Here’s another interesting article https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...alth-law-public

 

In this I agree that it’s a high likelihood that 12 random members of the public probably cannot be in a position to understand the complexities of a case like this.

 

This part is key

 

Yet if Lee is right, then Letby has been doomed to die in jail for something she didn’t do. When even the ex-director of public prosecutions Ken Macdonald – hitherto a stern critic of bystanders challenging the Letby verdict without understanding the evidence – begins arguing that such is the public unease that the Criminal Cases Review Commission “will want to look at this very carefully”, something is afoot. This is no longer just about one conviction, but public confidence in everything from the safety of maternity units to the ongoing public inquiry into the Letby case, the effective functioning of the appeal courts and the use of medical evidence in trials. It has become a kind of test case for justice itself.

 

Are lay juries the right people to assess incredibly complex medical evidence like this? I’ve never forgotten reporting years ago on a coroner’s inquest involving a jury, where it became obvious from the questions they were asking the coroner that some jurors were hopelessly lost. It was uncomfortable for everybody watching but agonising for the parents of the child involved, reliant for a verdict on people who didn’t seem to understand the evidence. To be blunt, that’s probably where jury cases end up more often than anyone wants to think, because the alternative to juries with all their human flaws is losing the right to trial by your peers. But this system requires expert witnesses who can boil technical evidence down into clear and simple terms, and therein lies a risk.

 

In their forensic account of the trial, Unmasking Lucy Letby, the BBC journalists Jonathan Coffey and Judith Moritz describe the perplexing case of baby O, where the original pathologist and the prosecution’s pathologist disagreed about his cause of death. The authors commissioned a third pathologist to adjudicate, who promptly disagreed with both the others. Though it’s perfectly normal for good scientists to disagree in good faith, their anonymous expert added that “courts want people who are more absolute”, so the same very confident people get asked again and again. And since “everyone knows who the hawks are and who the doves are”, lawyers soon learn who to call, depending on the answer they need.

 

 

Legal aid limits what the defense can call on as experts often aren’t cheap and don’t do it for free. The prosecution has unlimited money. So if you know what rent a mob sketchy people are willing to sell their soul to frame that’s a crazy situation.

 

The statistical evidence has been widely challenged by every statistician out there and the response from Dewi is that it ‘played a small part’

 

The air embolism evidence was refuted by the very guy who’s paper he cited and he again said well ‘that’s only a small part’

 

It’s obvious he came to the table with the notion she was guilty and tried to prove it by putting forward theories. He worked backwards. This wasn’t fully evident in court because her defense had no real experts and all of this wasn’t known to everybody else at that point.

 

So they presented to the Jury 12 or 11 as it became a case based off flawed statistical data(the jury didn’t know it was flawed)

Then presented a very one sided case citing the most complex medical details random members of the public probably don’t understand with cherrypicked experts to make flawed theories seem plausible with no real defense to give the full story. It’s not a surprise she was found guilty even if only two counts were unanimous.

 

To say with all we know now that she shouldn’t get an appeal when it’s more likely than not she’s innocent and the doubt is huge either way makes a mockery of the justice system altogether.

 

This just shows you can be stitched up by the state and if they do it in a specific way your only recourse will fall flat. This woman has experts all over the world working for free to illustrate they got it wrong and MPs too and she still can’t get an appeal. What chance does someone lesser known or high profile have? Not a great system

Edited February 7Feb 7 by Liam sota

The air embolism evidence was refuted by the very guy who’s paper he cited and he again said well ‘that’s only a small part’

 

Can I just point out, this was a reference that neither proved nor disproved air embolisms, there were 17 other pieces of evidence related to them. So he would need to discredit all of them, not just revise and update his own paper (which incidentally still includes discolouration in vascular air embolism)

 

That is the reason why it has been ruled as irrelevant.

Tell me if I'm got the wrong end of the stick, or sorry this has already been explained before, but why do people think Lucy Letby is innocent?

Tell me if I'm got the wrong end of the stick, or sorry this has already been explained before, but why do people think Lucy Letby is innocent?

 

Because all the reasons that pointed to her guilt are turning out to be hugely flawed. The main expert used to present her guilt now has huge question marks over his motivation and credibility and hundreds of experts believe they died due to a result of a poorly run unit understaffed and dealing with superbugs and other issues at the time. Essentially she was made a scapegoat for NHS or other doctors failings.

 

So for example there have been various spikes of baby deaths at various hospitals and different reasons cited https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke...re-65467626.amp

 

Just so happens on this one a few doctors questioned if Lucy had anything to do with them, the police investigated and eventually they hired an expert who offered to help who turns out to be very sketchy and he painted the picture she murdered them all via various different means then they built a case upon flawed statistics and ‘confession’ notes but ultimately every piece of evidence is hotly disputed although it didn’t seem that way at the time.

 

A prominent solicitor has now said he has changed his mind and thinks she should get an appeal while also raising doubts over Dewi’s credibility https://edition.pagesuite.com/infinity/arti...&share=true

 

 

Tell me if I'm got the wrong end of the stick, or sorry this has already been explained before, but why do people think Lucy Letby is innocent?

 

I've seen a lot of people online parroting the line "she's a scapegoat for failings at the hospital"

 

Because, you know, supposed "failings" really looks worse/more damning than an active serial killer working on the unit. (One which they did everything they could to avoid investigating for the longest time)

I've seen a lot of people online parroting the line "she's a scapegoat for failings at the hospital"

 

Because, you know, supposed "failings" really looks worse/more damning than an active serial killer working on the unit. (One which they did everything they could to avoid investigating for the longest time)

 

True in a way, maybe that’s not the reason maybe it’s just one mistake leading to another mistake. That’s not too uncommon

Another key piece of evidence has been rubbished after a long investigation

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/fe...ons-experts-say

 

 

The claim that Lucy Letby definitely poisoned babies with insulin has “no scientific justification whatsoever” and there is a “very strong level of reasonable doubt” about the convictions, according to the authors of a 100-page study on the case.

 

Prof Geoff Chase, one of the world’s foremost experts on the effect of insulin on pre-term babies, told the Guardian it was “very unlikely” anyone had administered potentially lethal doses to two of the infants.

 

The prosecution told jurors at Letby’s trial there could be “no doubt that these were poisonings” and that “these were no accidents” based on the babies’ blood sugar results.

 

However, a detailed analysis of the infants’ medical records by leading international experts in neonatology and bioengineering has concluded that the data presented to the jury was “inconsistent” with poisoning.

It gets worse

 

The prosecution said test results that showed low blood sugar and “abnormally high” insulin levels, with very low levels of C-peptide, meant it “must be that they have been given or taken” synthetic insulin that had not been prescribed.

 

However, a new 100-page report by Chase, a distinguished professor of bioengineering at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, and the British chemical engineering expert Helen Shannon, says low blood sugar levels are “not uncommon” in pre-term infants.

 

The study adds that insulin poisoning would probably have resulted in far lower levels of potassium and glucose than the babies’ records show, and points out that they showed no symptoms of severe insulin poisoning, such as seizures or heart arrhythmia.

 

The repercussions if or when this is overturned will be pretty big. She’s already basically done 10 years. Netflix are due to release a documentary on her innocence in the next few months too.

I may be speaking out of turn here but a part of me does have to wonder if there would be this much defence and media backing of someone found guilty of killing babies if they weren't a young, attractive white woman...

 

There is nothing presented so far that's enough to overturn the overwhelming evidence against her.

There is nothing presented so far that's enough to overturn the overwhelming evidence against her.

 

I mean??? Literally every piece of evidence against her has been largely debunked by the top experts in the world in that field. Fail to see what more could possibly be put on the table at this point.

 

I may be speaking out of turn here but a part of me does have to wonder if there would be this much defence and media backing of someone found guilty of killing babies if they weren't a young, attractive white woman...

 

It’s a narrative put out there but what does it really mean? Literally the media crucified her and almost everyone saw it as an open and shut case and dismissed her as evil and moved on. All that changed is people got the other side of the story she didn’t suddenly become young and white

It means that she's an easy fit for a rootable figure that the media can create a narrative behind that would get people sympathising with her, you can also see it in Madeleine McCann getting incredibly disproportionate coverage over other kidnappings/child killings, particularly from impoverished backgrounds. People are fickle, it's easy to turn the tide.

 

There are many experts in the world and if you look hard enough, you can find some that disagree with one another. This is a panel of a mere fourteen that have had no involvement in the case, that is not enough to overturn the overwhelming evidence against her in the eleven month trial where amongst other factors, she was the only nurse on duty for most of the murders, she was clearly mentally unwell and had researched the families of the babies that were killed and the written confessions amongst a whole load more. Expert shopping and a media circus is not valid grounds for a retrial and I expect the CCRC to keep to this.

There are many experts in the world and if you look hard enough, you can find some that disagree with one another. This is a panel of a mere fourteen that have had no involvement in the case, that is not enough to overturn the overwhelming evidence against her in the eleven month trial where amongst other factors, she was the only nurse on duty for most of the murders, she was clearly mentally unwell and had researched the families of the babies that were killed and the written confessions amongst a whole load more. Expert shopping and a media circus is not valid grounds for a retrial and I expect the CCRC to keep to this.

 

If completely refuting the evidence isn’t valid grounds for a retrial then nothing is. Why should there be a higher bar to prove innocence than to prove guilt?

 

Yes true there are many experts and that’s why one who retired 15 years ago who has previously had his theories described by a judge as ‘worthless and garbage’ probably shouldn’t be the one leading the prosecutions case. But he was. He came up with theories that have since reached the wider world and world leading experts in these fields have all thoroughly debunked each and every theory he asserted. It just didn’t happen in court hence random members of the jury are not going to be aware how flawed it was. That’s the whole point of an appeal process. Lucy Letby herself went along with the assertion babies were injected with insulin as it was presented like it was fact. Almost certainly false. That alone should be grounds for a retrial or throwing it out.

 

As for the rest it’s all been debunked. She wasn’t alone in most murders, almost never alone, she wasn’t even at the hospital for two of them at the time of them. Statisticians in huge numbers have all debunked this over and over. She worked the most, she worked overtime, she lived closest to the hospital, if there ever was a spike in deaths she was always going to be the nurse there the most. They @1887188090990514622

 

As for the confession every psychologist and criminologist said this wasn’t a confession. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article...-of-counsellors

 

She essentially wrote what others were saying about her as instructed by her therapist then said it wasn’t true.

David Wilson, a professor of criminology at Birmingham City University, who specialises in serial killers, said in his view the so-called confession notes were “meaningless” and had no value as evidence, particularly if they had been written as part of counselling. “Many people will say things when they are under stress and feeling bereft, that seem to imply one thing but mean nothing at all, other than reflecting the underlying stress.”

 

“I always thought Letby’s notes were meaningless as evidence. If they were written as part of therapy you can underline that point three times and write it in bold and capital letters,” he added.

 

 

People assumed there was overwhelming evidence. There actually wasn’t much of anything. The trial took so long because there were 14 different babies to go through not because the evidence was overwhelming and this genius they got for the prosecution decided Lucy was using different methods to kill almost every time.

 

You also said she was unwell but this contradicts other nurses and her friends who say she was fine. She became unwell and had a mental breakdown and was put on medication after the accusations and losing her job.

 

 

I definitely think British people have a bizarre trust of institutions because miscarriages of justices happen. This is now a pretty obvious stitch up. The UK has had a blood scandal, post office scandal, Birmingham 6 just recently andrew malkinson and hundreds of others.

 

There is no DNA. No smoking gun. No footage. Nobody ever saw her do anything. The theories on how the babies were murdered are all disproven. You can’t just say well it was a long trial and there are other factors. The main factors don’t exist. Someone looking up families on Facebook isn’t valid grounds for a murder charge. It was a long trial because there were 14 cases not because the evidence was overwhelming.

 

 

As for the race talk that’s just lazy. People throw in race as like a substitute for ignorance. If you don’t understand immigration just dumb it down to a race issue. If you haven’t looked into the nuances and complexities of the case just say people are only defending her because she’s white. That’s really all that is about. This is quite probably one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in 50 years it’ll likely go down in history and lead to changes in the appeal process and laws in general and people are out there talking about it’s only because she’s attractive(she’s not) silly!

 

Liam, with all due respect, you have completely gone down the rabbit hole of TikTok conspiracy theorists on this one.

 

Your basis for this being a huge miscarriage of justice on the scale of the blood scandal, Horizon or Hillsborough is completely different. None of those cases went to trial at the time, most of them were State cover ups or great errors of misjudgement which were blamed on a group of people. The whole basis of a fair trial is laughable - you're right, media influence does play a part I am almost sure of it. But often people want it both ways. Let's take that horrific Southport scum as an example, quite cleary everyone knows he murdered those children. However presentably, his defence could have put up a defence that he did not intend to murder the children and the decison would be at the decision of 12 jurors.

 

I find this whole clamor for a retrail cray. Maybe it may be a miscarriage of justice, maybe it is not. What nobody can ever explain in this case though is why someone can put forward a strong medical defece, absolutely nobody can attest to the circumstancial evidence that was prevented. What people forget is medicine is not a perfected science and clinicians/ pathologists need circumstancial evidence to establish the facts.

 

From everything I have read, I would conclude a guilty verdict. You can find experts who can challenge absolutely everything in this world, the job ultimately is for the defence to prove the innoncence and plant seeds of doubt. Personally for me and as someone who has sat on a jury, the most damning admission in the whole case was her admitting somebody had tampered with the babies, but of course, it was not her. Experts can disprove anything if they want and put together an argument, but circumstancial evidence is crucially important and ultimately why she was found guilty. There is far too much evidence that was just not normal behaviour which proves she was a crap nurse and breached thousands of GDPR laws.

Liam, with all due respect, you have completely gone down the rabbit hole of TikTok conspiracy theorists on this one.

 

Your basis for this being a huge miscarriage of justice on the scale of the blood scandal, Horizon or Hillsborough is completely different. None of those cases went to trial at the time, most of them were State cover ups or great errors of misjudgement which were blamed on a group of people. The whole basis of a fair trial is laughable - you're right, media influence does play a part I am almost sure of it. But often people want it both ways. Let's take that horrific Southport scum as an example, quite cleary everyone knows he murdered those children. However presentably, his defence could have put up a defence that he did not intend to murder the children and the decison would be at the decision of 12 jurors.

 

I find this whole clamor for a retrail cray. Maybe it may be a miscarriage of justice, maybe it is not. What nobody can ever explain in this case though is why someone can put forward a strong medical defece, absolutely nobody can attest to the circumstancial evidence that was prevented. What people forget is medicine is not a perfected science and clinicians/ pathologists need circumstancial evidence to establish the facts.

 

From everything I have read, I would conclude a guilty verdict. You can find experts who can challenge absolutely everything in this world, the job ultimately is for the defence to prove the innoncence and plant seeds of doubt. Personally for me and as someone who has sat on a jury, the most damning admission in the whole case was her admitting somebody had tampered with the babies, but of course, it was not her. Experts can disprove anything if they want and put together an argument, but circumstancial evidence is crucially important and ultimately why she was found guilty. There is far too much evidence that was just not normal behaviour which proves she was a crap nurse and breached thousands of GDPR laws.

 

Clearly you haven’t read much since the trial, I would just recommend reading the articles on the last two pages posted by me and popchart because it’s bizarre to read posts like this. It’s very outdated and almost the opposite of reality.

 

Let me just repeat

 

The vast majority of therapists, psychologists and criminologists all rubbished the ‘confession’ as not a confession at all. More a stream of consciousness written on the advice of her counsellor. This was a key factor in why many thought she was guilty and played a key role in the court case. This isn’t expert shopping or looking for a different opinion. This is the universal conclusion. However in court this was not clear, it was presented as a confession by the prosecution. This is literally just a fact. This is as close to a smoking gun as you got in this case and it’s absolutely not even viable to be evidence in full context.

 

For anyone who cannot be bothered to read the articles. She wrote this on the same ‘confession’ note

 

But in the same notes Letby also said: “Not good enough”, “Why me?”, “I haven’t done anything wrong”, “Police investigation slander discrimination victimisation”.

This was not in any shape a confession. It was somebody trying to process the accusations thrown at her.

 

On a logical level it also made no sense. She could have thrown the ‘confession’ away. The police didn’t arrest her until months and months after their investigation. She had time to throw away any evidence if she wanted to. But obviously if you want to present a misleading case taking notes where the accused write “I am evil, I did this” and presenting it in a misleading way can be persuasive. However this is stitching someone up not proving guilt. Unless you’re just not completely ignorant on therapy or psychology or mental health I don’t see how anyone can dispute that, right?

 

Again every actual expert or credible person has stated that view. So that’s gone. There is no confession.

 

 

 

 

When you take that away you’re left with the theories over the methods of murder. These theories were put together by a court shopper. Someone who came to the case and decided there were murders and tried to invent theories that could explain them. So you’re suggesting you can find anyone to challenge anything. The reality is that they were looking for anyone to create theories that fitted their case and this guy came along and tried to do that. In court that mostly worked. Outside of court once these theories reached actual experts in their fields. They unravelled. Totally. You cannot just dismiss that as well anyone can challenge anything. It’s hearing a the other side of the story which is far more compelling medically and logically than the other side and backed up by a litany of experts in that field.

 

 

So if the confession isn’t a confession.

The methods of murder are wrong.

 

What are you left with?

 

You state

 

Personally for me and as someone who has sat on a jury, the most damning admission in the whole case was her admitting somebody had tampered with the babies

 

I’m assuming you’re referring to the insulin point. So the prosecution presented the case that babies were poisoned with insulin(since refuted by insulin experts, reports, studies etc) and they presented it as a fact. Lucy Letby is a nurse. She’s not an insulin expert. She might not even be that bright. They presented to her as a FACT babies were poisoned with insulin. So she agreed and just said it wasn’t her. That only seems damning without context. The context that no babies were actually poisoned with insulin changes quite a lot about that don’t you think?

You start off with a scenario where somebody has poisoned babies and she’s the most likely suspect so sure it seems damning but when the real evidence shows nobody poisoned them then it’s a completely different story.

 

Logically the insulin thing never made sense. Even when I thought she was guilty I was very lost by one case. She wasn’t there for one of them. And the prosecution allege that she tampered with something before she left and another nurse ended up proscribing it to the baby hours later. It just didn’t make any sense. Now knowing what we know it was obviously the junk specialist Dewi Evans working backwards he found elevated levels of insulin in that babies report and tried to fit a murder or attempted murder around it even though it made little sense.

 

 

 

So what actually is there? There is nothing other than a few things you consider odd which isn’t basis for a murder investigation. I do find a lot of your opinions are very status quo and like you see anything against it as crazy or going down a rabbit hole. Like this is the consensus now. There are very few people who follow this closely who think anything other than a miscarriage of justice. Every statistician, psychologist, criminologist, insulin expert whatever you want. It’s claimed tons of nurses at the hospital still support her but were scared to say anything. Various experts wanted to defend her but were scared they’d lose their jobs.

 

 

This is why juries scare me as a concept too because how can you trust a jury when you have a case like this almost fully debunked and you still have people saying she shouldn’t get an appeal. There was one member of the 11 person jury who found her not guilty on all charges except two which did make me wonder when I thought she was guilty. Why wasn’t he/she convinced? And when you find the two they did find her guilty on they were the ones with the faulty insulin claims that you found most damning which shows it all really.

 

 

From a logic standpoint you have a spike in baby deaths which isn’t uncommon

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63097142.amp

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke...re-65467626.amp

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5gd48v10jo.amp

 

Or you have some serial killing nurse with no motive using different methods each time, evading anyone ever having evidence or seeing her do it.

 

One is just much more likely than the other and that’s what the evidence supports too. But they built a case that painted a completed different picture and essentially a medically inept jury came to the wrong decision, it’s not surprising because almost everybody from what they heard thought she was guilty, I did too. To maintain that given every key piece of evidence is flawed would be lunacy.

 

Juries as a concept scare me.. eeek. It's not uncommon for people to be unconvinced in trials. What I find alarming from this argument is all the armchair conspiracy theorists question the competence of the jurors. So the evidence was always good enough for the jurors to conduct a guilty verdict but not for everybody else. You can present experts who can tell you absolutely anything, such as global warming isn't actually happening (but of course it is). There's tons of evidence both medical and circumstancial which paint her as guilty. Furthermore, even if the prosecution accept what is being presented as evidence as true, it may be that the prosecution is able to argue that the babies were murdered or intentionally mistreated in some way or neglected with the intention of them dying. It's not inconceivable that she would still be found guilty if the prosecution can still make a compelling case.

 

The counter theory to Letby's actions has always been she was a scapegoat to cover up the hospitals inadequicies. The counter argument to this current push is that an element of the right wing will use this as evidence to influence/dismantle the NHS.

Juries as a concept scare me.. eeek. It's not uncommon for people to be unconvinced in trials. What I find alarming from this argument is all the armchair conspiracy theorists question the competence of the jurors. So the evidence was always good enough for the jurors to conduct a guilty verdict but not for everybody else. You can present experts who can tell you absolutely anything, such as global warming isn't actually happening (but of course it is). There's tons of evidence both medical and circumstancial which paint her as guilty. Furthermore, even if the prosecution accept what is being presented as evidence as true, it may be that the prosecution is able to argue that the babies were murdered or intentionally mistreated in some way or neglected with the intention of them dying. It's not inconceivable that she would still be found guilty if the prosecution can still make a compelling case.

 

The counter theory to Letby's actions has always been she was a scapegoat to cover up the hospitals inadequicies. The counter argument to this current push is that an element of the right wing will use this as evidence to influence/dismantle the NHS.

 

The last part is just flat out madness. Funnily enough it’s pretty broadly across the board. You have various people from all segments of the political landscape questioning this case.

 

Owen Jones is a big critic, the guardian seem to be pretty big critics across the board, the telegraph, centrists, right wing whoever. It’s not really a political issue even if it involves a lot of political elements.

 

Armchair conspiracy theorists is an odd thing to call thousands of experts in their field. Have you never heard of a miscarriage of justice? I’m baffled by the faith British people have in institutions when the majority are woeful. The police routinely make errors and abuse their power, we just had a judge named because she gave that little girl full custody to her known abusive dad, the courts took 17 years to recently release Malkinson when they knew he was innocent 10 years earlier. The NHS is a hub of errors and negligence and investigations you could go on forever.

 

How is it alarming to think a random member of the public might struggle with the intricacies of neo natal care? It’s extremely complex.

 

Do people even understand how court cases work? If you hear one side of the story you should be convinced by that. You can do that with anything. You can be convinced someone is guilty or innocent based on one side. Once you hear the other side or alternative theories then you can make a full decision. This is why many cases come down to who had the best lawyer, it’s why rich people get away with most things, it’s why poor people are more likely to be victims of injustice.

 

Do you really trust every random member of the public to be emotionally capable of grasping things like intrusive thoughts?

 

Anyway again you kind of argued the opposite. Experts will tell you anything is what you’re saying and I’m saying that’s who the prosecution had. An expert willing to bend the truth to create a crime that didn’t exist and the vast majority of experts since have exposed this person has flawed and not credible and people are either unable or unwilling to understand that they are using the very logic they should be using on the prosecution to avoid accepting the actual credible specialists rebuttal

 

At this point it’s a psychological experiment to see how humans struggle to let go off opinions or conclusions they made no matter how much evidence contradicts it.

 

I just read an article from Richard & Judy and they have added their voices to the ever growing number seeing this as the biggest injustice of recent memory though in Britain there are quite a few.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnist...ful-convictions

 

Lucy Letby may be the latest in a long line of wrongful convictions – release her

The two of us have hesitated to write about Lucy Letby until now. Her case may be the latest in a long line of wrongful convictions, writes Richard Madeley and and Judy Finnigan.

Lucy Letby murdered seven babies. Lucy Letby did not murder seven babies. Lucy Letby attempted to murder seven more babies. Lucy Letby never tried to kill anyone.

 

Four bold statements, two direct and irredeemable contradictions. Because doubts about the young nurse’s guilt have mushroomed from an uneasy sense that something about this case isn’t quite right, to growing belief that everything about it is very, very wrong.

 

The two of us have hesitated to write about Lucy Letby until now, because to allege that the 35-year- old’s multiple convictions for killing newborns were, in fact, a grotesque miscarriage of justice is a very big deal. Not to be undertaken lightly.

 

Added to that, a generalised sense – almost an unthinking assumption – that no criminal justice system in an advanced society like ours could get things so completely, so dreadfully wrong.

 

And yet... Britain has form for such horrors. The Birmingham Six. The Guildford Four. Going back further, Derek Bentley. Timothy Evans. And bang up to date, the Post Office Horizon scandal.

 

And before you say: “Ah, but that wasn’t a murder case,” just remember innocent sub-postmasters lost their lives as a direct result of being falsely accused of wrongdoing. So, yes; when our criminal justice system gets it wrong, boy does it get it wrong.

 

And this week came the sickening sense that the Lucy Letby case may be the latest in a long line of wrongful convictions. An international panel of experts – 14 of them, no less – concluded that Letby did not kill a single baby in her care.

 

These world-leading specialists in neonatology and child health, reviewed every single one of the so-called murders and found – unanimously – that all the deaths had purely medical explanations. They were either due to natural causes or sub-standard care.

 

The case against Letby was always circumstantial. There was never a shred of direct evidence to prove she was a baby-killer. Now, the entire case against her is close to collapse. Because these were not knee-jerk findings.

 

The panel trawled through each allegation with meticulous care. They were completely neutral and fully prepared from the outset for their findings to endorse the verdicts of the court. But they didn’t.

 

All of which begs the glaringly obvious question. What if there was no crime to begin with? What if the panel is right and each and every death has another explanation?

 

Did the police only examine cases peripherally involving Letby – i.e., she happened to be on duty at the time of the deaths – as it had been decided she was the culprit? A case of forcing a theory to fit the facts?

 

We agree with James Phillips, Boris Johnson’s former special science adviser. He’s called for Letby to be released on parole, saying she is “highly likely innocent” but “stuck in a Kafkaesque system delaying her release”.

 

 

A Kafkaesque system is a great description actually. I hope if she does end up going free people learn a lot from defending bad systems that can lead to such miscarriages of justice and then make them almost impossible to rectify.

 

 

 

Wow a superb article detailing how jury were ill equipped to understand they were being fed a one sided story by cherrypicked experts - https://theconversation.com/lucy-letby-case...evidence-249309

Edited February 8Feb 8 by Liam sota

If Richard & Judy think it's a miscarriage of justice then it must be a sham :lol: Of course the case is political- I did not know the likes of Own Jones were questioning this too, so I'll take the learnings from that, but my point still stands, even if there may be for different motives.

 

Of course I understand how court cases work.. I have actually sat on a jury before! My point is that regardless of any new evidence, a prosecution will put forward an argument against the evidence in a trial. To determine that this now means Letby is not guilty of any crime is far from the truth. That is for the courts to decide.

 

I think one interesting fact is that as far as I am aware, none of the parents seem to have persuaded by anything.

You can’t really involve the parents, this is a crazy thing to do to them mentally. Imagine trying to deal with the fact your baby was murdered and sitting through a long court case you have to accept it to move on. To now consider that’s completely bogus will be mentally a setback. It’s a never ending hell for them so I wouldn’t really expect anything from them at this point.

 

Your faith in the courts is quite something. Even if she does get released soon it’s only because of huge worldwide efforts certainly not because the courts worked properly.

You can’t really involve the parents, this is a crazy thing to do to them mentally. Imagine trying to deal with the fact your baby was murdered and sitting through a long court case you have to accept it to move on. To now consider that’s completely bogus will be mentally a setback. It’s a never ending hell for them so I wouldn’t really expect anything from them at this point.

 

Your faith in the courts is quite something. Even if she does get released soon it’s only because of huge worldwide efforts certainly not because the courts worked properly.

 

Of course its a crazy thing to do, but I meant it as in as far as I am aware, none of the parents involved have been swayed by any new evidence that is being proposed. Judging by the lengths her legal team are going to win the PR battle, you would expect that would be crucial. But they haven't. And personally, I'd value the parents experience and testimonies over anything else. They knew these poor babies as people. I rememebr ready one of the testimonies from the mother at the time. I find it hard to even contemplate what they are going through and my opinion would always side with theirs. If they believed Letby was innocent, then I'd fully support a retrial.

 

Of course I have faith in the British justice legal system. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But as proved, it's why high profile cases like this can be so challenging, and why the likes of Reform are so dangerous when they whip the public in to a frenzy. They are literally enabling people to get away with murder.

Of course its a crazy thing to do, but I meant it as in as far as I am aware, none of the parents involved have been swayed by any new evidence that is being proposed. Judging by the lengths her legal team are going to win the PR battle, you would expect that would be crucial. But they haven't. And personally, I'd value the parents experience and testimonies over anything else. They knew these poor babies as people. I rememebr ready one of the testimonies from the mother at the time. I find it hard to even contemplate what they are going through and my opinion would always side with theirs. If they believed Letby was innocent, then I'd fully support a retrial.

 

Of course I have faith in the British justice legal system. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But as proved, it's why high profile cases like this can be so challenging, and why the likes of Reform are so dangerous when they whip the public in to a frenzy. They are literally enabling people to get away with murder.

 

I just don’t see how they’re in a position to judge in a clear way. If they originally thought she murdered them sure. They didn’t. People told them that ages after and now to go back on it is mentally just impossible because their lives have gone somewhere else.

 

I don’t know what reform have to with anything. From Al Fayed to Saville to millions of others the CPS always refused to prosecute well known sex pests if they were powerful. The judges in this country are horrendous, terrible sentences all over the place. Not a single thing about it I trust.

 

I agree with this article that this case highlights how mythical it is that we have a good justice system https://archive.ph/20250208232951/https://w...1676456604.html

 

Just think about this case from the standpoint she is innocent. Think what that actually entails. They had no evidence of anything. They got a sketchy individual to create sketchy theories, put together anything else they could find and pinned numerous deaths on someone then refused multiple appeals even when they clearly pointed out the errors or the unreliability of the sketchy individual. What kind of system is that?

 

I just listened to a solicitor who explained the prosecution had the funds to access the best in the world. They could have consulted those real experts like the ones on the panel the other day. If they did the case would have never materialised. Instead they left it all down to Dewi Evans. He has 0 peer reviewed papers. Those on the panel have over 1500. He had hundreds of complaints when he was working for poor care but he’s been retired 15+ years and half the theories he came up with were well outside his remit of knowledge. It’s pretty astonishing once people begin to realise what actually happened here. I’m sure this will lead to the system changing but when it does that’s an acknowledgement it wasn’t right before. Yet you have faith in it. Also, again just assume she’s innocent. She’s been mentally tortured for 10 years the stress and damage is irreversible. The last woman to be freed under similar circumstances died from cancer less than 10 years after release.

 

The US doesn’t have majority verdicts. We do. I already don’t trust the public but the fact you don’t even have to convince all 12, sometimes just 10 is even more scary. At minimum this rule has led to 56 miscarriages of justice. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article...es-charity-says

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14...everything.html

 

The case of Lucy Letby, the former nurse convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others, stormed back onto the front pages last week.

In an astonishing turn of events, a Canadian neonatal expert announced at a press conference that ‘the medical evidence doesn’t support murder [or attempted murder]’ in any of the cases.

Dr Shoo Lee – whose research had been cited by the prosecution in Letby’s 2023 trial (incorrectly, he says) – convened an independent panel of international experts to review each case individually.

They concluded that ‘in all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care’, leading many to question the validity of her convictions.

The only opinion to matter is that of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which has the power to refer suspected miscarriages of justice to the Court of Appeal. The body is considering Letby’s application, but if she has any hopes of a swift ruling, she will be disappointed.

 

The truth is the CCRC is not fit for purpose, following a series of high-profile blunders and widespread allegations about its lack of professionalism and interminable length of time it takes to complete even simple cases. Indeed, a retired High Court judge told me recently that ‘it’s a dumping ground for failed barristers’ and the ‘institutionally incompetent’.

Its chair, Helen Pitcher, was forced to quit last month after Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said she was ‘unfit’ to do the job. As CCRC head, Pitcher earned £95,000 a year for two days a week and had a bewildering array of simultaneous appointments. Sometimes she worked from her holiday home in Montenegro.

Given its track record, the CCRC will take years to review the Letby case before deciding whether there is a ‘real possibility’ that judges would quash her convictions. Her legal team will not find encouragement in three CCRC controversies covered in detail by the Mail over the past 12 months.

The first involved Andrew Malkinson. He spent 17 years in jail for a rape he did not commit before his conviction was overturned in July 2023. Documents showed that the DNA of another man was found three years after he was wrongly jailed. But the CCRC did not act on it.

 

Another case concerns Clive Freeman, who has spent 35 years in prison for a murder that may not even have happened, according to experts who reviewed the evidence. Yet 12 months on, despite supposedly ‘expediting’ its investigation because Freeman has cancer, the CCRC appears nowhere near reaching a conclusion. Thirdly, Peter Sullivan – the so-called ‘Beast of Birkenhead’ – is set to walk free after spending 38 years in jail for an appalling sex murder he did not commit.

A belated DNA breakthrough has provided ‘incontrovertible’ evidence that Sullivan – a vulnerable man with learning difficulties – could not have brutalised and sexually mutilated 21-year-old Diane Sindall in 1986. The CCRC failed to order new DNA tests in 2008 when Sullivan applied for his case to be investigated. It has now been referred to the Court of Appeal.

So what has gone wrong at the beleaguered body?

With a budget of around £8million, the CCRC has about 90 staff, of whom 40 are case reviewers. But it is very much a ‘work from home’ body with its investigators scattered all over the country.

It aims to complete at least 85 per cent of cases within 12 months of receiving an application. But almost 100 cases are ‘long running’, meaning they have been under review for more than 24 months.

 

When asked how long the Letby probe would take, the CCRC told The Mail on Sunday that ‘it is not possible to determine how long it will take to review this application’. It has also chastised ‘speculation and commentary... from parties with only a partial view of the evidence’ in Letby’s case.

Matt Foot, co-director of the charity APPEAL, says: ‘The CCRC piously seeking to close down questioning of a conviction shows it is anything but independent.’

Foot points out that, 26 years ago, a then little-known barrister called Keir Starmer co-edited a book Miscarriages Of Justice: A Review Of Justice In Error. ‘Given this,’ Foot says, ‘you would hope that Starmer has the ambition to sort out the mess at the CCRC.’

But the CCRC’s failures are so deep-seated that a makeover or rebrand will not suffice.

A completely new appeals body is needed, with a leadership team including an ex-chief constable, former judges and lawyers. Alongside needs to be case review managers with in-depth knowledge of policing, the law and forensics – something sadly lacking now.

Only with these changes can the public be reassured that the integrity of the criminal justice system is being protected and that where there are serious grounds to challenge a conviction, cases will be expedited. Whether or not that will prove to be the case for Lucy Letby, only time will tell.

 

So the CCRC is awash with failed lawyers looking for a payday. Not ideal