Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

[Vixen]

The reasons to look at Letby the assumptions behind those investigations, were predicated in faulty statistics.

There was a couple of doctors in the jury (x 2 trials, new jurors) sceptics, just like yourself. Deliberated long and hard. That's how Criminal Law works: the jury's verdict is final. Letby's only hope is some kind of lapse in protocol or a mistrial. For example, Hindmarsh or the statistics not being properly disclosed.

Unfortunately for Letby, Justice Goss made sure the trial was fair. The defence, under instruction from it's client, Letby herself, declined to call the defence statistician expert. We can infer that is because it didn't support any misuse of statistics.

 

[Vixen]

One famous example of dodgy-defence lawyering would be Barry Scheck and OJ.

The USA and it's celebrity-style tv-show court room drama was a case of a racist detective with a mainly Black jury still smarting from Rodney King politics who perceived the police as having planted the glove. Hardly a like-for-like situation.

 

[The Common Potato]

Whoosh!

 

[catsmate]

By the way, the latest Felicity Lawrence article is not 'exclusive' it has been common knowledge for years that Hindmarsh was being investigated by BMA for unrelated issues.

Not to the jurors.....

 

[catsmate]

The reasons to look at Letby the assumptions behind those investigations, were predicated in faulty statistics.

Exactly. With the post-trial revelations about the poor standard of care, and the recent revelations about NHS maternity and post-natal care failings, it becomes increasingly unlikely that there were any murders.

 

[Vixen]

Not to the jurors.....

It was disclosed to Ben Myers KC, and therefore to Letby herself. There was nothing to stop them from objecting. Justice Goss himself is hardly going to risk a dodgy court-appointed expert. Those experts were vigorously cross-examined. Doctors have ongoing complaints with GMC all the time. What's important is relevance to the case at hand. Next, I dare say we'll see 'exclusives' about how one of the bastards had a parking ticket.

 

[catsmate]

It was disclosed to Ben Myers KC, and therefore to Letby herself. There was nothing to stop them from objecting. Justice Goss himself is hardly going to risk a dodgy court-appointed expert. Those experts were vigorously cross-examined. Doctors have ongoing complaints with GMC all the time. What's important is relevance to the case at hand. Next, I dare say we'll see 'exclusives' about how one of the bastards had a parking ticket.

And yet reasonable people think that telling the jurors that one of the main prosecution witnesses was under investigation and later backed out of the process would be relevant.....

 

[Vixen]

And yet reasonable people think that telling the jurors that one of the main prosecution witnesses was under investigation and later backed out of the process would be relevant.....

Well, junior barrister Mark McDonald's early 'world famous expert' panelist, Canadian Dr. Clark (iirc) was no longer registered as a doctor in the UK yet felt bold enough to claim Dr Brearey killed a particular baby, and neither has since apologised for the calumny. Clark has been very quiet since.

 

[The Common Potato]

Dr Shoo Lee cunningly omitted four papers from his revised 2024 paper, that contradicted his narrative. He even announced he was coming to Letby's rescue like a White Knight by presenting a new paper. The Court of Appeal previously allowed him to present his arguments by Zoom in an appeal application that was thrown out, Lee's claims not considered relevant to the case and how it was decided.

Most Letby fans never followed the ten-month trial, simply reading hysterical puff pieces in the tabloids or PRIVATE EYE, not realising the hacks were paid to churn out clickbait PR-sponsored 'opinion' pieces.

We are still being regularly fed 'COULD JEREMY BAMBER BE A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE???' fifteen years later.

The moral is, don't believe what you read in the papers, especially if the headline includes the word, 'Could...?'

'Could', or, rather, 'possibly might not be' is the whole point.

 

[The Common Potato]

There was a couple of doctors in the jury (x 2 trials, new jurors) sceptics, just like yourself. Deliberated long and hard. That's how Criminal Law works: the jury's verdict is final. Letby's only hope is some kind of lapse in protocol or a mistrial. For example, Hindmarsh or the statistics not being properly disclosed.

Unfortunately for Letby, Justice Goss made sure the trial was fair. The defence, under instruction from it's client, Letby herself, declined to call the defence statistician expert. We can infer that is because it didn't support any misuse of statistics.

Wot! These jurors considered matters that were not given in evidence, in the court.
Wot! The judge was privy to the jury's deliberations?

I never knew either of my grandmothers, but I reckon both were mighty egg-suckers.

 

[The Common Potato]

Dr Shoo Lee cunningly

Ooo! What a bounder. Probably a cad.

 

[The Common Potato]

There was a couple of doctors in the jury (x 2 trials, new jurors) sceptics, just like yourself. Deliberated long and hard. That's how Criminal Law works: the jury's verdict is final. Letby's only hope is some kind of lapse in protocol or a mistrial. For example, Hindmarsh or the statistics not being properly disclosed.

Unfortunately for Letby, Justice Goss made sure the trial was fair. The defence, under instruction from it's client, Letby herself, declined to call the defence statistician expert. We can infer that is because it didn't support any misuse of statistics.

The principle of finality is a USA thing, I think, but English and Welsh courts also use it. It's not a bad principle - it prevents frivolous appeals - but massively obstructs justice when there are serious, non-legal reasons to reconsider a case. I vaguely recall reading that the British Home Secretary - probably Roy Jenkins - back in the day changed the law to allow appeal court judges (the law-lords, then) to question a juries determination of fact. and find in favour of an appeal on those grounds.

 

[catsmate]

Wot! These jurors considered matters that were not given in evidence, in the court.
Wot! The judge was privy to the jury's deliberations?

I never knew either of my grandmothers, but I reckon both were mighty egg-suckers.

The first point would, of course, be grounds for a mistrial......
I wonder how @Vixen learned these supposed details?

 

[The Common Potato]

The first point would, of course, be grounds for a mistrial......
I wonder how @Vixen learned these supposed details?

Re point #1. I know it is but really don't think it should be, though.

 

[Vixen]

Wot! These jurors considered matters that were not given in evidence, in the court.
Wot! The judge was privy to the jury's deliberations?

I never knew either of my grandmothers, but I reckon both were mighty egg-suckers.

Defence barrister Ben Myers, had every opportunity to grill Hindmarsh when he was in the witness box. The duty of the judge in a trial is to make sure it is a fair hearing - especially for the defendant - as the last thing a judge wants is criticism from a Court of Appeal. The Crown, anxious not to waste public money, will select the top judge on its books to ensure court protocol and procedure is adhered to. Given the court knew about Hindmarsh's disciplinary investigation, as it was obliged to be declared, Justice Goss obviously didn't see it as relevant to his testimony. The decision to allow it was open to Myers to make an application for a formal objection, to exclude Hindmarsh. Obviously, such an application was dismissed, were it made pre-trial. Even then there was nothing to stop Myers from bringing it up, although having said that judges do have to be strict as to what issues are relevant to the case at hand. The issues, evidence and witnesses are agreed in advance of a trial between all parties, including the judge. It really doesn't happen that some GUARDIAN 'investigative journalist' can burst through the court room doors shouting, "WAIT! I've discovered some last-minute information that Dr. Hindmarsh is an utter rotter!" <fx: 'Order, order!' gavel banging, much consternation and hubbub in the court room as the jury is quickly ushered out.> We-ee-ll.

 

[Vixen]

Ooo! What a bounder. Probably a cad.

Yes, it seems to be a thing where alleged female killers are involved - Hindley, Knox, Letby et al - for a bunch of soppy middle-aged and elderly men to come racing to the distressed damsel's rescue. Perhaps they are expecting a blow job or something should the object of their protective instincts get out of prison as a result of their intervention.

 

[Vixen]

The principle of finality is a USA thing, I think, but English and Welsh courts also use it. It's not a bad principle - it prevents frivolous appeals - but massively obstructs justice when there are serious, non-legal reasons to reconsider a case. I vaguely recall reading that the British Home Secretary - probably Roy Jenkins - back in the day changed the law to allow appeal court judges (the law-lords, then) to question a juries determination of fact. and find in favour of an appeal on those grounds.

It's the Anglo-Saxon model of law based on the rough concept of 'personal injury' dating back a thousand years; so, if your neighbour caused you to lose an arm, you could claim his sheep, or settle matters with a pistol duel at dawn. The judges would be from your community (but only a certain class was allowed justice or even ownership of land and inventory). This is the form adopted by former British colonies, such as the USA (although trials are now rare there, with their 'plea deals'). What we have in Europe is Roman Law in which you get a panel of judges (i.e., a tribunal) and both parties can appeal against a verdict. Given you have a high chance of being found 'Not Guilty' by a jury of your peers (UK), who tend to empathize with the guy in the dock - much to the chagrin of the police - a trial by a jury has a better outcome for the average person on trial than a bunch of professionals having an academic debate, who likely let ego get in the way and they all hate each other with a passion anyway (as with the doctors ~vs~ nurses ~vs ~ NHS Trust executives at the CoCH, as became apparent at the Thirlwall Inquiry).

 

[Vixen]

The first point would, of course, be grounds for a mistrial......
I wonder how @Vixen learned these supposed details?

As well as following the trial, I also followed Thirlwall. I am guessing you follow the guy in PRIVATE EYE.

 

[jeremyp]

It seems to me that people keep raising awkward facts that point to the conviction being unsafe. Vixen's defence against all of these seems to be "the defence counsel didn't bother to raise it at trial, therefore it doesn't count". That is a true statement with respect to the trial and jury, but we are not in the trial. We can consider all the evidence that has been made public and we don't have to assume that, just because the defence counsel decided not to use it, it is unimportant. Defence counsel might just have been incompetent.

Multiple people have raised doubts about multiple parts of the evidence. You can't dismiss their findings just because they weren't in the trial. It's my opinion that Letby's conviction was unsafe. If you want to convince me otherwise, you have to address the evidence that underlies my position and not say "it doesn't count because the defence didn't use it" or "it's invalid because it's not grounds for an appeal".

 

[Vixen]

It seems to me that people keep raising awkward facts that point to the conviction being unsafe. Vixen's defence against all of these seems to be "the defence counsel didn't bother to raise it at trial, therefore it doesn't count". That is a true statement with respect to the trial and jury, but we are not in the trial. We can consider all the evidence that has been made public and we don't have to assume that, just because the defence counsel decided not to use it, it is unimportant. Defence counsel might just have been incompetent.

Multiple people have raised doubts about multiple parts of the evidence. You can't dismiss their findings just because they weren't in the trial. It's my opinion that Letby's conviction was unsafe. If you want to convince me otherwise, you have to address the evidence that underlies my position and not say "it doesn't count because the defence didn't use it" or "it's invalid because it's not grounds for an appeal".

The matter at hand here is not 'Is it important?', it is whether it qualifies as a point of law on which to appeal. The Hindmarsh issue does not qualify under 'new evidence' as it was dealt with one way or another at the trial. No criminal trial ever knows about absolutely everything, nor does it need to. The only criteria is whether the jury is reasonably sure of guilt, which many erroneously take to mean 'absolutely sure no doubt whatsoever'. However, this is not reasonable as the most heinous crimes are committed by stealth and in great secrecy. If you have a fair hearing in front of twelve of your peers - persons who have sat through the entire hearing and deliberated with their fellow jurors - then I don't see how some guy in the street proclaiming they have a 'gut feeling' the verdict was wrong, because some hack said so in their newspaper column, trumps the jury's verdict. I could tell you I don't believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty but who cares? I wasn't at the hearing. Why should we care? There is the safety net of the Court of Appeal and the CRCC. The CoA rejected Shoo Lee's argument and also a second claim. The CRCC are currently assessing the case. Letby has only just waived privilege.