A new trial forum for political discussions. Largely unmoderated, so whilst discussing politics is fine, personal abuse isn't. So please keep it civil.
As with other forums the posts to do not reflect the view of the FLYER team.
#2021507
Two days ago, the New Yorker Magazine published an article laying severe criticism on the safety of Lucy Letby's convictions for murder.

Normally I don't concern myself with internet conspiracy theories - except this one now has a court order banning publication in the UK.

It makes compelling reading - enough so that David Davis used his Parliamentary privilege yesterday to draw attention to it.

Nothing underlines the importance to me of needing to read something, than being told by court order that I'm not allowed to read it .... that it's somehow "bad" for me to learn it's contents.

Having read the article, it seems to me that this case may be - just like the Post Office - another case of "It's easier to bang someone up in jail than it is to investigate and fix systemic failures in a large government department".
#2021532
The NYP seems to have a regional block on the article. Huff Post have a piece on it. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... 2a60f371e6

It has echoes of the Sally Clark affair with (not necessarily good) stats being used to convict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
Mz Hedy, A4 Pacific liked this
By Big Dex
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#2021551
I’ve just read the New Yorker piece via a VPN; it certainly puts a different (and seemingly believable) slant on the case. Indeed, I find it easier to believe that an NHS hospital is broken to the point of dysfunction and managers would seek a scapegoat for the ensuing mortality, than I do to accept that a nurse would kill babies for kicks; but then there’s Shipman.

One hopes that her appeal will be granted and a further assessment is made, but I have little confidence that such an assessment would be independent and objective with the political fallout that would ensue were she to be exonerated.
#2021577
riverrock wrote:The applicant currently has an application open for "leave to appeal". Doesn't surprise me that something like this could affect a fair trial, so makes sense that it should be hidden until the judicial processes are complete.
https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/profe ... 6-04-2024/


If that argument was sound, then all the news articles demonising Letby as a multiple murderer, surely should equally be prohibited from publication?

G
A4 Pacific, A le Ron liked this
#2021583
riverrock wrote: The applicant currently has an application open for "leave to appeal". Doesn't surprise me that something like this could affect a fair trial, so makes sense that it should be hidden until the judicial processes are complete.


Reporting restrictions are almost invariably lifted after a verdict is found. Indeed court proceedings are reported as the trial advances. Any subsequent appeal is heard by judges, not jurors. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

There was also an excellent TV programme called “Rough Justice” which analysed previous convictions it thought may be unsafe. Often with stunning ultimate results.

Indeed ‘Mr Bates versus the post office” was in a similar mould.

I haven’t been able to view the piece, but from what I’ve heard, I’m concerned.
Last edited by A4 Pacific on Wed May 15, 2024 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#2021586
I’ve read the piece, it accessible if you use a VPN

It confirms my feeling about the case from the beginning, , all the evidence was circumstantial . The unit was overcrowded, understaffed , poorly maintained and already had a high incidence of neo natal deaths before she worked there. ,
The key evidence was a seems like a crude analysis of correlation between the (selected) suspicious/unexpected deaths and who was on duty. Other deaths were excluded as not suspicious/ unexpected on a unit caring for the very, very poorly neonates where deaths were, sadly, a common event.

Systemic failure blamed on one unfortunate individual. Where have we heard this before?

Banning the article is pointless, it took me 30 seconds to find it.

The fact that her defence did not offer a statisticians review of the evidence against her is very of odd. It feels like a first order error.
A4 Pacific liked this
User avatar
By Hanworth
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#2021608
Jim Jones wrote:The fact that her defence did not offer a statisticians review of the evidence against her is very of odd. It feels like a first order error.


Legal people are notorious for having no understanding of the significance of statistical argument. It's one reason why DNA evidence is so tricky.
Jim Jones liked this
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#2021617
A4 Pacific wrote:
riverrock wrote: The applicant currently has an application open for "leave to appeal". Doesn't surprise me that something like this could affect a fair trial, so makes sense that it should be hidden until the judicial processes are complete.


Reporting restrictions are almost invariably lifted after a verdict is found. Indeed court proceedings are reported as the trial advances. Any subsequent appeal is heard by judges, not jurors. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

One of the counts is being re-tried next month.
I've no special view or insight of the court order.
#2021620
I have no direct nor specialist knowledge, but I was uneasy about this conviction, and glad that the doctor has been reinstated by the GMC. It seemed to me at the time that she was the only person from the hospital who was completely open with investigators, and that led to her being the only one to be punished (in her case, with a jail sentence, later suspended) in any way:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-57700681

"Jack Adcock manslaughter: Convicted doctor 'fit to practise' "
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#2021621
I am increasingly uneasy about jury trials and I think the time has come to move to a panel of judges with skilled professional support.

The world was a much simpler place when trial by jury was introduced and I suspect it's now passed its sell by date.

I'm also in two minds about Lay magistrates, though the stakes are rather lower there...
Flyin'Dutch' liked this