- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The morons on Reddit/twitter are already getting excited and bigging this up as something massive.
It so annoying hearing judge rinder and other celebs jumping on the bandwagon. I'm going to spam these people on twitter and try and give them some basic facts.
I know Letby is going nowhere, but it pains me to see how excited these deluded wankers are getting over it all. I wish more people in prominent positions would speak up a bit more. Big up Ann Widdecombe!
It so annoying hearing judge rinder and other celebs jumping on the bandwagon. I'm going to spam these people on twitter and try and give them some basic facts.
I know Letby is going nowhere, but it pains me to see how excited these deluded wankers are getting over it all. I wish more people in prominent positions would speak up a bit more. Big up Ann Widdecombe!
Complete agree. And I would add better training in GDPR compliance and patient confidentiality. I hope the Countess is just a bad example of staff practice.
I suppose the repeated appeal attempts are nothing new. I just hope the families had been prepared for this.
Seems Letby’s new barrister is also trying to overturn Michael Stone’s conviction too. And even that referral to the CCRC was unsuccessful, when they claimed to have a confession from Belfield
www.thejusticegap.com
Seems Letby’s new barrister is also trying to overturn Michael Stone’s conviction too. And even that referral to the CCRC was unsuccessful, when they claimed to have a confession from Belfield
CCRC rejects Michael Stone appeal despite another man confessing – The Justice Gap
www.thejusticegap.com
That’s a relief to hear actually. Let that fool embarrass himself and then hopefully that might make it the end of the road for the evil witch.
They're going to go down the route of saying her defence was ineffective. It's basically the only way of challenging her conviction at this point.
I'm glad this has happened because it means soon she'll have run out of options for appealing her conviction. I just wish I could be a fly on the wall when her new legal team finds out why Ben Myers ended up only calling a plumber in her defence...
He's been reading too much Thomas Hardy.
Lucy Letby appoints new barrister to try to overturn murder conviction
archived 5 Sep 2024 20:15:51 UTC
Ben Myers is still leading her appeal for the conviction of attempted murder for baby K according to this article. I don’t think it’s been reported she was appealing that?
The new barrister will take the case to the CCRC, but will not argue that her original defence was deficient.
Apparently she’s developed a bond with Myers
Last edited:
When he says he's "gathering experts" I think we know the sorts of people he means.....Lucy Letby appoints new barrister to try to overturn murder conviction
archived 5 Sep 2024 20:15:51 UTCarchive.is
Ben Myers is still leading her appeal for the conviction of attempted murder for baby K according to this article. I don’t think it’s been reported she was appealing that?
Thd new barrister will take the case to the CCRC, but will not argue that her original defence was deficient.
Apparently she’s developed a bond with Myers
It's telling that she's not going down the route of arguing she had inadequate representation- I guess trying that would open up all sorts of cans of worms for her
hahaha so even her new barrister is not going to argue Myers did a bad job. How do the doubters explain that one after their weeks of saying he was tit? I bet they were squealing with delight that Letby had ‘sacked’ Myers with the first bbc article. Didn’t take long for that bubble to burst.Lucy Letby appoints new barrister to try to overturn murder conviction
archived 5 Sep 2024 20:15:51 UTC
Ben Myers is still leading her appeal for the conviction of attempted murder for baby K according to this article. I don’t think it’s been reported she was appealing that?
Thd new barrister will take the case to the CCRC, but will not argue that her original defence was deficient.
Apparently she’s developed a bond with Myers
Do we think Lucy has a crush?
Well he is married, so I guess he’s her type!
They didn’t sit through the trial. That’s the main problem.
I agree going down this route would open up a can of worms for her, but don't see how she can launch an appeal otherwise. Her other options are to prove jury misconduct or provide new evidence, neither of which seems very likely...
Lucifers new barrister is quote yo have said;
"I knew almost from the start, following this trial, that there is a strong case that she is innocent," McDonald told the BBC's File on 4.
"I knew almost from the start, following this trial, that there is a strong case that she is innocent," McDonald told the BBC's File on 4.
He sounds like a glory hunter like Gill.
As maddening and sickening as it is to read all the idiots saying that they think she isn't guilty (usually based on not following the trial), I really think this is all going to go quiet again. No matter how much her followers (and I do think there's a loyal band of them - probably parents and those very strange friends of hers) bandy words like 'unsafe' around every corner of the internet, the legal process still exists and seems pretty watertight. That witch is never seeing the inside of a Matalan again. Love and strength to the families - that's the most important thing.
Let's suppose 'the experts' get their way and there is a appeal,
How will it be any different to - and without getting into the details of that case - the Ched Evans case, in which expert witnesses argued over the potential effects of levels of blood alcohol? And how, in their hypothetical world, it would have affected the woman on that evening.
Which was all very interesting to the experts and jornalists, I am sure.
However juries aren't commissioning editors in the media, desperate to fill space in the schedule with the 'right sort' of content....
But....
In what way is Gill and his statistics of the slightest relevance to the actual case?
Whether or not the doctors got the statistics wrong is completely irrelevant - or is the argument is that no one should have reported their suspicions to the police without Mr Gill's say so?
And that having been reported, the police should have consulted with Mr Gill before proceeding to investigate?
Or the Post-It notes.
I am presuming that the jury were shown them, and probably had copies in the jury room - so they could read "I am evil" as easily as "I didn't do it." and reached their own conclusion.
I fail to see how Ms Letby being advised to write them as part of counseling is of benefit to her case.
Unless the argument is that the hospital failed in their safeguarding duty by not reporting her to the police sooner - or perhaps the rules on admissions of crimes during counseling sessions somehow doesn't apply.
etc, etc...
And all of this is before you run into the issue of at a retrial - assuming Lucy Letby is put on the stand - of her being impeached at every turn on her prior statements, which is inevitable if this new "expert" evidence is introduced.
The most obvious being why she she didn't name any the 'gang of four' as the people she claimed where conspiring against her (except in the broadest sense) in relation to specific charges.
The only way this wouldn't happen is if she is heavily coached - which is not allowed under English law - and even then she is so unreliable as a witness that the defence (as happened in the original trials) couldn't guarantee that she would stay on script. And, the chances are she would collapse under cross examination (as happened in the original trials).
And all of this, for an acquittal, ultimately relies on the jury at the retrial being packed with Private Eye readers...
Assuming that a jury can be found who has not been tainted by the misinformation being traded as fact being using to win the appeal.
How will it be any different to - and without getting into the details of that case - the Ched Evans case, in which expert witnesses argued over the potential effects of levels of blood alcohol? And how, in their hypothetical world, it would have affected the woman on that evening.
Which was all very interesting to the experts and jornalists, I am sure.
However juries aren't commissioning editors in the media, desperate to fill space in the schedule with the 'right sort' of content....
But....
In what way is Gill and his statistics of the slightest relevance to the actual case?
Whether or not the doctors got the statistics wrong is completely irrelevant - or is the argument is that no one should have reported their suspicions to the police without Mr Gill's say so?
And that having been reported, the police should have consulted with Mr Gill before proceeding to investigate?
Or the Post-It notes.
I am presuming that the jury were shown them, and probably had copies in the jury room - so they could read "I am evil" as easily as "I didn't do it." and reached their own conclusion.
I fail to see how Ms Letby being advised to write them as part of counseling is of benefit to her case.
Unless the argument is that the hospital failed in their safeguarding duty by not reporting her to the police sooner - or perhaps the rules on admissions of crimes during counseling sessions somehow doesn't apply.
etc, etc...
And all of this is before you run into the issue of at a retrial - assuming Lucy Letby is put on the stand - of her being impeached at every turn on her prior statements, which is inevitable if this new "expert" evidence is introduced.
The most obvious being why she she didn't name any the 'gang of four' as the people she claimed where conspiring against her (except in the broadest sense) in relation to specific charges.
The only way this wouldn't happen is if she is heavily coached - which is not allowed under English law - and even then she is so unreliable as a witness that the defence (as happened in the original trials) couldn't guarantee that she would stay on script. And, the chances are she would collapse under cross examination (as happened in the original trials).
And all of this, for an acquittal, ultimately relies on the jury at the retrial being packed with Private Eye readers...
Assuming that a jury can be found who has not been tainted by the misinformation being traded as fact being using to win the appeal.
- Status