Lucy Letby infant murders trial - Guilty verdict (P 13)

Not followed this thread, or the case really (other than a very high level brief view) but listening to the latest Private Eye podcast on this was very interesting. It’s the second half of the podcast for those interested.

 
Here we go....


I have always thought she didn't do it. But that is me wanting not to believe anyone could do this. It's horrific to think someone could do this and that's where my brain doesn't understand how anyone could do it.

Isn't mislabelled away to set someone up ? Or cover your back ?
 
I have always thought she didn't do it. But that is me wanting not to believe anyone could do this. It's horrific to think someone could do this and that's where my brain doesn't understand how anyone could do it.
I had the same feeling but after listening to her court transcripts I changed my mine but this revelation has put that trial evidence in some doubt
 
Private Eye have been able to publish about this in the last few issues - I think they were prevented by injunction beforehand.

One claim is that the trial was essentially skewed - the prosecution had loads of expert witnesses, the defence none, and that creates an image.

Some of the evidence had alternative views of it ("this many happened when LL was there" - "yeah, but this many happened when she wasn't, how does that fit", I think). The counter-argument wasn't made available to the defence (again, I think this is what it said).

PE is pretty clear that they're not saying she's innocent, just that the trial was unfair. The Telegraph has put it on the front page today.
 
Private Eye have been able to publish about this in the last few issues - I think they were prevented by injunction beforehand.

One claim is that the trial was essentially skewed - the prosecution had loads of expert witnesses, the defence none, and that creates an image.

Some of the evidence had alternative views of it ("this many happened when LL was there" - "yeah, but this many happened when she wasn't, how does that fit", I think). The counter-argument wasn't made available to the defence (again, I think this is what it said).

PE is pretty clear that they're not saying she's innocent, just that the trial was unfair. The Telegraph has put it on the front page today.
Wouldn't that be grounds for the whole conviction and sentence to be quashed and have to do a new trial from scratch?
 
Wouldn't that be grounds for the whole conviction and sentence to be quashed and have to do a new trial from scratch?

It’s not clear from that post whether Private Eye is referring to the first or second trial.

But the Guardian article that has just being linked, clearly refers to the first trial.

There’s already been a retrial since then.

For a third trial, I imagine inaccuracies in the second one would have to be found. I’d have thought the first trial is pretty much irrelevant now.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.