Nurse murdered seven babies

[icowden]

Has he got a book out or something and needs a bit of limelight?
Because how he's got to that conclusion is bizarre.

How so? It much seems to be the opinion of a significant amount of the medical establishment. The evidence was poor and almost all of it has been undermined, not least by Dewi Evans who signed a statement to Channel 4 stating that he now didn't think that some of the babies dies in the way that he said they did.

No doctor, neonatologist or other medical professional has been able to find any evidence of murder when reviewing the medical records. The evidence all points to inadequate staffing, poor management and poor clinical care.

More here:
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby
and here on the EyePlayer:

View: https://youtu.be/_tgzG0Sj_6s?si=yvq5Kjkn7m3ZV9on

 

[briantrumpet]

I dare say that Hammond will eventually write a book, but if you read his writings regularly in PE, you'll know he's always open to changing his mind (see his covid coverage, for instance, which was constantly evolving), and was also instrumental in exposing the Bristol babies heart scandal, where the NHS desperately tried to evade accepting that institutional failures were to blame. It's always easier to blame an individual. Hammond seems to me to be a good egg who genuinely wants to improve the NHS, not least through changing the culture of being open about institutional failures.

Judith Moritz, the BBC 'special correspondent' who did a Panorama piece on Letby, however does have a book to sell, which argues for Letby's guilt. She has an interest in *not* changing her mind in light of evidence to the contrary.

https://brokenbottleboy.substack.com/p/if-she-didnt-do-it

 

[Ian H]

Sumption likes a band-wagon, but there does seem to be an increasing amount of doubt about Letby's conviction.

 

[briantrumpet]

Sumption likes a band-wagon, but there does seem to be an increasing amount of doubt about Letby's conviction.

The thing is that Hammond isn't saying she's innocent, but rather that the doubts about the safety of her conviction are becoming more numerous, and that it's getting harder and harder to ignore the need for a retrial, which would be the right place to judge whether the conviction is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

The thing is that Hammond isn't saying she's innocent, but rather that the doubts about the safety of her conviction are becoming more numerous, and that it's getting harder and harder to ignore the need for a retrial, which would be the right place to judge whether the conviction is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

I do always shy away from commenting on issues/events such as this due to the highly emotive nature but I think this is an important distinction. From my understanding, Hammond is not making a judgement on his belief as to whether or not Letby is innocent/guilty, but is fundamentally questioning the legal process surrounding her trial and conviction.

There is a big difference between gut feeling and whether you think someone is guilty and whether the evidence is sufficient to prove it. I think most people who aren't actually involved in cases like this base their reaction on the former, which is understandable, but not what due legal process should be about.

I had a friend some years back who was a juror on a particularly nasty case. Every single juror was absolutely convinced the accused was guilty but the CPS case was insufficient and could not give proof beyond reasonable doubt so they had to acquit.

 

[briantrumpet]

I do always shy away from commenting on issues/events such as this due to the highly emotive nature but I think this is an important distinction. From my understanding, Hammond is not making a judgement on his belief as to whether or not Letby is innocent/guilty, but is fundamentally questioning the legal process surrounding her trial and conviction.

There is a big difference between gut feeling and whether you think someone is guilty and whether the evidence is sufficient to prove it. I think most people who aren't actually involved in cases like this base their reaction on the former, which is understandable, but not what due legal process should be about.

I had a friend some years back who was a juror on a particularly nasty case. Every single juror was absolutely convinced the accused was guilty but the CPS case was insufficient and could not give proof beyond reasonable doubt so they had to acquit.

It's the 'beyond reasonable doubt' bit that is central. As judges will always remind jurists, "if you have doubts about the prosecution's case, you *must* acquit. It's the basis of the British legal system: it's for the prosecution to *prove* their case, not for the defence to *prove* innocence.

 

[briantrumpet]

FWIW, I really hate agreeing with anything David Davis says, so my instinct would be to disagree with him and his ilk re Letby, but even if there is some bandwagoning going on there, one needs to consider the arguments rather than the people who are making them.

 

[spen666]

Lord Jonathan Simption says

Lucy Letby is 'probably' innocent


That's some statement from a former Supreme Court judge

Like so many others, he is commenting with having seen or heard all the evidence.

 

[briantrumpet]

Like so many others, he is commenting with having seen or heard all the evidence.

I think that that framing by Sumption is less justifiable than Hammonds', that the original conviction appears to be unsafe and deserves a retrial. (I assume you meant "without having seen or heard all the evidence.")

 

[Regular.Cyclist]

Her barrister is said to be handing over ‘fresh evidence’ to the CCRC.