Lucy Letby TV programme tonight

those x-rays nor the radiologist testimony couldn’t stand alone

Like that?

Yeah right, it's rambling and nonsensicle

Remember the case of Sally Clarke jailed for killing her two sons?

yes it was found that one of her babies suffered from a very rare condition - which was not known at the time of the trial because it was in documents not found until after the trial and first appeal. letby's going to have to find something similar for multiple babies. Sally clark's new evidence was so strong the Crown did not oppose the appeal and sought no retrial - zero chance of them doing that for letby

Shoo lees panel included all the medical qualifications of the prosecution medics and to a much higher standard - the one exception being that it didn’t include a radiologist the reason being that they dismissed dewi evans air embolism theory so a radiologist was deemed unnecessary

No the prosecution's experts in addition the paediatricians Dr Evans and Dr Bohin were


Dr lee's panel lacks some of these disciplines and are certainly not of a higher standard.

With respect A_T you're wrong there. The word neonatal doesn't appear in your list. You can read the names of Dr Lee's panel online plus their qualifications (too long to include here) and they cover all the salient points in the investigation.

No Dr Lee does not have a consultant endocrinologist, consultant haematologist or consultant radiologist. So basically he has noone of the correct discipline to provide rebuttal of those prosecution trial experts. If it gets to the Court of Appeal Letby will need to instruct more appropriate experts.

Dr Bohin is a consultant neonatologist. Dr Evans is a consultant paediatrician - Letby tried to complain that he was not a neonatologist but as the Court of Appeal heard "The reason Dr Evans did not classify himself as a neonatologist was because when he developed the speciality in South Wales, neonatology was a sub-speciality - so he didn’t train as a neonatologist. Each of these features was addressed by the judge". Co complaining now about Dr Evans qualifications is just hot air and has no legal value.

don’t believe my ramblings - believe Owen archer who gave evidence at the trial - youu can even Google what he said - his phrase consistent with but not diagnostic of are reported on  many of the main stream media websites

why dr ball wasn’t called isn’t clear - a tactical mistake by the defence is the best theory as he didn’t agree with the prosecution - he has stated that in interviews and he had written reports saying so for the trial

Of the experts witness I’ve already said why there was no radiologist on shoo lees panel

the bottoms 3 experts contributed nothing material during the trial - made a couple of non-vital statements
Marienereides is no doubt an expert - he backed dewi evans on theories where dewi subsequently changed his mind leaving the guy hanging
dewi evans has no credibility - he’s embarrassed himself on multiple interviews since the trial and resorted to talking about people being “turned on” by letby in a nurses uniform as a response to people (journalists etc) ripping his ramblings apart
the other two who contributed in a material sense don’t not have skills that outrank the shoo lee panel

shoo lees panel have nothing to gain (either retired or at the top of their profession) and everything to lose by backing someone the majority of the public (used to think) was a multiple baby killer - they recruited over 20 experts yet forgot to recruit some of the right ones - that would be some blunder to be fair

Sally Clark was also freed on a statistical blunder by the prosecution which a first year student shouldn’t have made where they multiplied two                  non-independent probabilities together to get a final probability- the most basic of blunders but that went through a jury trial without being properly challenged - shows how imperfect they can be

Sally Clark was also freed on a statistical blunder by the prosecution which a first year student shouldn’t have made where they multiplied two                  non-independent probabilities together to get a final probability- the most basic of blunders but that went through a jury trial without being properly challenged - shows how imperfect they can be

She was freed as a new condition emerged

That negated the probability.

If 4 new conditions emerge then let y may have a case

Refused to leave her cell for sentencing hearing, never a good look.

Very few TV specials relating to crime using investigative 'journalists' approach the subject matter with an open mind. Everyone has an agenda.

letby had a very experienced defence team - her KC got duckenfield off the hook for hillsborough, if there were flaws in the case they would have been found and presented at the trial. the convictions are safe noone cares about tv documentaries made for entertainment

Presumably you have seen or heard all the evidence and understood it A_T, to make such a comment?

no reason to think they aren't safe - the court of appeal said they were and no new evidence has emerged that make one think they weren't

letbys barrister did put up a good defence in some ways at the trial in fact some of the evidence from the panel the barrister raised at the trial - the jury chose to believe who they thought was the medical expert (evans) over the non-medical, expert barrister - why they didn’t call dr hall and also refuse / ignore the offer of help from modi and statistical experts is unclear

to say there is no reason to think the verdicts are unsafe is utter nonsense -

previously people subsequently freed have failed in multiple attempts at appeal - letby is less far down that road of failure of others who have subsequently been freed - at one appeal application the judge did cast concern over one of the prosecution witness testimony (a consultant) since then it appears his testimony is at complete odds with an email he wrote at the time (which wasn’t disclosed during the case nor the appeal but is in the public domain now)

some of the evidence is not new but is now backed by an expert panel

some of the evidence is new - again backed from an expert panel - not just medical evidence but failure to disclose other incidents which happened when letby was not on duty and testimony given by prosecution witnesses which has been undermined by their own emails which were not previously disclosed

some of the prosecution evidence has subsequently been undermined by the chief prosecution witness himself (dewi evans) as he couldn’t help himself portraying himself as the hero on a raft of interviews and tied himself in so many knots he’s resorted to accusing journalists and mathematicians who question him  (not just punters on the internet) of being turned on by Lucy letby in her nurses uniform - the guy who in his own words knew there had been deliberate harm within 10 minutes of seeing the first set of notes reduced to this

as I’ve said before - the one thing dewi evans has said which has some credence is the old and new evidence via the panel has not been properly tested - evans theories were based on not being able to think of anything else (again his own words) so the panel obviously believe there are much much more plausible explanations - its their job to convince the ccrc (this time or a later time if necessary) - if it wasn’t for revised public interest in this letby (if innocent) would be lucky if she was out within decade or two like a lot of the rest of the miscarriages of justice

I agree it’s plausible to think that people making documentaries have an opinion / agenda already and the output maybe swayed by it

What is noticeable that a number of people who were high-profile burn the witch shouters early doors some have made a complete turn around and are now pro-letby and probably more importantly / balanced some have opened their mind up to the flaws in the case and the possibility of the convictions being unsafe

again talking about semi-respected journalists legal professionals and podcasters rather than just punters on the internet

sally clark was released on medical evidence but it was also confirmed that the statistical evidence which was believed to play a big part in her conviction should never have been allowed in the form it was presented

It was pretty much the arithmetical equivalent of 2 + 2 = 50,000

That was over 2 decades ago but is still going on today such that the royal statistical society are constantly looking for dialogue with the legal profession to put a stop to this so that only valid and properly presented statistics are used where appropriate

I watched tonight's Panorama on iPlayer and didn't think it was very well done. If you're assessing the evidence, why include comments from the poor bereaved parents? Nothing to do with it. Also as she has a book out, Judith Moritz should have been replaced by another journalist - not knocking her but it looks a bit conflicted.

Another Lucy Letby programme starting now on bbc1

Don't know if it's a new one or repeat

New if on prime time bbc.

Tricky dilemma,

There’s been loads of poor baby units in the press ,so is she a confident excuse.
Always on shift,but did a lot of overtime in an under staffed unit,so she’s bound to be there.

The bosses would rather it be her than admit a bad unit.
But she could also of been guilty.

it’s a new documentary - partly made and narrated by Judith moritz who previously was 100% convinced of her guilt - the fact she’s even entertaining the slightest doubts is a bit of a tell - her journalist partner has always been more on the fence and had doubts about her guilt

dr hall (Letby defence who wasn’t called) has questioned some of the panels findings on detail which was reported as a conflict in the programme but also reported is that he agrees with their overall findings ie no deliberate harm and medical reasons are there for illness and death

the guy who made the bold claims about a doctor mistake (he shouldn’t have done) was not on the panel albeit he was speaking on behalf of letbys new defence to the press - an error of delivery by a 3rd party rather than in the medical findings

the latest ‘evidence’ about dislodged breathing tubes from years before Letby so called started murdering again is based on statistics (which have been proven to have been misused in the actual trial) - the figures are supposed to have been exceptional yet you have to believe that none of these exceptional events were ever noticed at the time as it’s only been discovered retrospectively - Letby was also a student / inexperienced nurse at the time so would have been under extra supervision yet as far as has been reported she didn’t even have a ‘training need’ reported as needs to be better with breathing tubes or the like - again all these things supposedly all happened and no one has seen a thing at the time (over an extended period)

Old Dewi evans isn’t looking well he has aged considerably from the confident guy claiming to have brought down the killer nurse and how the money he earned from it put his kids through uni and kept his daughter “in horses” - accepted it was a bit of a flippant reply at the time but looking ever more inappropriate as the days pass

Just watched the ITV doc.

They seem to have omitted the evidence that the CPS have actually been forced to admit that the prosecution botched (whether by accident or otherwise) - the swipe card evidence used by the prosecution to show that Letby was entering a room was actually Letby leaving a room and vice versa. i.e. for all of the times they were arguing that she was present she provably was not present. CPS said this had no meaningful impact on the prosecution lol. In particular, the (corrected) swipe card data showed that the the star prosecution witness had been lying to the court - when he said Letby was alone with a baby whose tube had been dislodged in fact she was not alone. The programme did correctly document another of his lies to the court by producing an email where he admitted that he'd only attended the scene because Letby called for help contrary to what he told the court. Contempt of court is a criminal offence isn't it?

yes the prosecution thought they had a key bit of evidence in an x-ray but it turned out the swipe card data was the wrong way round and an x-ray which was supposed to show banged to rights air embolism had been taken before Letby had even met the baby - not only did it eff-up that story it showed how unreliable the x-rays as standalone evidence was which to be fair the radiologist always caveated that they couldn’t be used as standalone - it was the other witnesses who tried to embellish it - that was what lead to Dewi evans changing his method of murder on one of the babies

At other times they claimed Letby might have tail-gated another member of staff in and apparently there was a door where you could get in without a card

Basically a farce

Letby team are looking into grounds to try that consultant for perjury who wrote the email - the guy was never off the telly until recently but he’s gone to ground now

Once let by was arrested,charged,a lot of the witnesses would drift into confirmation bias,presuming they re helping giving their accounts,
As it must be the explanation for the deaths.
But,
A poor preforming dept could be the answer,so it suits everyone for it to be her.
Another doctor,maybe looking for easy shifts,killing off the problem cases,
Did any of these doctors have 2nd private work.
Has anyone looked into their working weeks,again it suits them to lump it on letby.
The deaths stopped when she was moved,but if it was someone else,they would of stopped because of risk.if it was poor dept,they maybe upped their game,got more staff,hence the deaths stopped.

Quite a few maternity wards have been highlighted as badly performing over last few years,so could easily be this.

Everyone involved will just look atfer themselves,and letby fitted the bill.

If it was bad ward or lazy doctor,they re cover this up in the same way as covering up the murders.

Plus the doctors have more to lose,

the deaths stopped because at the same time as Letby left the ward it was downgraded meaning it would take less risky babies which also meant the understaffing issue in even the healthier babies was eased

There was an internal and external medical investigation into the unit - it found a raft of issues with understaffing under skilled etc - doctors were doing ward rounds twice a week instead of the recommended twice per day - one of the doctors was also a tv doctor - not sure how that managed with his time given he was only doing 2 rounds per week instead of per day - the defence wanted the results of these reports to be aired at the trial but apparently it was ruled against - don’t no the justification

While there was a rise in deaths (and reasons for it even without a serial killer) the numbers while looked at the hospital alone looked significant but taken globally across the uk they weren’t a statistical outlier - there have been similar issues/numbers at lots of other hospitals without serial killers

I don’t believe Letby was deliberately set up or scapegoated I think a couple of doctors thought they were Poundland poirots and too arrogant not see differently - then fuelled by a dodgy expert witness (he has history which appears to have played out again in this trial) - at some point the doctors probably thought **** we’ve got this wrong but self preservation probably kicked-in

a number of her colleagues wanted to speak in her defence but were warned against it as it could harm their career - one or two still did and still do and others are potentially about to come forward

Similar issues / numbers at other hospitals at different times that should read eg one year Cheshire was the worst then another year Nottingham was similarly bad etc

the swipe card evidence used by the prosecution to show that Letby was entering a room was actually Letby leaving a room and vice versa

this was dealt with and corrected at the retrial - both defence and prosecution accepted it was a mistake

The programme did correctly document another of his lies to the court by producing an email where he admitted that he'd only attended the scene because Letby called for help contrary to what he told the court

this email was available to her appeal but did not feature as a ground of appeal indicating that if nothing else it was of no evidential value

The bosses would rather it be her than admit a bad unit.

if you followed the thirlwall inquiry you'll know that her managers tried to protect her even planning to put her back on the neonatall unit but the police being called stopped all that. three managers have been arrested as part of a gross negligence manslaughter investiagtion

what you consider normal ,misleading,not evidence based stats at the l,pool hospital are currently with ther CPS waiting for a charging decision,so may well get their day in court, the dr who said the dr in the needle evidence should be ashamed done for manslaughter has gone to ground ,refusing interviews as his evidence been considered garbage ,like the tv shows your doing exactly the same pointing out evidence/mistakes that suit your narrative and ignoring the rest

her new lawyer,s evidence based response to the new l,pool hospital stats, of I DONT BELIEVE THEM it going to get her very far

only a tv show i know but looking back earlier in the thread where letby's lack of appropriately qualified experts was discussed panorama had a consultant neonatal endocrinologist to dismiss letby's experts claims about the insulin attempted murders evidence. she has no neonatal endocrinologist and her attempts to undermine those convictions look particularly weak

how can an email which directly contradicts the testimony of a witness be of no evidential value - especially when that witness was also called out by a judge who mentioned that his actions at the time was inconsistent with his testimony - looks like another blunder by the original defence team if it was available at the time - this like everything else will be tested via the ccrc

The swipe card data did result in dewi evans change his mind (not the only thing or time that happened) and also as another poster said placed another nurse in the vicinity when letby was supposed to be alone before the data was corrected - compared to other inconsistencies in the evidence things not that important to be fair

the insulin claims at the trial - the jury were not made aware of the requirement for further testing to confirm results - the scenario also required a probability of the nurse on the subsequent shift picking up the correct feed bag for the correct baby as letby hadn’t spiked them all - the new panels findings on insulin will be tested via the ccrc

the doctor who made the claim about the needle shouldn’t have done it in the way he did I don’t think anyone is disputing that - as has been pointed out he wasn’t on the panel

all dislodged breathing tubes from the distant past will be tested if new charges are brought - you would wonder why it wasn’t raised at the time or at the first trial given how extreme it was - letby was also a trainee / inexperienced nurse so would have been under supervision and have a training / development schedule - seems strange that it wasn’t at least listed as a training need - again like the whole trial the theories put forward are not impossible but much much more plausible theories need to be discarded first

how can an email which directly contradicts the testimony of a witness be of no evidential value

because it was available to the defence for the appeal on the conviction where the doctor was a witness. if you say it was evidence of the witness unreliability then you are accusing the defence counsel of withholding it from court - which would be a very serious allegation. if it was a blunder then letby would be able to apply directly to the court of appeal citing conduct of trial representatives rather than go the long-winded way of the CCRC which might take years

she's never claimed poor counsel so you can only assume that she's satisfied with the performance of her defence team. too much relies on claiming defence blunders - she had very experienced counsel - even being given legal aid funding for a third barrister.

most likely the email is simply not signifiant and was recognised as such by the defence. the daily mail said "a source close to the case said:'The email was disclosed to the prosecution, Letby's defence team and the judges at the Court of Appeal before her application to appeal her conviction in relation to Baby K. 'There is no material contradiction between the email and Dr Jayaram's evidence, so it was deemed irrelevant.' "

but yes the ccrc will decide if it is of any value

irrespective of the reasons why it wasn’t disclosed - the consultant said he wasn’t called for help by letby and in the email he says he was called by letby for help (he also goes on in subsequent emails / documents to explain reasons for the baby’s death which wasn’t air embolism or any of  dewis theories)

does that sound like materially different to you ? (not the daily mail)

letby has never claimed good or bad counsel - she has changed her team though which might be a hint

A_T since when is perjury not relevant? No material contradiction between the email and evidence given under oath you state and yet the reality is the opposite?

You really should give up trying to appear as if you understand the law and the technicalities of evidence being debated which even many experts in both fields would struggle to understand never mind the ordinary public or a jury?

maysoon3 

As someone who can't be bothered following the case and think there are better things to do your posts are a good read , summarized nicely and whilst some personal opinion included there's also plenty of fact , keep it going.   

the problem is once someone gets it into their head that someone is guilty even the old bill have done it ( not knocking em as they just want wrong uns off the streets for the publics  and everyone elses safety )it is hard to get that notion out of their heads ,as said she may be guilty she may not but there have been cases in the past and will be in the future where miscarriages of justice have come to light later.

there are so many inconsistencies within the trial that the whole thing needs examined which will happen - any claims that this happened because this is how the legal system works falls on its ass on individual points because of these inconsistencies - not my opinion the opinion of top judges in particular those who were in the shes guilty camp or expressed no opinion early doors (obviously in different words)

the evidence via email thing can only be contradicted imo by (1j that didn’t actually happen the emails a fake or something like that (2j saying one thing years later and writing the opposite at the time is not a contradiction because ……..

that event was the best the prosecution could come up with to an eye-witness account of letby doing something wrong so it wasn’t insignificant

No-one has answered these questions as far as I’m aware

discrediting this witness will not be enough to clear letby as one of the main things which put her where she is the insulin cases of which that consultant played no major part - it all relies on potentially dodgy tests (limitations not disclosed to the jury) and a Russian roulette probability that the next nurse picked up the spiked bag from a number of alternatives  (and that the findings of the panel turn out to be nonsense)

that’s why they wouldn’t have just gone back on that single point

cheers Hayden - I don’t spend that much time online and this case is pretty much the only thing I comment on and came on my radar due to my background in statistics - I try to keep it balanced and while I think the trial was dodgy af and I do think she’s innocent there is a tiny percent accepting that she could be guilty irrespective of how clumsy (to be generous) the trial was

Horse racing tho - no amount of numbers statistics or expert opinion will ever convince me there’s been a better miler than el gran senor since 1984 or every will be - FACT etc

FOYLESWAR 12 Aug 25 12:39 
the problem is once someone gets it into their head that someone is guilty

...........................

I suspect many of those who don't want a retrial would rather an
innocent person rot in jail than ever admit they were mistaken.

No material contradiction between the email and evidence given under oath you state

No as I said it's what the daily mail reported their source as telling them.

what is fact is that this email was in the hands of the defence team before her appeal - yet nowhere did in feature in that appeal. of course the obvious inference is that it had no evidential value i.e  it was not what her defence purported it to be

but no of course we have to hear yet again about an incompetent defence - a defence which letby kept for her appeals after her trials and at no time has complained about.

letby has never claimed good or bad counsel - she has changed her team though which might be a hint

she hasn't changed her team she's using Mark McDonald pro bono for her ccrc application - there's no legal aid available for her to continue with her trial counsel - they might come back in if she is charged or gets to the court of appeal when she'll get legal aid for a silk (Mark McDonald is a junior barrister). McDonald hasn't actually done anything for her yet that requires a lawyer - he started representing her before her second appeal but was not involved in the appeal - that was in the hands of her trial counsel.

No-one has answered these questions as far as I’m aware

they have been answered in court and at appeal

you should read the court of appeal judgment in particular about the insulin evidence


it's already been dealt with by the appeal court. Letby is just rehashing old evidence that has been ventilated in court - there's nothing now which is what she needs.

Keep telling yourself that she is just rehashing old evidence when in fact she probably has little to no input on what the defence will present and long odds on much of what they will present is unknown to the public domain.

she probably has little to no input on what the defence will present

it's ultimately her decision - if she's been badly advised then she could have changed her counsel for her appeals which she didn't

she's got nothing new - even the email was available to her defence for her appeal but it did not feature. the rest is just opinion on evidence that has already been through the trials and appeal. you can't just keep appealing the same evidence endlessly.

I bow to your insider knowledge A_T, never had the benefit of knowing everything a defence had until trial. Btw if you are correct there will be no new trial but imo its is long odds on there will be?

He's nailed himself to the guilty cross, fearful of a retrial imo.

Looks like it saddo, btw the email will constitute new evidence if introduced as will any other evidence not used at the trial or re-trials.

the police can think the moon is made of cheese ,they dont charge a single person,THE CPS lays down charges after studying the evidence and chances of a guilty verdict

even if the email is significant (which it's absence from the defence at appeal suggests not) the witness in question was only involved for 3 of the 14 convictions - which leaves 11 more

the insulin convictions for attempted murder look rock solid - Letby already tried to contest them at appeal (see above) but failed.

I'd say she's much more likely to be in a crown court facing new charges than she is for a another retrial.

the email will constitute new evidence if introduced as will any other evidence not used at the trial or re-trials.

no. evidence not used at trial is inadmissible to the court of appeal - as dr lee found out at letby's appeal

lads here should read the court of appeal judgement and stop looking for shadowy figures on grassy knolls

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

Inadequate counsel is considered as good reason A_T and I think reasonable to presume it will be one of the reasons for having unused evidence allowed but you appear to be better informed than most tbf.

Inadequate counsel is considered as good reason A_T and I think reasonable to presume it will be one of the reasons for having unused evidence allowed but you appear to be better informed than most tbf.

Inadequate counsel is considered as good reason A_T

That's the thing - for all the criticism of her defence she has never used poor counsel as a ground of appeal. She actually kept them on for the appeals. She's got Mark McDonald now for the CCRC application because he's doing it for free as there's almost no legal aid for a CCRC job. He won't be her counsel for crown court or appeal court because she'd need a silk which she'd be entitled to.

And you know that there will be no change? Must be a good crystal ball you have?

This is not a red herring and it may come too late to affect the Letby case but when Donna Ockenden's report into maternity services, initially centred on Nottingham, is published, the proverbial will hit the fan. Lack of training, poor management and limited skill sets will be seen as widespread across the country. Displaced tubes, over/under drug prescribing and a raft of other failures may well be proved to be the norm.

She didn't kill any babies in my expert opinion, she's far too good looking. Killers are usually ugly b@ggers imo.

As I stated earlier  - Does finding new expert opinion constitute new evidence ?  - That's the  point here  - She / her defence picked their expert witnesses , went to trial and lost. Do you then get the right to pick a new bunch of
of experts and get another pop  ? If so - where does it end ?

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 ?

in normal circumstances you can’t just keep picking experts and asking for retrials until you get the result you want - that’s not what’s happened here - some evidence isn’t new but some evidence is (arguably) brand new

Even if the evidence is not new there is a rider to that if there is a significant chance that the person is actually innocent it can go ahead without new evidence but that’s not the standard response

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,

you can get a retrial without new evidence if it’s deemed sufficiently likely that the person could be innocent (irrespective of new evidence) and if in the wider public interest

not sure how long this will take but it’s not expected to take the years / decades of other cases

if this gets turned around what does that do for public confidence in the nhs the police the judicial system especially right on the back of the post office scandal and similar nhs scandals

if there are genuine issues with the panels findings or anything else that Letby has gone forward with they won’t be missed - it’s arguably in the wider public interest that Letby is guilty and that this fails and can be shown why it’s failed with transparency

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.

so question for a-t

the media narrative from letby's current team is that the email is significant evidence. an alternative media narrative is the Mail with their source saying "'The email was disclosed to the prosecution, Letby's defence team and the judges at the Court of Appeal before her application to appeal her conviction in relation to Baby K. 'There is no material contradiction between the email and Dr Jayaram's evidence, so it was deemed irrelevant.'" you choose to believe the narrative from letby's team which is up to you.

what is a plain fact is that the email was available to the defence for the relevant appeal. it did not appear in the appeal so the conclusion must be that the defence did not believe it to be of evidential value.


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

it's judges who review all the evidence and decide whether or not the convictions are unsafe and order a retrial. what else do you think is going to happen?

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) ?

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 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.

impossible123

that’s one of the points - Letby may have murdered one or more of the infants but statistically it could just be coincidence - there have been other spikes at other hospitals and they are not as rare as many people tend to think understandably - these other hospitals are not looking for serial killers despite their spikes

Letby was only on shift for a proportion of the deaths and collapses - a number of deaths and collapses were excluded from the trial and not disclosed to the jury - the proportion of events Letby was there for was not excessively high given she worked a lot of extra shifts - other nurses who worked extra shifts have been shown to have been at statistically similar number of events

the shift chart produced at the trial - statisticians claim it to be worthless misleading and reverse engineered to include only  events where Letby was there

the prosecution didn’t explain how the chart was constructed - one theory put forward is that they were only unexpected / unexplained deaths which would be fair enough - however there has subsequently been found out that events listed as potential harm and included and subsequently were excluded for no other apparent reason that Letby wasn’t on shift and other children who’s collapse looked much more unexpected than some who appeared on the chart - eg pre-term babies with issues on the chart - full term babies with less issues not on the chart (Letby also not on shift)

at least two similar nurses in Europe were convicted based partly on the coincidence of being there a lot and subsequently had their convictions overturned

statisticians who helped to overturn those verdicts offered their help to the defence however that was refused - again it’s not clear why

One of the reasons why despite being portrayed as evil / rose west etc there was a small band of professionals (not just internet poirots) who questioned the case due to the similarity to those cases which were subsequently over-turned - note they questioned the case rather than express an opinion that Letby was innocent - many opinions have stayed that way some have moved more towards the she’s innocent camp as things have progressed

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.

Thanks 'Johnny...and Maysoon' for the info.

As so many learned individuals in the appropriate and relevant fields would disagree with the guilty verdict then a 2nd trail could decide with a higher degree of probability whether she's guilty or not guilty esp since new cases have come to light prior to and since her trial, if I'm not mistaken. The learned pros and cons individuals could argue in court, and even the new judge appointed would have read the cases concerning similar cases with infant deaths elsewhere.

I must say Ms Letby looked shell-shocked when she was arrested at home.

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

I think there was a case involving a foreign junior doctor who was left in charge of a department by a senior colleague who'd chosen to leave the hospital early for personal reasons; a young child died. The dead child's parents complained.

The junior doctor was charged with gross misconduct. At the General Medical Council (GMC) hearing it transpired the junior doctor had only just returned from a year's maternity leave; had never managed a department on her own before; was diligent with an unblemished previous work record. Also a senior nurse had not followed the advice and instructions pertaining treatment for the dead child given to her by the junior doctor.

The junior doctor was exonerated. Her senior colleagues fed her to the wolves. It's sad but this happens at work.

Sad?  It is criminal in such a workplace.

yep reg I agree - the post office scandal is an example of where blindly trusting the process can take it - that’s not to say we can’t trust the process to a degree and the appeal process (although it often takes many attempts to get it right) and I’m sure the vast majority of trials are fine but like the post office there are glaring questions here that have never been answered beyond the standard ‘it’s been through the judicial process - found guilty by two jury’s etc’

I’m confident these questions will be answered in time whether it re-inforces the guilty verdicts or casts more doubt time will tell but the public interest in this has gone beyond the individual Lucy letby and is as much about the organisations like nhs thirwal enquiry police and judicial system - especially on the back of the post office scandal and other recent miscarriages of justice

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?

the post office thing took years to sort out so even if it wasn’t you a-t you probably agree that there would be many people saying it’s been through the court of laws etc - they’re guilty etc

the new evidence wasn’t actually new it just wasn’t disclosed - employees of horizon knew they could independently enter the system and make changes amongst other issues - not disclosed / debatably a cover up - I agree it’s more black and white than the Letby case due to being system based rather than medical opinion

Letby was either going to be convicted or cleared on medical opinion - in his own words the theories that Dewi evans came out with were because he couldn’t think of anything else so any (more) plausible alternative casts doubt on dewis theories and hence the outcome - criticisms of the panels findings have been around the edges but not fundamentally opposing them - while doctor hall (letbys previous medical expert who wasn’t called) has raised some queries he stated he agreed with the panel he found no evidence of deliberate harm and alternative reasons (to harm) for the outcome - the other ‘evidence’ particularly the statistics has been shown to be as much nonsense as the horizon system being reliable

the one thing the post office scandal and Letby have in common is that both have gone through a rigorous court process which returned guilty verdicts and resulted in people apparently correctly being locked up

BBC panorama have had to apologise to Letby team and edit their program around the misuse of statistics on all those apparent issues Letby had when she was a trainee at the Liverpool hospital - absolutely no shock to anyone who’s been following the case neither is the degree of the nonsense they tried to pass off as legitimate stats - the sort of thing that easily slipped through during the case and the immediate aftermath but is being called to account within hours of it happening now

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

Lucy Letby will face no new criminal charges over baby deaths and collapses at hospitals where she worked.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said it had reviewed evidence into further allegations of murder and attempted murder against nine children at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women's Hospital but "the evidential test was not met in any of those cases".

Cheshire Police, which submitted the evidence, said the decision was "not the outcome that we had anticipated".The Cheshire force said it was "confident" that it held enough evidence.

It said in a statement: "We submitted files for charging decisions in relation to nine babies - for consideration of nine offences of attempted murder and two of murder.

"We believed the evidence submitted met the CPS charging standard.

"The CPS did not agree and despite our representations we must respect the decision that has been made."
...................................................................


CPS decided to stop digging by the look of things, plod not happy.

What would have been the point of further charges?

The point was to try to delay the findings of the CCRC who will decide the outcome. When it's over some people might be held to account. So, like every other hideous cover up, the word is keep putting obstacles in the way. (Hillsborough, blood scandal, post office and so on).

Doc would have attempted to defend Hitler

Perhaps Fred West was framed also?
Conspiracy lunatics are us

there is no evidence that fred west was wrongfully convicted

uptheirons - you believe the convictions are "safe"?

Difficult to believe that the latest developments don't at least cast some doubt on preceding events?

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 .

in the past if the old bill were convinced someone was guilty evidence  had been known to be kept back from the trial , not criticising the old bill directly as they were convinced they had the right man/woman and wanted the scrote locked up . but sometimes as in the colin stagg case they had got it wrong .

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.

99% of prisoners claim their innocence despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
My old Head Master had a unique view on justice,he believed that it was better to punish 99% of innocent pupils rather than let one guilty one remain unpunished

You didn't answer my question uptheirons?

The jury saw all the evidence and found her guilty, which she clearly is.

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.

Yes I do.paris

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

I think you’ve got it Tom Salt 11.32.  Someone or ones in the NHS Trust involved do not want their failures to be revealed by a further revelation in a retrial.  Did they make any fundamental changes after she was removed from the wards?  If so, it would be interesting to know what they were and why?
Did the deaths stop after she was removed, and, if so why?
I have no idea if a miscarriage of justice was done it does seem clear however that there was a mistrial.
Poor bereaved parents, they must be utterly distraught by this, on top of the loss of their children.

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

Incredible.  In plain sight/view.

And thank you for your response and info.

"What would have been the point of further charges? "

I dunno maybe if someone had killed my child I might like to see them in court Irons , what you reckon ?

The deaths of 9 Kids is it ?  Swept ..

Summat not right about  all of this  TBH .. I am not saying she is innocent ,but  there are certainly serious failings surrounding whats happened ... 

some of the evidence that has been given clearly Bull , for starters