Lucy Letby

[ShootingEgg]

So she isn't guilty and should not be in prison? 

That whole case was very strange. Who actually knows the truth other than Lucy herself and the accuser's....

[Vince Green]

There does appear to be a growing weight of evidence to suggest that the nurse was stitched up. Her accusers were the very consultants that were in the frame for medical negligence charges if things had gone differently 

[ShootingEgg]

Having a young daughter and a son due any day now, I actually feel for the parents of these children. They still actually don't have closer as if now the conviction is going to be blown out the water, where does that leave them, again with so many unanswered questions 

[39TDS]

I have every sympathy with the parents of the kids, it must be like a never ending nightmare for them.

I have always found it very hard to believe she would deliberately kill children while working in a maternity ward, it just seems to go completely against the grain. Having said that it isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

Alternatively a bunch of consultants and members of the higher echelons of management trying to cover up their mistakes, deny any fault and point the finger elsewhere, well tbh that seems to be standard practice and completely believable.

[wymberley]

What I find annoying is that I don't know who to believe in circumstances where one should be able to do so. I now realise that this is nothing new and has always been so. The simple fact of the matter is that the more one has the harder they'll fight to keep it.

I'm not into conspiracy theories - don't need to be as I can quote three, and probably more if I think about it, examples which reflect that 39TDS' final paragraph above is valid; the most severe being from the same profession to which this topic relates and involved my then wife.

[Bigbob]

So higher up consultants dropped the blame on her ?. 

even if she gets out gets some compo her life wont be worth living she will always have to watch her back 

[old man]

17 hours ago, ShootingEgg said:

Having a young daughter and a son due any day now, I actually feel for the parents of these children. They still actually don't have closer as if now the conviction is going to be blown out the water, where does that leave them, again with so many unanswered questions 

Sadly, unanswered questions are the official stock in trade to keep the waters muddy allowing the true perpetrators to hide?

[clangerman]

the justice system will make every effort to jail you and double that effort to hide the truth if your innocent! 

[Scully]

40 minutes ago, clangerman said:

the justice system will make every effort to jail you and double that effort to hide the truth if your innocent! 

So you keep saying, but history proves you wrong…..yet again. 
 

[clangerman]

34 minutes ago, Scully said:

So you keep saying, but history proves you wrong…..yet again. 
 

tell that to the post office workers or are you telling me the justice system had no knowledge or suspicion hundreds of trusted people were being falsely convicted! 

[Penelope]

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

the justice system will make every effort to jail you and double that effort to hide the truth if your innocent! 

Unless, it appears, you are anything other than a white male or Christian.

[Vince Green]

18 hours ago, Bigbob said:

So higher up consultants dropped the blame on her ?. 

even if she gets out gets some compo her life wont be worth living she will always have to watch her back 

Absolutely correct. Even if completely exonerated in every way she will never be able to walk down the street without  the fear of being attacked and she will never be allowed to work at her old job again

 

[Gordon R]

Quote

tell that to the post office workers or are you telling me the justice system had no knowledge or suspicion hundreds of trusted people were being falsely convicted! 

The convictions were not the fault of the justice system. It was entirely the fault of the Post Office and Fujitsu, who were fully aware of the flaws in the system, but chose to hide them. I would be astonished if there were not a fair number of people who committed perjury.

[harkom]

Perhaps the logical way to view Letby as Guilty/Not Guilty is to get  Staticians to compute/review the mortality rates of the hospital vs others, MR on Letty's unit and MR when she is on duty. I would hazard a guess that BetFred would come up with the correct answer?

[GHE]

OK, but it isn’t about whether she’s innocent or guilty, nobody except her knows that.

It’s about whether there was sufficient (or any) evidence to support her convictions. The only expert witness appeared for the prosecution, and according to all of the world-renowned experts, he isn’t an expert at all and gave evidence on a subject about which he knows very little, and he also wrongly interpreted a scientific paper from a true expert, based in another country.

And her defence team are saying that his evidence, for what it was worth, was the only evidence other than purely coincidental timings and circumstantial evidence, which isn’t in itself enough to convict anyone of stealing a bottle of milk , , ,

The jury believed the expert prosecution witness, they pretty much had to, as there was nobody to contradict him.

The defence should have produced their own expert witnesses, but they didn’t. One possible reason is that her legal team, severely hampered by the tiny amount of money provided for defence, wasn’t up to the job.

But I can tell you that it’s always extremely difficult to find expert witnesses for the defence, in all criminal cases. Why? Well, the biggest single problem is that the defence is always a small organisation that only has occasional need for experts, they’re very small customers compared to the CPS, who constantly have untold thousands of cases on the go, and these experts don’t want to upset the police or the CPS and get themselves blacklisted by giving evidence against them.

I remember one case where there were only 4 recognised experts in their specialist field, the CPS hired all of them, leaving the defence with nobody who had the right qualifications, and that isn’t unusual.

And the other reason is career development, the experts in this case are almost all employed by the NHS, which has a terrible record of turning on their own people who rock the boat.

The legal system, at least at the sharp end, is fair and impartial – the judge makes sure that things are conducted properly, the jury does its best and the barristers stick to the rules.

But, once a jury has handed down its verdict, all of the fairness ends. If the accused has been found not guilty then s/he is innocent, full stop, it doesn’t matter what the victims or the public think, the law doesn’t care.

And if they are convicted, they can request an appeal but permission can be refused, as in the Letby case, there’s no automatic right to an appeal.

All that then remains, as in this case, is the Criminal Cases Review Commission, they are the final backstop. But they only look into a tiny percentage of the cases referred to them, and even when they do, it usually takes them at least 10 years. The system exists for the establishment, not for the interests of justice.

[Gordon R]

Quote

I remember one case where there were only 4 recognised experts in their specialist field, the CPS hired all of them, leaving the defence with nobody who had the right qualifications, and that isn’t unusual.

Which case would that be? Perhaps you could supply details of the other cases, as it "isn't unusual".

[GHE]

35 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Which case would that be? Perhaps you could supply details of the other cases, as it "isn't unusual".

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/confidentiality-client-information/

[Raja Clavata]

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2025/02/07/lucy-letby-case-the-problems-with-expert-evidence/amp/

Examples of GHEs point provided above.

[Vince Green]

3 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2025/02/07/lucy-letby-case-the-problems-with-expert-evidence/amp/

Examples of GHEs point provided above.

Good article 

[GHE]

2 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Good article 

I agree. bear in mind that the article was written by a lawyer, for other lawyers to read, and was very carefully phrased. My own translation of this bit "In complex medical cases, I’m concerned that prosecutors – who may lack the medical expertise needed to fully grasp these complexities – may gravitate toward experts whose opinions align with a prosecutorial narrative, whether consciously or not. " is "Prosecutors  hire experts who will say what they want them to say"

[Newbie to this]

2 minutes ago, GHE said:

is "Prosecutors  hire experts who will say what they want them to say"

Yes, and same with the defence team. Experts hey 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

[GHE]

You're right. The first duty of an expert is to the Court, they are required to be non-partisan, this is a small extract from the "guidance" The duty of an expert witness is to help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving opinion which is objective and unbiased, in relation to matters within their expertise. This is a duty that is owed to the court and overrides any obligation to the party from whom the expert is receiving instructions - see Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 Part 19. (CrimPR 19.

But the reality is very different. Everyone in the legal profession knows this, but juries don't, which is why the system favours whoever has the deepest pockets, and it's nearly always the prosecution who has the deepest pockets and the widest choice of experts.

Edited Friday at 11:51 by GHE

[Gordon R]

GHE - I suspected you wouldn't back up what you posted. Did you hear it from a man in the pub?

What you say is that all expert witnesses commit perjury. Sweeping generalised rubbish.

[GHE]

I cqn't back it up because of the client confidentiality rules. I'm not a drinker so no, I didn't hear it from a man in the pub, it's based on many years of first-hand experience.

I haven't said that all expert witnesses commit perjury, they don't. What I said was that they are not truly independent and may be biased towards the party who pays them.

I don't want to get into a slanging match with you, that would be pointless, so this will be my last reply to you.

[Gordon R]

GHE - perhaps a wise decision.

Quote

But the reality is very different. Everyone in the legal profession knows this

When you make sweeping statements like that you invite ridicule. Have you taken opinion from "everyone" - answer no.

When you allege that expert witnesses don't tell the truth - that is perjury. Your many years of first hand experience don't appear to have contributed to your knowledge.

Edited Friday at 13:56 by Gordon R