Lucy Letby case - Evidence discussion thread

[mikehammer69]

The jury is only made up of ordinary folk listening to the evidence they were presented with at the time.

Indeed but they did hear the evidence and adjudicated as well as being guided by the judge presumably

You can see the way experts differ on this . Not sure a panel of experts could even reach a verdict.

Some serious criminal and terrorist cases are tried by a 3(I think) judge panel . I suppose that might work.

 

[motorbiking]

The Sally Clark case showed how convictions relying on flawed statistical evidence create miscarriages of justice.

Jurors aren't selected for their intelligence. Letby, guilty or innocent didn't have sufficient expert witnesses to argue the data. She was outgunned. That much has been obvious from her current team.

 

[mikehammer69]

Jurors aren't selected for their intelligence. Letby, guilty or innocent didn't have sufficient expert witnesses to argue the data. She was outgunned. That much has been obvious from her current team.

Ok so I'm not familiar with the case

Didn't I recall hearing that she didn't " take the stand"
.

 

[motorbiking]

She was on the stand for 14 days. She chose not to stand for her retrial.

Those who think the evidence was poor have focussed on the poor statistical evidence. Overall poor care at the hospital, poor expert testimony and inabilty for her team to properly cross examine.

There is no date for the CCRC but it is widely anticipated to be the end of this year.

 

[blup]

Jurors aren't selected for their intelligence. Letby, guilty or innocent didn't have sufficient expert witnesses to argue the data. She was outgunned. That much has been obvious from her current team.

It doesn't seem right that the prosecution (and therefore the jury) relied on Dr Lee's case, and Dr Lee (and many other experts) have come along and said, you got it completely wrong.
That is a form of new evidence. The competence or strategy of the initial defence team shouldn't be a bar to such a fundamental error being reviewed through a re trial or overturning the jury decision.

 

[noseall]

There is also anecdotal evidence to suggest post-natal care at a lot of NHS maternity wards, is below standard.

Not sure this has any bearing on the Letby case though.

 

[mikehammer69]

Is there any 'smoking gun' from a pro-guilty viewpoint

 

[noseall]

Is there any 'smoking gun' from a pro-guilty viewpoint

I think her diary or journal was a strange one…

 

[motorbiking]

It doesn't seem right that the prosecution (and therefore the jury) relied on Dr Lee's case, and Dr Lee (and many other experts) have come along and said, you got it completely wrong.
That is a form of new evidence. The competence or strategy of the initial defence team shouldn't be a bar to such a fundamental error being reviewed through a re trial or overturning the jury decision.

Unfortunately, those attempts have been exhausted. But I agree with the sentiment.

The bigger one for me is Professor Peter Hindmarsh - He effectively struck himself off, following a fitness to practice investigation that started at the time of the Letby trial. That information never made it to the jury. The obvious conflict of interest is huge.

Dr. Dewi Evans - has basically had his expertise trashed and some of his previous testimony in cases has be judicially criticised.

I still can't make my mind up. There is so much we don't know

 

[mikehammer69]

I think her diary or journal was a strange one…

Post it note
"I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them"

Only did a quick Google on her but some fatalistic thinking can be expected due to the nature of the job and mortality

The above would be more difficult to explain

 

[blup]

Unfortunately, those attempts have been exhausted. But I agree with the sentiment.

The bigger one for me is Professor Peter Hindmarsh - He effectively struck himself off, following a fitness to practice investigation that started at the time of the Letby trial. That information never made it to the jury. The obvious conflict of interest is huge.

Dr. Dewi Evans - has basically had his expertise trashed and some of his previous testimony in cases has be judicially criticised.

I still can't make my mind up. There is so much we don't know

It could get referred on the Hind marsh point alone, as with the Malkinson case where evidence was withheld.

 

[blup]

Is there any 'smoking gun' from a pro-guilty viewpoint

No gun smoking or otherwise, just flawed statistical correlations.

 

[motorbiking]

I can't think of any other major case where so much of the evidence was circumstantial.

 

[mikehammer69]

I can't think of any other major case where so much of the evidence was circumstantial.

People have been convicted of murder based on 100% circumstancial evidence

Names don't immediately spring to mind but it happens

 

[blup]

Post it note
"I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them"

Only did a quick Google on her but some fatalistic thinking can be expected due to the nature of the job and mortality

The above would be more difficult to explain

No more proof of guilt than the bit saying I didn’t do it proves innocence. Just the jottings of a young woman under intense psychological pressure.