The whole Letby saga has the feel of a Netflix documentary in the making. It is as if we are participating in a media event, not seeking justice for murder victims or establishing truth.
Beyond. Reasonable. Doubt. Have the prosecutions cleared that hurdle? Not to my mind, nor others far better acquainted with the allegations and evidence base than me, or the author. Unsafe convictions is the logical conclusion.
I agree with you, but it's up to the jury to decide if the evidence presented (over many, many months) meets that threshold. My own knowledge is mediated via the Crime Scene 2 Courtroom YT channel which I freely acknowledge - and it is capable of revealing something of that court experience. It is like a glimpse through the window by comparison to actually being there, admittedly. Additionally, the CS2C channel has addressed the claims of the new legal team as well, but the mainstream media has chosen not to present this - as far as I can tell. The case of Baby A (or Baby 1 as the new team now say) is described at length and the new legal team fail to acknowledge (as far as I am aware) that some of the prosecution evidence was agreed by Letby. Agreed evidence is a thing, and there is much that the defence team were not able to challenge once this has been established. I would hope that if new evidence were to come to light that it would be reviewed fairly and if necessary be brought to trial. This whole thing has raised many questions for me about how we understand our world given the speed of news and the news 'cycle' ever looking for more sensational click bait material. My point about feeling as though we are within a Netflix series alludes to that I hope.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think my (better expressed, perhaps) reservations about the conviction is the quality of the defence! So much new information and interpretation seems to have emerged since the trial, which could have been better served being included in the defence in the first place. So the convictions may have been sound based on the evidence at the time - but are no longer sound. Hence, to my mind, there is now a potential miscarriage of justice situation. I suspect time will tick by and then a sudden realisation of the indefensibility of her continued incarceration will become self evident, gradually then suddenly as it were. Then there will be a scramble to pass the buck. Completely agree on the news cycle point, and the challenges of incredibly complex cases in the hands of normal jurors - even though the alternative is chilling! Thanks for provoking the debates.
@The Sideways Thinker: You say “I would hope that if new evidence were to come to light that it would be reviewed fairly and if necessary be brought to trial”.
Given what I think we can all see all around us today, I’m sorry to say that is a vain hope. Personally, I think the time is way overdue for Hate not Hope.
Excellent article - many thanks - in my view you are correct - the way a witness gives evidence is really important - it says a lot about their truthfulness and character - I am prepared to be persuaded that a retrial
Is necessary but have not seen or heard anything to date that equates to actually sitting in court and seeing the witness give evidence - the analogy with Netflix dramas is a good one in my opinion
Thank you for your kind words. I too am open (as I hope the essay portrays) but I have yet to be made aware of anything that would take this back to court. I am worried about yet another reason to divide us all and I feel quite manipulated by events. Then I remind myself of the mediated nature of so much of our lives. There really is something to be said for real experiences rather than second hand, contracted out and screen shaped messages which have the *appearance* of information, but are not really so at all.
A very interesting take that forces me to pause and review my Lucy-is-innocent stance. I may have to find time to listen to Crime Scene 2 Courtroom.
I would argue, however, that one needs to stand back further still and note that there is considerable loss of faith in the ethicality and decency of the whole apparatus around us: teachers used to be highly respected in the community but are so no longer due to their partisan stance on the gender wars (i.e. wokeness); doctors were formerly highly respected but no longer so due to their partisan stance on the Covid debacle and the gender wars; the police were formerly highly respected but are so no longer due to their partisan stance on everything from BLM onwards, NCHIs, and policing social media instead of the streets; and the government for pretty much everything (e.g. just think the words ‘Two-Tier Keir’ or ‘Rotherham’ and you have clarity on everything that precedes and follows).
There is no trust in just about any of our institutions anymore, including the media (which is why you and I are here, of course.) That distrust naturally includes the courts. Hence I can easily see why one would be justified in a priori questioning the finding of Lucy Letby guilty: the case depended on (no longer trusted) doctors’ evidence, (no longer trusted) police evidence; (no longer trusted) experts’ evidence, and no longer trusted pretty much everything else.
Thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughts here. I do allude to this lack of trust in the essay - so I do understand your point entirely. The trust has gone and corruption seems to be everywhere. However, not everything is corrupt and not everything is wrong. As I have written in another reply, there is the matter of agreed evidence. The amount of evidence presented was substantial - I mean in terms of quantity. The next point has to be accuracy. The prosecution made the decision not to examine motive which is unusual in cases such as these (I gather, I'm no lawyer nor detective). So it is difficult when you are outside of events that are mediated to you via screens in a constant stimulating way. Non of us outside the court can hope to fully solve this. If Letby had made a decision not to give evidence, she may have been acquitted, but she opted to stand. If you have time, I'd check out the CS2C channel - if you are interested in the case, it is a very interesting experience. There is also the audio book "Unmaksing Lucy Letby: The Untold Story of the Killer Nurse," (Jonathan Coffey and Judith Moritz) which is scupulously fair to both sides of the debate. (The title doesn't suggest that - but it is). The lack of trust element has to go hand in hand with the sense in a mediated world, we are losing track of what is/is not real. Whatever the truth is, we have to rediscover our moorings and try to re-build that high trust society we once had.
Beyond. Reasonable. Doubt. Have the prosecutions cleared that hurdle? Not to my mind, nor others far better acquainted with the allegations and evidence base than me, or the author. Unsafe convictions is the logical conclusion.
Yes by definition they have - juries are instructed in the burden of proof and it is much easier not
To convict than to convict - it is emphasised that if there is any doubt you must acquit
I agree with you, but it's up to the jury to decide if the evidence presented (over many, many months) meets that threshold. My own knowledge is mediated via the Crime Scene 2 Courtroom YT channel which I freely acknowledge - and it is capable of revealing something of that court experience. It is like a glimpse through the window by comparison to actually being there, admittedly. Additionally, the CS2C channel has addressed the claims of the new legal team as well, but the mainstream media has chosen not to present this - as far as I can tell. The case of Baby A (or Baby 1 as the new team now say) is described at length and the new legal team fail to acknowledge (as far as I am aware) that some of the prosecution evidence was agreed by Letby. Agreed evidence is a thing, and there is much that the defence team were not able to challenge once this has been established. I would hope that if new evidence were to come to light that it would be reviewed fairly and if necessary be brought to trial. This whole thing has raised many questions for me about how we understand our world given the speed of news and the news 'cycle' ever looking for more sensational click bait material. My point about feeling as though we are within a Netflix series alludes to that I hope.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think my (better expressed, perhaps) reservations about the conviction is the quality of the defence! So much new information and interpretation seems to have emerged since the trial, which could have been better served being included in the defence in the first place. So the convictions may have been sound based on the evidence at the time - but are no longer sound. Hence, to my mind, there is now a potential miscarriage of justice situation. I suspect time will tick by and then a sudden realisation of the indefensibility of her continued incarceration will become self evident, gradually then suddenly as it were. Then there will be a scramble to pass the buck. Completely agree on the news cycle point, and the challenges of incredibly complex cases in the hands of normal jurors - even though the alternative is chilling! Thanks for provoking the debates.
@The Sideways Thinker: You say “I would hope that if new evidence were to come to light that it would be reviewed fairly and if necessary be brought to trial”.
Given what I think we can all see all around us today, I’m sorry to say that is a vain hope. Personally, I think the time is way overdue for Hate not Hope.
Excellent article - many thanks - in my view you are correct - the way a witness gives evidence is really important - it says a lot about their truthfulness and character - I am prepared to be persuaded that a retrial
Is necessary but have not seen or heard anything to date that equates to actually sitting in court and seeing the witness give evidence - the analogy with Netflix dramas is a good one in my opinion
Thank you for your kind words. I too am open (as I hope the essay portrays) but I have yet to be made aware of anything that would take this back to court. I am worried about yet another reason to divide us all and I feel quite manipulated by events. Then I remind myself of the mediated nature of so much of our lives. There really is something to be said for real experiences rather than second hand, contracted out and screen shaped messages which have the *appearance* of information, but are not really so at all.
A very interesting take that forces me to pause and review my Lucy-is-innocent stance. I may have to find time to listen to Crime Scene 2 Courtroom.
I would argue, however, that one needs to stand back further still and note that there is considerable loss of faith in the ethicality and decency of the whole apparatus around us: teachers used to be highly respected in the community but are so no longer due to their partisan stance on the gender wars (i.e. wokeness); doctors were formerly highly respected but no longer so due to their partisan stance on the Covid debacle and the gender wars; the police were formerly highly respected but are so no longer due to their partisan stance on everything from BLM onwards, NCHIs, and policing social media instead of the streets; and the government for pretty much everything (e.g. just think the words ‘Two-Tier Keir’ or ‘Rotherham’ and you have clarity on everything that precedes and follows).
There is no trust in just about any of our institutions anymore, including the media (which is why you and I are here, of course.) That distrust naturally includes the courts. Hence I can easily see why one would be justified in a priori questioning the finding of Lucy Letby guilty: the case depended on (no longer trusted) doctors’ evidence, (no longer trusted) police evidence; (no longer trusted) experts’ evidence, and no longer trusted pretty much everything else.
Thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughts here. I do allude to this lack of trust in the essay - so I do understand your point entirely. The trust has gone and corruption seems to be everywhere. However, not everything is corrupt and not everything is wrong. As I have written in another reply, there is the matter of agreed evidence. The amount of evidence presented was substantial - I mean in terms of quantity. The next point has to be accuracy. The prosecution made the decision not to examine motive which is unusual in cases such as these (I gather, I'm no lawyer nor detective). So it is difficult when you are outside of events that are mediated to you via screens in a constant stimulating way. Non of us outside the court can hope to fully solve this. If Letby had made a decision not to give evidence, she may have been acquitted, but she opted to stand. If you have time, I'd check out the CS2C channel - if you are interested in the case, it is a very interesting experience. There is also the audio book "Unmaksing Lucy Letby: The Untold Story of the Killer Nurse," (Jonathan Coffey and Judith Moritz) which is scupulously fair to both sides of the debate. (The title doesn't suggest that - but it is). The lack of trust element has to go hand in hand with the sense in a mediated world, we are losing track of what is/is not real. Whatever the truth is, we have to rediscover our moorings and try to re-build that high trust society we once had.
Look at the corruption around the Jeremy Bamber case if you want to understand how broken the justice system is. https://open.substack.com/pub/thedocmaker