Letby – more information coming to light

My own opinion, based on only what i read.
Her conviction was based on a statistical probability, no hard/scientific evidence. Apart from the notes she wrote to herself.
She might be guilty, but my own thoughts were that the conviction was unsafe, being reliant so heavily on statistical probability.
This potential review might expose a few deficiencies in the way the trial was conducted. too early to say if she's innocent,....but she might well be.
 
I am no closer to understanding whether she is innocent or guilty, it appears to be an argument between "experts".

Quite how a jury of lay people were expected to untangle this Gordian knot I don't know.
 
Guilty.

Evil, despicable crimes.

The evidence at trial was compelling and the jury, having heard all the evidence presented found her guilty, either unanimously or by a majority of 10:1

The comments of the judge during sentencing were also very telling. 15 whole life orders aren’t passed without good cause.
 
Phil’s Barber said:
Guilty.

Evil, despicable crimes.

The evidence at trial was compelling and the jury, having heard all the evidence presented found her guilty, either unanimously or by a majority of 10:1

The comments of the judge during sentencing were also very telling. 15 whole life orders aren’t passed without good cause.
Click to expand...
www.bbc.co.uk

Lucy Letby: Questions grow in debate on killer's convictions

A number of experts are raising concerns about evidence presented in the neonatal nurse's trials.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

This is this morning in the news.
Certain professionals were not called.
A jury of lay people as badger said will only go on what they are advised.
They like all of us are not able to read medical data.
 
Really good podcast on this called Double Jeopardy. Hosted by two criminal barristers. It is only 40 mins long but gives a slightly different perspective. They think you need to read the Court of Appeal Judgement before really forming an opinion. It is 58 pages long but they do a good summary.
 
'Lucy Letby is innocent'.

Is that too fantastic to be true?

15 whole life sentences, yet not one witness has said they actually saw her in the act.

After she has died in prison with the first whole life sentence, how will she serve the other 14? Ridiculous.

Uneasy, still feel it is unsafe.


😎
 
steeleye20 said:
'Lucy Letby is innocent'.

Is that too fantastic to be true?

15 whole life sentences, yet not one witness has said they actually saw her in the act.

After she has died in prison with the first whole life sentence, how will she serve the other 14? Ridiculous.

Uneasy, still feel it is unsafe.


😎
Click to expand...
Yup I thought beyond reasonable doubt didn’t include someone who might have done something. We always want a reason bad things happen and it may well be that letby is that reason. If legal professionals are not bothered about being cancelled over this then there must be something amiss.
 

Lucy Letby wrote ‘I am evil I did this’ notes on ‘advice of counsellors to cope with stress’​


Should not have been admissible in that case.

Dubious.

😎
 
cryrst said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Lucy Letby: Questions grow in debate on killer's convictions

A number of experts are raising concerns about evidence presented in the neonatal nurse's trials.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

This is this morning in the news.
Certain professionals were not called.
A jury of lay people as badger said will only go on what they are advised.
They like all of us are not able to read medical data.
Click to expand...
Hasn’t it also been proved that the door code data was inaccurate . A crucial part of the prosecution’s case.
 
Would suggest anyone with time on their hands to read this Court of Appeal judgment


the trial was one of the longest in legal history and what I find odd is this, as this judgment says


  1. The defence mounted a robust approach to the evidence that was called. Serious allegations were put to the numerous professional witnesses (including expert witnesses) who were called on behalf of the prosecution. Two points may be noted at the outset. First, though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no expert evidence was called on the applicant's behalf. The entirety of the evidence called for the defence consisted of the applicant's own testimony, and that of an estate plumber, who had worked at the hospital since 1986. He gave evidence about certain plumbing problems that had occurred at various points in the unit; and of two particular incidents in the unit, but not on a date or around the time of any incident in the indictment.
 
kevlee said:
Would suggest anyone with time on their hands to read this Court of Appeal judgment


the trial was one of the longest in legal history and what I find odd is this, as this judgment says


  1. The defence mounted a robust approach to the evidence that was called. Serious allegations were put to the numerous professional witnesses (including expert witnesses) who were called on behalf of the prosecution. Two points may be noted at the outset. First, though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no expert evidence was called on the applicant's behalf. The entirety of the evidence called for the defence consisted of the applicant's own testimony, and that of an estate plumber, who had worked at the hospital since 1986. He gave evidence about certain plumbing problems that had occurred at various points in the unit; and of two particular incidents in the unit, but not on a date or around the time of any incident in the indictment.
Click to expand...
 
Kevlee, I have read all 58 pages of COA judgement. It is difficult to see how the jury could have given different verdicts if that was the defence best shot to appeal for their client. Their indifference to expert witnesses for their client. Why? Only they can answer that and we will not know unless she changes her defence team. As far as we know, she is satisfied with their work. Therefore, we can only conclude, at this stage, that the case for the defence at best would not have been assisted by their expert witnesses or worse, under prosecution scrutiny, harm it. Defence effort, at appeal, to quash the main prosecution witness was roundly rejected. As you read the COA judgement the appeal comes across as increasingly desperate and straw clutching. Maybe some evidence will emerge to change her situation, I have no view on her guilt or otherwise, but based on the COA judgement, I think it more likely that the conviction is safe than not.
 
Letby has changed her defence team

Lucy Letby has replaced her legal team and is planning a fresh appeal, her new barrister Mark McDonald has told the BBC’s File on 4.
 
I just don’t understand the so called experts now casting doubt.
10 month trial.
Her only witnesses herself and a plumber.
No qualified medic prepared to give evidence on her behalf.
Court of appeal reject appeal as hopeless.
Yet now it’s all unsafe.
Well why didn’t anyone go into the witness box and argue her case at the time? In this day and age she had a QC and team of specialist criminal lawyers, all paid for us. Paid millions. The suggestion they did not mount the best defence money could pay for is bullshit.
A manipulative murderer in my view who should rot in jail.
And now she has the conspiracy theorists on her side.
 
I am staggered that this question about Letby's conviction is gathering traction.

I will need a lot convincing that she's not guilty as charged.
 
kevlee said:
I just don’t understand the so called experts now casting doubt.
10 month trial.
Her only witnesses herself and a plumber.
No qualified medic prepared to give evidence on her behalf.
Court of appeal reject appeal as hopeless.
Yet now it’s all unsafe.
Well why didn’t anyone go into the witness box and argue her case at the time? In this day and age she had a QC and team of specialist criminal lawyers, all paid for us. Paid millions. The suggestion they did not mount the best defence money could pay for is bullshit.
A manipulative murderer in my view who should rot in jail.
And now she has the conspiracy theorists on her side.
Click to expand...
Surely if the trial and evidence has been revisited and certain questions are raised about said trial then no matter what the details letby should be allowed to appeal.
I don’t know if she did or didn’t do it but it could be an unsafe conviction.
What’s conspiracy in what you have read ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top