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

[Ruthbullock]

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

I think it is just being pedantic to assume the CCRC or COA or even most posters are just taking one persons word for anything- it is just an example of someone disputing it. Shoo Lee is being painted as this villain out to free a guilty woman with no logical justification that anyone can present, that would make him lie about what he believes is the medical facts. I doubt he is so hard up he needed the money and I doubt he had even given a passing thought to Letby prior to hearing his report had got her incarcerated. Nor do I think he needs M Mc in his pocket for the future so did it for future favours- he did it because he questioned how his paper was presented in court and didn’t feel it was accurate, he then became invested in it, but in order to be more impartial roped in a lot of colleagues to also assess the evidence. In a parallel universe any of these 14 people could have been the original expert witnesses used at trial- if it would have changed the outcome then there is reasonable doubt about her convictions.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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.

Like I said - the expert witnesses, were not granted orders protecting publication of their names.

The article refers to medical professionals - ie: the staff from the hospital, not those who produced expert reports for the prosecution or defence....oh wait, the defence didn't call any!

All of those people who had identity protection orders DID have their evidence reported by the press. it was NOT a reporting restriction, it was a prohibition on identification. Therefore, if any of them had changed their minds, as you claim, then there would be no issue in the press reporting that as long as they didn't identify them.

An example; Dr Choc gace evidence and we all read every word of it and if he had now changed his mind about that evidence then the press could still report it, they just couldn't identify him!

So, given that it was NOT a reporting restriction on their evidence, how is it that if they change their minds it can't be reported?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think it is just being pedantic to assume the CCRC or COA or even most posters are just taking one persons word for anything- it is just an example of someone disputing it. Shoo Lee is being painted as this villain out to free a guilty woman with no logical justification that anyone can present, that would make him lie about what he believes is the medical facts. I doubt he is so hard up he needed the money and I doubt he had even given a passing thought to Letby prior to hearing his report had got her incarcerated. Nor do I think he needs M Mc in his pocket for the future so did it for future favours- he did it because he questioned how his paper was presented in court and didn’t feel it was accurate, he then became invested in it, but in order to be more impartial roped in a lot of colleagues to also assess the evidence. In a parallel universe any of these 14 people could have been the original expert witnesses used at trial- if it would have changed the outcome then there is reasonable doubt about her convictions.

I don't accept that.

I think he's being portrayed as a gullible fool who's been manipulated by Letby's team. He spent most of the press conference espousing a theory as to the death of one child which was comprehensively examined and dismissed at trial with even the defence accepting that it was not the cause of death.

Clearly he hadn't read the trial documents and was simply parotting what he'd been told to say by MM.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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

The CCRC are in a bit of a bind here, I think.

Their recent failures might result in them referring it to the CoA even on the thinnest of "evidence" just so they can't be held responsible for anything going awry, I suspect. Problem then is are they going to be rebuked by the court for wasting its time, I wonder?

Bottom line, as we all know - there simply is no "new" evidence, merely rehashed old evidence.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I don't accept that.

I think he's being portrayed as a gullible fool who's been manipulated by Letby's team. He spent most of the press conference espousing a theory as to the death of one child which was comprehensively examined and dismissed at trial with even the defence accepting that it was not the cause of death.

Clearly he hadn't read the trial documents and was simply parotting what he'd been told to say by MM.

On what logical basis do you believe he would be parroting what some random lawyer in another country asked him to?

 

[WaneLyrical]

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

We shouldn’t. I’ve never intended to suggest we do. I’m certainly not willing to write him off as a charlatan or conspiracy theorist though. And if he is saying there are alternative explanations which are just as likely as poisoning with Nostradamus levels of prediction involved, then I don’t think anyone should be satisfied until that view is tested in court. Because the jury were told point blank there was no other explanation.

 

[JosieJo]

We shouldn’t. I’ve never intended to suggest we do. I’m certainly not willing to write him off as a charlatan or conspiracy theorist though. And if he is saying there are alternative explanations which are just as likely as poisoning with Nostradamus levels of prediction involved, then I don’t think anyone should be satisfied until that view is tested in court. Because the jury were told point blank there was no other explanation.

I do think its possible Lee became over invested because he was irritated having been given short shrift at the court of Appeal...Often High end Consultants do not take kindly to being told no ...but personally I do not think he is conspiracy theorist/Charlatan.

From what I have read him and the other Consultants have given their opinions based solely on medical notes and have no way gone through the trial and evidence minute by minute.

Obviously it will be down to the experts at CoA to decide if there is any merit in anything submitted and therefore "tested in court" ...jmo but we are not in a position to do that

 

[WaneLyrical]

I do think its possible Lee became over invested because he was irritated having been given short shrift at the court of Appeal...Often High end Consultants do not take kindly to being told no ...but personally I do not think he is conspiracy theorist/Charlatan.

From what I have read him and the other Consultants have given their opinions based solely on medical notes and have no way gone through the trial and evidence minute by minute.

Obviously it will be down to the experts at CoA to decide if there is any merit in anything submitted and therefore "tested in court" ...jmo but we are not in a position to do that

Agree on all points

 

[Ruthbullock]

Have a look through page 49 to 51- I would be curious to know how many times someone anonymously phones and then emails the court when they overheard a juror stating the jury had already decided a verdict- they couldn’t trace the person ( which in the grand scheme of how much was invested in the case, I think every penny would have been justified to find out who this person was.) and how many times a judge dismisses public reports on the basis that they have observed the juror (in silence) for several months so they dismiss the reports.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

 

[joltz]

They won’t refuse it.

You wouldn't know. You only desperately hope that they dont.

JMO.

 

[joltz]

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.

Why would the police have wound up their investigation and charged Letby?

It's ongoing, there could be charges at any time. The police may choose to speak to Letby again, just like they did before she was charged with murder, when they spoke to her 3 times.

These posts just don't make any sense. The people that want Letby to be innocent are the same people whose posts don't make sense and are inaccurate.

JMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

Cheshire Police have already stated that it will be “ deep” into 2025 before we hear if they will be charging more offences.
Why would they wind up the investigation ? The charges that may or may not be brought are of the utmost seriousness and they certainly don’t need to investigate this at speed.
We also have the full timeline for the Thirwell Enquiry to be made available so FYI it is being drafted now, expected to be finished in the autumn then off for copy editing ready for publication early 2026 - it’s all there on public record for you to check very easily instead of suggesting that they are in some way “ questioning the verdict and how they go forward “

I’m really lost here !

 

[Rohmer]

I don't accept that.

I think he's being portrayed as a gullible fool who's been manipulated by Letby's team. He spent most of the press conference espousing a theory as to the death of one child which was comprehensively examined and dismissed at trial with even the defence accepting that it was not the cause of death.

Clearly he hadn't read the trial documents and was simply parotting what he'd been told to say by MM.

What theory are you talking about that was 'comprehensively examined and dismissed at trial'?

 

[Sweeper2000]

This is simply untrue. No "new" evidence has emerged at all. Its just the same stuff that was looked at in detail in the original trials and dismissed.

The tone seems to be that the more and more press coverage there is the stronger her case for innocence is which is complete nonsense. Because more people bang on about it doesn't make it true.

yeh i know. that article states that the strongest voice for a retrial is mr sumption, a retired judge or the like im guessing hes like literally every other person we hav heard of to be anti original trial result that is in that he doesn't know the evidence and trial. he skim read it no doubt.

 

[Sweeper2000]

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.

it wasnt the most robust. baby E was as that case proved multiple things. such as LL falsifying records, telling barefaced lies to the parent, telling barefaced lies to the court, willingness to directly and severely harm and highlighted what was LL generally strange reactions in times of urgency and need. the insulin i think was proven to be ll hanging it but it was never conclusively proven she put it in, was everything else thatt narrowed it down to her being responsible.

 

[WaneLyrical]

You wouldn't know. You only desperately hope that they dont.

JMO.

You want it to be a case of me “desperately hoping”. It’s not the case. But perhaps it makes you feel better to think I’m just some idiot who wants Letby to be innocent, because that’s easier than acknowledging what’s really going on. Just my opinion.

 

[joltz]

You want it to be a case of me “desperately hoping”. It’s not the case. But perhaps it makes you feel better to think I’m just some idiot who wants Letby to be innocent, because that’s easier than acknowledging what’s really going on. Just my opinion.

I think we can conclusively say that your main intention is just to get the last word in. JMO

 

[May72031]

You want it to be a case of me “desperately hoping”. It’s not the case. But perhaps it makes you feel better to think I’m just some idiot who wants Letby to be innocent, because that’s easier than acknowledging what’s really going on.

What's really going on?

 

[Baileyboo]

The CoA have already looked into Dr Shoo Lee's evidence and rejected it. If the CCRC refer it back they will in part be judging the same thing again.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The CoA have already looked into Dr Shoo Lee's evidence and rejected it. If the CCRC refer it back they will in part be judging the same thing again.

dont mean to be a pain but can you quote the source pls.