the responses since I last posted can pretty much be wrapped up in the commonly used line - its been through the judicial process she’s been found guilty by two jury’s etc etc - that’s all true and fair enough but falls down on the fact that the system is far from infallible including some recent high profile major miscarriages of justice

it further falls down in that those questioning the case are not just a bunch of Poundland poirots on the internet but include experts from many, walks of life many of whom have nothing to gain and lots to lose by becoming involved particularly in the early days when there was no public opinion behind letby - high profile figures in the legal world have changed their opinion on this case which in some ways is not a good look but in other ways it is in that they are accepting neither them as an individual nor the system gets everything right every time - which is an absolute fact

Judith moritz who has always felt she was guilty has made 3 documentaries on it I think - the first title was something like killer nurse the second title was considerably water-downed and now we are at who to believe - I think she still believes she is guilty but is no where near as solid as she was not so long ago

people invested in their opinion that she guilty seem at odds not to discuss individual issues with the case eg the email which completely contradicts the testimony instead just reverting back to the fact it must be worthless as it didn’t feature in the trial - again relies on a system everyone knows has flaws

Miscarriages of justice start with a jury trial with qualified lawyers etc just like this one - it’s not like previous cases 20 years later they go oh yeah that person didn’t have a defence lawyer - there are holes in every aspect of the case from doubts about statistical and medical evidence to questionable calls from the judge including disallowing information about the failings of the unit being made aware to the jury to witness testimony inconsistency - there is not one piece of evidence that can’t be countered by something more plausible - absolute howlers all over the place that need a better answer than “she’s been found guilty by two jury’s ……” like that’s never happened innocent people before

very high profile case now with lots of information in the public and professional domain not so easy now to refer to “I am evel I did this” and completely ignore “I have done nothing wrong” and the at best contradiction between the two (and the plausible explanation for both)

evans said in his testimony it was difficult to tell the exact cause of death because a baby was at high risk of u expected collapse yet the whole thing was underpinned by these babies so-called being relatively healthy and not at risk of collapse - every Poundland poirot medical / statistical professional etc who has followed this case knows all about this now

The clever judges have looked at it and it’s all fine nothing to see here isn’t going to wash





so question for a-t

if the consultant wrote an email at the time Letby called him for his help and then later testified that specifically she didn’t call him and that he walk in on her doing nothing to help the baby does that in any way give concerns over the caee or even that part of the case ?

as discussed even if this guy comes out and says yeah I lied I made it all up she’s still not off the hook for insulin cases so you can answer that without saying she’s innocent overall ?

This is a flaw in the jury trial,espically if it’s technically deep.

The new evidence rule is flawed,because what happens if the same evidence is presented differently or through the years isn’t seen in  as strong.

Rules need to be applied,but in massively high profile cases and a lot of questions being asked,
Just saying,she’s had an appeal,no new evidence,so it dosent pass the rule.

Let a team of doctor specialists,independent from an adversary trials assess the claims,
Judges aren’t doctors,any doctor can justify saying the opposite against other doctors.

20 years plus to get all the miscarriages of justice released,Jill Dandos Barry.stephan kistko,the Irish lot x 3.

If it’s very technical medical evidence,how can 12 members of the public take a view.

Have a jury of 12 child doctors,

High deaths,everyone wants a reason,

So they look to fit the evidence into the pigeon hole,witness s follow the crowd,bosses distance themselves,police want to look good,we ve got the culprit.

Why don’t they try and disprove the evidence rather than prove it,then fool 12 laymen ,by baffling them with science.

a-t - again your reply is just it’s been through the courts and that’s now it works etc - which is fair enough and true

as a matter of interest did you have an opinion on the post office scandal (before it became a scandal) ?

I must admit I've not followed the case. It was just too sad, and incomprehensible someone from the caring and medical profession could be responsible for so many infant deaths.

Nevertheless, there are two distinct camps ie pro-Letby and anti-Letby about her guilt or not. The individuals are mainly learned and well-versed with law, meds and science. How is this possible? So many infants died on her shift. It could not have been pure coincidence each time.

Ms Letby must be guilty for some infant deaths, surely.

Based on what I have watched and read, I can't possibly see how anybody can be firmly sat in either of the  "100% guilty " or "100% innocent" camp.  It's far more nuanced than that.

The jurors heard the whole case and based on the evidence presented in court , they found her guilty.

Does this further review of the evidence presented in court warrant a retrial ? 

That's what the CCRC are going to decide.

My personal feeling , based on the balance of what I have read and watched, is that a retrial is probably justified.

Having said that she has had her day in court and , as a layman,  I'm not entirely convinced that getting together a fresh bunch of experts constitutes enough new evidence to legally justify a retrial.

Maysoon, some great posts
I have also earlier raised the comparison with the post office scandal, and that no doubt there would have been people 15 years ago saying that there was no new evidence to warrant retrials, that the horizon computer system was infallible, the post office bosses couldn't possibly be "corrupt", or unwilling to say their system was wrong...
Nobody so far, has made a comment regarding that

Sad?  It is criminal in such a workplace.

a-t - again your reply is just it’s been through the courts and that’s now it works etc - which is fair enough and true

as a matter of interest did you have an opinion on the post office scandal (before it became a scandal) ?

To be honest I knew nothing about it. an interesting aspect to the post office scandal was that the new evidence (faulty horizon software) was so strong the crown did not oppose the appeals - the government even passed a law to speed up the quashing of convictions. Letby has nothing like that on her side.


A_T Several times you reference the need for new evidence if the CCRC are going to bounce the case back into court. But if you look at their terms of reference they say "To launch a fresh appeal, we need something important like strong new evidence or an argument that makes the case look different now."
The panel of eexperts' view that they found no murder certainly makes the case look different now.

i would not be surprised if the ccrc refers it back to the court of appeal - their bar is much lower than the court's. There was another nurse serial killer referred by the ccrc whose appeals were dismissed some weeks back. press reports prior to the appeal made it sound like his evidence was strong but the court didn't think so.

we don't know the strength of the letby's new expert reports. her defence and PR claim it's strong but it is their job to say that. letby's unused expert from the trial was on panorama and found flaws in their reports - as did the families' barristers at the inquiry - panorama asked unaffiliated experts who found flaws. the ccrc and the crown will have their own experts to scrutinise the new reports - letby's unused experts from the trial and the crown's trial experts will also be consulted.

one thing is if letby has a retrial and again does not call expert witnesses even though she has them. if she's found guilty again do we have to have another retrial because the trial wasn't fair?

Letby should be afforded the same legal opportunities as anyone else - if you can have 10 trials until you get the verdict you want then she should get that - I don’t think that’s now it works tho

She might need 10 goes at getting appeals and one re- trial or something - that’s not uncommon for people who have subsequently had their verdicts  overturned

I don’t think it will take 10 attempts although it might take more than 1

What would have been the point of further charges?

Doc would have attempted to defend Hitler

there is no evidence that fred west was wrongfully convicted

they (those higher up) will have no problems or scruples throwing a lamb to the lions to save themselves as we saw with the post office scandle .

Interesting interview earlier today on Kyle/Talk radio. Kyle was speaking to Lucy Letbys defense barrister. He admitted that 99 percent of persons he'd defended in the past were as guilty as hell but he truly believes that the Letby case is a huge miscarriage of justice. He has been on this case for two years and has provided his services free of charge. Personally I have an open mind but there were many inconsistencies with the evidence offered by so called 'experts' and prosecution council.There should be a retrial IMO - May well open up collosal failings within the NHS.

You didn't answer my question uptheirons?

Juries have heard all the evidence on many occasions. pronounced guilt, and been wrong Grenade1972.

Your certainty in the  system  is both troubling and touching.

as parispike says most if not all miscarriages of justice start with someone being found guilty by jury trial (wrongly)

in this case the jury didnt even hear all the evidence - on direction of the judge many of the issues with the unit including reports predicting the risk of baby deaths unless improvements were made were disallowed from the trial so the jury were not fully unaware that these incidents were happening in a unit in complete turmoil - under-staffed lack of experience doctors doing rounds twice per week instead of twice per day etc etc  the latter being sorted after the reports/investigations being done

also the insulin results which were criticlal to the outcome were presented as 100% reliable when (a) they werent (b) were not appropriate for a criminal trial without follow up more accurate testing

yes they made loads of changes as following internal and external investigations a large number of fundamental process skill and resource issues were found - as well as a raft of changes being implemented the unit was downgraded meaning they were taking less risky babies (even at the higher grade some of the babies were too risky)

All at the same time as Letby left the unit

This was noted in one of the reports at the time that at the same time as x-number of fundamental improvements made which would almost certainly reduce / remove the deaths and this could be construed (wrongly) that it was due to the removal of Letby - this was documented before Letby was charged

Of course the narrative became that the improvements were ignored and its was all down to the removal of a serial killer both in court and on the internet etc

i personally don’t think she was deliberately set up from the beginning - I believe the doctors in their arrogance were unaware of their own shortcomings and genuinely thought they had found a serial killer encouraged by an extremely suspect so-called expert witness - they likely at some stage realised they had got it wrong but continued due to self-preservation eg doctors testimony now shown to be at odds with what they had written in documents at the time or as some have described it down right lies / perjury

And thank you for your response and info.