Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Lucy Letby - after the BBC Panorama
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
JK2006 |
I can never quite understand why being arrogant is considered a bad thing. |
|
Jo |
The BBC/ITV documentaries certainly suggest that she should have a retrial.
I didn't think Dewi Evans came across well. He seemed arrogant (e.g. dismissing the other experts), and more concerned about being right than about entertaining the possibility that his findings were flawed.
Maybe the CCRC prioritises cases of people currently in jail. But if they do, that can't mean much, given how long they left Andrew Malkinson to rot. |
|
robbiex |
The only case of LUcy's that can't be accounted for yet, is the tube dislodgings which were claimed to be 40 times higher than average. The current QC'S answer was just that he didn't believe it. With all the other evidence seemingly dubious like the selective rota spreadheet.
If Letby's dislodgings were so astromincally high, then why did they wait till it got to 40 times higher. Were only the high days included in the data and the zero days excluded. |
|
JK2006 |
Examples of how complex the Letby case is - the "needle" claim is unimportant - whether or not a needle pierced the organ is less important than the fact that the resuscitation process may have caused the liver trauma. Oddly - exactly as Dewi Evans says in defence of his changing his mind about how air entered the body - whether through the blood or the stomach. He says, and it is precisely the same excuse, the detail of HOW is less important than the fact that it caused death and, in his opinion, it could only have happened intentionally. Other experts contradict that, but it's a valid prosecution point, also made (for the defence) by the needle man.
We should not blindly accept one and reject the other because our agenda is one way or the other.
Take this new evidence from Liverpool about the percentage of tube dislodgings in a different case. The BBC - wrongly - only presented one aspect. Did they all, as they should have done, also investigate numerous OTHER nurse and doctor links to dislodgings? Might there indeed be several similar percentages over the years? Such vital investigations must, surely, be made before the CPS makes any decision about one individual's guilt or innocence. And, if it DOES go to court, an adequate defence would do exactly that and present it to a Court if needed.
As Letby's old (and failed) defence KC said - it is foolish to proceed with flaws in your defence. The Court (as is now happening in media) will spot the flaws and use them to support the prosecution - just as vice versa.
Take the above NEEDLE evidence - the expert should, seeing the evidence that there was no piercing - have adapted his statement that a needle could have pierced or nudged the organ and that the other treauma points on the liver showed the death may have been caused by the failed resuscitation attempt.
Defence were so delighted by the piercing possibility that their agenda failed them. Adequate - let alone excellent - defence would have perfected this. It happened to me in 2001 - my totally inadequate defence team let me down. My excellent 2018 team did not - partly because I raised points which they then agreed to raise. |
|
JK2006 |
Clearly, without doubt, the conviction is unsafe. Whether or not she's guilty or innocent needs proper examination and an adequate defence with even more detailed evidence (clearing up some of the new errors from both sides). The tragedy is - and this includes hundreds of others - and myself - appeals take forever. The CCRC has not the budget or the training to decide what Judges should decide (as shown by Malkinson) and takes forever to refer (as in my case 25 years still considering).
I've just had a message from a Kenny Smith there asking me to stop sending them correspondence as they are far too busy with other cases and will get around to mine in due course. I do understand. 25 years is not nearly enough time to decide whether or not my complex case requires re-examination. Far too complex as opposed to nice simple convictions like murder. So if I find further FRESH EVIDENCE (which seems to happen regularly when I examine documents from 2001) I should not waste their time telling them about it.
LUCY, don't hold your breath. You could reach 80 before the CCRC decides whether or not you stopped babies taking their breaths. |
|
|
|
