Lucy Letby is appealing her conviction. Which is fair enough. If she claims that the conviction is unsafe, then she has that right. It is a right we all should have. But as is usual, the media has to call it shameless.
One father, whose baby Letby tried to murder, told the Mail: ‘I’m disgusted and angry that Letby is appealing.
‘As if we haven’t been through enough. We are trying to rebuild our lives and now this, it’s a joke of a system. I don’t understand on what grounds she can appeal – there were no mitigating factors in the trial.’
Sorry chum, but that is how our system works. We are all equal before the law and just because someone has been convicted, it doesn’t follow the they are guilty of the crime (after all there was the story of a man wrongly convicted for rape who has been released after seventeen years. Don’t these people pay attention?). There is nothing shameless or disgusting about appealing against a conviction if there is evidence that the jury did not get to hear or new evidence comes to light. Letby may well be guilty – I don’t know, I haven’t seen the evidence – but her appeal is part of the process and should be heard accordingly if it is granted. Her freedom to do this is all of our freedom to do it. This man is a fool and the media are fools for entertaining his stupidity.
Lessons were said to have been learned after Angela Canning Sally Clark etc etc were wrong lying imprisoned partially on the expert & wrong testimony of Roy Meadows, with exactly the same MSM led vilification of the scapegoat women
Prof N Fenton also states the conviction is a travesty based on the sane fibs and manipulation of stats as Covid
https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/lucy-letby-found-guilty
’Don’t these people pay attention?’
A rhetorical question, surely?
I’ve not paid close attention to this case, though from what I have seen the evidence is purely circumstantial, and could be explained away by statistical probabilities.
Also, there was one member of the jury who refused to convict; I’d like to get his take on the case…
I’m not saying she didn’t do it, but from the little I do know it feels a bit unsafe as a conviction, so an appeal would be entirely appropriate.
Going on the evidence I’ve seen, if the trial had been in Scotland and I were on the jury, I think I’d have been arguing for “not proven”. There’s certainly enough circumstantial evidence that I’d be uncomfortable declaring her definitively not guilty, but I don’t think the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It’s a very useful verdict. No wonder the Smart People want it abolished.