The Trial of Lucy Letby
- Thread starter Magnus McGinty
- Start date
It’s a good article, in that it makes a well-written case that the flawed evidence points to an actual (rather than merely theoretical) miscarriage of justice.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Wow, an awful lot there points to a miscarriage of justice.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Letby's lawyers didn't call their own expert witness to counter the prosecution's expert. They were relying on being able to dismiss the charge as No case to answer. David Allen Green discusses the implications and the possible lacuna in criminal law.
The Lucy Letby case – some thoughts and observations: what should happen when a defence does not put in their own expert evidence (for good reason or bad)?
26th July 2024 Often the criminal cases that feature prominently in the news are really not interesting from a legal(istic) perspective. One could quite happily commentate on interesting legal issu…
davidallengreen.com
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
Surely there are enough reasons now for an appeal?
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
The DAG piece suggests that an appeal might be a consequence of the forthcoming public enquiry. That’s where medical experts will first get an opportunity to say formally on the record that the conviction is unsafe.
Indeliblelink
\......👁&👁......./
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
With Private Eye banging on week after week coupled with The Mail saying we should move on and forget her, my mind has very much been changed on this one.
VivaE
Well-Known Member
I followed the trial from beginning to end. I read every transcript of every day of the hearing. Did anyone else on here follow it?
Because if you did, you'll know that she was convicted on far more evidence than these 'experts' - the majority of whom did not attend, follow or even read the full transcripts of the trial - are now claiming.
The focus on the clinical only fails to take into account all the non-clinical aspects of the evidence against Letby that the jury - those with all the facts at hand, unlike all the 'experts' - based their judgements upon.
Because if you did, you'll know that she was convicted on far more evidence than these 'experts' - the majority of whom did not attend, follow or even read the full transcripts of the trial - are now claiming.
The focus on the clinical only fails to take into account all the non-clinical aspects of the evidence against Letby that the jury - those with all the facts at hand, unlike all the 'experts' - based their judgements upon.
Last edited:
ouirdeaux
Caring, Understanding, Non-judgemental Type
I didn't follow the trial. For me, it was other factors more than the clinical evidence. Not only the things she wrote that would indicate guilt -- which I can see an innocent person doing, for a variety of reasons -- but the falsification of records, which strikes me as much less likely to be the neurotic action of an innocent person.
But I only know that from this thread, and haven't seen it mentioned in articles about the case. Does anyone have a link to something referring to it?
But I only know that from this thread, and haven't seen it mentioned in articles about the case. Does anyone have a link to something referring to it?
VivaE
Well-Known Member
I think the defence did the best job they could, under the circumstances. You can only work with the material you have. And for anyone who followed the trial, they'll know precisely what material that, in the end, amounted to.
Gross NHS failures, sub par care, inadequate staffing, all that applies, but all that is still not remotely enough, based on the evidence put forward at trial against Letby, to jump on this miscarriage of justice train.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
With your far deeper knowledge about this than anyone, what do you make of this:
the governing body of professional statisticians has specifically issued guidance that people should not use this kind (the kind the pros used) of calculation to convict suspects
The same flawed evidence that done for Sally Clark etc.
Does what they say count for anything, in your opinion?
VivaE
Well-Known Member
No, and for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the stats used (or allegedly misused although I don't believe there are any grounds for such charges, having followed the trial) were such an insignificant part of the totality of the evidence against Letby, and secondly, these experts and the media who're (shamefully imo) giving them a platform don't have the first clue as to what the actual evidence WAS - the evidence heard in court over 10 harrowing months - that resulted in her convictions.
The problem here is the source of the miscarriage of justice narrative that's now being given a platform that it really shouldn't have because its focus is not remotely evidence-driven. And a whole lot of it just pure ego driven.
It started on twitter with conspiracy theorist Richard Gill and it escalated from there.
Last edited:
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
'Finally, my expert on insulin says that the definitive test to prove insulin was given was not done. And if the clinical picture of insulin overdose was so obvious at the time, with massive doses of dextrose and glucagon needed to resuscitate the babies, why wasn’t it suspected at the time so the correct test could’ve been done, rather than eight months later in a note trawl? '
If the babies had not been given insulin, what crashed their blood glucose so catastrophically?
medlineplus.gov
From the article: Neonatal hypoglycemia occurs when the glucose level of a newborn causes symptoms or is below the range considered safe for the baby's age. It occurs in about 1 to 3 out of every 1000 births.31 Dec 2023.
From the Wiki report of the case:
Letby herself accepted at trial that the results showed that some victims had been deliberately injected with insulin and did not contest that someone must have administered it to them.[56] Two of the medical expert witnesses described the insulin evidence as the "smoking gun".[57][26]
It seems rather unlikely that several cases of a 1.5 in 1000 incident appear in a single unit in a relatively short time span, if there has been no foul play.
I have highlighted my words in blue.
If the babies had not been given insulin, what crashed their blood glucose so catastrophically?
Low blood sugar - newborns: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
A low blood sugar level in newborn babies is also called neonatal hypoglycemia. It refers to low blood sugar (glucose) in the first few days after birth.
From the article: Neonatal hypoglycemia occurs when the glucose level of a newborn causes symptoms or is below the range considered safe for the baby's age. It occurs in about 1 to 3 out of every 1000 births.31 Dec 2023.
From the Wiki report of the case:
Letby herself accepted at trial that the results showed that some victims had been deliberately injected with insulin and did not contest that someone must have administered it to them.[56] Two of the medical expert witnesses described the insulin evidence as the "smoking gun".[57][26]
It seems rather unlikely that several cases of a 1.5 in 1000 incident appear in a single unit in a relatively short time span, if there has been no foul play.
I have highlighted my words in blue.
That’s quite a claim to make of The New Yorker (who famously fact check everything) & Private Eye!
freshapple
Active Member
How did you get copies of the transcripts? Are they available on request?
VivaE
Well-Known Member
LOL. The NY article was one of the most ignorant, ill-written, irresponsible pieces of reporting I've read about this case. And I'm most certainly not alone in thinking that. Have a google, do.
I'm equally part astonished/part disgusted that Private Eye has gone down the same ignorant rabbit hole, giving a platform to people that didn't follow the trial, admit they never read the transcripts and know little to nothing about the actual evidence that actually convicted Letby.
I have a lot more faith in Private Eye & The New Yorker than our criminal justice system. Please don’t say “have a Google” - share the sites you mean. Really annoying attitude.
maomao
普費斯
There are 1148 hospitals in the UK. Tens of thousands of wards and units. Very unlikely incidents will happen somewhere in the UK every day. Whether or not Letby is guilty (and I admit I don't know enough to believe strongly either way) this is the kind of fallacious reasoning that casts doubt on the process and should be inadmissible as evidence in court.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is basic statistics. Randomness is clumpy. Someone wins the lottery every week. Seemingly improbable coincidences can be statistically likely or even virtually certain to happen somewhere in a big enough events space if you haven't predicted beforehand where it would happen.
I don't know enough about this case to comment definitively, but the Sally Clark case ignored all of these statistical basics. It has happened before.
Yossarian
⏭️
Yep, I read a lot of daily coverage while the trial was ongoing - while I'm not going to wade through hundreds of pages of trial coverage to argue the point, I definitely got the impression that the New Yorker story was cherry-picking some of the weakest points in the case and ignoring a lot of other evidence
Combustible
Well-Known Member
Not to mention a nurse baby serial killer is also an unlikely occurrence. Something unlikely has already happened. So the question is given that an unlikely event has occurred, which of the unlikely causes is most likely, and for a guilty verdict murder should be overwhelmingly more likely.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
PE I do have a lot of respect for, but they still need to make a few quid out of the news and have never been too cautious about trying to create news where there isn't any. For every Post Office scandal, there is a "vaccinations cause autism". They're newsies, not forensic investigators - someone tells them there's a possibility of a miscarriage of justice and they'll grab onto it like a pitbull until it's conclusively disproven. This is a good thing, having checks in the system. But it also means that just because PE champions it, it doesn't make it true.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
So was the Post Office. shrug That's what I compared it to. I don't think we're talking about the same scale here. "Politician corrupt" doesn't even register now, does it?
Edit: To put it another way, corrupted officials and corporate malfeasance is their bread and butter. They know that. Vaccines and the Letby case are all well out of the editorial team's area of expertise and they're taking it up based on just a few data points because it's a great scandal if true. They don't know more than anyone else though. PO you'd expect them to get - corrupt officials.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
From very early days Prof John Ashton who is former Director of Public Health for the north west was banging in about this being a miscarriage of justice. He was one of the first people to sound the alarm on COVID, I've worked with him in the past, and while he definitely likes the sound of his own voice he really knows his stuff and dealt with clusters of neonatal deaths during his career. It's not all usual suspects, conspiracists or people who question stuff as a career who are concerned about this.
Similar threads
