.

He was Health Secretary during the murders and gave evidence at the Thirlwall Inquiry.

Probably doing this to protect himself against criticism before full enquiry comes out. Its probably to protect himself rather than anything else.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydyzn8zdko

Wouldn't trust Hunt. Can't make his mind up.

Same. I’m astounded at the people defending her tbh

I feel differently. I admire politicians who are prepared to admit they have been mistaken and who are willing to change their minds when presented with evidence which contradicts what they had previously thought to be the truth.

We'll wait to see when the criminal case is closed by Cheshire Police and the Thirlwall Inquiry is published. Still very much work in progress.

I wonder if Hunt will be included under the 'gross negligence' charges, or has been contacted recently, hence this latest backtrack.

www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/police-make-fresh-statement-over-31196328

I still think she’s guilty too.

The trouble is that appeals can only be granted if there were procedural errors or there is materially new evidence. If the evidence existed at the time of the trial, then it's deemed that it could have been brought but wasn't, so no new trial.

I think the second trial was a bit farcical. "This person has already been convicted of several baby killings and is in prison for the rest of her life. Do you think she also killed this baby?" There is absolutely no way she could have got a fair trial.

Personally, especially with having worked in a NICU, I think that there is too much doubt and the conviction is unsafe.

Do you see people defending a serial killer? I don’t. I see people questioning a clearly shonky trial and a possible miscarriage of justice. I’m astounded at those who find this strange!

For me it's the 14 experts giving their time pro bono and coming to the conclusion that there were no murders that means I think it needs relooking at. I think the procedure that they're going through now is going to take years before it's even looked at, which doesn't seem like justice.

As explained by the panel, it was definitely a poorly run department.

This. These weren’t armchair detectives or tiktok conspiracy theorists.

I’m astounded that some people refuse even to entertain the possibility that she may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.