The investigation of Lucy Letby on Netflix

[TheRozzers]

Anyone watched it yet? It’s a really excellent documentary with loads of footage of her police interviews.

You see the police asking her questions about those ‘confession’ notes.

I won’t put spoilers in the OP but I’d love to hear what others made of her responses.

Mid way through I thought she’s 💯 guilty but by the end I’m really not sure. A lot points to her being innocent.

I feel for the parents of those babies so much, the uncertainty must be horrendous 😞

Can I ask if you honestly believe that this means all the concerns raised about the validity of this decision should just be silenced?

If you and others are so confident in her guilt surely that’s all the more reason for a retrial. So these points can be robustly answered and refuted in court?

If the answer either way is that she’s guilty then surely it’s better that this is done thoroughly and done properly?

it’s a very different case

there are patterns - frequency - clustering and timing that had no other explanation

in Andrew’s case the forensics were later there and that proved his innocence rather than pointed toward him

No not silenced - but not used to distract and make a media frenzy which is what’s happened

they’ve presented their findings haven’t they?

The forensics may have proved his innocence but the general point is that miscarriages of justice happen.

In cases where there aren’t forensics that’s all the more reason to tread carefully. If we consider Derek Bentley for instance - that basically came down to interpretation of a particular phrase.

It’s not just Dewey’s opinion though is it - that’s what the media frenzy would have you believe

So the alternative to creating a media frenzy is what?

Because politely approaching the CCRC and saying ‘pardon me, I do believe this may be wrong’ isn’t really going to work.

Besides, the press are under scrutiny here as well. I do not believe the BBC have behaved particularly ethically throughout all of this. I have noticed compared to some of the broadsheets they are very quiet about it all.

The only way to force action is by creating a ‘media frenzy.’

Sorry to be pedantic but his name is not Dewey; it isn’t School of Rock

It’s Dewi Evans.

I don’t see it that way - looking at ccrc thresholds I can’t see they will accept her application

of course there are MOJ - I just don’t agree this is one

Why do you keep calling Evans “Dewey”?

I can’t see that they won’t. Either way, they need to get their skates on because the longer it goes on, the more questions are raised.

I believe if she is guilty, that is all the more reason for it to be tried again, with the panel of experts speaking in her defence. A robust prosecution would make mincemeat of them, if she is actually guilty. Wouldn’t they? Because our justice system is infallible, isn’t it?

I’ve just adopted that

Dewey is his name isn’t it?

Nobody has said that

certainly not me

So look, to break it down, this is the situation.

No matter what our own views on this are, highly intelligent people, experts in their fields, have spoken out and stated they believe this is a miscarriage of justice.

Possibility #1 - they are wrong; Letby is guilty. Therefore, we need to make absolute sure of this so that this matter doesn’t keep rearing its head up again and again, causing distress to the families and uncertainty over the points raised. If she is guilty, then there is nothing to worry about - the prosecution will be able to answer any points raised by the defence.

Possibility #2 is that they are right and she is innocent, in which case not only does Letby need releasing from prison and given compensation, we also need to address the environment - in the NHS but also in the police and the courts - that led to this.

Why would you not want one of those scenarios?

I suspect it’s because most believe possibility #2 is most likely and will therefore be deprived of a witch to burn.

Well, what are you saying then? Because I for one would like to know.

No, it is not.

Which forensics point to her guilt?

Experts in the field disagreeing after the trial doesn’t automatically equal retrial - unless they have new evidence that renders verdict unsafe - differing opinions isn’t that

I don’t think anyone is looking for a witch to burn - you keep trying these emotive sentences and it lets your argument down and is insulting

No I don’t think justice system is infallible

I don’t think MOJ in this case

I was talking about the 33 other witnesses and the two juries

Yes - if you look at past decisions, the disclosure failings alone could be enough.

There's one we don't talk about much because the document went up on Thirlwall's site with his name on it, then disappeared. But it's a baby who had seizures shortly after birth and had blood taken to be tested before Lucy Letby came on shift. His results came back with the same "suspicious" pattern as the two she was charged with. He wasn't on a TPN bag so nothing she could in theory have spiked in advance. His case was never brought to charges and never shown to the defence. So was he poisoned? Or was there a mistake or natural condition? Why in his case and not the other two?

The other disclosure failure Mark McDonald is known to have included in his application is about baby O. The prosecution knew, but the defence didn't know, that the pathologist who performed his postmortem was never told about a risky operation on him performed by one of the doctors.

Both of these issues came out after the trial through the Thirlwall Inquiry.

Since the jury were told that they could use the insulin charges as a guide to whether Lucy Letby was guilty of the other charges, the problems with these three cases alone are critical. And the CCRC rightly takes failures to disclose evidence extremely seriously.

It Isn’t meant to be emotive. I genuinely can’t see at this stage what arguments against a retrial there are.

Either she’s guilty and this can be tested robustly against a proper defence and remove any lingering doubts.

Or she isn’t, in which case …?

And yet you can't point to any forensics that point to her guilt, that aren't the opinion/therory of DE?

It’s not that - it’s that they don’t meet the thresholds for a review - they won’t just have a retrial because it’s been distasteful
to the public

the defence already had their chance to present defence witnesses - that’s can’t be a reason for retrial as I understand it

It want based on forensics