Posted on 08/29/2024 12:04:15 AM PDT by RandFan
Lucy Letby has become arguably the most notorious serial killer of modern times.
Convicted of killing seven babies in her care and attempting to kill seven others – the former neonatal nurse will die in prison.
But for some time now, a growing number of experts have been raising concerns about her trials, claiming that vital evidence may have been misinterpreted.
Others insist that much of the debate is misguided and there is no evidence to show that the trial was in any way unfair or unreliable.
An inquiry into the Countess of Chester Hospital and the NHS’s handling of the whole matter is set to begin on 10 September.
Letby’s murder trial last year was one of the longest in British legal history, following a six-year police investigation - and was followed by a retrial after a verdict on allegations concerning one baby could not be reached.
Six expert medical witnesses and many former colleagues testified against her. Thousands of documents were presented by the prosecution and pored over in many months of painstaking examination.
Their case was wide ranging, including blood test results which showed that two babies had been given an insulin overdose, X-rays which indicated that air had been injected into seven others, while others still were shown to have been force-fed with milk.
Then there were the notes at Letby's house which appeared to contain confessions - one reading "I am evil" - and the frequent social media searches she made for the families of the babies who had died, which lawyers maintained was the nurse showing a morbid curiosity to witness the effect she had on their lives.
A staffing rota also showed she had been on duty for every suspicious death or collapse between June 2015 and June 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
I know some are following this case...
The problem for her legal team is it's very, very rare to get a criminal case like this reviewed once convicted by a jury in England.
Unless something comes to light...
The evidence against her does appear pretty damning, but only in the ‘on the balance of probabilities’ sense. Good enough for a civil case, but it seems to fall short of the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard that you are supposed to require for a criminal conviction under a common law legal system.
It looks bad but if you read the article many Dr’s/professors say it’s not as cut and dried and they dont know:-
“I don’t think anyone knows except Lucy Letby.”
But is that good enough to jail her for life? Losing her job as a nurse and licence to practice, definitely but you can’t just lock someone up for the rest of their life because they ‘probably’ did it.
I seem to recall reading about how she may be innocent. Has the dying stops since she’s been gone
I agree with you but a jury conviction is hard to overturn.
The other thing is it doesn’t need to be a unanimous jury decision either.
I know in the US for example it has to be in certain cases
There is debate about it and an inquiry in September.
Something may come to light. A lot of prominent people seem to be saying the evidence is wrong or at least explainable by other factors
It’s so complicated.
You are never going to have a neonatal ward were babies don’t die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.