Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
On ITV, just finished
I know that there's been other TV programmes questioning her convictions, but once again I couldn't help thinking that she needs a retrial which she has been constantly denied
Her defence counsel in the original trial must have been the most inept team of barristers going... Or, was it a deliberate cover up to sacrifice her and save those higher up?
I know that there's been other TV programmes questioning her convictions, but once again I couldn't help thinking that she needs a retrial which she has been constantly denied
Her defence counsel in the original trial must have been the most inept team of barristers going... Or, was it a deliberate cover up to sacrifice her and save those higher up?
Show More
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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 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.
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.
you should read the court of appeal judgment in particular about the insulin evidence
A proposed ground 4 (that the jury were wrongly directed on evidence relating to the
persistence of insulin in the bloodstream) was withdrawn following the refusal of leave
to appeal by the single judge.
persistence of insulin in the bloodstream) was withdrawn following the refusal of leave
to appeal by the single judge.
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.
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 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
no. evidence not used at trial is inadmissible to the court of appeal - as dr lee found out at letby's appeal
no good reason has been shown why the applicant should now be allowed to adduce evidence which
could have been obtained and adduced at the appropriate time. The interests of justice
require a defendant’s whole case to be put forward at trial unless there is good reason
why that could not be done.
could have been obtained and adduced at the appropriate time. The interests of justice
require a defendant’s whole case to be put forward at trial unless there is good reason
why that could not be done.
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
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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
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,
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
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 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?
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) ?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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).
Perhaps Fred West was framed also?
Conspiracy lunatics are us
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
"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
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
Any change of opinion tonight Regbutler? I think probably not and you will be more convinced that her conviction does not pass the sniff test and perhaps even the doubters and pro conviction crowd will have to have a rethink?
The so called evidence comes down to opinion from medics who presented it to a jury who were hardly a Jury of Peers, her defence team seem to have let her down badly, the CPS, Police and the Judiciary appear to have colluded from an early stage, seems they still are by taking so long on her appeal?
The so called evidence comes down to opinion from medics who presented it to a jury who were hardly a Jury of Peers, her defence team seem to have let her down badly, the CPS, Police and the Judiciary appear to have colluded from an early stage, seems they still are by taking so long on her appeal?
No, Cag, see posts on Rico thread
This investigative programme even more damning on her conviction if anything
This investigative programme even more damning on her conviction if anything
i know a biased program can induce doubt but after watching this there must be serious doubts re her conviction.
Sorry Reg, did not see that thread. Looks even more damning from tonight, cannot see how an appeal can fail, can you?
No, cag, but seems her having her convictions quashed will implement others, higher up the medical chain, so I'd say 50/50
CagliariG 21 Sep 26 23:19
Police and the Judiciary appear to have colluded from an early stage, seems they still are by taking so long on her appeal?
get your facts right ffs...both her appeals have been refused..her case is now with the criminal cases review commission.
Police and the Judiciary appear to have colluded from an early stage, seems they still are by taking so long on her appeal?
get your facts right ffs...both her appeals have been refused..her case is now with the criminal cases review commission.
So it is not an appeal then shafter? I required an appeal to be heard by the commission!!
"It" before you claim it was anything to do with I.
both her appeals have been refused..her case is now with the criminal cases review commission.
And was that instigated by a prison snout or did her new defence team submit an appeal for a hearing iyo?
The CCRC is the independent body that investigates potential miscarriages of justice
nothing to do with with a court appeal.
nothing to do with with a court appeal.
Are you really so thick that you don't understand that a request i.e an appeal has to be made? Then again you also stated that parole is not possible in the USA and that a judge had never been convicted of bribery.
ffs ..an appeal is something thats lodged through a legal court procedure.
The CCRC is the independent body that investigates potential miscarriages of justice
The CCRC is the independent body that investigates potential miscarriages of justice
Yes shafter and her team made a request to have her case investigated and sent back to the Court Of Appeals or do you think maybe Delashay did it on her behalf?
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is not an appeal itself, but an independent body that investigates suspected miscarriages of justice and can send your case back to the appeal courts.
How the CCRC Works
Not a court: The CCRC does not change sentences or overturn
your wrong again tobytíts..get over it.
How the CCRC Works
Not a court: The CCRC does not change sentences or overturn
your wrong again tobytíts..get over it.
cag liar mekking an áss of himself again..#wac
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is not an appeal itself, but an independent body that investigates suspected miscarriages of justice and can send your case back to the appeal courts.
can ewe read ya silly old knt.
can ewe read ya silly old knt.
CagliariG 21 Sep 26 23:51
Are you really so thick that you don't understand that a request i.e an appeal has to be made?
only 1 thicko ear dc.
Are you really so thick that you don't understand that a request i.e an appeal has to be made?
only 1 thicko ear dc.
CagliariG 21 Sep 26 23:51
Are you really so thick that you don't understand that a request i.e an appeal has to be made?
for the 7th time..both appeals have FAILED. There is NO appeal.
Are you really so thick that you don't understand that a request i.e an appeal has to be made?
for the 7th time..both appeals have FAILED. There is NO appeal.
So how did the CRCC get involved shafter, any odds you like off their own back which was possible or a request from her legal team which is no offers?
didn't seem to be any new evidence - the doctor they used had no experience with new-born babies and could not be used as a cpurt expert in this case. you wouldhave thought they would use someone with the right credentials.
very selective documentary - a propaganda piece not an investigation of the whole case e.g. where was the mention of the dates she marked in her diary when babies died? or her changing medical records? etc,
very selective documentary - a propaganda piece not an investigation of the whole case e.g. where was the mention of the dates she marked in her diary when babies died? or her changing medical records? etc,
... Yep and the horrendous spike in deaths when she was on the ward going to practically zero ( 1 I think ) after she was arrested.
he's bought some apples..i cant see the appeal.
Thick as you are shafter you should have either read the earlier posts and realised it was accepted that her 2 appeals had failed and the case was with the CCRC or just trotted on. If the case is referred back to the Appeals Court it then becomes...........shock horror.....an appeal!!! You may want to have a word with the newspapers as well e.g The Observer 20th Sep 2026 " Lucy Letby's legal team still confident of APPEAL despite damning Thirwall report.
The i paper 21 Sep 2026 " Five new claims about Lucy Letby - and what it means for her APPEAL hopes". etc etc
The i paper 21 Sep 2026 " Five new claims about Lucy Letby - and what it means for her APPEAL hopes". etc etc
there is no appeal as yet...how fkn dense are ewe?
CagliariG 21 Sep 26 23:19
Any change of opinion tonight Regbutler? I think probably not and you will be more convinced that her conviction does not pass the sniff test and perhaps even the doubters and pro conviction crowd will have to have a rethink?
The so called evidence comes down to opinion from medics who presented it to a jury who were hardly a Jury of Peers, her defence team seem to have let her down badly, the CPS, Police and the Judiciary appear to have colluded from an early stage, seems they still are by taking so long on her appeal?
toby...THERE IS NO APPEAL...capiche?
Any change of opinion tonight Regbutler? I think probably not and you will be more convinced that her conviction does not pass the sniff test and perhaps even the doubters and pro conviction crowd will have to have a rethink?
The so called evidence comes down to opinion from medics who presented it to a jury who were hardly a Jury of Peers, her defence team seem to have let her down badly, the CPS, Police and the Judiciary appear to have colluded from an early stage, seems they still are by taking so long on her appeal?
toby...THERE IS NO APPEAL...capiche?
They do not come much thicker than you shafter, what is the case called if referred back to the Courts by the CCRC?
Tobymugs..for the eight time.
The CCRC have as yet not reached a decision..therefore her case has NOT been referred back to an appeal at the crown court..
the fact you're thicker than Mandingo's cóck is incontrovertible.
The CCRC have as yet not reached a decision..therefore her case has NOT been referred back to an appeal at the crown court..
the fact you're thicker than Mandingo's cóck is incontrovertible.
CagliariG 21 Sep 26 23:19
The so called evidence comes down to opinion from medics who presented it to a jury who were hardly a Jury of Peers, her defence team seem to have let her down badly, the CPS, Police and the Judiciary appear to have colluded from an early stage, seems they still are by taking so long on her appeal?
THERE IS NO APPEAL. 8 TIMES YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD AND YET EWE STILL WAFFLE UTTER SHÍTE.
The so called evidence comes down to opinion from medics who presented it to a jury who were hardly a Jury of Peers, her defence team seem to have let her down badly, the CPS, Police and the Judiciary appear to have colluded from an early stage, seems they still are by taking so long on her appeal?
THERE IS NO APPEAL. 8 TIMES YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD AND YET EWE STILL WAFFLE UTTER SHÍTE.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539