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

[Marantz4250b]

Not yet anyway. Those parents talking about the box may indeed be part of a new trial.

Quite possibly but in order to get her current convictions reassessed she needs to present "new and compelling" evidence (or however it's expressed) and there simply is none.

 

[katydid23]

Yeh interesting watch that episode. Led me on a bit of a chase. Two new bits to add.

The first is on Dr Lee and Co. Remember he said he had only looked at the medical notes and come to a conclusion on her guilt/innocence on that alone. No other evidence presented at trial he knows about.

I agree that is a red flag. How does he expect to find guilt or innocence upon the medical reports alone?

It takes the full context of the situation to determine guilt or innocence.

Finding a cause of death is not always cut and dry. It is very complex sometimes. It is hard to differentiate something like a SIDS death in the night from someone putting a pillow over a baby's face. There is no way to know without video evidence or a witness or a confession.

He thinks he can read the medical notes from 27 collapses, and refute the verdict of the jurors, who had the full context of evidence, like witness testimony, expert testimony, testimony from the defendant, and various data, and not just the medical notes?

To me that was a red flag. However in that documentary a journalist came across the email he sent out when recruiting for the panel. In it he uses the words "we might be her last hope". Another red flag imo.

Yes, another red flag. He recruits people whose aim is to be her last hope for acquittal? That is unethical, imo.

Responsibility should eliminate bias imo. Imagine if all of that noise which will have been heard by the parents was actually just the result of a bull headed approach to what was a reasonable request by MM?

 

[joe jones]

I said that their criminal trial reporting was superb, not that everything they wrote was.

Anyone who followed their reporting I think would agree. I've just seen today that the podcast was up for an award.

Papers can't put "spin" on reports of criminal trials. Anything other than verbatim reporting of the events in court will likely get them held in contempt. Can you point to a report of the trial in which they offered an opinion or put any sort of "spin" on the events in the court?

Their court reporting is very good, imo, specifically because they are restricted in what they can say and what opinions they can offer.

Papers constantly spin stories about crime, trials and the evidence, pre, during and post, they barely skirt the contemptuous laws,
During the trial the media, including the DM opined on all aspects of LL life, most of it not pertaining to the evidence. Before she was convicted they had assinated her character,

 

[joe jones]

I agree that is a red flag. How does he expect to find guilt or innocence upon the medical reports alone?

It takes the full context of the situation to determine guilt or innocence.

Finding a cause of death is not always cut and dry. It is very complex sometimes. It is hard to differentiate something like a SIDS death in the night from someone putting a pillow over a baby's face. There is no way to know without video evidence or a witness or a confession.

He thinks he can read the medical notes from 27 collapses, and refute the verdict of the jurors, who had the full context of evidence, like witness testimony, expert testimony, testimony from the defendant, and various data, and not just the medical notes?


Yes, another red flag. He recruits people whose aim is to be her last hope for acquittal? That is unethical, imo.

I think Dewi Evans is a huge red flag, he first opined that it ,ust be because the so called "metropolitan elite" were furious that they didn't do the convicting so now they were trying to get LL convictions overturned, and if it's not them then it's the American, Canadian, and any other non British Dr who disagreed with him who are trying to get LL convictions overturned,
IMO it will take a long time to get her conviction overturned, as Dr Evans seems to have been a prolific expert witness used by DPP over the years. And if he got LL case wrong then every other case he testified in will need to be scrutinised,

 

[joe jones]

Quite possibly but in order to get her current convictions reassessed she needs to present "new and compelling" evidence (or however it's expressed) and there simply is none.

Or to present evidence that am expert witness evidence wasn't correct, or they oversold the expert witnesses expertise, which I think they did in Dr Evans case,

 

[katydid23]

I think Dewi Evans is a huge red flag, he first opined that it ,ust be because the so called "metropolitan elite" were furious that they didn't do the convicting so now they were trying to get LL convictions overturned, and if it's not them then it's the American, Canadian, and any other non British Dr who disagreed with him who are trying to get LL convictions overturned,

I don't think it matters what he thinks at this time. The verdict was not based upon his testimony alone. It was based upon several expert medical witnesses, actually witnesses from the clinic, doctors and nurses, parents of some of the victims, the testimony from the defendant and medical notes from everyone involved. And also meta data from the clinic which helped track everyone's movement during each incident.

So I don't think that focusing upon one medical expert is that impactful or informative. IMO

IMO it will take a long time to get her conviction overturned, as Dr Evans seems to have been a prolific expert witness used by DPP over the years. And if he got LL case wrong then every other case he testified in will need to be scrutinised,

IMO, it will not be overturned. There was a whole lot more to each case than just Dewi Evans.

 

[joltz]

It was an interesting watch - quite pleasantly surprised how un hysterical it was, however absolutely nothing new here as it’s all been debunked at trial or by Letby herself on the stand.
All McDonald has is is his bluster and love of the media hoping that’s going to sway 3 high court judges if it ever managed to scrape over the line and go back to the COA.
Yep …. That’s DEFINITELY going to swing it Mark.
Thank god for Liz Hull putting the outright lies to bed that’s all I can say.

McDonald said it himself: public pressure influences the CCRC's decision. He's been here before and this was his intention from the start. It matters very little if what he says is true or not. It was all was about getting as much attention as possible. He's waded a PR funded campaign of misinformation across the media in order to have Letbys case referred back to the COA.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Papers constantly spin stories about crime, trials and the evidence, pre, during and post, they barely skirt the contemptuous laws,
During the trial the media, including the DM opined on all aspects of LL life, most of it not pertaining to the evidence. Before she was convicted they had assinated her character,

Can you provide links to such reports, please?

 

[Marantz4250b]

McDonald said it himself: public pressure influences the CCRC's decision. He's been here before and this was his intention from the start. It matters very little if what he says is true or not. It was all was about getting as much attention as possible. He's waded a PR funded campaign of misinformation across the media in order to have Letbys case referred back to the COA.

Even if he's right that public opinion influences the CCRC - and I don't think he is - it will never influence the court of appeal.

He's a grifter.

She's staying in prison until she dies.

 

[Baileyboo]

Papers constantly spin stories about crime, trials and the evidence, pre, during and post, they barely skirt the contemptuous laws,
During the trial the media, including the DM opined on all aspects of LL life, most of it not pertaining to the evidence. Before she was convicted they had assinated her character,

LL, didnt really have much " character " or an interesting life on the surface. She was "beige" liked salsa dancing and holidaying with her parents. She doesn't seem to even have had a romantic relationship. There wasn't much scandal to write about aside from her horrific crimes.

 

[Marantz4250b]

LL, didnt really have much " character " or an interesting life on the surface. She was "beige" liked salsa dancing and holidaying with her parents. She doesn't seem to even have had a romantic relationship. There wasn't much scandal to write about aside from her horrific crimes.

This is correct. She was totally ordinary in every respect. There was very little to write about, quite frankly. This, to me, is what makes her crimes so intreging.

 

[joe jones]

Can you provide links to such reports, please?

I can not in all good conscience click once on that website to research for old articles, I only read DM stuff if it is reposted without me having to click on it,
The articles I am sure will still be on there,

 

[joe jones]

I don't think it matters what he thinks at this time. The verdict was not based upon his testimony alone. It was based upon several expert medical witnesses, actually witnesses from the clinic, doctors and nurses, parents of some of the victims, the testimony from the defendant and medical notes from everyone involved. And also meta data from the clinic which helped track everyone's movement during each incident.

So I don't think that focusing upon one medical expert is that impactful or informative. IMO

IMO, it will not be overturned. There was a whole lot more to each case than just Dewi Evans.

I disagree, if Dr Evans. evidence is discredited then the whole case crumbles, as it is he who opines on COD. and from that poisoned tree all the other branches join,
I was utterly appalled at his demonstration of how one could add things to an IV bag, with a doll included in the demonstration,

 

[Marantz4250b]

I can not in all good conscience click once on that website to research for old articles, I only read DM stuff if it is reposted without me having to click on it,
The articles I am sure will still be on there,

Seriously??? Really???

So, you post something claiming it to be fact and then refuse to back it up for reasons of "conscience". Wow - just wow!

You do realise that the site rules require you to support facts with links, surely?

Of course, the real reason you are now claiming conscientious objector status is because you simply cannot back it up. This is classic conspiracy theory "do your own research it's all out there for those willing to look" nonsense.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I can not in all good conscience click once on that website to research for old articles, I only read DM stuff if it is reposted without me having to click on it,
The articles I am sure will still be on there,

You said the “ media “ not just the DM so you could use one of those sources maybe ???

 

[Marantz4250b]

I disagree, if Dr Evans. evidence is discredited then the whole case crumbles, as it is he who opines on COD. and from that poisoned tree all the other branches join,
I was utterly appalled at his demonstration of how one could add things to an IV bag, with a doll included in the demonstration,

That is not true at all.

The insulin cases I don't think he had anything to do with. Other experts supplied testimony in those cases, as far as I recall. The defence accepted that the insulin was administered rather than being naturally occurring.

And, as many, many people have pointed out, the entire case does not rest on his evidence alone. She was convicted on the totality of the evidence as a whole. Nine months of it.

 

[thinker47]

I can not in all good conscience click once on that website to research for old articles, I only read DM stuff if it is reposted without me having to click on it,
The articles I am sure will still be on there,

Wow... trying to avoid getting personal but there's a get-out clause if ever I saw one. You do seem to have a totally closed mind where all evidence, reporting or professional opinion pointing to her guilt is concerned. I can understand that you have your strong belief but please do back up your statements so that we, being open-minded, can actually see where you are coming from and make up our own minds.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1972880070197846238

 

[thinker47]

I thought I was going to be riveted throughout the programmes but in truth, I was fighting to stay awake toward the end. Nothing new, just 2 people restating and rehashing and fighting to defend their stance - and I'm honestly not entirely sure what Phil Hammond was doing there at all. I can see there's room for doubt in some minds over her guilt due to so much of the evidence's being circumstantial (and the confusion over whether she was even actually on duty on one occasion) but for me, nothing at all has been said to change the original outcome of the trial. Waste of a couple of hours for me.

 

[thinker47]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1972880070197846238

...and those parents have actually told their child that that nurse tried to kill him such that he apparently refers to her in that way. Hmmmm...