Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Trial of Lucy Letby

This case, and to some extent this thread, reminds me a little of the Louise Woodward case in the late 1990s.

Both cases involved the death of babies; or one baby in Woodward's case. Both involved loud cries of wrongful conviction. And in both cases a photogenic young blonde woman was the person convicted.

I get that the deaths of babies will, quite rightly, attract interest. But would the same amount of attention have been generated if the accused had been an unphotogenic older adult?
Think that’s your reading that their similar cases because the people look similar.

If I remember correctly the majority thought LW was innocent rather than guilty in LL case.
 
It does when trying say they’re similar cases.
I'd have thought the biggest difference was that Woodward was responsible for the death just not of murder. If letby is not guilty then she is in no way responsible for the deaths.
 
Maybe my desire for the legal system to be fair and working clouded my thinking, but this is pretty much where I am on this issue now:

Veteran MP Sir David Davis has a history of championing successful miscarriage of justice cases.

Most recently, he helped Mike Lynch, the tech entrepreneur who successfully fought a 12-year legal battle in the USA, but died after a freak storm engulfed his yacht earlier this month.

Sir David said he had started off by thinking that Letby was guilty.

His doubts began in May after he raised a question in the House of Commons on why a critical piece in an American magazine was not allowed to be published here.

This was before the second trial and British contempt laws do not allow publication of anything which could influence the jury.

"It was only the fact that I got authoritative calls from people who really know about statistics, about medicine, about science, about law, and I’d never had anything like this happen before," he said

"I started to think – it’s a terrible crime, but if they’ve got it wrong, it’s a terrible miscarriage of justice."

Sir David said he believed other possibilities for the deaths could have included a lack of staffing and training on the unit and an infectious outbreak, possibly linked to the faulty drainage discussed in the trial.

"All of us find it easier to believe that a villain has killed people rather than a system or a random act," he said.

He is now reading through thousands of documents detailing the trial before making a decision on whether to take the case up and press for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to get involved.

Sir David said he already believes that the trial was flawed but by itself that does not mean Letby is not guilty.

He added that he will not take it further unless he comes to the conclusion that she was probably innocent.

 
They had BBC correspondent Dominc Casciani on WatO today deriding the 'conspiracy theories' suggesting Letby was innocent. He was supporting the prosecution and denied they depended at all on statistics. His demolition sounded less convincing once he started on the Court of Appeal case, which was basically saying you can't appeal on the basis that your original defence was rubbish and here are the arguments they failed to adduce in your support.

Package - fairly good overview - starts at 25.41
Casciani starts around 32.50

I don't know if she was guilty or not but have no confidence in the conviction and even less confidence in the ability of Countess of Chester Hospital to keep vulnerable babies safe.
 
One of the many things that bothers me about this case is that none of the babies' deaths was considered suspect at the time. They were all very ill or frail. The hospital handled such cases poorly and then had the most serious neonatal cases removed from their care after Letby's conviction.

A commenter on David Allen Green's post says:
What is striking to me about this case is something I was only vaguely aware of, that our courts of law and the criminal justice system itself are not driven by the imperative to deliver justice. The majesty of our legal institutions is paramount and justice is incidental. What an almighty shocking state of affairs.
 
Last edited:
They had BBC correspondent Dominc Casciani on WatO today deriding the 'conspiracy theories' suggesting Letby was innocent. He was supporting the prosecution and denied they depended at all on statistics. His demolition sounded less convincing once he started on the Court of Appeal case, which was basically saying you can't appeal on the basis that your original defence was rubbish and here are the arguments they failed to adduce in your support.

Package - fairly good overview - starts at 25.41
Casciani starts around 32.50

I don't know if she was guilty or not but have no confidence in the conviction and even less confidence in the ability of Countess of Chester Hospital to keep vulnerable babies safe.
What a bizarre response from the BBC correspondent! Especially as the piece was about the remit of the enquiry starting next week which he didn’t even touch on.
 
Last edited:
Maybe my desire for the legal system to be fair and working clouded my thinking, but this is pretty much where I am on this issue now:



Drawing a parallel to Mike Lynch isn't the way to start making me think he's onto something, even if the rest of it is perfectly sensible. Lynch was just lucky that HP failed their own due diligence in recognising that he'd cooked the books, and was probably going to lose his civil case in the UK.

ETA: Basically pinned it all on his CFO, who was sent down for 5 years, by being clever enough to destroy the paperwork tying it to him. Ex board members would quite openly admit he was in on it, but difficulty getting them to say it in a courtroom and having no material evidence saved him. The jurors apparently did struggle with the notion of the CEO not having a clue his CFO was engaged in massive fraud, but there just wasn't enough there to convict. The civil suit was a different charge, with different standards of evidence, and it looked pretty bad for him.
 
Last edited:
They had BBC correspondent Dominc Casciani on WatO today deriding the 'conspiracy theories' suggesting Letby was innocent. He was supporting the prosecution and denied they depended at all on statistics. His demolition sounded less convincing once he started on the Court of Appeal case, which was basically saying you can't appeal on the basis that your original defence was rubbish and here are the arguments they failed to adduce in your support.

Package - fairly good overview - starts at 25.41
Casciani starts around 32.50

I don't know if she was guilty or not but have no confidence in the conviction and even less confidence in the ability of Countess of Chester Hospital to keep vulnerable babies safe.

Surely that is true, that you can't appeal based on the fact that your defence didn't use what was available to them at the time.
 
I don't think this is anything like Louise Woodward's case. And the fact that LL is blonde has fuck all to do with it.

Perhaps I was being over delicate. The point I was making is not that she's blonde but that she is white.

But my main point - and I don't want to be controversial or confrontational here - is that there are many, many current cases where there have been miscarriages of justice and have not received anything like the attention of either the LW or LL cases.

Private Eye is currently focusing a lot on the LL case but in its 15 August edition has a separate Miscarriages of Justice section that draws attention to this report, which is well worth a look:

All party parliamentary group on Miscarriages of Justice
 
Last edited:
Surely that is true, that you can't appeal based on the fact that your defence didn't use what was available to them at the time.
Yes, it is true, otherwise the courts would be clogged with such cases (or at least, claims that the defence was inadequate). It doesn't mean the outcome is just, though, if you have a rubbish brief.
 
that's dodgy as fuck that's right up there with the " honey trap" to catch Colin Stagg. Target fixation nobody stood back and realised there wasn't actually a murder. A detective once told me how he turned up at the scene of a suspicious death the whole SOCO murder scene was getting going and he thought for a bit and spotted the poor sod had cut himself in the kitchen staggered to his armchair tried to Phone for help but bled out before help arrived:eek:. no murder pack up go home.
 
Covered on The News Agents podcast yesterday. I find it weird that questioning the verdict is described as a conspiracy theory (they do slightly caveat it). Only a weird fringe is calling it a conspiracy.

 
Back
Top Bottom