Nurse murdered seven babies

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
icowden

icowden

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

briantrumpet

Timewaster
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

Ian H

Shaman
Sumption likes a band-wagon, but there does seem to be an increasing amount of doubt about Letby's conviction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
Ian H said:
Sumption likes a band-wagon, but there does seem to be an increasing amount of doubt about Letby's conviction.
Click to expand...

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'.
 
M

midlandsgrimpeur

Well-Known Member
briantrumpet said:
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'.
Click to expand...

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

briantrumpet

Timewaster
midlandsgrimpeur said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

briantrumpet

Timewaster
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.
 
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
spen666 said:
Like so many others, he is commenting with having seen or heard all the evidence.
Click to expand...

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.")
 
icowden

icowden

Pharaoh
C R said:
More revelations that put in question the reliability of the prosecution expert witnesses.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...itness-to-practise-investigation-during-trial
Click to expand...
The whole prosecution is starting to look like a joke. No-one can be found that supports Dewi Evans findings, and he has publicly contradicted his own evidence. Cases used for prosecution were selective.

Letby urgently needs a retrial. Given the incredibly detailed coverage in the Eye, I suspect that she would not be found guilty of doing anything other than working in a badly run, understaffed baby unit at the wrong time and not being on the right side of the right people.
 
M

midlandsgrimpeur

Well-Known Member
C R said:
More revelations that put in question the reliability of the prosecution expert witnesses.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...itness-to-practise-investigation-during-trial

The expert witness for the insulin poisoning part of the trial was under investigation during the trial. His fitness to practice was in question. The investigation was halted because he withdrew his registration from the GMC.
Click to expand...

I was going to mention this. In Phillip Hammond's original Private Eye piece he noted that Hindmarsh had been under Investigation, which was not disclosed, and as @icowden highlights, Dewi Evans evidence is also questionable, to the point that a Judge in a previous case dismissed Evans as completely unreliable.

I think we have said before on this thread that it is a highly emotive case and nobody wishes to diminish the loss of the babies and the grief of their families. Also, the only person that knows what happened is Lucy Letby and this is not a determination of her innocence or guilt, just simply a general feeling (supported by a lot of evidence) that her conviction appears unsound, as "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not seem to be a conclusion that any juror could have reached objectively.
 
spen666

spen666

Über Member
midlandsgrimpeur said:
I was going to mention this. In Phillip Hammond's original Private Eye piece he noted that Hindmarsh had been under Investigation, which was not disclosed, and as @icowden highlights, Dewi Evans evidence is also questionable, to the point that a Judge in a previous case dismissed Evans as completely unreliable.

I think we have said before on this thread that it is a highly emotive case and nobody wishes to diminish the loss of the babies and the grief of their families. Also, the only person that knows what happened is Lucy Letby and this is not a determination of her innocence or guilt, just simply a general feeling (supported by a lot of evidence) that her conviction appears unsound, as "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not seem to be a conclusion that any juror could have reached objectively.
Click to expand...

If the highlighted bit is correct, then she is either guilty or complicit in any killings that took place.

If someone else was responsible, then they would know what happened

************************************

Re jurors - 2 separate juries convicted her and a lot of these arguments have been aired before the Court of Appeal which dismissed them in a lengthy judgement that is worth reading

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf




*******************************************

An updated statement from the CCRC was issued last month. It is at https://ccrc.gov.uk/news/chairs-statement-on-lucy-letby-application-review/

A very significant event is that on the 11 December 2025, Letby waived privilege regarding her previous legal advisers. That too k10 months to give, but will potentially be significant in explaining why evidence was not called on her behalf at original trials
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom