Tye trouble with the inquiry is that it is working from the position that it was Letby that killed those babies. If it was anything to do with the standard / quality/ competence of the unit itself, including the “hygeine” issues that have been raised it will all just get swept under the carpet.Lucy Letby hospital outlines 15 reasons why ‘baby killer’ was innocent
Neonatal ward manager lists why nurse, who would eventually be convicted of murder, could not be behind the deaths of babieswww.telegraph.co.uk
Not necessarilyTye trouble with the inquiry is that it is working from the position that it was Letby that killed those babies. If it was anything to do with the standard / quality/ competence of the unit itself, including the “hygeine” issues that have been raised it will all just get swept under the carpet.
Yes , the fact is that she has been found guilty following a potentially flawed process.( Flawed in That her defence team don't seem to have presented a particularly competent or complete defence. Had they done that, all this stuff that has come out since would have been both unnecessary and irrelevant.Not necessarily
And factually at the moment she has been found guilty
I’m with you though
Out of interest Malc, what is your legal background?Yes , the fact is that she has been found guilty following a potentially flawed process.( Flawed in That her defence team don't seem to have presented a particularly competent or complete defence. Had they done that, all this stuff that has come out since would have been both unnecessary and irrelevant.
There is clearly quite widespread doubt among the general public which would not have been the case if all these post trial challenges had actually been made at the correct time, I,e, during the trial By letsby’s defence team defence team.
The fact that no defence expert witnesses were put up is pretty self evident of an inadequate defence. I have no legal training but have represented myself in a couple of situations having done quite a lot of relvant case research, quite easy to do theses days. Not criminal stuff, I am a fully qualified barrack room lawyer. “ Won“ against a building society who were represented by solicitors. Something else is coming down the tracks related to pension overpayment. Will be mking an arguemenet based on laches and estoppel.Out of interest Malc, what is your legal background?
Not having a pop, but I keep reading what a poor defence was put up, but to my knowledge it's a throwaway comment and not by anyone with any legal training or background.
The fact that no defence expert witnesses were put up is pretty self evident of an inadequate defence.
Or not, as it were:Wow
Lucy Letby wants murder conviction review after expert witness 'changes mind'
Letby has lost two bids this year to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appealwww.standard.co.uk
Surely with that much legal experience you know the reality is that there are 10 sides to every story, all of which could be argued / presented by a single lawyer.I don’t see that the absence of expert witnesses is necessarily “self-evident” of an incompetent defence. It could just be that no experts could be found at the time who were prepared to support the defence case.
The whole affair came to light when consultants (obviously experts) in the unit reported their concerns about her.
Please note that I am not saying that you are wrong, simply that I don’t think that on this particular point at least it is obviously clear cut. I make the point purely in the interests of balance.
My 47 years of experience in the legal profession have, if nothing else, taught me that there are usually two sides to every story.
In this case it feels a bit like the medical expert was looking for what he foundAm speaking from experience when I say this, but Legal Medical Experts can come to some very strange conclusions when reviewing medical evidence.
Certainly the police were reaching with the statistical linksIn this case it feels a bit like the medical expert was looking for what he found
Quite a turnaround from your posts on page 1 of this thread!
He's not commented on it either way, simply reposted the current link from the main news channel.Quite a turnaround from your posts on page 1 of this thread!
I think going from "she's scum who should have her kneecaps removed and be put to death" on page 1, to "here's a news article that claims she may not be a murderer at all" is quite a turnaround whether there's a comment today or not!He's not commented on it either way, simply reposted the current link from the main news channel.
Is that your journalistic interpretation?I think going from "she's scum who should have her kneecaps removed and be put to death" on page 1, to "here's a news article that claims she may not be a murderer at all" is quite a turnaround whether there's a comment today or not!
The medical experts in the video you mean?This is still just randoms who haven’t seen all the evidence and are going of media reports right?
The medical experts in the video you mean?
It's a group of doctors, including one whose study on air embolism was used by the prosecution as proof of Letby's guiltThis is still just randoms who haven’t seen all the evidence and are going of media reports right?
No?Is that your journalistic interpretation?
It's a group of doctors, including one whose study on air embolism was used by the prosecution as proof of Letby's guilt
Apparently the lead guy is the author of the paper that was cited as evidence she was guilty but he's saying they've not properly interpreted what was in his paper and it wouldn't apply in these circumstances.This is still just randoms who haven’t seen all the evidence and are going of media reports right?
Yes that’s as I understand it tooBut they’re just interested third parties, not the appeals panel or people with access to the evidence?
They're medical experts who say they have studied the evidence of the case (and produced new evidence) that show no murders took place.But they’re just interested third parties, not the appeals panel or people with access to the evidence?
Letby's legal team has applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to have the case go back to appeal - that can't happen unless new evidence is presented, and that's what's happened today.Meddling then.
Perhaps they're not really helping and should let the evidence and any retrial (if there are grounds for one) take its course and accept the verdict of her peers.
Has it been presented? It reads as though they've found some 'international experts' who surprisingly favour the narrative they are supporting. It will be interesting to see if it genuinely is 'new evidence' and whether the courts rule that is enough to reopen the case. As it stands she remains guilty and her supporters are exploring other avenues.Letby's legal team has applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to have the case go back to appeal - that can't happen unless new evidence is presented, and that's what's happened today.
They're medical experts who say they have studied the evidence of the case (and produced new evidence) that show no murders took place.
The head of this independent panel says he decided to review the evidence (and contribute the new evidence) because he believed his studies had been misinterpreted by the prosecution. There's an interview with him here (you'll probably need a paywall blocker to read it): My research was misused to convict Lucy Letby — so I did my own inquiryHas it been presented? It reads as though they've found some 'international experts' who surprisingly favour the narrative they are supporting. It will be interesting to see if it genuinely is 'new evidence' and whether the courts rule that is enough to reopen the case. As it stands she remains guilty and her supporters are exploring other avenues.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?