The new Private Eye has an article on Lucy Letby that the magazine was unable to publish at the time of her second trial.
I don't know if there's anything in it that hasn't appeared in the press since that trial concluded, but it is well written and leads you disquieted about the prosecution and verdict.
During this trial, an article on the case on New Yorker site was blocked in the UK. Here the barrister Alan Robertshaw, whose legal videos I have praised before, explains why.
He also reveals some shenanigans over a jury member that threatened to derail the trial, though they turned out to involve what seems to be a malicious accusation.
1 comment:
I am troubled by the Letby case.
Plainly, there was a lot that was fishy. What is going on with notes reading “I did this. I am evil”? What is going on with taking home souvenirs?
But in truth, was her guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt? I am astonished that no expert evidence at all was called for the defence at her trial. It would in those circumstances have been very difficult for any jury to avoid being convinced by the procession of experts called by the prosecution – though plainly, the original jury thought very hard about each individual case, as shown by the fact that they declined to convict on a number of charges.
Unfortunately, an awful lot is now invested in maintaining the position that Lucy Letby Is Guilty. I recall the airy assertion of Lord Lane (by no means a mindless hanger-and-flogger) at the original appeal of the Birmingham Six that the longer the appeal went on, the more convinced of guilt the Court of Appeal became. After the Guildford Four were exonerated, there was a determined whispering campaign insisting They were really guilty, you know – and the police officers who were accused of tampering with the evidence were all acquitted. The confessions forged themselves.
And in Lucy Letby’s case, the difficulty is that there undoubtedly is much that was fishy. I have argued elsewhere that the decision to seek a re-trial on one of the counts of attempted murder where the original jury disagreed, at a time when the criminal justice system is falling apart from lack of resources, was a ridiculous piece of performative nonsense. The refusal of the Court of Appeal to entertain “new” expert evidence that could have been presented to the original trial, on the other hand, is entirely orthodox.
What may prove interesting is the forthcoming enquiry under Dame Kate Thirlwall. That enquiry will be able to receive whatever evidence it thinks helpful; and, rather like Peter Fraser, who stood his ground in the face of bullying from the Post Office, and Heather Hallett, who has just produced a devastating report on the Conservative Government’s handling of COVID, Thirlwall is no establishment stooge. Asked to name her best quality, apparently she responded “Determination”. Ulp.
Post a Comment