Lucy Letby

[Vince Green]

Dewy Evans was a retired Paediatrician but he wasn't a Forensic Pathologist. So basically not an expert at all

He also never examined any of the dead babies but only formed his conclusions from reading the case notes.

Stranger still, the police never contacted him, he contacted the police and 'offered his services '

It's a bit bizarre that the police and the CPS used him in such a high profile case as the key witness for the prosecution. I can only suspect it was because he was prepared to say what they wanted to hear. If that is true a proper investigation of the handling of the case needs to be set in motion.

[Gordon R]

Letby's barrister also

Quote

 

dismissed "lesser circumstantial" non-medical evidence presented at Letby's trial such as her handwritten note which stated: "I am evil, I did this", her hoarding of mementos of her crimes, and her Facebook searches of parents of her victims.

Mr McDonald said there was a "valid explanation" for each of them

 

The jury didn't seem to accept her valid explanation. 

If the current experts are correct, her defence team at previous trials would seem to have been less than stellar. No defence medical witness called. They accepted the prosecution witness testimony

[GHE]

22 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Dewy Evans was a retired Paediatrician but he wasn't a Forensic Pathologist. So basically not an expert at all

He also never examined any of the dead babies but only formed his conclusions from reading the case notes.

Stranger still, the police never contacted him, he contacted the police and 'offered his services '

It's a bit bizarre that the police and the CPS used him in such a high profile case as the key witness for the prosecution. I can only suspect it was because he was prepared to say what they wanted to hear. If that is true a proper investigation of the handling of the case needs to be set in motion.

This. Private Eye has been highlighting all the inconsistencies from the beginning, they aren't saying that she is innocent but they are saying there there are very strong reasons for doubting her guilt, and they have a point.

Her original legal team, now sacked, doesn't seem to have done a great job. This is pretty normal in very serious cases, the CPS has unlimited resources and the Defence has far less.

The Defence simply couldn't (or didn't) find any expert witnesses, again this is normal, all of the "experts" are available to the establishment, but are scared of opposing them. The experts now putting her case are all "international", i.e. their careers can't be harmed by speaking the truth and going against the CPS and the NHS.

Innocent or guilty, Letby had upset the NHS system in the past by whistleblowing.  You'd think that they would want to encourage people to speak out, but countless cases of horrific actions against whistleblowers indicate otherwise.

Letby also (allegedly) had a very busy "social" life, and there's a story going round (which may or may not be true) that rejection of a very senior boss man resulted in her problems.

Her legal team have the odds stacked against them, it isn't just the NHS and the CPS, it's the fact that the whole judicial system is always very reluctant to admit to being wrong.

 

[McSpredder]

18 hours ago, zipdog said:

Our legal system was founded on the principle that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be wrongly convicted. That principle seems to have been forgotten in recent years.

... in recent years?   Way back in 1988 Lord Denning (one of the most senior members of the English judicial system) said "It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned".    

[12gauge82]

35 minutes ago, McSpredder said:

... in recent years?   Way back in 1988 Lord Denning (one of the most senior members of the English judicial system) said "It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned".    

And it is that attitude that the system is more important than an individual that leads to cases like the grooming gang and post office scandals, which ironically does far more harm to the system than if genuine miscarriages of justice were corrected at the earliest opportunity. 

I wonder if Lord denning would hold the same views if he were banged up for nothing, what a disgraceful individual. 

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I wonder if Lord denning would hold the same views if he were banged up for nothing, what a disgraceful individual

Not very often does a high profile individual,  a member of government,  or indeed the very wealthy, see the inside of a courtroom , never mind a prison cell.

Despite some of them richly deserving  so.

[12gauge82]

As for Lucy Letby, if someone had asked me a few years ago in a case like hers whether I thought there was a chance she might be innocent, I'd have said not a chance. Since the latest scandales however, while still of the belief she probably did it, I'm not so sure. Like everything else in this country, the legal system is clearly broken. 

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Not very often does a high profile individual,  a member of government,  or indeed the very wealthy, see the inside of a courtroom , never mind a prison cell.

Despite some of them richly deserving  so.

I was going to go into that and your quite right, a two tier system for the rich and powerful and everyone else is very clearly still alive and well. 

[GrayA]

9 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Forgive me for failing to understand your logic. I can say you are completely wrong - it means nothing.

I note that Letby's team are anxious to concentrate on medical issues, ignoring her behaviour - notes, Googling all the families of the dead children. She seems to have connected all the deaths concerned. 

The note was incomplete, it originally read "They believe i am a murderer" but the jury was shown the note with the first 2 words missing!

Looking up the FB profiles of the parents is neither here nor there, plain curiosity? stress from the job? any number of reasons, God forbid we prosecute people for child murder based on their FB stalking!!! 

I 've never believed she was guilty, there seems to be no solid evidence.

Plus there has been multiple maternity scandals involving 100s of babies deaths over the years, Jeremy Hunt said "By not have Swedish standards of maternity care, 2000 babies die needlessly each year" he was health secretary for what? 8 years?

Perhaps he should swap with Letby? 

Aside, the UK has long tradition of jailing people who are innocent and then fighting tooth and nail to keep them in jail.

[Vince Green]

18 hours ago, zipdog said:

 

Our legal system was founded on the principle that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be wrongly convicted. That principle seems to have been forgotten in recent years.

The reality is that after a lengthy and costly investigation that turns into a lengthy costly prosecution the police and CPS are pretty desperate to get a conviction because careers are on the line if they fail.

[Gordon R]

Quote

The note was incomplete, it originally read "They believe i am a murderer" but the jury was shown the note with the first 2 words missing!

And this gem  "I am evil, I did this". Which additional bits did the prosecution miss out?

[hushpower]

Judicial system was set up so those with all the power were untouchable 

[Newbie to this]

8 hours ago, Gordon R said:

And this gem  "I am evil, I did this". Which additional bits did the prosecution miss out?

I'm guessing the "They believe" bit?

[Vince Green]

9 hours ago, Gordon R said:

And this gem  "I am evil, I did this". Which additional bits did the prosecution miss out?

The bit before that said   "they think"

[Gordon R]

Loads of babies died, but she thinks she is a suspect. I wonder why. 

It will get sorted in the next week or so. If I am wrong, I will hold my hands up. Will those who believe her to be innocent - despite not having heard the case - do the same, or will they continue to believe her? If she loses this hearing, will they accept the ruling? If not, why not?

[GHE]

6 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Loads of babies died, but she thinks she is a suspect. I wonder why. 

It will get sorted in the next week or so. If I am wrong, I will hold my hands up. Will those who believe her to be innocent - despite not having heard the case - do the same, or will they continue to believe her? If she loses this hearing, will they accept the ruling? If not, why not?

"It will get sorted in the next week or so" - are you serious? There are hundreds of review cases that have been waiting for many years, not to be "sorted" but just to be looked at. The system is designed to reassure the public that innocent people can get their cases reviewed, but it only works for the system, not for the people.

 

[GrayA]

12 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Loads of babies died, but she thinks she is a suspect. I wonder why. 

It will get sorted in the next week or so. If I am wrong, I will hold my hands up. Will those who believe her to be innocent - despite not having heard the case - do the same, or will they continue to believe her? If she loses this hearing, will they accept the ruling? If not, why not?

Two words, Andrew Malkinson... refused appeal, referrals etc & still waiting for any sort of compensation, despite losing 17 years of his life, even tried to charge him for board and lodging!! 

He is currently on benefits....

anyway, LL wont get sorted quickly, all that may happen is it will be referred back... But if it goes to a re trial and she she is again found guilty, then of course, she will be guilty.

Edited Thursday at 09:13 by GrayA

[Vince Green]

Just now, Gordon R said:

Loads of babies died, but she thinks she is a suspect. I wonder why. 

It will get sorted in the next week or so. If I am wrong, I will hold my hands up. Will those who believe her to be innocent - despite not having heard the case - do the same, or will they continue to believe her? If she loses this hearing, will they accept the ruling? If not, why not?

Gordon there is a good piece in the Guardian today about the case which sets out the timeliness. I think you would find it interesting to read it.

The Guardian is not a scandal rag but they are very critical of Evans and Cheshire Police's handling of the case. Evans appears to be a bit of a Walter Mitty character who said he had made his mind up after ten minutes of reading the first set of case notes.

Edited Thursday at 09:33 by Vince Green

[old'un]

20 hours ago, clangerman said:

experts aside real prob in the justice system is drawing juries from the electoral roll if that’s not fatally flawed you could end up being tried for murder by the same cabbages who gave us starmer! lol 

Having been on jury service I would agree with that 100%

[Scully]

16 hours ago, McSpredder said:

... in recent years?   Way back in 1988 Lord Denning (one of the most senior members of the English judicial system) said "It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned".    

Jesus h! Doesn’t that just sum up the attitudes of some so called respected professionals and their attitudes towards the general public. Scandalous. 
My OH’s niece is a trainee midwife. She and her contemporaries watched the trial with some dismay, but were left puzzled as to the verdict, considering the lack of irrefutable evidence. 
They are watching this with renewed interest. 

[Gordon R]

Some seem obsessed with how long the current process will take. It takes what it takes.

If the end result of the current hearing concludes that she was guilty, I am struggling with the view that she is suddenly guilty. She's had three bites at the cherry, but a fourth bite will be accepted. Just how does that work?

[GrayA]

20 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Some seem obsessed with how long the current process will take. It takes what it takes.

If the end result of the current hearing concludes that she was guilty, I am struggling with the view that she is suddenly guilty. She's had three bites at the cherry, but a fourth bite will be accepted. Just how does that work?

Same as with Andrew Malkinson, he spent 17 years being denied leave to appeal.

If she or anyone else is in jail but innocent, the process should be very quick, not take years. 

[ditchman]

what an awfulbloody mess....

[Vince Green]

23 minutes ago, GrayA said:

Same as with Andrew Malkinson, he spent 17 years being denied leave to appeal.

If she or anyone else is in jail but innocent, the process should be very quick, not take years. 

Hillsborough took 27 years of very hard, you could even say relentless campaigning for the truth to emerge.  Even now after 35 years the families have never had proper justice. 

[wymberley]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

Jesus h! Doesn’t that just sum up the attitudes of some so called respected professionals and their attitudes towards the general public

Spot on. Because of just one man I've left the highlighted word in. All you need to remember is simply that the more folk have the harder they'll fight to keep it. Because many people manage to get promoted one level above their ability what we're talking about is rife and getting worse and when they do kick off more often than not it's with less rules than in a knife fight.

When I met her my wife suffered terribly every month with the obvious problems. She didn't seem too keen to get this sorted which I couldn't understand but eventually I got to the bottom of it (no pun intended). After several years I got her to go to her doctor who listened to what she had to say and said that he needed a few days to do some checks and would get in touch. In due course he made another appointment where he explained that she was never in the hospital where she had said she was. So she asked him to explain where did he think that she got the surgical scars on her tummy. She had been operated on, had 'died' during the process but brought back but then had to be taken back to the theatre as  the surgeon had made yet another mistake. The doctor finally believed her but explained that there were no records what-so-ever of her being in that hospital. Consequently, an appointment was made for her at another hospital which was part of the association to which the first one belonged. After a couple of appointments the consultant explained that he knew what was what and that she'd need another operation. "Unfortunately", he said, "I'm changing jobs and your surgeon will be XXXXX". I wasn't there so can only assume that my wife reacted to this in such a manner that the doctor sat back in his chair for a few seconds before realising what was what - XXXXX was my wife's first surgeon. This is where the "one man" above comes in. He knew. "Would it help if I managed to come back and do your operation myself?" he asked. All was well. 

Fast forward some 10 years and we're watching the 9 0'clock news when my wife screamed which caught my attention. A certain surgeon had finally made one too many mistakes and had eventually been banned from operating. I'm surprised that  the BT phone lines didn't melt as she called family, friends and other known 'victims' with the news.

[Rewulf]

5 hours ago, Gordon R said:

It will get sorted in the next week or so. If I am wrong, I will hold my hands up. Will those who believe her to be innocent - despite not having heard the case - do the same, or will they continue to believe her? If she loses this hearing, will they accept the ruling? If not, why not?

I will say, thats not my position.
It may be she is the monster she is portrayed as, and did commit the crimes, it may be she did more that are not known ?

BUT, from what Ive seen lately, I do agree the convictions look 'unsafe'
Maybe her defence was not robust enough, possibly because they saw the prosecution evidence and thought ' No way can they convict her with that' ?
They were very wrong.

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

If the end result of the current hearing concludes that she was guilty, I am struggling with the view that she is suddenly guilty. She's had three bites at the cherry, but a fourth bite will be accepted. Just how does that work?

She had one bite, the fact that no new evidence has been presented until now, so retrials were refused, also some of the prosecution evidence has been rebutted since, and expert witnesses have back tracked on their opinions.
Many of the accusations toward her rest on 'Too many babies died, so someone must be criminally responsible, and the babies were in her care, so it must be her'