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.
I know that the few times I went to the court there were a couple of NHS lawyers who appeared ostensibly to have possibly been advising the judge and prosecution during the trial. I was astonished at this as they (a) were not a party to the trial and (b) should not have had standing to participate (especially given their own conflict of interest)
NHS lawyers should have had no involvement in the case at all, none whatsoever, zero. Instead, they micro managed it before it even began and then at every step of the way. This whole case is disturbing to the core
Yeah, that conflict of interest was another thing (and the consultants working with Evans) - one would've thought that would have been (legal) reason enough to dismiss the whole thing.
My heart breaks for Lucy and her loved ones. Those of us who have scratched the surface, know all is seriously not well here. The recent debate in The House of Lords about the state of Maternity Services in England has hilighted excess maternal and neonatal deaths, and half of services deemed Inadequate or Needing Improvement. Staff shortages, loss of experienced midwives, and services at breaking point is a common theme. When complaints were made by staff, management were reported to deflect and 'circle the wagons' to protect reputations. What we know about Lucy's situation is she was stuck in the middle of a situation just like this. Whatever the next steps are to bring solutions, truth and understanding, we must all pull together and not give up.
This is horrible news. But you're right, horribly predictable.
As for her so-called 'defence' - I am personally of the opinion the whole thing was some kind of conspiracy. Because no defence can be that bad without being deliberately that bad. I mean, you have to try in order to be that incompetent. Then there's the rejected evidence. It's a travesty.
And if it has been a conspiracy, then perhaps the real question would be 'what were they hoping to cover up that they though LL might have found out or would whistleblow about?' I think it's far worse than simple health service failings - that's happening all over the country and isn't groundbreaking news. Certainly not the kind of news that would shock the people against the establishment. so it must be something a lot worse.
Well, that's something I suppose. Not holding my breath though. The system is corrupt to the core.
I would imagine the Assange outcome has also already been decided. If only there was a way to generate a nationwide sense of outrage at all these injustices... It's just so upsetting.
A friend of mine was wrongly convicted of rape by a woman who had accused no less than 5 other men of the same. He wasn't the sharpest tool in the box and was massively let down by his legal team. A major part of her accusation was that she was so drunk that she didn't know what she was doing. She was in our company for the 90 minutes she spent in a bar before she went home and she definitely was not so drunk she didn't know what she was doing - she was mildly tipsy at best. Within 10 minutes of joining our company she'd asked me out of the blue if I wanted to be her sugar daddy. Hmmmm. Because of the witness evidence regarding her drink consumption in the bar, she had her boss testify that she went to a different bar after work where they shared two bottles of wine.
The only problem was that she'd testified that she left her office at 1630. She worked 15 mins walk to the tram. She met a friend (not the accused) on the 1650 tram which is how she ended up in our company. He'd texted me and asked if he could bring her along and said in the text what time he was due to get a taxi hence nailing the time the tram left the city centre.
The police took a screen shot of that text with the date and time proving that she was on that tram and I still had the text on my phone. I'd pointed out to his solicitor that she couldn't possibly have stopped at a bar unless she'd necked a bottle of wine in 5 minutes flat. If the barrister had brought this up when her boss had perjured herself it would have made the accused herself a liar which then would have made it almost impossible to secure a conviction given there was no forensic evidence and one of her own daughters had queried her version of events in court. The barrister simply refused to go down this route of questioning the boss and the accuser and why their story contradicted the text evidence.
He got 8 years.
A friend is a retired criminal barrister. I asked his advice which was that my now-jailed friend should engage a firm of specialist appeal lawyers from another city and get them to submit an appeal on the basis that he'd not been represented properly by his legal team.
So what did he do? He'd only asked the very same lawyers to report on if they'd misrepresented him.
Stupid or what, but it would appear that Lucy Letby has done the very same thing. What a crying shame.
I know someone who was accused of 23 charges by a corrupt woman whose husband had a company that, in return for what the media of the day called 'pay for play', provided cars and office space to Victoria Police CIB about 25 years ago. That friend was accused of claiming to be an RN when they were only a student nurse. The VicPol CIB had gone to the nursing agency that had provided this nursing student to the corrupt woman to 'sit with' her alzheimer's affected mother at night and had, under a warrant, seized the student nurse's employment application with the agency. VicPol laid the charges the corrupt woman sought and, when the employment application failed to support the accusation, buried the employment application details during the criminal trial. They did not provide it to the defence team during discovery and effectively pretended it never existed. The nursing student was unfairly and inappropriately found guilty of 9 of the charges and never completed their nursing studies. It was about 2 years later during a civil trial where the corrupt woman was suing the nursing agency for providing this 'scary criminal to care for her mother' that the nursing agency, seeking to defend themselves, led evidence that the nursing student had never actually claimed to be an RN. The judge from the bench compelled the corrupt CIB detective to eventually produce the employment application showing the nursing student had actually correctly represented themselves... it took 6 years to expunge the nursing student's criminal record but their life was never the same. The effect of those 6 years cost that person about 20 years of their life and I see recently they have only now come full circle and started to pick back up where they left off their life at the point the criminal judgement was handed down. Even when these nurses and nursing students are evenually cleared, their lives are never the same.
The sad and stupid thing was that insurers for the nursing agency still paid the corrupt woman $50,000 to effectively go away and shut up... and when she sprouted her corrupt little tale of woe on Today Tonight (or one of the other evening so-called 'current affairs' shows), they didn't even bother to sue her to enforce their non disclosure clause!
Was the barrister incompetent? Probably not given that she was heading for QC at a very early age. My only explanation is that he had an all female legal team and they thought he was guilty. I know that's not supposed to happen but that's the only explanation.
I run a specialist recruitment firm and the accuser was actually a candidate in that sector hence my friend on the tram wanting to bring her along for a drink. When I got into the office on Monday morning I asked the team to mark her card and ensure that we never got her a job because she was obviously a not of sound mind. Hmmmm. They'd already got her a job and they had to refund the fee within 2 weeks of her commencing work because she'd been sacked for stalking her boss at his home.
I'd told the solicitor about this but she said that it was hearsay and inadmissible. I understood this but thought I'd bring it up in my witness testimony anyway and then the jury would have heard it even if the other side had objected and the judge had told the jury to disregard it. It can't have done my friend's case any harm and might have done it some good.
I was about to launch into it and my friend's barrister jumped to her feet and said, "Mr X, I know what you're going to say and that is against the rules of the court and you mustn't say it."
Talk about loading the dice. In my opinion she wanted a conviction as much as the prosecution. Maybe Lucy's did as well?
I know a barrister in NZ during my legal training that I observed give a clearly incompetent defence of a person during what was his first ever jury trial. He didn't care about the outcome because he needed to have at least represented a client during one jury trial in order to apply for a magistrate's bench warrant. I have seen the bench warrant application and yes, he did indeed use his client as evidence that he had represented a client during a jury trial. His client got a shite defence but he got his tick in the box.
If you don't mind my asking, What are the respective ethnicities of the defence, judge, accuser and accused? You're happy to implicate women as biased but is discussing race a bridge too far? The sentence seems high for a dubious date rape case and I'm wondering if competing ethnicities played a role. Of course, some White people take on anti-whitism, especially if they go to liberal colleges.
LL definitely needs a new defence team. But if she's in isolation, how is she ever going to know to do that? And would she have reason to believe her defence team were/are not acting in her own interests? She'd have to start conspiracy thinking, and for most people, that's very difficult psychologically.
The answer is quite simple to me, look at his CV, I don't see murder, health, neo natal etc . What I don't know is the procedure for him to get the job. I assume it is Legal Aid, but did her Solicitor get a choice?
'Benjamin Myers KC specializes in Business and Financial Crime, General Crime, Regulatory Law and Professional Discipline. Described as ‘brilliant’, ‘extremely astute’ ‘a superb jury advocate and lawyer’ with ‘an exceptional ability to digest complex cases’, he appears in courts and tribunals across the country and is ranked at the top of his field in crime and financial crime in Chambers Guide to the Legal Profession and in the Legal 500. '
This is atrocious! I was very surprised at the the time of the trial and its outcome that so many people I knew here in Ireland thought the trial was 'strange' and did not believe she had been shown to be guilty by any measure, never mind beyond a reasonable doubt. I can only hope she will have the fortitude to endure the length of time it will take to free her. As we say in Irish but I will translate 'bail ó Dhia ar an obair' or 'God bless the work'.
Do we have an address that we could all send a card to Lucy ? It must be desperate for her in there and those cards might just lift her spirits a little.
"The system is corrupt to the core". Yes indeed, thoroughly corrupt (to the core). This layman was highly suspicious from the outset about this case based on presented evidence. Even before that due to my outright contempt for our criminal justice system - H.M Constabulary, Crown Prosecution Services, and the courts themselves. These three bodies work and conspire together to achieve prosecutions, they do not act - as they should - as checks on each other. Something above all else bothers me about this case, a young woman who many significant individuals believe to be entirely innocent, is now languishing in a Durham prison without any prospect of release. She has that rare thing, a whole life sentence. Are there really people - doctors, police officers, expert(?) witnesses, CPS officials, prosecutors etc - involved in this case who have knowingly convicted an innocent woman? I say "knowingly" suggesting that in some cases it is just that, and in some instances it is effectively that due to a dereliction of professional duty. Truly are there such people?
I am thinking of the Fujitsu Horizon computer system used by the Post Office. The people at the top knew it was faulty yet to cover up a faulty system had no problem with the sub-postmasters going to jail or killing themselves. This case could be similar. Does this appeal rejection mean no hope ever?
This is what I find incredible and extremely disturbing, that there are people walking this earth - in numbers and of standing - who are willing to destroy innocent individuals to protect themselves. During my insignificant life I have been scapegoated by "friends" and organisations, but these were relatively small time scapegoating incidents - I lost jobs, I wasn't destroyed, nor did I find myself with a whole life sentence. From the low to the high it would appear that moral corruption is endemic
Similar for me, though most of my failures were due to myself a few were a gift from others. Overall I have had a happy life and never expected the corruption I have witnessed the past few years. Ontological shock.
I think the majority of humans have a default position of self interest (which will cover close
family and friends) - beyond that the ability to screw others rises in direct proportion to power and status which is why if is better to rely on a homeless person rather than a ceo of a large corp if you want integrity - and is why government is mere abuse and global gvt would be utterly ridiculous
It is usual for the NHS to rely upon bogus experts to act as their hired gun in legal claims. The hired gun is merely their spokesperson and will say whatever is required to defend them. In return, they are paid handsomely out of public money.
For example, would you trust a cruise ship entertainer who's never met you to write expert psychological reports about you for court? This is the business bogus expert and hired gun Dr Mike Drayton is in, paid for by the public and leaving all patients at risk: https://drmichaeldraytoncourtexpert.wordpress.com/
Lucy will not be granted permission to appeal in a million years. They will not open the lid on that can of worms. Lucy is the easy solution- the target for the families anger and grief and an answer for the public, ...while our wonderful NHS comes out of it unscathed .
Meanwhile, NHS Executives and their fat lawyers line their pockets....
Appeals are hard at the best of times. There has to be a materiel point of law that was got wrong at the initial trial and/or new fresh evidence that was not available and could not have been obtained at the time of the original trial. Much of what went wrong in Lucy's case was in existence at the time. The problem was, was that the legal process was tightly controlled to enable these nefarious wrong doings to persist and that corrupted due process. She can't appeal on these grounds. Her whole case went wrong by design
There's actually a further reason for appeal which is that the accused's legal team hadn't represented them properly. Unfortunately, Lucy's appeal was handled by the very same team that had represented her so poorly in the first place and so that was a non starter.
Pretty standard for them to reject first application to appeal (the courts make more money by doing that). The next stage is asking for oral hearing, which she has done. She now has just been granted an oral hearing to ask for permission to appeal and the date is fixed provisionally for 25th April at theCourt of Appeal. Here is my latest update article inc info about the FOI responses I got from COCH https://callystarforth.substack.com/p/the-greatest-miscarriage-continues
I note this will be redone by a panel of three judges. This was a cheering news item amid all the horrors going on. Also, Shamina Begum British citizenship stripping will be considered at the Court of Appeal. After what has gone on with Julian Assange these cases had totally destroyed my faith in a Justice system where the law was fairly and humanely applied on good evidence.
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/
I know that the few times I went to the court there were a couple of NHS lawyers who appeared ostensibly to have possibly been advising the judge and prosecution during the trial. I was astonished at this as they (a) were not a party to the trial and (b) should not have had standing to participate (especially given their own conflict of interest)
NHS lawyers should have had no involvement in the case at all, none whatsoever, zero. Instead, they micro managed it before it even began and then at every step of the way. This whole case is disturbing to the core
Yeah, that conflict of interest was another thing (and the consultants working with Evans) - one would've thought that would have been (legal) reason enough to dismiss the whole thing.
My heart breaks for Lucy and her loved ones. Those of us who have scratched the surface, know all is seriously not well here. The recent debate in The House of Lords about the state of Maternity Services in England has hilighted excess maternal and neonatal deaths, and half of services deemed Inadequate or Needing Improvement. Staff shortages, loss of experienced midwives, and services at breaking point is a common theme. When complaints were made by staff, management were reported to deflect and 'circle the wagons' to protect reputations. What we know about Lucy's situation is she was stuck in the middle of a situation just like this. Whatever the next steps are to bring solutions, truth and understanding, we must all pull together and not give up.
This is horrible news. But you're right, horribly predictable.
As for her so-called 'defence' - I am personally of the opinion the whole thing was some kind of conspiracy. Because no defence can be that bad without being deliberately that bad. I mean, you have to try in order to be that incompetent. Then there's the rejected evidence. It's a travesty.
And if it has been a conspiracy, then perhaps the real question would be 'what were they hoping to cover up that they though LL might have found out or would whistleblow about?' I think it's far worse than simple health service failings - that's happening all over the country and isn't groundbreaking news. Certainly not the kind of news that would shock the people against the establishment. so it must be something a lot worse.
So now what happens? Does she have any hope?
My understanding is that she has 24 days to request that her appeal request is heard by a panel of 3 judges so this stage is not over yet.
Well, that's something I suppose. Not holding my breath though. The system is corrupt to the core.
I would imagine the Assange outcome has also already been decided. If only there was a way to generate a nationwide sense of outrage at all these injustices... It's just so upsetting.
Sorry. I meant to say 14 days.
A friend of mine was wrongly convicted of rape by a woman who had accused no less than 5 other men of the same. He wasn't the sharpest tool in the box and was massively let down by his legal team. A major part of her accusation was that she was so drunk that she didn't know what she was doing. She was in our company for the 90 minutes she spent in a bar before she went home and she definitely was not so drunk she didn't know what she was doing - she was mildly tipsy at best. Within 10 minutes of joining our company she'd asked me out of the blue if I wanted to be her sugar daddy. Hmmmm. Because of the witness evidence regarding her drink consumption in the bar, she had her boss testify that she went to a different bar after work where they shared two bottles of wine.
The only problem was that she'd testified that she left her office at 1630. She worked 15 mins walk to the tram. She met a friend (not the accused) on the 1650 tram which is how she ended up in our company. He'd texted me and asked if he could bring her along and said in the text what time he was due to get a taxi hence nailing the time the tram left the city centre.
The police took a screen shot of that text with the date and time proving that she was on that tram and I still had the text on my phone. I'd pointed out to his solicitor that she couldn't possibly have stopped at a bar unless she'd necked a bottle of wine in 5 minutes flat. If the barrister had brought this up when her boss had perjured herself it would have made the accused herself a liar which then would have made it almost impossible to secure a conviction given there was no forensic evidence and one of her own daughters had queried her version of events in court. The barrister simply refused to go down this route of questioning the boss and the accuser and why their story contradicted the text evidence.
He got 8 years.
A friend is a retired criminal barrister. I asked his advice which was that my now-jailed friend should engage a firm of specialist appeal lawyers from another city and get them to submit an appeal on the basis that he'd not been represented properly by his legal team.
So what did he do? He'd only asked the very same lawyers to report on if they'd misrepresented him.
Stupid or what, but it would appear that Lucy Letby has done the very same thing. What a crying shame.
I know someone who was accused of 23 charges by a corrupt woman whose husband had a company that, in return for what the media of the day called 'pay for play', provided cars and office space to Victoria Police CIB about 25 years ago. That friend was accused of claiming to be an RN when they were only a student nurse. The VicPol CIB had gone to the nursing agency that had provided this nursing student to the corrupt woman to 'sit with' her alzheimer's affected mother at night and had, under a warrant, seized the student nurse's employment application with the agency. VicPol laid the charges the corrupt woman sought and, when the employment application failed to support the accusation, buried the employment application details during the criminal trial. They did not provide it to the defence team during discovery and effectively pretended it never existed. The nursing student was unfairly and inappropriately found guilty of 9 of the charges and never completed their nursing studies. It was about 2 years later during a civil trial where the corrupt woman was suing the nursing agency for providing this 'scary criminal to care for her mother' that the nursing agency, seeking to defend themselves, led evidence that the nursing student had never actually claimed to be an RN. The judge from the bench compelled the corrupt CIB detective to eventually produce the employment application showing the nursing student had actually correctly represented themselves... it took 6 years to expunge the nursing student's criminal record but their life was never the same. The effect of those 6 years cost that person about 20 years of their life and I see recently they have only now come full circle and started to pick back up where they left off their life at the point the criminal judgement was handed down. Even when these nurses and nursing students are evenually cleared, their lives are never the same.
The sad and stupid thing was that insurers for the nursing agency still paid the corrupt woman $50,000 to effectively go away and shut up... and when she sprouted her corrupt little tale of woe on Today Tonight (or one of the other evening so-called 'current affairs' shows), they didn't even bother to sue her to enforce their non disclosure clause!
The whole system is corrupt
It must happen all the time.
Was the barrister incompetent? Probably not given that she was heading for QC at a very early age. My only explanation is that he had an all female legal team and they thought he was guilty. I know that's not supposed to happen but that's the only explanation.
I run a specialist recruitment firm and the accuser was actually a candidate in that sector hence my friend on the tram wanting to bring her along for a drink. When I got into the office on Monday morning I asked the team to mark her card and ensure that we never got her a job because she was obviously a not of sound mind. Hmmmm. They'd already got her a job and they had to refund the fee within 2 weeks of her commencing work because she'd been sacked for stalking her boss at his home.
I'd told the solicitor about this but she said that it was hearsay and inadmissible. I understood this but thought I'd bring it up in my witness testimony anyway and then the jury would have heard it even if the other side had objected and the judge had told the jury to disregard it. It can't have done my friend's case any harm and might have done it some good.
I was about to launch into it and my friend's barrister jumped to her feet and said, "Mr X, I know what you're going to say and that is against the rules of the court and you mustn't say it."
Talk about loading the dice. In my opinion she wanted a conviction as much as the prosecution. Maybe Lucy's did as well?
I know a barrister in NZ during my legal training that I observed give a clearly incompetent defence of a person during what was his first ever jury trial. He didn't care about the outcome because he needed to have at least represented a client during one jury trial in order to apply for a magistrate's bench warrant. I have seen the bench warrant application and yes, he did indeed use his client as evidence that he had represented a client during a jury trial. His client got a shite defence but he got his tick in the box.
If you don't mind my asking, What are the respective ethnicities of the defence, judge, accuser and accused? You're happy to implicate women as biased but is discussing race a bridge too far? The sentence seems high for a dubious date rape case and I'm wondering if competing ethnicities played a role. Of course, some White people take on anti-whitism, especially if they go to liberal colleges.
All white. I'm a male feminist and not at all anti women. However I cannot think of any other explanation.
LL definitely needs a new defence team. But if she's in isolation, how is she ever going to know to do that? And would she have reason to believe her defence team were/are not acting in her own interests? She'd have to start conspiracy thinking, and for most people, that's very difficult psychologically.
The answer is quite simple to me, look at his CV, I don't see murder, health, neo natal etc . What I don't know is the procedure for him to get the job. I assume it is Legal Aid, but did her Solicitor get a choice?
'Benjamin Myers KC specializes in Business and Financial Crime, General Crime, Regulatory Law and Professional Discipline. Described as ‘brilliant’, ‘extremely astute’ ‘a superb jury advocate and lawyer’ with ‘an exceptional ability to digest complex cases’, he appears in courts and tribunals across the country and is ranked at the top of his field in crime and financial crime in Chambers Guide to the Legal Profession and in the Legal 500. '
https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/people/benjamin-myers-kc/
There is something really sinister going on with this case.
This is atrocious! I was very surprised at the the time of the trial and its outcome that so many people I knew here in Ireland thought the trial was 'strange' and did not believe she had been shown to be guilty by any measure, never mind beyond a reasonable doubt. I can only hope she will have the fortitude to endure the length of time it will take to free her. As we say in Irish but I will translate 'bail ó Dhia ar an obair' or 'God bless the work'.
Do we have an address that we could all send a card to Lucy ? It must be desperate for her in there and those cards might just lift her spirits a little.
https://www.change.org/p/retrial-for-lucy-letby-with-full-disclosure-of-nursing-rotas-for-omitted-15-infants.
This petition only needs 32 more signatures to be viable, so anybody who would like to sign can at the above link
"The system is corrupt to the core". Yes indeed, thoroughly corrupt (to the core). This layman was highly suspicious from the outset about this case based on presented evidence. Even before that due to my outright contempt for our criminal justice system - H.M Constabulary, Crown Prosecution Services, and the courts themselves. These three bodies work and conspire together to achieve prosecutions, they do not act - as they should - as checks on each other. Something above all else bothers me about this case, a young woman who many significant individuals believe to be entirely innocent, is now languishing in a Durham prison without any prospect of release. She has that rare thing, a whole life sentence. Are there really people - doctors, police officers, expert(?) witnesses, CPS officials, prosecutors etc - involved in this case who have knowingly convicted an innocent woman? I say "knowingly" suggesting that in some cases it is just that, and in some instances it is effectively that due to a dereliction of professional duty. Truly are there such people?
I am thinking of the Fujitsu Horizon computer system used by the Post Office. The people at the top knew it was faulty yet to cover up a faulty system had no problem with the sub-postmasters going to jail or killing themselves. This case could be similar. Does this appeal rejection mean no hope ever?
This is what I find incredible and extremely disturbing, that there are people walking this earth - in numbers and of standing - who are willing to destroy innocent individuals to protect themselves. During my insignificant life I have been scapegoated by "friends" and organisations, but these were relatively small time scapegoating incidents - I lost jobs, I wasn't destroyed, nor did I find myself with a whole life sentence. From the low to the high it would appear that moral corruption is endemic
Similar for me, though most of my failures were due to myself a few were a gift from others. Overall I have had a happy life and never expected the corruption I have witnessed the past few years. Ontological shock.
I think the majority of humans have a default position of self interest (which will cover close
family and friends) - beyond that the ability to screw others rises in direct proportion to power and status which is why if is better to rely on a homeless person rather than a ceo of a large corp if you want integrity - and is why government is mere abuse and global gvt would be utterly ridiculous
Evidence for the total C19 fraud piling up higher and deeper.
It is usual for the NHS to rely upon bogus experts to act as their hired gun in legal claims. The hired gun is merely their spokesperson and will say whatever is required to defend them. In return, they are paid handsomely out of public money.
For example, would you trust a cruise ship entertainer who's never met you to write expert psychological reports about you for court? This is the business bogus expert and hired gun Dr Mike Drayton is in, paid for by the public and leaving all patients at risk: https://drmichaeldraytoncourtexpert.wordpress.com/
Lucy will not be granted permission to appeal in a million years. They will not open the lid on that can of worms. Lucy is the easy solution- the target for the families anger and grief and an answer for the public, ...while our wonderful NHS comes out of it unscathed .
Meanwhile, NHS Executives and their fat lawyers line their pockets....
Appeals are hard at the best of times. There has to be a materiel point of law that was got wrong at the initial trial and/or new fresh evidence that was not available and could not have been obtained at the time of the original trial. Much of what went wrong in Lucy's case was in existence at the time. The problem was, was that the legal process was tightly controlled to enable these nefarious wrong doings to persist and that corrupted due process. She can't appeal on these grounds. Her whole case went wrong by design
There's actually a further reason for appeal which is that the accused's legal team hadn't represented them properly. Unfortunately, Lucy's appeal was handled by the very same team that had represented her so poorly in the first place and so that was a non starter.
Pretty standard for them to reject first application to appeal (the courts make more money by doing that). The next stage is asking for oral hearing, which she has done. She now has just been granted an oral hearing to ask for permission to appeal and the date is fixed provisionally for 25th April at theCourt of Appeal. Here is my latest update article inc info about the FOI responses I got from COCH https://callystarforth.substack.com/p/the-greatest-miscarriage-continues
I note this will be redone by a panel of three judges. This was a cheering news item amid all the horrors going on. Also, Shamina Begum British citizenship stripping will be considered at the Court of Appeal. After what has gone on with Julian Assange these cases had totally destroyed my faith in a Justice system where the law was fairly and humanely applied on good evidence.