UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #38

[May72031]

I think the fact all the major outlets are now stating their positions, and the reality that there is now a whole lot of reasonable doubt surrounding this case, is very interesting and a sign of things to come. I have absolutely no doubt this will be referred to the court of appeal, as it should.

What doubt is "reasonable", here? I haven't seen any.

 

[WaneLyrical]

And yet a very eminent Paediatric endocrinologist stated in court there was no other explanation?????

Surely all that matters is the truth?

 

[MamsBestGirl]

At the very beginning
there was also a female doctor expert who worked independently on cases presented by Police
and came to the same conclusions as Dr E.

I cannot remember her name for the life of me

Or am I being mistaken?
So much time has passed.

All in all,
A lot of people worked tirelessly on this horrendous case.

Not to mention Jury.

JMO

Neonatologist Martin Ward-Platt was on board before Sandie Bohin. He reached the same conclusions as Dewi Evans. He died and Neonatologist Sandie Bohin replaced him.

 

[Marantz4250b]

What doubt is "reasonable", here? I haven't seen any.

Agreed.

People seem to be interpreting more news articles and more repetition of the same details as meaning her case is getting stronger due to more doubt arising. That isn't true, of course.

Lots of talking heads chattering to anyone who'll listen that they have doubts about the safety of her convictions is a world away from actual reasonable doubt in the legal sense. More people may be having doubts but that is not the same as the actual evidence being called into doubt.

Regardless of what her side are pushing, there is absolutely zero new evidence. It's all old stuff which was gone through at trial. If there was a raft of compelling new evidence (or even a single piece) we'd 100% know about it given how keen they are about keeping things in the public gaze.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Surely all that matters is the truth?

Which we got as the result of a ten month trial and another retrial on one charge the jury couldn't return a verdict on.

There is no evidence that anyone has produced to suggest that the convictions are unsafe. Repeating the same stuff that was already examined at trial is not "new" evidence.

 

[joltz]

Not if what Shoo Lee is saying is correct. He’s saying the persistent hypoglycaemia is understandable in the context of the treatment given, and that once the correct treatment was given to both babies the hypoglycaemia resolved as it should. While I understand people might think he’s biased, for someone of his expertise speaking on something as common as hypoglycaemia in preterm infants, I would think many many experts would have come forward if what he was saying was utter nonsense.

In which case, if we have a situation where we know these wildly inaccurate results can be reported by the lab, and the persistent hypoglycaemia itself wasn’t suspicious, then where does it leave things, because the evidence of a poisoner was arguably the most robust of all the evidence heard by the jury. And given the judge’s directions were such that any conclusions of deliberate harm could be used to add weight to the other charges, then it’s a house of cards waiting to fall.

No one needs to come forward to refute unfounded claims, because the defence don't have experts in these fields. They have a geologist.

Instead of focusing on this, instead ask yourself why the defence cannot get experts of similar standing to the prosecution.

14 neonatologists, 140 neonatologists. It doesn't really make a difference does it.

 

[joltz]

Agreed.

People seem to be interpreting more news articles and more repetition of the same details as meaning her case is getting stronger due to more doubt arising. That isn't true, of course.

Lots of talking heads chattering to anyone who'll listen that they have doubts about the safety of her convictions is a world away from actual reasonable doubt in the legal sense. More people may be having doubts but that is not the same as the actual evidence being called into doubt.

Regardless of what her side are pushing, there is absolutely zero new evidence. It's all old stuff which was gone through at trial. If there was a raft of compelling new evidence (or even a single piece) we'd 100% know about it given how keen they are about keeping things in the public gaze.

That's just it. These new articles, have absolutely nothing new. Just repeating the same stuff over and over again, while getting paid for it. Pure innocence fraud imo and gullible fools lap it up...

 

[WaneLyrical]

Well we will see what happens then, I look forward to reading whatever insults are thrown at the CCRC and then the court of appeal when they will also show themselves to be “gullible fools” taken in by the papers.

 

[joltz]

And yet a very eminent Paediatric endocrinologist stated in court there was no other explanation?????

Well we will see what happens then, I look forward to reading whatever insults are thrown at the CCRC and then the court of appeal when they will also show themselves to be “gullible fools” taken in by the papers.

And when they refuse Letbys appeal that will be the end of it I take it?

 

[Parker Knoll]

We live in hope.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Agreed.

People seem to be interpreting more news articles and more repetition of the same details as meaning her case is getting stronger due to more doubt arising. That isn't true, of course.

Lots of talking heads chattering to anyone who'll listen that they have doubts about the safety of her convictions is a world away from actual reasonable doubt in the legal sense. More people may be having doubts but that is not the same as the actual evidence being called into doubt.

Regardless of what her side are pushing, there is absolutely zero new evidence. It's all old stuff which was gone through at trial. If there was a raft of compelling new evidence (or even a single piece) we'd 100% know about it given how keen they are about keeping things in the public gaze.

The press are very limited in what they can report about this case- every medical witness who requested anonymity from the press had it granted and this doesn’t expire just because the trial has finished. It therefore makes it impossible to then publish articles where the same people have altered opinions or contradicted themselves in the inquiry, or even just share the evidence they have provided- as they are banned from reporting it. The press were also banned during the trial from reporting anything that may influence the jury as they were allowed to read articles. This has obviously limited journalists being able to complete investigative articles and has led to the articles and headlines looking sometimes a little off piste- with Dr Evans example of misogyny for example, it’s not really relevant, but they can publish that to discredit him whereas other examples are subject to the press restrictions- but many readers are able to understand the sub context.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The press are very limited in what they can report about this case- every medical witness who requested anonymity from the press had it granted and this doesn’t expire just because the trial has finished. It therefore makes it impossible to then publish articles where the same people have altered opinions or contradicted themselves in the inquiry, or even just share the evidence they have provided- as they are banned from reporting it. The press were also banned during the trial from reporting anything that may influence the jury as they were allowed to read articles. This has obviously limited journalists being able to complete investigative articles and has led to the articles and headlines looking sometimes a little off piste- with Dr Evans example of misogyny for example, it’s not really relevant, but they can publish that to discredit him whereas other examples are subject to the press restrictions- but many readers are able to understand the sub context.

This is simply not true.

No medical experts gave evidence under the guise of anonymity. That would never have been allowed as it's completely contrary to the principles of open justice.

Some of the staff at CoC did benefit from having their identities published but they were not there as expert witnesses and they were not anonymous to the court. They weren't really there strictly as "medical" witnesses, either. They were giving evidence mostly as to what they saw, read and heard, and what interactions they had with LL.

It's not even true that it would prevent the press reporting that any witness had changed their mind as long as they didn't give the person's name. Their evidence was allowed to be reported initially as long as their identity wasn't revealed so how could it be that the fact that they'd changed their mind couldn't be? It's ridiculous, quite frankly.

Also, if these anonymous people have changed their minds how do you know they have as you claim it can't be reported?

No experts have changed their mind about the evidence they gave. No staff from the CoCH have changed their minds, as far as I'm aware.

Please link to some evidence to back this up because this is really becoming silly now.

 

[WaneLyrical]

And when they refuse Letbys appeal that will be the end of it I take it?

They won’t refuse it.

 

[Ruthbullock]

This is simply not true.

No medical experts gave evidence under the guise of anonymity. That would never have been allowed as it's completely contrary to the principles of open justice.

Some of the staff at CoC did benefit from having their identities published but they were not there as expert witnesses and they were not anonymous to the court. They weren't really there strictly as "medical" witnesses, either. They were giving evidence mostly as to what they saw, read and heard, and what interactions they had with LL.

It's not even true that it would prevent the press reporting that any witness had changed their mind as long as they didn't give the person's name. Their evidence was allowed to be reported initially as long as their identity wasn't revealed so how could it be that the fact that they'd changed their mind couldn't be? It's ridiculous, quite frankly.

Also, if these anonymous people have changed their minds how do you know they have as you claim it can't be reported?

No experts have changed their mind about the evidence they gave. No staff from the CoCH have changed their minds, as far as I'm aware.

Please link to some evidence to back this up because this is really becoming silly now.

I’m just going to point out my post was about the medical witnesses and you have gone on a rant about expert witnesses. They are really 2 different discussions, if you want to disagree with a specific comment I made or ask for the evidence then I will provide it- but telling me I’m lying and that it’s silly whilst commenting about the experts (which weren’t mentioned in my post) makes it incredibly difficult to respond to.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I’m just going to point out my post was about the medical witnesses and you have gone on a rant about expert witnesses.

But it's completely and utterly irrelevant to anything you mentioned.

Like I said, they weren't "medical" witnesses for the most part as they weren't there for their medical opinion. They gave evidence as to what they saw and heard as part of their jobs at the hospital and about their interactions with LL.

Only the expert witnesses were "medical" witnesses and none of them had anonymity. Hence, logically, you must have been referring to expert witnesses!

You were trying to make some point about "medical" witnesses being afforded anonymity which is not true. You then went on to claim that if they'd changed their minds about their evidence then the press could not report it due to the anonymity orders. Again, not true.

 

[Ruthbullock]

They won’t refuse it.

I think it’s unlikely as well at this point. If they do refuse it I would imagine it will be well explained why. If it was all so clear cut and straight forward as some people like to believe and everything at the trial was accurate and unquestionable- the inquiry would be pushing out its report, there wouldn’t be a delay, there wouldn’t be warning letters being issued (the management had always been threatened with further action, so that wouldn’t warrant this warning), the police would have wound up their investigation into all the other suspected victims and further charges would have been forthcoming for Letby. There is enough to warrant all these departments pausing for thought, and I don’t believe it is because they have all the time in the world to do so because Letby is in prison for life, there are things that are making each of these areas question the verdict and how they are going to respond going forwards.

 

[JosieJo]

Surely all that matters is the truth?

Absolutely...but my point is if we have an eminent paed endocrinologist...his speciality...why should we take Shoo Lee as correct

 

[Ruthbullock]

You were trying to make some point about "medical" witnesses being afforded anonymity which is not true. You then went on to claim that if they'd changed their minds about their evidence then the press could not report it due to the anonymity orders. Again, not true.

I don’t post without researching first and I will address the 2 points you made:

“The medical witnesses were afforded anonymity (which is what I stated) which is not true”- it is true, they were granted lifetime anonymity orders and this has followed through to the inquiry

Reporting restrictions in the Lucy Letby trial

Media and privacy.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-documents/Special-Measures-Order-Witnesses-updated-31-October.pdf

The second point you disputed “if they had changed their minds then the press could not report on it”- go back to the above articles, they were given lifetime anonymity, so no the press can’t report on it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think it’s unlikely as well at this point. If they do refuse it I would imagine it will be well explained why. If it was all so clear cut and straight forward as some people like to believe and everything at the trial was accurate and unquestionable- the inquiry would be pushing out its report, there wouldn’t be a delay, there wouldn’t be warning letters being issued (the management had always been threatened with further action, so that wouldn’t warrant this warning), the police would have wound up their investigation into all the other suspected victims and further charges would have been forthcoming for Letby. There is enough to warrant all these departments pausing for thought, and I don’t believe it is because they have all the time in the world to do so because Letby is in prison for life, there are things that are making each of these areas question the verdict and how they are going to respond going forwards.

Again, you are saying irrelevant stuff. Stuff which is categorically untrue.

As the Inquiry has made clear - repeatedly - they are NOT investigating matters about her guilt or any of the conduct of her criminal trials and certainly nothing relating to any continuing police investigation. That is ultra vires (beyond its powers) meaning it has no authority to do so.

Any delay (if there even is one) in the publication of the report categorically is NOT related to the conduct of her trials nor anything in them.

You also clearly totally misunderstand the nature of the letters sent out to certain people. It's been discussed here before so please check back through the thread.

 

[JosieJo]

Personally I feel the CCRC will send it to the court of Appeal...but I'm definitely not convinced it will then be successful....as obviously the CCRC is just a preliminary stage.
"If" and imo it's a massive "if" there is reason for Appeal success ...then I will follow the process at that point.
Of course people have opinion and are free to chat about whatever they wish ...but for me I'll wait till the experts have assessed the Appeal...I'm certainly not about to try and figure out what's right and wrong based on PR press conferences