Lucy Letby case - Evidence discussion thread

[motorbiking]

It was put to her at interview and her responses were shown to the jury.

I would say the no comment responses would have come across worse.

A (slim) chance of acquittal, if she were guilty. The defence concentrating on the weak circumstantial case. Little point if innocent but the police have all sorts of techniques to trip the unwary. Like implying a sinister motive to a nurse googling her patients and wanting to go to the funeral.

they built a picture of a sinister, evil criminal, when she may have been just a bit of an odd ball

But how do they judge an innocent person who fully cooperates but has the weight of so called experts pitted against her? I suspect the defence or their experts weren’t fully up to the task.

They simply could not find experts willing to go against the establishment. NHS is the meal ticket.

 

[ellal]

I suspect the defence or their experts weren’t fully up to the task.

Or as in most cases the state prosecutors don't have to worry about the costs and have more money to play with than the defence...

So if they win it's champagne all round...

And if they lose it's champagne all round...

Because either the defence or the taxpayer picks up the tab

 

[motorbiking]

I think the threshold for DCOs should be much lower. Any person not entitled to legal aid, should be able to claim some of their legal costs if acquitted. As it currently stands you have to show they acted unnecessarily or improperly and that is a high test. Perhaps a scale, but they should get at least half, as result of acquittal.

 

[IT Minion]

They simply could not find experts willing to go against the establishment. NHS is the meal ticket

It's questionable if they tried hard enough. Theres plenty of people willing to do so now.

 

[blup]

I would say the no comment responses would have come across worse.

they built a picture of a sinister, evil criminal, when she may have been just a bit of an odd ball

They simply could not find experts willing to go against the establishment. NHS is the meal ticket.

A guilty person would almost certainly have followed the no comment no cross examination line.

I think she was probably undertrained and under experienced but kind hearted, but that applies to many in the nhs caring sector.

 

[motorbiking]

It's questionable if they tried hard enough. Theres plenty of people willing to do so now.

but as blub suggested, just a lowly nurse on a basic salary and no high profile MPs and Lawyers picking up her case. Now she has international experts pulling apart the data. Dewi Evans, comes across as arrogant and stubborn, in the documentaries and openly shows how he went in to the case thinking there had been a murder. Great for the CPS, but hardly an objective expert.

 

[motorbiking]

A guilty person would almost certainly have followed the no comment no cross examination line.

People with psychopathy also like to talk. They have a view that they are smarter and enjoy the games. Shipman for example.

I think she was probably undertrained and under experienced but kind hearted, but that applies to many in the nhs caring sector.

and represented by a duty sol, who probably didn't think they had much of case at the time.

 

[Deluks]

"It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned."

Barry George springs to mind, ok he's out now, but refused any compensation on the grounds that he wasn't 'innocent enough'

8 year stretch, conviction overturned.

Refusing him compo would only be moral if 'might be guilty' was an acceptable verdict in his trial.

 

[pete01]

After the documentary I watched im convinced she's innocent and if thats true it's a real shame for her.

 

[motorbiking]

After the documentary I watched im convinced she's innocent and if thats true it's a real shame for her.

Dr Evans relied on Dr Lees paper and Dr Lee, is acting for the defence now. Letby was convicted on the medical evidence not the circumstantial evidence and that is what is being challenged in the CCRC. They have had the application for about a year, so they will need to make a decision soon.

 

[morqthana]

In the past there was the case of the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 that went on for what ?? 16 years before they were found innocent and released ??

Evidence was with held by the state that they were innocent for years ??? And afaik ??? No one was held to account or punished for the mis carriage of justice

Total disgrace

Full of legalistic unrealities, but a great piece of cinema:

It was the Birmingham Six who were denied the right to appeal in 1980 by Denning, in part because "If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.'"

 

[Vinty]

Barry George springs to mind, ok he's out now, but refused any compensation on the grounds that he wasn't 'innocent enough'

8 year stretch, conviction overturned.

Refusing him compo would only be moral if 'might be guilty' was an acceptable verdict in his trial.

Whatever happened to the legal concept of, Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[pete01]

Barry George springs to mind

In trouble about something else now isn't he?

 

[morqthana]

I think the threshold for DCOs should be much lower. Any person not entitled to legal aid, should be able to claim some of their legal costs if acquitted. As it currently stands you have to show they acted unnecessarily or improperly and that is a high test. Perhaps a scale, but they should get at least half, as result of acquittal.

So an innocent person only has to sell half their house and car, and cash in half their pension, to be able to afford a defence.

No - it should be a level playing field, or it's just state funded lawfare.

 

[Vinty]

Full of legalistic unrealities, but a great piece of cinema:

It was the Birmingham Six who were denied the right to appeal in 1980 by Denning, in part because "If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.'"

The verdicts in the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4 cases were due to a wave of anti Irish sentiment at the time.
Any objective view of the evidence would have found them innocent.
Having said that, there is no doubt that the accused were IRA supporters, which is why they came to the attention of the Police in the first place.