I think her defence lawyer is just extremely incompetent.

I mean, to be fair a lot of the details haven't been made public so we don't actually know.

 

However there are very specific and narrow grounds for appeals to be granted (which she clearly doesn't meet) - otherwise every Tom, Dick & Harry would be appealing their guilty verdicts within 5 minutes.

I mean, to be fair a lot of the details haven't been made public so we don't actually know.

 

However there are very specific and narrow grounds for appeals to be granted (which she clearly doesn't meet) - otherwise every Tom, Dick & Harry would be appealing their guilty verdicts within 5 minutes.

 

Yes but also you could just get unlucky, I do think a lot of people should have an automatic right to appeal. In cases that a juror had to leave and a lot of verdicts were 10-1 especially. Obviously this is a complex case with a lot of people you don't want to put through a trial again and it'll take forever BUT given the potential for a huge miscarriage of justice I think just ruling out an appeal completely doesn't seem right. If the evidence is strong enough and she is guilty surely she will be found guilty again and that will be the end of it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q74dn91do found guilty on another attempted murder

15th whole life order coming her way on Friday

good news. would love to see what the person I saw on this forum who thinks she’s innocent has to say about this lol

In other good news, the sentencing remarks from the previous trial (which she refused to attend) have been read out in court and she's been forced to listen to them this time.

There has been a lot of interesting developments surrounding this. I am conflicted as it’s hard to believe she is innocent but the evidence of guilt is seemingly becoming more and more problematic

Was reading Ex Tory minister David Davis is convinced of her innocence. Several eminent Dr's have written to him giving plausible medical reasons for all the deaths she's accused of causing.

Please don't tell me we're taking DAVID DAVIS of all people seriously here :lol:

 

There's a common misconception that circumstantial evidence is somehow 'bad' or poor quality evidence. This is not true - it's perfectly valid in court, it's often used in murder cases to secure convictions. It doesn't mean what a lot of the public take it to mean, that it isn't "proper" evidence. The literally thousands of pieces of evidence over a trial taking more than nine months convinced a jury that she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven murders and six attempted murders (and a seventh attempted murder by a separate jury).

 

For what it's worth, I never viewed the handwritten notes as a "confession" per se - but more the probable only real glimpse we'll ever get into her mind/psyche. But again, it was one very small piece of a very big puzzle.

 

I believe anyone who honestly thinks this will amount to anything substantial will be waiting a very long time (i.e. forever).

It seems people just have trouble wrapping their head around the fact that a mountain of circumstantial evidence holds equal weight to a single piece of smoking gun evidence in legal proceedings.

Please don't tell me we're taking DAVID DAVIS of all people seriously here :lol:

 

I believe anyone who honestly thinks this will amount to anything substantial will be waiting a very long time (i.e. forever).

 

I really don’t see how it won’t? You have a substantial number of credible and influential and powerful people all raising serious concerns with one huge source of guilt now seemingly being completely void. It’s hard to see how it doesn’t lead to something. If we put aside thinking innocent or guilty and just stick to reasonable doubt there is no way this is a safe conviction at this point.

I really don’t see how it won’t? You have a substantial number of credible and influential and powerful people all raising serious concerns with one huge source of guilt now seemingly being completely void. It’s hard to see how it doesn’t lead to something. If we put aside thinking innocent or guilty and just stick to reasonable doubt there is no way this is a safe conviction at this point.

 

It's important to note this is something that's been alleged in the Guardian (and a "sources say" citation at that), which other publications have since decided to run with.

 

If you really think that'll amount to something, then I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

It's important to note this is something that's been alleged in the Guardian (and a "sources say" citation at that), which other publications have since decided to run with.

 

If you really think that'll amount to something, then I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

The theme is just constant.

 

For example the BBC ran an article 6 days ago focused more around the statistic element and forensic/toxicology - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39k44n8j1mo.amp

 

Both experts they interviewed had a similar conclusion which was there is clear doubt

 

One of the signatories, statistician Prof Peter Green, said he too has no view on Letby’s guilt.

"I have no idea whether she is innocent or not," he said.

"My concern is simply about the possibility that this was not a safe conviction."

Forensic toxicologist Alan Wayne Jones agreed.

"I don’t know whether she’s guilty or not," he said.

"I don’t think anyone knows except Lucy Letby."

So when you combine that with the problems surroundings this confession narrative it’s when it all seems very flimsy.

 

I notice Owen Jones just tweeted this could be the biggest miscarriage of justice

 

@1831315075606458477

 

You have now two Conservative former ministers David Davis & Nadine Dorris both pretty adamant that she’s innocent not just doubt although I’m very skeptical on going that far.

 

The equivalent case in Holland where it was overturned and she was freed Richard Gill a scientist and statistician led that cause and he is one of the main people saying Lucy should not have been found guilty in this case too. There are not just a few contrarians or conspiracy theorists these are often either credible or influential people.

 

The main things that convinced the average person have all been misleading.

 

It was a big point of persuasion to the public that babies stopped dying after she was suspended. But the ward was downgraded meaning they no longer took severely ill babies so that really meant this point was irrelevant.

 

The other was the confession which now appears like therapy work writing every thought down including those of others said about you making that largely redundant of any wrongdoing.

 

The insulin point where she was presented with evidence that proved it was murder so she agreed it was murder but just denied it was her however now various experts dispute this evidence meaning it might not have been murder at all.

 

And the statistics obviously where it was presented as she was on duty for every incident when they actually just didn’t include the incidents she wasn’t around for which is entirely misleading and changes everything.

 

Without these four things nearly everybody sure she’s guilty probably wouldn’t be.

 

Then we have the case that this is Britain with very sketchy police and a very suspect CPS with a history of scandals and abusing the law in one way or another. The CPS already admitted making mistakes over the swipe cards - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lucy-...er-33512463.amp

 

The post office scandal is one which typifies the UK system. Guilty pleas of innocent people taken as proof that their terrible methods were correct until the truth finally came out. The recent riot stuff has been very sketchy too. Putting people’s names and faces out before any guilt, not giving people bail, railroading people into guilty pleas with flimsy charges, stating they’re criminals before any charges it’s all sketchy to make a larger point. Did they just think she’s guilty then throw whatever they could find, get friendly ‘experts’ to find some cause and try to convince a jury of ignorant people on these complex issues to go along with it?

 

This article in the independent covers it all very well https://archive.is/2024.09.03-084137/https:...s-b2605657.html

 

What’s interesting is apparently they’re busy with another case where some guy spent years in jail for a rape he didn’t commit

 

Letby can seek leave to appeal the latest attempted murder conviction – we won’t know unless or until the case is listed for hearing. But a fresh appeal on the other 14 convictions lies solely with the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The CCRC is currently under scrutiny because of its role in the prolonged injustice faced by Andrew Malkinson (who spent 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit). Two reviews of the CCRC's role in the Malkinson case are imminent.

 

It costs 100k to get full court transcripts in the UK. Why is it so expensive? It’s a crazy archaic system sometimes. I fail to see how she can be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I still think she’s guilty but that’s just my opinion, someone can’t be locked up for life on the balance of opinions, the proof is simply not strong enough.

Two politicians maintaining her innocence - two rotted pensioners that barely have a leg of their own to stand on and spew nonsense on a daily basis and likely with zero intelligence other than their gut feelings - is hardly solid foundation for that being the case. I find it really absurd that people keep bringing their names up like their opinion holds any more gravitas than that of any member of the public, whether it's for her being innocent or guilty.

Please don't tell me we're taking DAVID DAVIS of all people seriously here :lol:

 

There's a common misconception that circumstantial evidence is somehow 'bad' or poor quality evidence. This is not true - it's perfectly valid in court, it's often used in murder cases to secure convictions.

 

 

Yes but it's not as good as say DNA, fingerprints,, cctv, witnesses etc etc. You can't tell me that it is. Look at the Bamber case. That was all circumstantial too but many people think the sister did it in a psychotic episode but I think Jeremy's as guilty as sin.

I mean, to be fair a lot of the details haven't been made public so we don't actually know.

 

However there are very specific and narrow grounds for appeals to be granted (which she clearly doesn't meet) - otherwise every Tom, Dick & Harry would be appealing their guilty verdicts within 5 minutes.

 

 

It's usually some new evidence or something that wasn't presented clearly enough to the jury or a procedural failure in court.

 

It's a mighty big co-incidence if she didn't do it. Not just one death but all those and she was with them either before or at time of death.

Edited September 4, 2024Sep 4 by crazy chris

For leave to appeal, there needs to be new evidence. If there was evidence available to the defence that they chose not to present, that isn't good enough. Whether that is fair is a separate issue.

For leave to appeal, there needs to be new evidence. If there was evidence available to the defence that they chose not to present, that isn't good enough. Whether that is fair is a separate issue.

 

It’s certainly not fair if the validity of the evidence that initially secured the conviction has since been called into question.

She would've had months/years to go through that piece of evidence with her defence lawyer, and even all those times in court when it was asked what prompted her to write it, are you suggesting it didn't ONCE occur to her to say "oh yeah, actually my therapist encouraged me to write that"?

 

Seriously, pull the other one. If you believe that, I've got some magic beans you might be interested in buying.