Letby didn't murder babies new experts claim.

The panel was independent and multi national. They were all very senior neonatologists including several professors. None of them found 'murder' as a possibility. Here's a link to the Telegraph interview

www.youtube.com/live/DT8CO15IHMs?si=UiXYOd8pwTNMI4Eq

An awful lot of coincidences. Or someone was lying.

Wow. That's pretty convincing.

If new evidence including expert evidence casts doubt on the conviction it must be revisited regardless of the feelings of others. It's good we don't have the death penalty so that potential miscarriages can be revisited.

My understanding is that the experts believe this was an unsafe conviction. Not that LL did not kill any babies. It would need a retrial to establish that. Point is, was this conviction based in the evidence. Not a sensational " is LL innocent?" It's about the deaths at this point.

orly

It makes you wonder what good the justice system is. Every verdict and sentence is appealed and often reversed. Still it keeps all those legal boffins off the street and gainfully employed I suppose.

I agree. No sooner do we hear of a sentence being passed then an appeal is lodged.

I believe the case should go to retrial seeing as enough reputable experts have come forward to establish ‘reasonable doubt’.
This doesn’t mean Letby will be proved innocent, but her part in the babies deaths could be reduced to manslaughter if is proved that her incompetence in not alerting anyone when one particular baby went into crisis caused that babies death, or if other deaths were also caused by her lack of care.
Then again other reputable experts could be called to disprove what the panel of experts have already said and prove that Letby is indeed guilty of murder.
In any case it really does need to be retried.

Appeals aren’t always granted, as was the case with Letby.
Our CJS isn’t perfect buts it’s robust and open.

Also we see lengthy trials when it’s a not guilty please, which is right of course. The Southport killer was not guilty till the trial began and despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt would have been allowed to run his case.
I’m not sure what people are suggesting when the question the value and suggest it just keeps lawyers well fed

Everyone convicted of a crime is entitled to ask for leave to appeal their conviction or sentence, and of course what is felt to be an unduly lenient sentence can be appealed by the Attorney General. If any one of us were to be convicted of a crime and we felt the conviction was unfair, or our lawyer advised us that the judge had made an error, or that the sentence was unexpectedly harsh, wouldn’t we all be pleased to have an opportunity to appeal rather than saying it was simply a way of keeping lawyers in business?

These experts are working for nothing.

Barleyfields

Everyone convicted of a crime is entitled to ask for leave to appeal their conviction or sentence, and of course what is felt to be an unduly lenient sentence can be appealed by the Attorney General. If any one of us were to be convicted of a crime and we felt the conviction was unfair, or our lawyer advised us that the judge had made an error, or that the sentence was unexpectedly harsh, wouldn’t we all be pleased to have an opportunity to appeal rather than saying it was simply a way of keeping lawyers in business?

True.
Sometimes the initial sentences are increased as well.

Yes, they are.

It’s Pro Bono work, all good barristers do this. It helps people who can’t afford their fees and enhances their reputation
Starmer did large amounts of pro bono

Someone charged with a crime qualifies for legal aid unless they can afford a good defence lawyer.

It is looking more and more likely that Lucy Letby did not murder any babies as more experts have reviewed the data and given their unbiased opinions.

Experts from abroad have been called in to have a close look at the evidence and most are shocked at the low level of care at the Countess of Chester Hospital. They found that staffing levels were below optimum and that staff were expected to take on responsibilities that were beyond their training level and competence. The unit was not adequately equipped to deal with cases that should have been transferred.

They also commented that the prosecution evidence presented at trial was flawed and relied too heavily on the findings of Dr Dewi Evans who retired from practice in 2009. He is said to have mis-interpreted the findings of a 1989 paper on air-embolism.

All this must be incredibly upsetting for the parents of the babies involved but it should be unthinkable to allow Lucy Letby to become a scapegoat for the failings of the neonatal unit.

So her awful diaries and scribblings have no bearing on this case? Am sure that they did as part of a well presented court case.

Letby is no scapegoat.

I don’t believe Letby is a scapegoat for the failings of the neonatal unit. She had a fair trial.
On a separate note, maternity and neo natal services are under staffed, under resourced and on their knees, it’s no surprise the ‘experts from abroad’ found staffing levels were below optimum and that staff were expected to take on responsibilities that were beyond their training level and experience
Take me to any area of public service where that isn’t the case after 14 years of deliberate underfunding etc and I’ll cheer

It is really difficult to make any kind of a decision without having seen and heard the case for the prosecution, the evidence leaked to the media was damning enough, the diaries, the time she was alone with a baby in crisis and didn't raise the alarm, witnessed by another member of staff.
But of course I remember when there was pretty damning evidence pointing to a man being guilty of murdering Jill Dando, but it turned out it wasn't him, he was just obssessed with her and had mental health issues, however, at the the time evidence leaked to the media was equally damning.
Imho I think the families of the babies rather than Letby deserve a retrial now because it would be worse for them am sure if now they harbour doubts over Letby's guilt, they need the truth more than we do.

The families lived through the long police Investigation and trial. I might be wrong but I think it’s unlikely they doubt guilt

I'm afraid I think this case could well be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in recent British history. The evidence of the chief witness, Dr. Dewi Evans, is being shown to be flawed. To me, this has chilling echoes of the cases of Angela Cannings, Sally Clark and Trupti Patel. The expert witness in their cases, Dr. Roy Meadows, said that the chances of more than one baby in the same family dying of cot death were vanishingly small, which meant that these three ladies had murdered their babies. They were sentenced to life imp risonment until it was proved that the evidence was deeply flawed and they were released. The Lucy Letby case is not going to disappear and I think that a retrial is going to be necessary, if only to prove that the first decision was correct. However, why would a panel of experts come forward and give their knowledge pro bono if they felt that she was guilty? Iam64, you are right in saying that we should never forget the grieving families of those tiny babies, but surely they would want to know the truth behind the deaths of their babies? A retrial would, hopefully, put an end to the furore surrounding the case, whichever way the verdict went.

Just because LL struggled with self-hatred and felt extreme guilt and that she was responsible for the deaths of the babies, as was evident from her semi-literate ramblings, does not make her a murderer nor does it exclude the possibility that she is.

It seems that she was incompetent and probably was reprimanded on several occasions for making the wrong call which may have resulted in some of the fatalities.

Accidentally killing through negligence is not the same as pre-meditated murder.

I am not sure what lead to her being suspected of being a serial killer but it doesn't take much imagination to understand that her ramblings and strange behaviour could have been the result of extreme stress or even paranoia.

Having recently read about the release of Peter Sullivan, after 38 years of wrongful imprisonment, I wonder if, in the light of massive doubts about the validity of the evidence presented at trial, it is in the interests of justice for LL to remain in prison indefinitely without any recourse to appeal.

It is still possible, although in my opinion unlikely, that she would still be found to be guilty of pre-meditated murder but as further enquires have shown the level of understaffing and incompetence made her working environment far from ideal. Also the "expert" evidence of Dr Dewi Evans has been shown to have been anything but.

I agree Magenta8