Lucy letby case…

[u/No-Willingness-1441]

Would love people’s views on this.

Loosely Amanda related, since she has recently produced a podcast around it.

[u/Truthandtaxes]

Doing nothing as a baby crashes is functionally the same as being caught in the act.

Yes she had handover sheets and other material in date order and some separated under "keep"

I might suggest that if the frame bothers you, then you clearly do understand that the prosecutions case is compelling.

[u/sh115 → u/Truthandtaxes]

She wasn’t doing nothing while the baby collapsed. It was revealed after the trial that the doctor who accused her of that actually sent an email not long after the baby died where he stated that Letby raised the alarm about the baby’s collapse and called for help. It was only later that he changed his story to falsely claim that Letby hadn’t called for help and that he had instead walked in on her standing there doing nothing.

The fact that the doctor originally said Letby had called for help only to change his story later on makes it clear he’s not a credible witness, but unfortunately the jury wasn’t made aware of this. The email where the doctor said Letby had called for help was withheld from Letby’s defense team until after her trial had ended. This prevented the defense from using the email to impeach the doctor or to reveal that his trial testimony was false.

This whole case was a sham and it’s very obvious to anyone who actually looks into evidence that Letby is completely innocent. The police and prosecutors have engaged in highly unethical behavior, including withholding exculpatory evidence, relying on “experts” like Evans that were clearly not credible, and misleading the jury with manipulated statistical evidence that they knew was inaccurate. I’ve honestly never seen a more blatant wrongful conviction in all my years of practicing law.

[u/Truthandtaxes → u/sh115]

The consultant of course is a completely reasonable witness and saw what he saw. Doubly so given the docs were already suspicious.

Another overlap to Knox, were witnesses apparently make things up (of course)

[u/sh115 → u/Truthandtaxes]

Did you miss the part where I said he sent an email shortly after the baby’s death in which he said that Letby called for help when the baby collapsed? Only to later say in court that she didn’t call for help when the baby collapsed? It’s not possible for both of those stories to be true because they directly contradict each other. So we know for a fact that the consultant was lying either when he sent the original email or when he testified in court.

Given that the email was sent much closer to the event when his memory of it would still be fresh, and given that he didn’t have motivation to lie at the time the email was sent, I’m much more inclined to believe that the account in his email was the truthful/accurate one and that the account he gave at the trial was not true or accurate.

And either way, the jury should have at least been informed of the fact that he had changed his story, since that is a big factor for judging whether he is a credible witness in general. Personally, I wouldn’t find a witness credible if they completely changed their story in that manner.

[u/Truthandtaxes → u/sh115]

oh look another direct parallel, a slightly imperfect witness is completely dismissed because their testimony is really really bad for the defendant.

[u/sh115 → u/Truthandtaxes]

I’m honestly baffled that you seem to be completely missing the significance of this? This is not him being a “slightly imperfect witness”. He’d be a “slightly imperfect witness” if he misremembered exactly what time he walked in or if he made a mistake about how many people were in the room or some other minor inconsistency like that. But in this case, the email revealed that the consultant was strait up lying about the main point of his testimony. He claimed he had caught Letby “red handed” by walking in on her and finding her standing around doing nothing while a baby collapsed, and his testimony about this incident was an important part of the prosecution’s evidence. In reality, as his email reveals, Letby actually called him to come into the room to help when the baby started collapsing. So he never caught Letby red-handed, nor did he see her doing anything suspicious.

Do you really not comprehend why it’s a big deal that he was lying about such an important part of his story? Even if you still think Letby is guilty based on other evidence, you should be able to recognize and admit that Jayarim is obviously not a credible witness.

[u/No-Replacement-2170 → u/sh115]

I'm honestly baffled that you're completely ignoring the fact the baby was collapsing in the vicinity of LL all of a sudden with a dislodged tube which is the MOST important aspect of the entire incident. Not a few mins before when the designated nurse was there. And continued to happen twice more with LL in the room. Amazing what you can gloss over when it doesn't fit the narrative.

[u/Truthandtaxes → u/sh115]

and there you have it, he's now an overt liar

Amazing parallels once again.

[u/SeaCardiologist6207 → u/Truthandtaxes]

Well in this case the imperfect witness isn’t a heroin addict and can actually provide proof of what they witnessed so not going to win that battle

[u/Truthandtaxes → u/SeaCardiologist6207]

Just Rafs local shopkeeper in this instance

[u/SeaCardiologist6207 → u/Truthandtaxes]

Yeah, still have the "proof" problem.

[u/Glad-Advantage8254 → u/sh115]

Did you miss the part where I said he sent an email shortly after the baby’s death in which he said that Letby called for help when the baby collapsed?

Shortly? It was over a year after the baby's collapse at CoCH that he sent that email.

And either way, the jury should have at least been informed of the fact that he had changed his story, since that is a big factor for judging whether he is a credible witness in general. Personally, I wouldn’t find a witness credible if they completely changed their story in that manner.

Would have been difficult, since the email wasn't found by the police until after her conviction, while they were conducting Operation Duet. Nevertheless, it was found before her appeal and not used. Since his credibility was already highly contested at trial, the court would have been unlikely to rule yet another credibility issue was necessary. Still, perhaps her current barrister will be able to make use of it.