No medical evidence’ to support Lucy Letby’s conviction, expert panel finds..
Wow. If this is true, then this is possibly one of the worst injustices I've come across.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
That's what the panellists say; but I think this will be a very hard case to prove either way at appeal level.
Letby is entitled to appeal, but an Appeal Court can only accept evidence not used in the original trial.
Letby is entitled to appeal, but an Appeal Court can only accept evidence not used in the original trial.
View 5 more replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@22Michelle Indeed so. I recall someone telling me he was once a witness in a company financial hearing, and though a civil rather than criminal law case, he said the hearing largely consisted of barristers and accountants quoting cases and laws back and forth.
I think another aspect of the danger you suggest is that even if the expert juror has no personal or work connection with the accused or accuser, nor any preconceptions, he or she might still be swayed by loyalty to the profession as a whole.
I think another aspect of the danger you suggest is that even if the expert juror has no personal or work connection with the accused or accuser, nor any preconceptions, he or she might still be swayed by loyalty to the profession as a whole.
22Michelle · 61-69, T
@ArishMell Interesting article.
https://theconversation.com/experts-have-challenged-the-medical-case-against-lucy-letby-what-about-the-statistical-evidence-249221
https://theconversation.com/experts-have-challenged-the-medical-case-against-lucy-letby-what-about-the-statistical-evidence-249221
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@22Michelle It is, not least because it shows the key to understanding what is most likely to have happened needs appreciating statistics, probability and logic, not biology and medicine.
Thank you for that link.
Thank you for that link.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
@jshm2
Whether anything comes of this is another matter.
Letby’s convictions for murdering and harming babies by injecting air into their bloodstreams and poisoning them with insulin rested largely on evidence presented by one retired consultant paediatrician. Now a 14-strong panel of eminent neonatologists and paediatricians from around the world is unequivocal in its conclusions that no scientific proof of this exists.
The panel found “no medical evidence supporting malfeasance causing death or injury” in any of the babies whose cases they examined.
Letby's Barrister, Mark McDonald KC said: “You do not get any better than the expert neonatologists that have written these reports and it’s completely demolished the medical evidence that was presented to the jury.”
The panel found “no medical evidence supporting malfeasance causing death or injury” in any of the babies whose cases they examined.
Letby's Barrister, Mark McDonald KC said: “You do not get any better than the expert neonatologists that have written these reports and it’s completely demolished the medical evidence that was presented to the jury.”
Whether anything comes of this is another matter.
Adeptlinguist · M
Do you know this podcast?
https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/was-there-ever-a-crime-the-trials-of-lucy/id1616634411
https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/was-there-ever-a-crime-the-trials-of-lucy/id1616634411
Adeptlinguist · M
Do have a link?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
22Michelle · 61-69, T
@jshm2 If the expert witness in the first trial is proven to be unreiable then everything falls apart and her convictions will be declared unsafe. What happens then is still unknown. Will she be set free, or will there be a retrial?
One other point. If she is indeed innocent will people and the media accept that, or will she be the woman "that got off with killing babies" for the rest of her life?
One other point. If she is indeed innocent will people and the media accept that, or will she be the woman "that got off with killing babies" for the rest of her life?
LeotardWearer · 56-60, M
@22Michelle It was the witnesses that complained that the evidence presented by the CPS was misleading and used wrongly. Its the witnesses that are campaigning for her to be acquitted