Terry_dactyl
Well-Known Member
People are discussing it on here because people (some seemingly quite reputable people) are discussing it elsewhere.
Lucy Letby (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter Saddlebrains
- Start date
rob9872
Well-Known Member
Discussion is fine. It seems our 'experts' on here are looking for holes, suggesting the defence isnt adequete and that there is resonable doubt to free her.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Isn’t that what’s going on in the media as well?
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
There seems to be enough reasonable doubt that a review / retrial should be undertaken.
We aren’t looking for holes, we are discussing holes which people far more qualified than you or I have identified.
IF she isn’t guilty then the shame falls on those who have allowed the real reasons to be hidden.
Old Warwickshire lad
Well-Known Member
My only problem with it is. If that hospital is poorly run and is failing in many areas, including that unit.
The hospital management would have no hesitation in throwing a member of staff under a bus.
The hospital management would have no hesitation in throwing a member of staff under a bus.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
I have seen it happen, blame gets pushed as far down the chain as is possible.
Terry_dactyl
Well-Known Member
Well…I think if there have been mistakes in the trial, which seems to be being reported that’s fair enough to discuss.
Reasons for any potential mistakes and why it came to trial is pure speculation isn’t it? I’m not sure you can apply personal experiences - not that I’m doubting them - of working in the nhs to the case. Is that not right?
Reasons for any potential mistakes and why it came to trial is pure speculation isn’t it? I’m not sure you can apply personal experiences - not that I’m doubting them - of working in the nhs to the case. Is that not right?
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
oh pipe down
It has been pointed out by many actual experts that the evidence was presented as being something it isn't
I'll go with what the actual experts think thanks
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
also no one has actually said she is innocent, the most people have said as per the experts the case looks on the surface pretty unsafe now
No one has said she should go free
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Details emerging that on 40% of the shifts Letby was on at Liverpool Womens’ Hospital, baby breathing tubes had been dislodged. The usual shift rate is 1%.
Another coincidence?
Another coincidence?
rob9872
Well-Known Member
And I'll go with science, experts, witness accounts, the balance of probability and coincidence and the jury who haven't selected biased articles. Thanks!
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
People here are quoting science, experts, statisticians (probability being a statistical construct). Coincidence is just that - coincidence, and isn’t evidence. The jury were presented with selected evidence.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Of course the victims should be at the forefront.
But how would those victims feel of spending years thinking their baby was murdered IF it turns out that was not the case? What would happen to the 'closure' they got from seeing Letby convicted? It's not about just having someone to blame.
The thing that needs to be at the absolute front of your mind is truth. That may well be that Letby killed these children. But there is also a chance she did not.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Lucy Letby: Experts raise doubts about medical evidence presented in court
Doctors and scientists' concerns contribute to speculation about the safety of the nurse's convictions.
www.bbc.co.uk
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Think the system has been really let down by her defence team I think. Probably a little by the prosecution too.
As have the victims families and potentially Letby herself
It does seem bizarre that the discussions that probably should have been had during the court case are happening in the media.
For me truth js important but sometimes we don’t and won’t ever know the full truth so our legal system as we all know is based on innocent until found guilty and that someone can be found guilty by their peers if they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
However being judged by our peers only works if those peers understand the science and there are other areas like fraud that you probably need training in before judging and I think that needs some thought. I know a few magistrates and the learning and training they do is significant
As have the victims families and potentially Letby herself
It does seem bizarre that the discussions that probably should have been had during the court case are happening in the media.
For me truth js important but sometimes we don’t and won’t ever know the full truth so our legal system as we all know is based on innocent until found guilty and that someone can be found guilty by their peers if they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
However being judged by our peers only works if those peers understand the science and there are other areas like fraud that you probably need training in before judging and I think that needs some thought. I know a few magistrates and the learning and training they do is significant
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Can you explain why when her house was searched she had around 270 confidential documents found hidden in her bedroom taken from the hospital?
What did they refer to?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Handover sheets, resuscitation information - confidential documents relating to the dead and injured babies.
She said she kept leaving them in her uniform and accidently took them home. She then said she had a hoarding mentality and had to keep them because of this
Yep that's suspect! I thought most of the doubt about her conviction was the statistical evidence by specialists and worthy of challenge which the defence team appeared to neglect at trial?
rob9872
Well-Known Member
In this case relevant, but if she shouldn't have them then it doesn't really matter what they were. Convinced this specimen will get off at some point on a technicality loophole and it will leave a taste even more bitter in the mouth than Leicester using the rules to get around bankruptcy and points deductions.
What evidence was produced to verify she had a hoarding mentality, I mean my granddad was a ledgend for hoarding his full wage packets from his wife going back to around a year?
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
There you go, you’ve given an explanation.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
How about the consultant paediatrician who saw Letby standing over a baby watching blood levels dropping and not raising any alarms - the doctor resuscitated the baby
Letby says in her defence she can’t remember it happening
fatso
Well-Known Member
That's circumstantial. It's not evidence.
If (big if) there is found to be inconsistencies or errors in the trial, then an independent judicial review should be carried out.
Imo She should stay in prison until that review has been done, if the review concludes that enough errors and/or omissions were found, then a retrial should be done. If not then she remains in prison to serve her time.
In my opinion, she's more than likely guilty, but others within the NHS should probably be facing charges of gross negligence and/or neglect for their failings in not preventing or highlighting the obvious excess death rate, and for the cover ups that followed.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
I really don’t know whether she did It or not. You are rightly quoting evidence that would have weighed heavily with the jury as they came to their guilty verdict. I feel uneasy however as the defence does not seem to have done a great job and it is not that common to have a host of experts casting doubt on and thereby challenging the medical and statistical evidence which was presented unopposed at trial. I don’t recall this happening with, say, Beverley Allitt.
What is equally and perhaps more disturbing is that one of these experts has remained anonymous for fear of repercussions. That is hardly conducive to justice now or going forward if similar controversial case arise.
I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised if this is a coverup by the Trust.
I really don’t understand the following in relation to baby C
“Letby was not working on the day the X-ray was taken and had not been on shift since before the baby was born - information the jury heard in her first trial. Letby’s former barrister Ben Myers also highlighted these details in his closing argument.
In his summing up the judge made clear to the jury this X-ray had been taken the day before Baby C collapsed, though he didn’t remind them Letby hadn’t been on shift. At appeal, the prosecution said Letby could have visited the hospital while off shift, but didn’t put forward any evidence that she was there.”
How could she have killed this baby if she hadn’t been on shift since before the birth, and if she had visited the unit off duty surely she would have had to use her swipe card to get entry and colleagues would have remembered her being there when she shouldn’t have been. No evidence presented suggests to me a high level of supposition - enough to cause reasonable doubt at least in this case.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
If course it’s evidence
fatso
Well-Known Member
If she's not witnessed, or cctv recorded tampering with the lines then it ISNT evidence, it's purely circumstantial.
For example, a defence lawyer would argue that the figures could be wrong, who says the normal failure rate was 1% ? Based on what? From where, collated by who? do different nurses have different failure rates? Do different hospitals or wards have different rates? Who's to say Letby wasn't just poor at fixing breathing tubes?
Was she trained? If so When? by who?
Was her failure rate monitored? Was it too high? If so, why wasn't any action taken?
If no action was taken, was her work deemed to be acceptable? Etc etc.
Honestly a defence lawyer would drive a bus through that data. To call it evidence is rediculous.
I still think she's guilty though.
Terry_dactyl
Well-Known Member
I think I heard recently that there’s a misconception from Joe Public that circumstantial evidence isn’t also important.
Theres seems to be lots of circumstantial evidence that suggests she did it. Although most of the noise is now about how there may be discrepancies in some of this.
Importantly, all the experts coming forward say that they aren’t making an overall judgement on her guilt/innocence but that things have been done incorrectly in terms of the case and the evidence presented. It seems there’s enough coming out to at least discuss this further.
Im afraid if we are going to have our system it’s right that things are questioned, especially by people who know what they’re talking about. In what scenario is it good to not be allowed to question the judicial system?
fatso
Well-Known Member
I totally agree.
There's absolutely no problem with reviewing the case evidence, as long as she remains in prison while the review is conducted.
In fact I'd argue it's good to review proceedings to ensure such high profile cases are 100% watertight, and to ensure the process is robust.
As for circumstantial evidence, its worth remembering that for a jury to convict they have to be certain beyond "all RESONABLE doubt" therefore the weight of circumstantial evidence would have to be so great that even the best defence lawyers couldn't create a shred of doubt in a jurors mind.
That's very unlikely unless it's accompanied by very significant evidence, such as witness statements, forensics and photo/video proof etc.
It's obviously Incredibly difficult to secure such 100% proof when the victims and witnesses are new born babies and the accused is working alone, so in such a case the judge may permit a degree of circumstantial data to be presented as "evidence" but that data will inevitably by attacked by the defence experts to create doubt..... and it's that doubt (amongst others) that's being discussed in the press as we speak.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Baby tubes being dislodged 40 times more often than normal is physical evidence that someone has observed and recorded.
fatso
Well-Known Member
But not been put down to Letby, or even to malicious intent.
Purely tubes dislodged more times than expected. Nothing more, nothing less.
On its own, purely circumstantial.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
it’s circumstantial evidence which is an entirely legitimate form of evidence. It’s also pretty much non refutable. It was bought up in the subsequent court case wasn’t it? The gap is statistically huge.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
No I can’t
Most of the experts aren’t doubting her guilt just saying that some of the evidence needs challenging
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Challenged by who? What about Baby C whose mother was dismissed by Letby and told to leave the unit as she was a nurse and needed to help the baby who subsequently dies. Letby does not recall the conversation. Letby when going home then spent hours trawling the parents on facebook