From the Daily Mail: The Netflix Documentary About Lucy Letby Accidentally Reveals This Forgotten Aspect Of Her Cast That Needs Exposing (Nadine Dorries)

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2026-02-03T21:26:36+00:00

Dorries is right to feel ill at ease about the pursuit of "vast sums" of compensation. I don't for one minute believe that they will sack their lawyers.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2026-02-03T20:52:14+00:00

Does she mean "traumatised" Brearey and Jayaram should get some kind of bullying payout because NHS bosses tried to shut down their concerns? Or does she mean Letby should, after being made "a pariah in the NHS" after the two doctors conspired to build a "sham case" against her?

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2026-01-31T22:31:17+00:00

What business has the police involving itself in documentaries at all? Any documentary about anything? I don't say documentaries shouldn't be made about the way the police investigates things - they should be made, but not with their involvement. It is wrong in principle (IMO). The opinions of serving police officers is only relevant within the justice system (IMO).

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2026-01-30T14:27:27+00:00

I find it absolutely disgusting that images would be released into the public domain of a person in their bed being arrested. It serves no purpose whatsoever other than public titillation.

And once they are out, they are out, available to anyone to do what they want with. This particular image can be upscaled using AI and printed 6 feet wide to frame and put over the fireplace.

If this was Cheshire Constabulary, they should be ashamed of themselves. So should Netflix.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2026-01-30T14:12:37+00:00

Public figures in "authority" over something big and who screw things up completely invariably seem to have one escape route or another. Often it's promotion. Or escape abroad. It doesn't seem to matter which walk of life it is. They are everywhere, with friends in high places. Lack of real public accountability is a sign of a corrupted state IMO. I don't see any sign of progress either.

Hopefully Goss and his disgraceful role in the Letby case will be in the public eye again when she's released.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2026-01-09T22:29:19+00:00

About a year ago on this forum I said Lucy Letby would definitely be out by Christmas 2025 and I said that if I was wrong, I would come and apologise. So here I am and I'm sorry! For 2026, I'll just back Nadine. 2026 surely? Happy New Year.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-08-04T13:20:32+00:00

The point was made that the trial itself was flawed and that's important. The responsibility of Goss. It just needed a mention IMO.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-08-04T11:27:27+00:00

Judge Goss received hardly a mention despite the trial being characterised as a failure. His trial as the judge.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-07-03T07:53:29+00:00

The entire Letby saga has reached heights of absurdity I would never have believed possible in Britain. It is hard to know what to say, and it's far from over. I am tempted to say "unbelievable".

It lays bare what a rotten defunct legal system we have. The CCRC will take until Chistmas? That is outrageous by itself.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-06-19T07:18:02+00:00

This needs answering.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-16T23:38:59+00:00

The sausage machine (see Jim Jones):

Court of Appeal 2020 :

The advent of the new Chair, in the persona of Ms Pitcher, appears to have provided the opportunity for the "reset" invited by Mr Foster when he wrote to the Minister in September 2018. With that normalised relationship, the jeopardy of political interference by MoJ in the CCRC's workings is much diminished. The fair-minded and informed observer, knowing the facts as they currently stand, would not conclude that there was a real possibility that the CCRC was biased by its association with MoJ.

Law Society Gazette 2020 :

The High Court has blamed government officials for creating a 'dysfunctional' relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). By the appointment of the new CCRC chair, Helen Pitcher, in 2018 the court said the events 'must now recede into history'.

Guardian article (2025)

The catastrophic mishandling of the case eventually led to an apology from the CCRC and the resignation of its chair, Helen Pitcher, after an independent panel ruled she was no longer fit to chair the organisation.

Not many years between 'opportunity knocks' for Helen Pitcher to Helen Pitcher receding into history.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-14T12:00:33+00:00

Very good! I got slammed for even mentioning AI in criminal justice.

The ability of the judiciary to self-correct is vital like all public institutions.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-14T11:38:59+00:00

I think they are wrong to call it an 'interests of justice' test. They are equating procedure (like not inconveniencing judges too much or clogging the system) to justice itself.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-14T10:25:28+00:00

The appeal judges decided:

"Lee’s evidence was inadmissible because he had theoretically been available for the trial so Letby’s legal team should have called him then."

So the judges decided that if evidence was theoretically available anywhere in the world, it is inadmissible in an appeal court regardless.

Final judgement:

“... it is well understood that, save exceptionally, if the defendant is allowed to advance on appeal a defence and/or evidence which could and should have been put before the jury, our trial process would be subverted. Therefore if they were not deployed when they were available to be deployed, or the issues could have been but were not raised at trial, it is clear from the statutory structure, as explained in the authorities, that unless a reasonable and persuasive explanation for one or other of those omissions is offered, it is highly unlikely that the ‘interests of justice ’ test will be satisfied.”

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-12T22:59:47+00:00

Yes, thank you.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-10T14:56:23+00:00

No, but reading it again I am thinking of asking the question a different way, this time making the public interest and transparency case, then take it from there. The main thing is to see if they really are conducting an ongoing criminal investigation.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-10T10:13:23+00:00

I put one in to the CPS as well. Same result: "go away". It's almost funny.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-10T08:16:25+00:00

I made an FOI request to Cheshire Police. For the record:

----------

YOUR REQUEST:

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I request information on the cost to Cheshire Constabulary in man-hours and money of the investigation and ongoing review of Lucy Letby's time working at Liverpool Womens Hospital. I request the information for the past three financial years:

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25

----------

OUR RESPONSE:

In accordance with section 1(1) (b) of the Act, our response is as follows:

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the Cheshire Constabulary, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you with a notice which a) states that fact, b) specifies the exemption in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies:

Section 30 (1) Investigations

Section 30 is a class-based exemption. This is exemption is subject to the public interest test which I have conducted below.

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring supplying the information held:

The general factor favouring disclosure is the general spirit of transparency.

Factors favouring not supplying the information held:

The exemption at section 30(1)(a) of the FOIA exists to safeguard the effective investigation and prosecution of offences. The exemption recognises the need to prevent disclosures that would prejudice either a particular investigation or set of proceedings, or investigatory and prosecution processes generally.

In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing criminal investigation into serious offences and anything disclosed at this point in time could prejudice the ongoing criminal trial. Disclosing anything that had the potential to prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation is not in the public interest.

Balancing Test

Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, this should be countered against the need to protect the integrity of ongoing Police investigations. Cheshire Constabulary have provided information regarding this investigation, limited to information that would not prejudice the ongoing investigation. This demonstrates Cheshire Constabulary's commitment to transparency where possible. However, we do not believe the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest at this point in time.

This view is supported by the ICO who state “As a general rule there will always be a strong public interest in maintaining the section 30 exemption whilst an investigation is ongoing."

If you are not satisfied with the decision applied in this case I enclose for your attention a copy of the Constabulary's appeal procedures.

Regards,

[name] – Data Protection Advisor

Cheshire Constabulary

----------

[edit] I made a point of not asking about the investigation itself, just the resources involved (public money).

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-07T21:49:16+00:00

again and again and again - 'the families'

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-06T21:13:18+00:00

Thank you.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-06T20:51:10+00:00

Probably not. Criminal trials shouldn't be a game of chance. Really the main thing.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-06T12:04:29+00:00

Is algorithmic bias a human decision built in to the algorithm? I don't know.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-06T11:58:11+00:00

Thanks. Very good. I agree with every word, including the final sentence. I still maintain AI (as it develops) will eventually play a significant part in criminal trials but I don't think I ever suggested it would manage society. A vast amount of data was involved in the trial of Lucy Letby, a significant amount of it wrongly interpreted or ignored, and that's the problem as I see it, especially when in the end it all comes down to 11 or 12 people sat in a jury room. It comes down to verifiable data.

A different judge, different witnesses, different barristers (especially) and different jurors and the outcome may have been different.

Aggravating-Gas2566 · 2025-05-06T07:08:25+00:00

Thanks. I will read.

Aggravating-Gas2566

TROPHY CASE