The Trial of Lucy Letby

[kabbes]

Like I said, I don't really have an idea. Do you think the juries in both trials got it wrong?

I’ve no idea. I don’t know all the evidence that was presented. But the Guardian article certainly makes a convincing case that the main evidence relied on was extremely dubious. And if there is no good evidence (circumstantial or otherwise), there’s no case.

It seems that Letby’s defence intentionally rejected the use of a host of experts willing to testify that the prosecution evidence was faulty. That’s probably what lost her the case. And having failed to use it in the main trial, that expert testimony was prohibited from use in any appeal. So no jury has ever seen the counter-testimony. Would they have convicted if they had? We’ll never know. WTF the defence were playing at, though, I have no idea

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Possibly convinced of her guilt, as in the Birmingham/Guildford etc. cases. The same people who prosecute also defend, they must develop bias during their working lives...

 

[Plumdaff]

It seems that successful appeals on the basis of poor representation are extremely rare. It does also seem like the prosecution evidence should have been more rigorously examined at trial though.

 

[ouirdeaux]

How does one explain the diary entries where she clearly says that she deliberately killed them, and the falsification of the medical records?

Now you could construct a scenario where an innocent nurse, understandably distraught by all the deaths that were happening when she was on duty, might start thinking that it was all her fault, that she should have noticed something or done something differently, and eventually began to believe she had killed the babies intentionally. And then she would have to hide the evidence that she was there. But with every additional assumption that you have to make to account for this behaviour, it sounds less and less plausible.

And has she ever said anything to that effect in her defence?

 

[kabbes]

How does one explain the diary entries where she clearly says that she deliberately killed them, and the falsification of the medical records?

One explanation is that she killed them and wrote it in her diary.
Another is that she was a fantasist
Another is that she was expunging a sense of guilt
Another is that she just wrote insane shit in a place she didn’t expect anybody to ever read.

I can’t say that any of those is more likely than any other. Not without lengthy interviews, at least. One clue, though, might be if she ever wrote she had done something where it was clear she had not. If there is a pattern of false confession, that would throw doubt on these confessions too. Could still be real, though.

I have to say, though, that I personally think that diaries are weak as shit when it comes to meaningful evidence.

 

[ouirdeaux]

All of those possibilities exist, and the less murderous ones may not be thought that implausible in themselves.

But if she went to the extra step of falsifying records, it starts to look dodgier. She must have known how serious altering the records was. If she was caught doing that sort of thing for shits and giggles, without the slightest intent to cover up anything, it would be bad enough.

And again, as far as I'm aware, she has never said anything to support any one of these possible scenarios of innocence that other people are constructing for her.

 

[dylans]

Yet two separate juries have now found her guilty on all counts.

Given the number of people convicted compared to the number of false convictions, yes it is pretty rare.

CCRC Annual Report - Criminal Cases Review Commission

2021/22 Annual Report for the CCRC - the body that investigates miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

ccrc.gov.uk

 

[Sasaferrato]

There were 1.08 million offenders sentenced in the year ending June 2023.

 

[Gaia]

Yet two separate juries have now found her guilty on all counts.

And...? Sally Clark was found guilty on all counts for the murders of her infant sons by two separate juries. She was fully exonerated then died of accidental alcohol overdose. All because Roy Meadows wanted the fame. He made up the stats which convicted her - and, after her - and her husband's -conviction was quashed, so were the convictions of three other women: Angela Cannings, Trupti Patel and Donna Anthony, all of whom had been accused of Munchausen's by Proxy by David Southall, and all of whom had Meadows acting as an expert prosecution witness at their trials.

Do I believe Letby to be innocent...? On the balance of probabilities her conviction is shaky at best... She's no Beverley Allitt.

 

[dylans]

There were 1.08 million offenders sentenced in the year ending June 2023.

Of course miscarriages are rare. No one denies that. However my point is that they are not so rare that "she was found guilty by a jury" is the game winning claim to authority that those who chant it think it is, There are innumerable examples of juries getting it wrong, Enough for us to be wary of relying on the simple fact that a jury found someone guilty as the end of the story. I was heavily involved in the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 campaigns. I spent 10 years fighting for their release. They are casesI know very very well and the fact that they were found guilty by juries was always the reply of those who insisted on their guilt and in the early years it was the overwhelming consensus that they were guilty.
In those cases the jury verdicts were also strengthened by forensics, very powerful evidence that seemed to prove they had handled nitroglycerine which was found on their skin and clothes. Of course the forensics were faulty but that wasnt known for many years . In the Lucy Letby case there is absolutely no forensic evidence whatsoever. None. The entire case is based on circumstance and statistics and very serious questions have been raised about both.

My point is simple, the fact that a person was found guilty by a jury is not an argumement to dismiss or ignore ongoing questions about the validity of a verdict. Those questions have to remain focused on the evidence regardless of what a jury decided . So when I hear "Yet two separate juries have now found her guilty on all counts." My response is "So what? "

 

[edcraw]

But you can't make that the sole basis for questioning the outcome of this individual case.

That's what conspiracy theorists do: "Country X did a false flag operation 55 years ago therefore it's highly likely that (insert latest incident here) is also a false flag."
Proof is what's needed, and tons of it, and so far two juries have found absolutely nothing to support claims of Letby's supposed innocence,

One of the main issues is what evidence the juries were shown not with the decisions they came to - e.g. a professional expert witness presenting dodgy statistics.

This from the Guardian article is pretty key:

 

[Plumdaff]

Wasn't Letby doing shedloads of bank (extra) shifts on top of her standard hours? Nurses are fixed presences on wards, especially in intensive care, in a very different way than doctors, so any nurse is more likely to be present, and any nurse who works full time and does extra shifts is even more likely to be around.

 

[tim]

Possibly convinced of her guilt, as in the Birmingham/Guildford etc. cases. The same people who prosecute also defend, they must develop bias during their working lives...

Except the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4 were convicted on the basis of faked confessions. Nobody has challenged them authenticity of the confessional notes that Letby wrote.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Except the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4 were convicted on the basis of faked confessions. Nobody has challenged them authenticity of the confessional notes that Letby wrote.

She said that they weren't confession notes. She wrote them when she was under investigation by her employer, and she was depressed and stressed. She was writing down the things that the employer was accusing her of.

 

[editor]

And...? Sally Clark was found guilty on all counts for the murders of her infant sons by two separate juries. She was fully exonerated then died of accidental alcohol overdose. All because Roy Meadows wanted the fame. He made up the stats which convicted her - and, after her - and her husband's -conviction was quashed, so were the convictions of three other women: Angela Cannings, Trupti Patel and Donna Anthony, all of whom had been accused of Munchausen's by Proxy by David Southall, and all of whom had Meadows acting as an expert prosecution witness at their trials.

Do I believe Letby to be innocent...? On the balance of probabilities her conviction is shaky at best... She's no Beverley Allitt.

Maybe she is totally innocent and everything has been an unhappy coincidence but citing unrelated cases from a quarter of a century ago really is totally irrelevant.

 

[emanymton]

Of course miscarriages are rare. No one denies that. However my point is that they are not so rare that "she was found guilty by a jury" is the game winning claim to authority that those who chant it think it is, There are innumerable examples of juries getting it wrong, Enough for us to be wary of relying on the simple fact that a jury found someone guilty as the end of the story. I was heavily involved in the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 campaigns. I spent 10 years fighting for their release. They are casesI know very very well and the fact that they were found guilty by juries was always the reply of those who insisted on their guilt and in the early years it was the overwhelming consensus that they were guilty.
In those cases the jury verdicts were also strengthened by forensics, very powerful evidence that seemed to prove they had handled nitroglycerine which was found on their skin and clothes. Of course the forensics were faulty but that wasnt known for many years . In the Lucy Letby case there is absolutely no forensic evidence whatsoever. None. The entire case is based on circumstance and statistics and very serious questions have been raised about both.

My point is simple, the fact that a person was found guilty by a jury is not an argumement to dismiss or ignore ongoing questions about the validity of a verdict. Those questions have to remain focused on the evidence regardless of what a jury decided . So when I hear "Yet two separate juries have now found her guilty on all counts." My response is "So what? "

The same also applies to people found not guilty. It annoys me when people act like someone bring found not guilty means you have to change your mind if you thought they were guilty before. No, the level of proof required for a criminal conviction is, correctly, very high so just because someone gets found not guilty does not mean you have to believe they are innocent.

Anyway bugbear aside, you are right that her being found guilty by 2 juries doesn't prove she is guilty, but it can't just be dismissed either. They jury has heard the evidance in far more detail than we have and their assessment of it needs to be taken into account when forming your own opinion. In most cases the strongest single peice of evidence we have as outside observers is the jury verdict, and it is not unreasonable to generally trust it.

Because of that and because of what bits I have read about the case I think she is most likely guilty, but I would be open to changing my mind down the line.

 

[kabbes]

They jury has heard the evidance in far more detail than we have

The problem in this case, though, is that this is not true. The jury were not presented with the expert testimony published by the Guardian, which is in favour of the defence. That’s the fault of the defence counsel, nobody else. But justice is not a game and I don’t care that the losing team played badly and brought it on themselves, I just want it done properly.

 

[emanymton]

The problem in this case, though, is that this is not true. The jury were not presented with the expert testimony published by the Guardian, which is in favour of the defence. That’s the fault of the defence counsel, nobody else. But justice is not a game and I don’t care that the losing team played badly and brought it on themselves, I just want it done properly.

Yes very true, I should have said, we may have information they didn't when forming our opinion.

As and aside I can't imagine what it must feel like to be one of the jurors reading it in the press and having to consider if you still stand by your verdict.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Maybe she is totally innocent and everything has been an unhappy coincidence but citing unrelated cases from a quarter of a century ago really is totally irrelevant.

It's not unrelated. Both cases rely on statistical analyses. In the Sally Clark case, the mistake was pointed out at the time by the Royal Statistical Society, among others. And this same society is also criticising the use of stats in the Letby case.

It's really not totally irrelevant to cite past cases of wrongful convictions based on bad statistics (and utterly shattered life in the case of Sally Clark, who never recovered from it - the system as good as killed her).

 

[freshapple]

It's not unrelated. Both cases rely on statistical analyses. In the Sally Clark case, the mistake was pointed out at the time by the Royal Statistical Society, among others. And this same society is also criticising the use of stats in the Letby case.

It's really not totally irrelevant to cite past cases of wrongful convictions based on bad statistics (and utterly shattered life in the case of Sally Clark, who never recovered from it - the system as good as killed her).

Yes 25 year old bad stats are the same as 6 month old bad stats

 

[hash tag]

Just seen this

Ex-health minister makes controversial claims Lucy Letby 'could be innocent'

Nadine Dorries has left many appalled after penning a column in which she claims serial killer nurse who murdered seven babies could be innocent, saying there was no concrete evidence of her guilt

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[emanymton]

Just seen this

Ex-health minister makes controversial claims Lucy Letby 'could be innocent'

Nadine Dorries has left many appalled after penning a column in which she claims serial killer nurse who murdered seven babies could be innocent, saying there was no concrete evidence of her guilt

www.mirror.co.uk

Well that clears it up then, she has to be guilty.

 

[Boo Radley75]

Mad Nads understanding the mind of a woman doing awful things while having an obsessive crush on a married superior, isn't beyond the realms of possibilities, to be fair..

 

[ElizabethofYork]

More people questioning the safety of the conviction.

Former minister David Davis to launch Lucy Letby probe after experts cast doubt

David Davis will question the conviction of child-killer nurse Lucy Letby using parliamentary privilege from September

www.independent.co.uk

 

[two sheds]

Private Eye printing their doubts in article that they were stopped from publishing September last year.

 

[SpookyFrank]

More people who have no relevant knowledge or experience questioning the safety of the conviction.

CFY

 

[ElizabethofYork]

CFY

Oh, so statisticians, senior medics and colleagues of LL have no relevant knowledge or experience? Interesting point of view.

You didn't read the article, did you?

 

[PR1Berske]

Private Eye printing their doubts in article that they were stopped from publishing September last year.

Bought the issue specifically to read the article. I'm still really between two stools in her conviction.. It's such a bizarre case where "enough evidence" and "not enough evidence" appear true at the same time.

 

[edcraw]

Also covered in the Private Eye podcast about 30mins in.

 

[edcraw]

.