While I will make a more substantial post in response to the appeal rejection as more information comes to hand, around three hours ago it was announced that the Letby appeal had been rejected by the judge.
Anyone paying attention would know that on Twitter/X, I predicted this outcome.
So, I ask, was this outcome ever really in doubt?
Given:
The almost absolute lack of led evidence presented by counsel for the defence (when: (a) significant reliable evidence of a relevant and admissible nature that would go towards disproving Letby’s guilt existed, and (b) the experts and witnesses tendered by the prosecution had significant conflicts of interest primarily focused on self-interest and some potentially lacked standing as ‘experts’ in the matters they were being examined on).
and…
Our inability to penetrate why this failure to litigate a defence occurred.
Independant counsel are needed to review at least two aspects:
The development and conduct of Letby’s initial defence and appeal; and,
The pre-trial and early trial (including voir dire) procedural background of the trial.
It is my belief that somewhere buried in these new counsel may be able to identify the reason why, by all appearances, an eminently qualified and experienced KC appeared to have had his hands tied behind his back.
Essentially…
Why some people believe he didn’t bring his A game to the fore.
What is it we arent being told?
Its shocking how it happened, but there is a lengthy and convoluted process in the years running up to trial during which all manner of orders can be permitted and prohibited etc. This area of legal tactics is the one in which the NHS is expert. Basically they rig the legal process so that by the time the case arrives at court, its guaranteed to go one way. I have read that NHS lawyers were heavily involved in controlling the legal process of this prosecution (when in theory it had nothing to do with them and was run by CPS). However, of course the NHS was intently keen on scapegoating someone else to cover their own failings and protect themselves, their reputation and million pound bonuses and pension pots etc. So this is how it came about that evidence wasn't presented and they got away with using hired gun experts- it would have been contrived in this way by the bully NHS in the yrs before trial. Why and how Lucy Letby's own defence barrister allowed all this to get passed is what I don't understand.
The NHS is an expert in bullying, deception, fraud and perverting the course of justice, as I too found out : https://patientcomplaintdhcftdotcom.wordpress.com/
At this point the appeal application was dismissed by the single judge. Reasons are nor published for those decisions. I wish they were. The full court can be asked to grant permission to appeal. Permission to appeal is usually based only on points of law. The overall question is whether the conviction is unsafe.
The public inquiry now has statutory powers and that is right. However, the inquiry may not determine questions of criminal or civil liability.
I could write much more - e.g. re use of statistics. It is a form of evidence that can sound very convincing to lay persons even when, to the statistician. It is flawed. It is for the trial judge to decide whether a witness will be allowed to give expert evidence which includes opinion. Defence counsel have opportunity to make representation to the judge if they have reason to question the expertise of a particular witness.
A case to watch with interest. There are certainly some questions but are they enough to get permission from the court for an appeal?