• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Vixen said:
Not so. If you look at the OP's of which I am one (see post #15) - merged thread - you can see I followed the trial from the start. I notice most people who believe it is an MOJ got their info from a woman called Slivena, who wrote a long article for NY Times trying to influence the case whilst it was under sub judice, Private Eye or the appearance of Dr Shoo Lee, who is part of Macdonald's defence team.

The claim by a poster that this is a thread for arguing innocence is simply not correct.
Click to expand...

Yes, my point again. Your propensity to type anything that comes into your head without regard for truth or accuracy is not confined to cases you haven't been following. You do it all the time, especially when discussing subjects you claim to be familiar with.
 
Vixen said:
Shipman - and again, no-one doubts he did it despite never being convicted (he committed suicide)
Click to expand...
Perhaps you were thinking of Fred West, who was never convicted because he committed suicide while remanded in custody. However, that's not a good example either, since as well as overwhelming physical evidence, he also confessed to the murders.
 
Vixen said:
It needs to reach the legal criteria ceteris paribus of (a) is it new evidence, i.e., not known of as of the time of the trial AND does it (b) reach the criteria of having the threshold of a reasonable prospect of success in changing the verdict. In addition, under police caution you are warned that what you later rely on in court can be used against you, so if you can't be bothered to inform the police of your alibi as of the time of the crime, why is it someone else's fault?
Click to expand...
Answer my question as stated. In my hypothetical trial, it's not you that knows you have an alibi. Somebody comes forward during the trial but, for whatever reason (it is irrelevant) they are not called to testify by the defence.

Does the fact that their evidence is inadmissible during the appeal make you guilty?

It's a simple question.
 
jeremyp said:
Answer my question as stated. In my hypothetical trial, it's not you that knows you have an alibi. Somebody comes forward during the trial but, for whatever reason (it is irrelevant) they are not called to testify by the defence.

Does the fact that their evidence is inadmissible during the appeal make you guilty?

It's a simple question.
Click to expand...
Look, presumably I would have been arrested and questioned under caution. It is for the prosecution to prove its case. For me to be found guilty by a jury means it succeeded in doing so. So someone claims I was elsewhere at the time. Well, they need to prove it. This would entail explaining to the CoA why they only just came forward now, and given the prosecution proved its case, why their 'proof' trumps the prosecution's. It simply doesn't happen because if the prosecution proved I was there and did it, I can't have been elsewhere.
 
jeremyp said:
The judge heard him but it was ruled inadmissible on a technicality. It's still pretty damning for the prosecution case.
Click to expand...
No it's not, because the evidence never hinged on his 'Lee's Sign' as he now likes to call it. Skin discoloration DID happen and was noted on the medical records at the time. The father of one of the babies saw the skin discoloration coursing around the baby's body, so it WAS being coursed along by the baby's blood circulation.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No, you missed the point, which is the popular Letby-supporter canard 'it's circumstantial' implying it was all guesswork is flawed. I was using an EXAMPLE where it was even more 'circumstantial' - so to speak - as to why that is misconceived. It is certainly nothing to do with the pros and cons about other cases such as Shipman but to illustrate how evidence is weighed and a verdict reached. This comes in because the Letby-supporters keep bringing up Lucia de Berk and even - astonishingly - the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four, as if that proves Criminal Law in England & Wales is fatally flawed. I for one am a great advocate for looking at the cold objective facts of THIS case and how and why the jury (x 2) reached their verdicts, plus the two Court of Appeals, one of which heard Dr. Shoo Lee in person, legal experts trained to be coldly objective, who rejected both. So now it is at the CCRC, good luck with that.
Click to expand...
This is nonsensical evading.
 
Vixen said:
It needs to reach the legal criteria criterion ceteris paribus of (a) is it new evidence, i.e., not known of as of the time of the trial AND does it (b) reach the criteria criterion of having the threshold of a reasonable prospect of success in changing the verdict.
Click to expand...

Not wanting to derail, but I have an interesting example of this in Scots law. Those of you who go back long enough on the forum will remember that I spent a few years researching the evidence of the Lockerbie bombing. I was provided with raw evidence which was in the possession of the defence at the time of the trial, and analysed it in a way that it had not been analysed before. Eventually I wrote a book which proved that the police/prosecution theory about how the bomb had got on to the plane was a load of moonshine. The bomb was put into a baggage container at Heathrow airport at about 4.30 pm, whereas the prosecution had alleged this was actually done in Malta about nine in the morning. (The accused was at the airport in Malta at that time, but he was provably in Tripoli at 4.30 in the afternoon.)

By various legal manoeuvres we got my findings in front of the SCCRC. Here is the press release explaining why they rejected my submission.


1773151861665.png

"If accepted, this would fatally undermine the Crown case." Quite a strong admission, that. So how did they reject it?

The legal ground was that since all the evidence was in the possession of the defence at the time of the original trial, then the only arguable case was one of defective representation. In other words, that the original defence team had been negligent in not figuring out what I figured out. But the Commission decided that had not been the case, and that not exploring the evidence that would conclusively have proved their client's innocence was due to "good tactical reasons".

This leads us squarely to the same legal position as @jeremyp outlined hypothetically. We have evidence that would fatally undermine the conviction, but we have decided it's not admissible on technical grounds. Nevertheless the evidence is still there. The actual fact that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not Malta, remains.

It's my opinion (and that of legal experts I have talked to) that if the SCCRC had left it at that, the case would have proceeded to judicial review. At some point natural justice demands to be heard, and if you have conclusive proof that fatally undermines a verdict, that should not be dismissed on a technicality. But it didn't get that far because of the penultimate paragraph.

"The theory lacked certain important information, which the Sandwood report had highlighted. In light of this, it was not arguable that the Justice for Megrahi theory could show conclusively that the bomb had entered the airline luggage in Heathrow."

Translated, this basically says, we know something you don't know, and which we're not going to tell you about, which means that we don't think your conclusion is unarguable."

And that was that. The reasoning I put forward has never been challenged, never been disproved, never even been disputed as far as I know. The hard evidence says the bomb was introduced at Heathrow. But "we know something you don't know."

I think they had to dream this part up because, given the high profile of the case, to have simply dismissed my reasoning on a technicality would not have been practically tenable. But it seems that it is tenable if the case is not high-profile, as there have been cases where exactly that has happened. Cases where people spent years tracking down new evidence the defence never saw, which proved the accused to be innocent, but this was then dismissed on the grounds that "if the defence had tried hard enough at the time they could have unearthed this, but they didn't, so hard luck."

But despite all the legal shenanigans, the facts and the reality are there. That bomb was introduced at Heathrow, and in jeremyp's hypothetical, Vixen was 100 miles away from the murder she didn't commit. She seems content to be found guilty on these grounds, but most people would not be. It's a serious flaw in the justice system.
 
Rolfe said:
Not wanting to derail, but I have an interesting example of this in Scots law. Those of you who go back long enough on the forum will remember that I spent a few years researching the evidence of the Lockerbie bombing. I was provided with raw evidence which was in the possession of the defence at the time of the trial, and analysed it in a way that it had not been analysed before. Eventually I wrote a book which proved that the police/prosecution theory about how the bomb had got on to the plane was a load of moonshine. The bomb was put into a baggage container at Heathrow airport at about 4.30 pm, whereas the prosecution had alleged this was actually done in Malta about nine in the morning. (The accused was at the airport in Malta at that time, but he was provably in Tripoli at 4.30 in the afternoon.)

By various legal manoeuvres we got my findings in front of the SCCRC. Here is the press release explaining why they rejected my submission.


View attachment 69533

"If accepted, this would fatally undermine the Crown case." Quite a strong admission, that. So how did they reject it?

The legal ground was that since all the evidence was in the possession of the defence at the time of the original trial, then the only arguable case was one of defective representation. In other words, that the original defence team had been negligent in not figuring out what I figured out. But the Commission decided that had not been the case, and that not exploring the evidence that would conclusively have proved their client's innocence was due to "good tactical reasons".

This leads us squarely to the same legal position as @jeremyp outlined hypothetically. We have evidence that would fatally undermine the conviction, but we have decided it's not admissible on technical grounds. Nevertheless the evidence is still there. The actual fact that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not Malta, remains.

It's my opinion (and that of legal experts I have talked to) that if the SCCRC had left it at that, the case would have proceeded to judicial review. At some point natural justice demands to be heard, and if you have conclusive proof that fatally undermines a verdict, that should not be dismissed on a technicality. But it didn't get that far because of the penultimate paragraph.

"The theory lacked certain important information, which the Sandwood report had highlighted. In light of this, it was not arguable that the Justice for Megrahi theory could show conclusively that the bomb had entered the airline luggage in Heathrow."

Translated, this basically says, we know something you don't know, and which we're not going to tell you about, which means that we don't think your conclusion is unarguable."

And that was that. The reasoning I put forward has never been challenged, never been disproved, never even been disputed as far as I know. The hard evidence says the bomb was introduced at Heathrow. But "we know something you don't know."

I think they had to dream this part up because, given the high profile of the case, to have simply dismissed my reasoning on a technicality would not have been practically tenable. But it seems that it is tenable if the case is not high-profile, as there have been cases where exactly that has happened. Cases where people spent years tracking down new evidence the defence never saw, which proved the accused to be innocent, but this was then dismissed on the grounds that "if the defence had tried hard enough at the time they could have unearthed this, but they didn't, so hard luck."

But despite all the legal shenanigans, the facts and the reality are there. That bomb was introduced at Heathrow, and in jeremyp's hypothetical, Vixen was 100 miles away from the murder she didn't commit. She seems content to be found guilty on these grounds, but most people would not be. It's a serious flaw in the justice system.
Click to expand...
I get your advocacy for the Lockerbie bomber and the legal arguments. However, in your final paragraph you have strayed into the logical fallacy of 'begging the question' and false premise in that you are wrongly extracting from JeremyP's imaginary scenario of my being found guilty whilst someone has proof I had an alibi elsewhere. In that case, it shows the system works because I can bring it to the CoA. Where it turns into a logical fallacy is where you and JeremyP bring in an additional proviso of Letby having definitely 'been elsewhere' so to speak, as of the time of the crime. That is where the question has been begged and on which a false premise lies.

It illustrates the problem for law courts because it can't know the facts without testing the evidence. The case won't even get past the CPS if the police can't build a case that identifies you as the probable culprit and that a crime was committed.
 
In Jeremy's scenario, you have been denied permission to bring this new evidence back to the Court of Appeal, on the grounds that the evidence was available at the time of your original trial.

ETA: Perhaps we should firm up the scenario a bit.

You know you didn't commit the murder, and you know you were 100 miles away at the time. These are facts. Your problem is proving them.

The police have circumstantial evidence that leads them to the conclusion that you committed the crime. Let's say you had some apparent motive. Let's say that an eyewitness (who never saw you in his life) made a photofit that someone thought looked a bit like you. Then that eyewitness picked your photo out of a photospread ID exercise. Then he picked you yourself out of an ID parade.

You know that you were 100 miles away at the time, but you have no evidence to prove it. Your protestations to that effect are not believed by the police, or the prosecution, or the jury. The eyewitness evidence is believed to be conclusive. You are convicted.

But get this. You didn't do it. You know you didn't do it. You are legally guilty but factually innocent.

Then another eyewitness comes forward, someone who knows you personally and is in no doubt at all that the person he saw 100 miles away was you. However, the CCRC rejects your application for leave to appeal on the grounds that this second eyewitness could have been discovered at the time of the original trial, and the evidence is therefore not admissible.

Did you commit the murder?
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Perhaps you were thinking of Fred West, who was never convicted because he committed suicide while remanded in custody. However, that's not a good example either, since as well as overwhelming physical evidence, he also confessed to the murders.
Click to expand...
And his wife was convicted for some of the same crimes he had been charged with.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
In Jeremy's scenario, you have been denied permission to bring this new evidence back to the Court of Appeal, on the grounds that the evidence was available at the time of your original trial.

ETA: Perhaps we should firm up the scenario a bit.

You know you didn't commit the murder, and you know you were 100 miles away at the time. These are facts. Your problem is proving them.

The police have circumstantial evidence that leads them to the conclusion that you committed the crime. Let's say you had some apparent motive. Let's say that an eyewitness (who never saw you in his life) made a photofit that someone thought looked a bit like you. Then that eyewitness picked your photo out of a photospread ID exercise. Then he picked you yourself out of an ID parade.

You know that you were 100 miles away at the time, but you have no evidence to prove it. Your protestations to that effect are not believed by the police, or the prosecution, or the jury. The eyewitness evidence is believed to be conclusive. You are convicted.

But get this. You didn't do it. You know you didn't do it. You are legally guilty but factually innocent.

Then another eyewitness comes forward, someone who knows you personally and is in no doubt at all that the person he saw 100 miles away was you. However, the CCRC rejects your application for leave to appeal on the grounds that this second eyewitness could have been discovered at the time of the original trial, and the evidence is therefore not admissible.

Did you commit the murder?
Click to expand...
This illustrates why I rarely bother answering hypothetical questions; suddenly more and more 'what if's' appear. Whilst JeremyP's scenario is a reasonable one, your adding in the 'gotcha' of, 'you are not allowed to appeal' makes it unreasonable. Here's why. Whilst for minor crimes I dare say it happens all the time the court got it wrong, either you were guilty when you were acquitted or vice versa. In this extremely serious case huge sums of public money were thrown into this case to get it right. Letby's defence was equal in value to the prosecution's, plus she was given a team of four top barristers, to match that of the Crown's. A top judge who understands the importance of a fair properly conducted trial. It is simply nonsense to say Letby was not allowed to appeal when she was allowed two applications. Not everybody gets an appeal considered. It is sifted at first stage and the fact Letby's team were permitted TWICE to submit their points of law before a panel, including Dr. Shoo Lee allowed a presentation via Zoom, makes your 'what if?' scenario of 'no appeal was allowed' utter nonsense. MacDonald, Letby's barrister, succeeded in getting an Appeal hearing for Ben Geen - another nurse convicted of murder - (which, as you know, was not upheld) and he has regularly made applications to the CCRC, so the 'What if it is proven in court via trial by jury and then someone proves an alibi elsewhere AND the CoA "says no"', is frankly drifting into Cloud Cuckoo Land because you are positing that someone is both at the crime scene yet not at the crime scene at the same time (as far as the court is concerned) yet this defendant is not allowed to appeal.
 
jeremyp said:
Suppose you are on trial for murder. During the trial, a newspaper publishes a letter from somebody who saw you two hundred miles away from the scene of the crime at the moment you were supposed to be committing the murder. Your defence counsel fails to call them as a witness and you get convicted. Their evidence is disallowed at your appeal because it was available at the time of your original trial.

Does that make you guilty of the crime?
Click to expand...

Lets up the ante a bit....

Suppose you are on trial for murder. During the trial, a newspaper publishes an article in which they state you were captured on a surveillance camera buying petrol in a petrol station two hundred miles away from the scene of the crime at the moment you were supposed to be committing the murder. The video is clear, there no question that its you - the make, model and registration plate matches you car, and your credit card shows a timestamped transaction at the time on the video. Your defence counsel fails to get that video surveillance and present it in court, or to call the forecourt attendant as a witness - and you get convicted. Their evidence is disallowed at your appeal because it was available at the time of your original trial.

Does that make you guilty of the crime?

NOTE: I think is is a gross injustice that evidence is not valid because it was available at the time of the trial. If it is exculpatory, evidence ought to be available under any and all circumstances.
 
Rolfe said:
Evasion noted.
Click to expand...
boom3.gif
 
Oh no not again.

The police force behind the prosecution of the former nurse Lucy Letby has said it was not informed by a key expert witness before he gave evidence at her trial that he was under investigation over serious concerns in his medical work.

The Crown Prosecution Service also told the Guardian it was not aware that Prof Peter Hindmarsh was subject to the formal investigation by the hospital that employed him, before his first appearance as a witness on 25 November 2022.
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

Expert witness in Lucy Letby trial did not reveal hospital investigation into his medical work

Cheshire police and CPS say they were not told about inquiry into Prof Peter Hindmarsh before he gave evidence at nurse’s trial
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom