[News] Lucy Letby

[jcdenton08]

Either way, can only result in a mistrial.

This is possible but unlikely. As I discussed above, the reason for the crown hiring respected legal teams for each side for high profile cases is to prevent exactly this.

More common causes of retrials upon appeal are very strong new evidence, provable prosecutorial misconduct such as withholding discovery, or evidence from an independent inquiry.

 

[Scappa]

 

[nickjhs]

Am I right in thinking, all of the evidence was circumstantial? But I’m sure I read something about some very incriminating diaries Letby kept in her home.

From what I have read it is all circumstantial and the diaries are very much open to interpretation. It is enough for me that so many respected experts are prepared to put their necks out speaking against how the trial and evidence were run. I can think of very few things worse than being locked away for life when innocent. For me there is enough for the verdict to be squashed and a new trial set.

 

[jcdenton08]

From what I have read it is all circumstantial and the diaries are very much open to interpretation. It is enough fo me that so many respected experts are prepared to put their necks out speaking against how the trial and evidence were run.

I’m very much a bowing down to the judicial system sort of guy anyway. I didn’t see and hear all the evidence, it’s why we have a jury system

 

[nickjhs]

I’m very much a bowing down to the judicial system sort of guy anyway. I didn’t see and hear all the evidence, it’s why we have a jury system

Nothing is perfect, and the jury can only go by what they are presented with. From what I have heard the "expert" who testified for the prosecution is somewhat iffy. There are enough people who understand the details speaking out for there to be a retrial. Don't forget part of the justice system is the ability to raise concerns and appeal.

 

[jcdenton08]

Nothing is perfect, and the jury can only go by what they are presented with. From what I have heard the "expert" who testified for the prosecution is somewhat iffy. There are enough people who understand the details speaking out for there to be a retrial. Don't forget part of the justice system is the ability to raise concerns and appeal.

Absolutely, which is why I think it’s in the hands of the judicial system. I think the jury found her guilty based on what was presented to them, but whether that is true or not I don’t know. But it’s all we have

 

[GT49er]

Nothing is perfect, and the jury can only go by what they are presented with. From what I have heard the "expert" who testified for the prosecution is somewhat iffy. There are enough people who understand the details speaking out for there to be a retrial. Don't forget part of the justice system is the ability to raise concerns and appeal.

What's the alternative? A retrial on NSC? Sorry, there's always people trying to make a name for themselves (and money) by trying to 'prove' that the law got it wrong.

See under 'Hanratty, James'.

 

[SouthSaxon]

What's the alternative? A retrial on NSC? Sorry, there's always people trying to make a name for themselves (and money) by trying to 'prove' that the law got it wrong.

See under 'Hanratty, James'.

Not sure I get your point. There’s also been plenty of cases of people being exonerated after a guilty verdict in a jury trial. Including cases of this type.

 

[nickjhs]

Absolutely, which is why I think it’s in the hands of the judicial system. I think the jury found her guilty based on what was presented to them, but whether that is true or not I don’t know. But it’s all we have

The issue I have with the judicial system is that it can get bogged down in technicalities, especially the appeals process. This would appear to be a classic case where a lot of experts are calling for a mistrial but the parameters for granting one are so narrow these calls are in danger of being ignored.

 

[jcdenton08]

The issue I have with the judicial system is that it can get bogged down in technicalities, especially the appeals process. This would appear to be a classic case where a lot of experts are calling for a mistrial but the parameters for granting one are so narrow these calls are in danger of being ignored.

I think the public interest is so high it will happen. The problem is the many who have suffered miscarriages of justice who don’t have millions of pounds worth of lawyering working on their case while they’re in prison

 

[nickjhs]

millions of pounds worth of lawyering

And here lies the fundamental problem with our legal system.

 

[The Fits]

The convictions of Lucy Letby: should they be overturned?

When the former nurse was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others, a 1980s research paper was key to the prosecution’s case. But the author of the paper himself believes there has been a miscarriage of justice – and so too do other doctors

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lenny Rider]

The convictions of Lucy Letby: should they be overturned?

When the former nurse was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others, a 1980s research paper was key to the prosecution’s case. But the author of the paper himself believes there has been a miscarriage of justice – and so too do other doctors

www.theguardian.com

Does create doubt, especially in light of the poor bloke who did 38 years whilst innocent.

If they can do it to him, they can surely do it to her

 

[The Optimist]

The process for appeals and considering possible miscarriages of justice seems flawed.

In Peter Sullivan’s case there seem to have been missed opportunities to act earlier and in Letby’s case all the experts willing to disagree with the convictions surely warrants some kind of action.

I understand that there have to be controls on appeals otherwise the legal system would be overwhelmed.

It also makes you wonder who else is wrongfully imprisoned but hasn’t got the right legal support or enough fight left in them to challenge their convictions.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Absolutely, which is why I think it’s in the hands of the judicial system. I think the jury found her guilty based on what was presented to them, but whether that is true or not I don’t know. But it’s all we have

We know they were presented with statistics that were plain wrong. It seems now they were also presented with medical evidence that was plain wrong.

This idea of killing people by injecting air into their veins isn't new. Dorothy L. Sayers used it in one of her plots because it was (in theory) undetectable, but I doubt it has been tested much in practice.

It seems they looked at all the deaths in the hospital, selected only those that Letby was present at, and then worked out how she might have killed them. Her defence must have been a waste of space not to pick holes in that.