04-07-2024, 06:28 AM in response to #58639
Bullsgold Wrote: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727jgdm7r4o
Sceptics appeared, including Richard Gill, a statistician in the Netherlands, who argued the data presented at the trial was flawed and used improperly. Sarrita Adams, a California-based biotech consultant, launched a campaign aimed at critiquing the science in Letby’s case. Her website invites donations and describes itself as “the first organisation dedicated to fighting for a new trial for Lucy Letby”.
They weren’t the only ones. There are podcasts, blogs, websites and videos dedicated to the same topic. Some delve into the arguments presented by the defence about air embolism, and the expertise in the case. Others stray into different territory – statistics, or questions about other areas of science which Letby’s team have steered clear of.
It was notable how the sceptics’ arguments weren’t incorporated in the defence submissions at the Court of Appeal. We understand some of those campaigning for Letby’s freedom have made repeated attempts to contact her, her inner circle, and her lawyers.
But why the mismatch between the arguments raging online and those in the courtroom? It may be that Letby’s team has looked into the sceptics’ arguments and decided they don’t check out and wouldn’t stand up in a court of law.
But that’s not the only possibility.
Letby and her legal team didn’t have carte blanche to make any arguments they wanted in support of her request for permission to appeal.
Criminal appeals are not “a second bite of the cherry”, as lawyers sometimes put it. The only way Letby would be allowed to appeal her conviction was if she could show the judge in her original trial had made a legal mistake, or there was new evidence that, had it been available at the time, might have led the jury to different verdicts.
That meant the range of arguments Letby’s legal team could present was limited. Cherry-picking the best of the online arguments was never an option.
Well, that sounds like a bit of a fucking stupid system!
Twas the lack of 'c-peptide' in the insulin poisonings that showed her or someone's guilt.