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.
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?
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.
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.
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'.
"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?
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.
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
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
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?
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?
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.
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'.
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?
Evidence for the total C19 fraud piling up higher and deeper.
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.
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
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