Lucy Letby - innocent?

[Kalahari]

As a student in Leeds in the 1970s we used to go and attend trials (just like any other members of the public can...so we got no special access). One of the three I remember still was of Stefan Kiszko. SD members can use Google. On the evidence presented he was clearly guilty. Yet of course later on...

I have been, mostly, against the death penalty ever after the truth came out but what I have now always strongly felt for is this. If you lie under oath either as a normal witness or as an expert witness (or are selective in your testimony your give) then the full force of the law should fall upon you.

Poor Kiszko would never see any of those who gave false or misleading account brought to book. So the ever present thread of British justice is that if a witness effectively lies and a person is wrongly convicted that witness is never themselves in subsequent peril of their own liberty for their own misconduct.

Remember the case well, we were living in Leeds at the time. The policeman "leading" the investigation lived out a happy retirement on his full pension with no sanction what so ever. I agree with you about the death penalty too. I have in the past asked one or two of the "I would carry out the execution" people if they would still do it if their own life was immediately forfeit if it turned out that they had hanged someone who was innocent and then the policy seems a little less straight forward.

David.

 

[GlennUK]

Amazing, 14 babies commit suicide and the nurse who was responsible for their care gets found guilty of murder, obviously a miscarriage of justice.

And therein lies the problem, unless you have heard all yje evidence (including anything not previously available to the court) you're in no better position to judge her guilt or otherwise than anyone else.

If you have complete faith in the legal process that's fine. However, the number of occasions in recent years where it has been found wanting makes me somewhat sceptical about the process.

 

[timbrayford]

And therein lies the problem, unless you have heard all yje evidence (including anything not previously available to the court) you're in no better position to judge her guilt or otherwise than anyone else.

If you have complete faith in the legal process that's fine. However, the number of occasions in recent years where it has been found wanting makes me somewhat sceptical about the process.

Absolutely, but there does seem to be rather a lot of surrounding related issues including an ongoing enquiry. Our prisons are rammed full of wrongly convicted people, they are easy to identify, they are the ones that pleaded not guilty at their trials

 

[artschool]

Absolutely, but there does seem to be rather a lot of surrounding related issues including an ongoing enquiry. Our prisons are rammed full of wrongly convicted people, they are easy to identify, they are the ones that pleaded not guilty at their trials

what do you mean?

 

[Rake Aboot]

I have to agree! From what I understand and have heard on the news this "panel of world experts" that have come forward are now saying that the babies that died did not in fact die from the causes that were given at the time of the trial! How and why did the "experts" (At the time) get things so wrong?

The expert the prosecution used made himself available , telling them he had “ never lost a trial”
He had no license to practice and had not worked in the field for over 15 yrs
He walked into the investigation and proclaimed a murder within 20 minutes whilst drinking coffee.

The external panel was mainly made up of people from around the world with no knowledge of the actual case
Instigated and facilitated by Sir Dave Davis
It’s all looking very bad.
My own feelings were that something smelled when her right to appeal was so quickly dismissed

If she turns out to be innocent then the British legal system will be shattered.

 

[FrenchieBoy]

The expert the prosecution used made himself available , telling them he had “ never lost a trial”
He had no license to practice and had not worked in the field for over 15 yrs
He walked into the investigation and proclaimed a murder within 20 minutes whilst drinking coffee.

The external panel was mainly made up of people from around the world with no knowledge of the actual case
Instigated and facilitated by Sir Dave Davis
It’s all looking very bad.
My own feelings were that something smelled when her right to appeal was so quickly dismissed

If she turns out to be innocent then the British legal system will be shattered.

Thanks for that info, I wasn't aware of it! With that in mind it does raise a few good questions!
If it does show Lucy Letby to be innocent then it certainly will cast shadows on the British Judicial System!

 

[old 30-06]

enfieldspares, Currently it is taking up to 3 years for a serious case to actually get into Court. A single trial may last weeks, or even months. If you had separate trials for each offence alleged it would take forever. If the offender was found guilty of the first offence, would that not bias or influence the jurors about subsequent charges?

My concern is that all this media speculation will cause doubt about the robustness of our system. It should not be published until the facts are established.

 

[maximus otter]

"For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert."

12 randomly-selected members of the public saw and heard all of the evidence, and decided that she was guilty.

maximus otter

 

[Twodogs]

The members of the jury only heard the evidence that was presented to them, which does not necessarily constitute all the evidence.

 

[maximus otter]

The members of the jury only heard the evidence that was presented to them, which does not necessarily constitute all the evidence.

"To help guarantee a fair trial a defendant has the right to be provided with any material which could assist them in defending themselves. They have a right to an open and honest prosecution which reveals any weakness in the case against them. Investigators must pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry and this includes investigating matters which could point towards innocence as well as guilt.

When a defendant is charged with an offence, prosecutors are required to provide the defence with any material that undermines the case for the prosecution or assists the case for the defendant. This could be, for example, CCTV footage, statements from witnesses, mobile phone messages, social media conversations or photographs.

The CPS and the police have a duty to keep disclosure under review throughout the life of a case. If new material comes to light in the lead up to a trial, or during a trial, then that material will be reviewed by prosecutors who will determine if it has any impact on the proceedings.

Etc."

Disclosure | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

maximus otter

 

[tackb]

The expert the prosecution used made himself available , telling them he had “ never lost a trial”
He had no license to practice and had not worked in the field for over 15 yrs
He walked into the investigation and proclaimed a murder within 20 minutes whilst drinking coffee.

The external panel was mainly made up of people from around the world with no knowledge of the actual case
Instigated and facilitated by Sir Dave Davis
It’s all looking very bad.
My own feelings were that something smelled when her right to appeal was so quickly dismissed

If she turns out to be innocent then the British legal system will be shattered.

nah , they will ride it out without a care like all their failings

 

[Heym SR20]

My only experience of court is sitting as part of a 15 person jury in the Sheriff court. It was a nasty little alleged domestic violence case.

The prosecution case was compelling and before the defence presented its case I was pretty sure the defendant was guilty.

The defence then used police records from the desk sergeant that demonstrated that the timeline was impossible. The defence presented written evidence from the police records that the defendant was in the local police station on drunk and disorderly at the time the alleged offences occurred. No mention of this was made by any of the prosecution witnesses.

In my own mind this presented significant doubt as to the reliability of the prosecution evidence.

The jury returned a majority not guilty verdict. However some members of jury still returned a guilty verdict.

We all listened to same evidence. The sheriff did tell us in his summing up, that we were highly likely to each have a different recollection and interpretation of the evidence. And that if we had any doubt then the law requires that we should return a not guilty verdict.

 

[timbrayford]

what do you mean?

Only the guilty plead guilty, the rest are terrible victims of miscarriages of justice. Here's a brilliant idea for providing vfm for the taxpayers. Why not abandon the Ministry of justice and just let social media, the newspapers and BBC decide guilt and innocence, it would be so much simpler wouldn't it?

 

[GlennUK]

The expert the prosecution used made himself available , telling them he had “ never lost a trial”
He had no license to practice and had not worked in the field for over 15 yrs
He walked into the investigation and proclaimed a murder within 20 minutes whilst drinking coffee.

The external panel was mainly made up of people from around the world with no knowledge of the actual case
Instigated and facilitated by Sir Dave Davis
It’s all looking very bad.
My own feelings were that something smelled when her right to appeal was so quickly dismissed

If she turns out to be innocent then the British legal system will be shattered.

Can you quote your source for this info?

 

[artschool]

Only the guilty plead guilty, the rest are terrible victims of miscarriages of justice. Here's a brilliant idea for providing vfm for the taxpayers. Why not abandon the Ministry of justice and just let social media, the newspapers and BBC decide guilt and innocence, it would be so much simpler wouldn't it?

well in this case, fortunately, we have 14 world experts in neonatal care to assist so don't need to worry about social media etc.

 

[Apthorpe]

well in this case, fortunately, we have 14 world experts in neonatal care to assist so don't need to worry about social media etc.

You need to be a little careful about "world experts", because it's not at all unusual for them to be seriously wrong.

 

[artschool]

You need to be a little careful about "world experts", because it's not at all unusual for them to be seriously wrong.

Well they are world experts and we can just wait and see what happens.

 

[suburban bushwacker]

My GF was watching one of the programs about this case, a retired professor of hygiene was on. His point was the plumbing was incorrectly installed so water from the trap under the basin could splash back while someone was washing their hands, from a plumbing perspective this could be a massive vector for contamination. That would go a long way to explaining how so many babies had become sick in the unit.

 

[enfieldspares]

If the offender was found guilty of the first offence, would that not bias or influence the jurors about subsequent charges?

No because the judge will apply reporting restrictions that the verdict be not made known. These are still obeyed in the UK. You will see many recent headlines saying that "the BBC can now reveal that at an earlier trial XXX's co-defendants Mr YYY and Mr ZZZ pleaded guilty and will now appear for sentence along with XXX".

 

[timbrayford]

well in this case, fortunately, we have 14 world experts in neonatal care to assist so don't need to worry about social media etc.

And need not bother with trials and juries either. Forgot about evidence, all you need is a handful of opinionated experts and its job done. But it does make you wonder why the letby defence didn't call them as witnesses doesn't it?